J72 
 
 o 
 
'^^-^t-r 
 
 from f3e £i6rart of 
 
 (pxofcBBox ^c^mud (UtifTer 
 
 in (JUcmorp of 
 
 3ubgc ^amucf (Utiffer (grecfttnrib^e 
 
 (preecnfcb 6p 
 
 ^amuef (miffer (grcclltnnbge Eong 
 
 to f3e feifirarp of 
 
 (prtnceton tgeofogtcaf ^eminarj 
 
 / 35 / 
 
A 
 
 CRITICAL HISTORY ' 
 
 OF THE <^M^^^. 
 
 Athanasian Creed. 
 
 Representing the OPINIONSof 
 
 ANTIENTS AND MODERNS 
 
 CONCERNING IT: 
 
 IP'kh an Account of the Manuscripts, Versions, and 
 Comments, and fuch other particulars as are of moment 
 for the determining the Age, and Author, and Value oj ity 
 and the Time of its Reception in the Chrijiian Churches. 
 
 By D A N I E L WATERLAND. D. D. 
 
 Chancellor of the Church of YORK, mdchdpUin 
 iu ordinary to His MAJESTY. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 Printed at the University Press for Corn. Crown- 
 field, Printer to the University: And are to be fold by 
 J.Knapton, R. Knaplock, W. andT.lNNYS Bookfellers in 
 LONDON. 1724. 
 

 . .N^>i^y>f 
 
 -4 .■ ^'v 
 
To His GRACE, 
 The lord ARCHBISHOP 
 
 O F 
 
 YORK, 
 
 Primate of ENGLAND 
 and Metropolitan. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 ^^^^g|AM dellrous of fending thefe Pa- 
 pers abroad under your Grace's 
 Name, in confidence you will 
 be a Patron to Them, as you have 
 been to the Author. I would 
 
 g'jg ^^-Q^js^^m^i^ 
 
 make their way Ihort and eafy to the pnhlick 
 Efteem? by introducing them firft into your 
 
 ^ 
 
 G R A c e's 
 
The Dedication. 
 
 Grace's Acquaintance, and good Opinion: 
 Which if they have once the Honour to ob • 
 tain, I may then be allured that they will be 
 both ufeful to the World, and acceptable with 
 ^Xgood Men\ the Height of my Ambition. 
 
 THE SuhjeB-i my Lord, is the Athanafian 
 Creeds the moft accurate Syftem of the /Itha- 
 nafiam that is, the Chri/lian Faith : Of which 
 your G R A c E is, by your Station and Chara- 
 d:er, by Duty and Office, and, what is more, 
 by Inclination and Principle, and real Servi- 
 ces, the watchiul Guardian^ and Preferver. 
 
 THE K^ppy Fruits of it are vifible in the 
 
 How and inconfiderable Progrefs that th^Nevj 
 
 Hercfy has been able to make within your Pro- 
 
 'Vince; where it died, in a manner, as it firft 
 
 arofe, and no fooner began to lift up its Head, 
 
 but funk down again in Shame and Coiifu- 
 
 Hoii: As if the Plenty of good Seed fowh had 
 
 left 
 
The Dedication. 
 
 left no room for Tares^ or They could take 
 no root in a Soil fo well Cultivated, 
 
 WHILE your G r A c e is promoting the 
 Honour and Jnterefts of our Holy Faith,, in 
 the Eminent Way? by the Wifdom of your 
 Counfelsy the Authority of your Precepts:^ and 
 the Brightnels of your High Example ; I am 
 endeavouring, in fuch a way as I can? to con- 
 tribute fomething to the fame Common Caufey 
 tho' it be but {light and fmall? tho' it be 
 only reviewing the Fences^ and furveying the 
 Outvjorkr^ which is the moft I pretend to in 
 the Htfimry h/^xc prefentad. 
 
 WHAT Advantage Others may reap from 
 
 the Public ation-iWiW remain in fufpence: But I 
 
 am fure of .Qi^€ to my Je/f(^nd I lay hold of it 
 
 with a great deal of pleafure) The Opportunity 
 
 I thereby have of returning my puhlick Thanks 
 
 to ypur Cjjiacp. for your puhlick Favors. 
 
 Thor 
 
The Dedication. 
 
 Tho' This, my Lord^ is but a fcanty Expreffion 
 for them, and far fliort, where the engaging 
 Manner and CircumJlanceS', known but to 
 Fevj^ and not to be underftood by Many^ 
 make fb confiderable an Addition in the 
 whole, and almoft double the Obligation 
 upon 
 
 My LOR'D. 
 
 Tour G R A C E V pioji obl'tgedy 
 
 tnoft dutiful. 
 
 and tnoft obedient Humble Servant, 
 
 Daniel ^atbrland. 
 
THE 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 WHAT I here frefent the Reader n}jithy nxiJl not 
 require much Preface. 7he Introdudion intimatep 
 the Dcfign, and Ufe, and Partition of the Work, 
 7he Appendix, nji)hich is an additional Inlargement heyond my firfi 
 Dejigfiy gives account of it felf. I fuhjoin Two Indexes, for the 
 Eafe and Convenience offuch Perfons as may he difpofed, not only 
 to read thefe Sheet Sy hut to Jludy the SuhjeB, I Jhould fcarce 
 iave thought of making Indexes to fo /mail a Treatife, had I not 
 found the like in Tentzelius, ufon the fame SuhjeBy and to a 
 /mailer TraB than This is. His <vjere of conjiderahle ufe to Me, 
 as often as I wanted to revienv any particular Author, or Pafl 
 fige, or to compare dijlant Parts, relating to the fame lhin(rs, 
 one 'with another. The Beneft therefore 'which I reapd from his 
 Lahoursy 1 am 'willing to pay hack to the Publick hy mine. 
 
 As to the Subjed of the following Sheets, I make no quefion of 
 its 'well deferring the Thoughts and Conjideration of every Jludious 
 ^'Reader 5 having hefoVe pafsd through the Hands of many the mojl 
 learnedy and mojl judicious Men, and fuch as 'would not mifem^ 
 ploy their Time, and Pains upon a Trife, As to the prefent Manage- 
 ment of it, it muf he left to the Reader to judge of, as He fees 
 Caufe. 
 
 i Jhould thro'w in a few previous Hints about the Chronology 
 of tloe federal Parts, and the Rules I have fet to my felf in it. 
 For our Saxon Kings, 'where I have occafan to mention them, I 
 
 content 
 
The PREFACE. 
 
 content my felf iiith Tyrrell's Tables, printed at the end of Dr. 
 Hickcs's Ihclaurns. They are the hejt for gti'mg a fiort and 
 fuc chili i^ie-vj oj the iihole, and are accurate euongh for mv prrpoje -^ 
 thd ihty may fomctimes differ a little from the other, and perhaps 
 truer y /Iccoitvts. Ho weaver , now I have grutn this prei^ious no- 
 tice of it, there ^irill be no danger of leadhig any Perfon into mijlahes 
 on that Head. 
 
 For the Chronology of the other Parts, I have conftdted the 
 hefl Authors ^ endeavouring to fix it niith as much Accuracy as I 
 could. Ifhercver I could certainly determine the Age of any TraFf, 
 printed or matiufcript, to a Year, / fet doiin That Tear : Jf*here 
 I could not do it {as in Manufcripts one feldom can) I take any 
 frohahle year within the Conjpafs of Time luhen <^w Author iskno'Vcii 
 to have flourilh'd ; or for a Manufcripty any prohahle year iiith- 
 in fuch a Century, or fuch a King's Reign '-j.^herein the Manu^ 
 fci'ipt is reafon ably judged to have been iifitten : And I general- 
 ly chufe a round 7iumber, rather than other*^ifey in fiich mdef* 
 nite Cafes and hijlances. 
 
 Thus for example, firjl in refpect of Authors; there is a Com- 
 ment (?/* Venantius Fortunatus, upon the Athanafian Cr^^^^, ^cjhich 
 I have reprinted in my Appendix. I cannot fx the Age of 
 it to a Tear, no nor to xo Tears. All that is certain is, that 
 St ^iias made hetiueen y 5 6 irhen Fortunatus frfl ^jsent into the 
 Gallican Parts, and 55^5? ^ujhen Fie ivas advanced to the Bi- 
 Jhoprick of Poi^ticrs. JVithin This "^lide compafs, I chufe the year 57 c. 
 If any one fiall rather chufe > 80, or 5j?o, I /hall not dif- 
 pute it nrith Him, nor doth any thing very material depend 
 upon it : But if any good reafon can be given for taking fome 
 other year rather than 570, i Jljall iwtnediately acquiefce in it, 
 
 > I {hall 
 
The PREFACE. 
 
 i fhall mention one Inffance more, ^-ajhere the Compafs of Time is not 
 near fo ^ide. In fixi7ig the Date of one of the Pieces of Ratram, 
 'vjhich 1 refer to in page 21, 1 guide my Jelf by the PoTitifcate of 
 Pope Nicholas /. ^who fat in the See from 858 to 867 : And 
 fo I place Ratram /;2 ^<5 4i v.pon prohahle prefumption^^o^hich may 
 fuffice. But if it he certain that Pope NichoLisV Letter to the 
 Gallican Bijhops lore date fo loio as S6y (nvhich I have fince found 
 reafon to believe) then Ratram ought to he placed rather in 8<j8 j 
 njjhich i here intimate in the 'waj of CorreBion. 
 
 As to Manufcripts, it is ivell kno'con there is no fixing them 
 precifely to a Tear, meerly from the Hand^ or, Chara6ler: And 
 there are but fe-iv, in comparifon, that carry their own certain 
 Dates ^coith them. Ihe bejl Judges therefore in thefe matters, nvili 
 think it fufficient to point out the King's Reign, or fomefmes the 
 Century, ^wherein a Manufcript ^jas ^ixritten : And in the njery 
 antient ones, above 1 000 years old, They nvill hardly' he pofaive 
 fo much as to the Century, for ^ant of certaifi d if criminating 
 marks between Manufcript s of the Vth, FIth, and Vllth Cen- 
 turies. 
 
 It may be ask'd then, njuhy I pretend to fx the feveral Manu- 
 fcripts , hereafter to he mention d, to certain years ifi the margin ^ 
 tnofe that carry no certain Dates, as avell as the other that do ? 
 I do it for order and regularity, and for the more diflincl per- 
 ception of Things ; ^^hich is much promoted and affified by this or^ 
 derly ranging them according to Years, At the fame time, the in^ 
 telligent Reader 'will eqjily under fand nvhere to take a thing as 
 certain, and 'where to tnake Allowances. It is fomething like the 
 placing of Cities, Tow?is, Rivers, &c. in a Map, or a Glebe: 
 They have all their certain Places there, in fuch or fuch precife 
 
 ^ ^ Decrees 
 
The PREFACE. 
 
 Degrees of Longitude^ <^?7^ Latitude j nihich perhaps feUom anfv:er 
 to the Jlriif Truth of Things J or to a 7fiathematical exaSliieJs. ButjitU 
 it ferves the purpofe ^uery near as ^dcell as if every thing had been 
 adjujled ''dith the utmojl ^Jtcety : And the Imagination and Memo- 
 ry are tnighti/y relieved by tt. Thus much I thought proper to hmt in 
 ^vindication of my Mcihod, and to prevent any deception on one 
 Band, or m'tfconjiruclion on the other. I have, I thinkj upon the 
 niholey generally gone upon the fairejl and moji prohable prefump- 
 tion , and according to the mo ft correct Accounts of the 
 kno'v:iyjg.y and mo ft accurate Men. But if I have any "nhere through 
 inadvertency, or for iiant of better information, happen" d to mijiake 
 in any material part, the befl '-ojay of apologizing for it, ^aill be to 
 correU it the frjl opportunity, after notice of it. 
 
 As to 7neer O\ri\i\\0\\s,They ^dill appear more, or feirer, accord- 
 ing to Ad ens difj^erent Judgments, or Opinio7js iihat to call an O- 
 miflion. I inight have inlarged, cojjfderably, the ftrji Chapter, 
 ijchich treats of the Learned K'lodcrns : iho' fome perhaps ^jjHI think 
 it too large already, and that it might better have been cojitraBed, 
 I omitted feveral Klodeiins mention d by Tentzelius, ni:hofe pro- 
 fefs'd Dejign luaf to take in all: Mine njoas only to take the prin- 
 cipal, or at 7nany as might fufjice to give the Reader a full 
 and diJIinB idea honv this matter had flood, nuith the learned 
 Moderns, for 80 years laft pa ft, Ho-ojever, I mujl ingcnuouf- 
 ly oivn, that Some nvere omitted purely hecaufe at That Time I 
 had not met iiithlhem: Qthervsife Ruelius of the year 16 j^, 
 ijho has fpent above lo Pages, in ^to, particularly upon the 
 fubjeFl (ConciL Tom. i. p. 6j6. to p. Cyo) had certainly me^ 
 ritfd a place in my Table of Moderns. Keverthelefs there is 
 jcarce. an obfervation of any moment, or fo much as a Thought in 
 
 all 
 
The PREFACE. 
 
 all his Pages, hut ivhat may he found, niith improvements, among 
 Ihofe "whom I ha^ve mentiofi'J: ivhich, I leheue, ^iJl proue e« 
 malh true of any other ^hom I have not taken into my Ltjl, 
 
 ihere may he Omiffions of another kind, 'vchich really render 
 the ^ojork in fome meafure defedlive, and 'which I could not help. 
 There are mdouhtedly federal ufeful materials, conceAcd in Libra- 
 ries, nvhich, could I have come to the kno'wledge of them, might have 
 contrihuted to the perfeciion of the follonving Treatije. I ^ould 
 have 'waited fome Time longer for Things of Ihat kind, hut that 
 I thought^ the furejl and the Jhortefl "way to draw out thofe hidden 
 Stores y ivas frfl to jho^w hy This, as by a Specimen, of nxjhat 
 ufe They may really he 'when brought to Light, And no^w 
 I fiall he very glad if '■what hath been here done may hut prove 
 an ufeful Introdu&ion to more, and larger Tifcoverief upon the' 
 fame SuhjeB. If Any thing coiifiderahle flill remains, either in 
 frivate Hands, or fuhlick Repofitories j Any thing that may 
 he ferviceahle to clear up fome dark Part, or to correU any 
 Miltnke, or to confirm and illuflrate any important Truth re- 
 lating to the SuhjeB j I /ball be very thankful to the P erf on that 
 fiall oblige either Me v:ith private notice of it, or the Publick 
 voith ne'w Improvemefits^on This Head, 
 
 Cambridge. Magd. Coli, 
 *)^ob. 25-, ■ 1713, 
 
ERRATA 
 
 Fjgo. 
 6. 
 9- 
 
 IX. 
 
 39. 
 
 44. 
 
 87- 
 
 1 09. 
 
 164. . 
 
 Index • 
 
 Line 
 
 4- 
 14. 
 
 10. 
 
 8. . 
 
 '3- 
 
 3.. - 
 36. . 
 3J- 
 
 37- 
 ult. ■ 
 
 9. . 
 
 For 
 704. 
 
 Vlth. 
 
 AdclbcrtU5. 
 N. 
 
 confiJtniJy averr'd 
 dccauratum. 
 defcribentur. 
 Bcilario. 
 negitcc. 
 104. 
 
 coniente. 
 Riculphius. 
 Julianus. i6S- 
 
 Read 
 705. 
 
 Vth. 
 
 Adalbertus. 
 N. xjjp. 
 faid 
 
 deauratum. 
 dcfcribantur. 
 Bullario. 
 negata. 
 124. 
 content. 
 Riculphus. . 
 72. 
 
CRITICAL HISTORY 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 ATHANASIAN CREED 
 
 THE 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 SHEWING 
 
 The T>efign and Vfe of this Treati/e : with the Method 
 and Partition of it. 
 
 Y Defign is, to inquire into the Age, An- 
 thor, and rW/^^ of that Celebrated Confeffion, 
 which goes under the Name of The Atha- 
 nafian Creed. The geneml Approbation it 
 hath ^long met with in the Chriftian 
 Churches, and the fmicuUr Regard which 
 
 hath been, early and late, paid to it in our 
 
 Oivn, ('while it makes a part of our Liturgy, and itands recom- 
 mended to us in owM Articles) will, I doubt not, be Confidera^ 
 tions fufficient to juftify an Undertaking of this kind : Provided 
 only, that the Performance be anfwerable, and that it fall not 
 fhort of its Principal Aim, or of the juft Expedations of the 
 ingenuous, and candid Readers. No one will exped more of 
 me than my prefent Materials, fuch as I could procure, will 
 furnifh mc with 5 nor any greater certainty in an Eflay of this 
 nature, than Things of this kind will admit of. If a rcafona- 
 
 A We 
 
Tloe INTRODUCTION. 
 
 blc Diligence has been ufcd in colle^i'mg^ and due pains in M- 
 a^efti/i^y and a religious Care in building thereupon (more than 
 which I pretend not to; it may, 1 hope, be ilifficient with 
 nil equitable judges. 
 
 Maiiy learned and valuable Men have becji before employed 
 in the fame Deiign : But their Treatttes arc moltly in LMtn, 
 and Ibme of them very fcarce, and hard to come at. I know 
 not that any one has hitherto attempted a jult Treatife upon 
 the Subjetl in our own Language, however ufeful it might be 
 to the EngUpj Readers ; and the more fo at This time when 
 the Controverfy about the Tri'aity is now fpread abroad among 
 nil Ranks and Degrees of Men with us, and the Athiin;iji^n 
 Creed become the Subject of common, and ordinary Conver- 
 fation. For thefe Reafons, I prefumed, an Englijh Treatife 
 might be moft proper and feafonable : Tho' othcrwife, to avoid 
 the unfeemly mixture of E?iglijhj and Z/z/w f which will here 
 be ncceflary) and becaufe of fome parts which none but the 
 Le/imed can tolerably judge of; it might be thought more 
 proper rather to have written a Latin Treatife, and for the ufe 
 only of Scholars. However, there will be nothing very mate- 
 rial but what an Englifb Reader may competently underftand : 
 And I Ihall endeavor to lay before Him all that has been hi- 
 therto ufefuUy obferved, or difcover'd upon the Subjecl, that 
 He may want nothing which may be conceiv'dof any moment 
 for the inabllng Him to form a true judgment. What I bor- 
 row from Others Ihall be fairly acknowledged as I go along, 
 and reterr'd to it s proper Author, or Authors; it being as much 
 my Defign to give an Hifiorica^l Account of what others have 
 done, as it is to fupply what They have left undone, fo far 
 as my prelent materials, leifure, and opportunities may inable 
 me to do it. Now, to prefent the Reader with a Sketch of my 
 Defign, and'to fhow Him how one part is to hang upon another, 
 my method will be as follows. 
 
 I. Firft, in order to give the clearer Ide;i of what hath been 
 already done, and of what may be ftill wanting, I begin with 
 recounting the feveral Conjcdurcs, or Difcovcries of the 
 Leartied Moderns^ 
 
 2. Next 
 
rhe INTRODUCTION. 
 
 II. Next, to enter upon the matter it Sdf, and the Evidence 
 proper to it, I proceed to lay down the dired Tefiimonies of 
 the Antients concerning the Age ^ Author , and Vdue of This 
 
 Creed. 
 
 III. To thcfe I fubjoin an Account of the antient Comments 
 upon the fame Creed, being but another kind of A-aciem Te- 
 
 jfimonies. 
 
 IV. After Thefe follows a brief recital of the moft antient, 
 or otherwife moft confidcrable, M^nufcripts of This Creed, 
 which I have either feen my felf, or have had notice of from. 
 Others. This part, I fear, will be in fome meafure imperfcd^ 
 for want of a fuller fearch into the many Excellent Libraries 
 we have in England -•> tho' I have fpcnt fome pains in fearches 
 t)f that kind, and have been obliged to the kind offices of 
 FxieiTds in fearching for me. 
 
 V. Next to the uMa?mfcripts of the Creed it felf, I fhail in- 
 quire alfo into the antient Verfiom of it, printed, or manu- 
 fcript j which will be alfo very ferviceable to ourmain De%n„ 
 
 VI. I come in the next place to treat of the antient Reception- 
 of this Creed, or Formulary, in the Chriftian Churches 5 as being a 
 Point of great moment, and what may be more certm?dy determin'd 
 than the Time of its Compofition, and may give great Light 
 into it. 
 
 VII. Thefe preliminaries fettled, to introduce to what follows , 
 I then fall direftly to the darkeft part of all; namely to the 
 
 ^Inquiry after xhcAge, ^nd Author of the Creed: which I difpatch 
 in Two diftind Chapters. 
 
 VIII. Next, I lay before the learned Reader the Creed it felf 
 in its Original Language, with the mod conliderable various Le- 
 ciions ; together with felecl Palfages from antient Writers, either 
 parallel to Thofe of the Creed, or explanatory of it. And left 
 the Englifr? Reader- fhould appear to be negleded, I fubjoin the 
 Creed in Englifl with a running Englifh Commentary, ferving 
 much the fame purpofe with what is intended by the Latin 
 Qtiotations going before. 
 
 IX. I conclude all with a Brief Vindication of our own 
 Church in receiving, and ftill retaining This excellent Formu- 
 
 A 2 lary 
 
4 The OPINIONS of 
 
 lary of the Chriiliaii Faith ; cinfwcring the mofl: materia Ob- 
 jeclions which have been made againft us, on that Account ;. 
 and fhcwing the Expediency, and even NcceHlty of retaining. 
 This Form, or fomething equivalent , for the prefcrvation of 
 the ChnlHan Faith againfl: Herefics. The Reader^ I hope, will 
 cxcufe it, if in compUance with Ciiftom, and to fave my fclf 
 the Trouble of Circumlocution, 1 commonly fpeak of it under 
 the Name of the Athdnnfidn Creeds not deligning thereby to 
 intimate, either that it is a Creed ftrictly and properly fo called* 
 or that it is of Athanafiuss compofi ng : Both which points 
 will be difcufs'd in the Sequel. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 The Opinions of the learned Moderns concerning the Atha^ 
 
 nafian Creed, 
 
 A. D. T N reciting the Opinions of the learned Moderns, I need 
 T642 \ go no higher than Gerard VoJJius: who in his Treatife de 
 Tribus Symholis^ publifh'd in the Year 1 642 , led the way ta 
 a more ftrid and critical Iniquity concerning This Creed than 
 had been before attempted. The Writers before. Him, moft of 
 Them, took it for granted that The Creed was Atha?i;ijius\, 
 without troubling Themfclvcs with any very particular Inquiry 
 into it: And Thofe few who doubted of it, or afcribed it to 
 Another, yet enter'd not clofely into the merits of the Caufc, 
 but went upon loofe Conjedures rather than upon any julf 
 Rules of true and folid Criticiim. It will be fufficient there- 
 fore to begin our Accounts from VoJJitis^ who, fuice the Time 
 of his writing, has been ever principally mention'd, and chiefly 
 quoted, by as many as have written upon the Subjed, as being 
 the firft and moft confiderable Man that has enter'd deep into 
 It, and treated ot it like a C ritick. He endcavour'd to lift the 
 matter thoroughly, as far as He was well able to ^^d from Trrated 
 Books : As to Aianufcripts He cither wanted leifure, or oppor- 
 tunity tp fcp-tch for Them. The Refult of his Inquiries con- 
 cluded in the following particulars, Ibmc of them dubioufly. 
 
 all. 
 
7he LEARNED MODERNS. j 
 
 all of them modeftly ofFer'd, or propofed by Him. i. That 
 the Athmidfim Creed is not Athmafim's. 2. That it was o- 
 riginaily a Lutin Compofure, and of a Lmn Author or Au- 
 thors. 3. That it was made in the 8th or 9th Century, in the. 
 Time of P^//% orofcW/^j the GreM-^ and probably by fome. 
 French Divine. 4. That the firft Time it was produced, under 
 the Name, of Athmafius, at leaft, with any Aflurance and Con- 
 fidence of it being liis, was in the Year 1233, when Pope Gre- 
 gory the IXth's Legates pleaded it at Conftantinople in favor 
 of the rrocejjion againft the Greeks. 5. That it fcarce ever ob- 
 taind in any of the Chriftian Churches before the Year 1000, 
 How far Voffius was miftaken in his Accounts, will appear in 
 the Sequel. Thus far mud be allow'd Him, that He. managed 
 the Argument with great Learning and Judgment, made a 
 good ufe of fuch Materials as He was poflefs'd of 5 and tho' 
 He was not very happy in determining the Age of the Creed;, 
 or the Time of its Reception, yet He produced fo many, and fuch 
 cogent Arguments againft the Creed's being originally Greek, or 
 being made by Athanafius, that they could never be anfwer'd. 
 
 The learned Fetuvius, who in the Year 1622 (when He j^^^^ 
 publiih'd Epiphmms) had fallen in with the Common Opinion 
 of This Creed's being Athmafmss, did yet afterward in his 
 Treatife of the Trhiity, publifh'd in the Year 1 644, fpeak more 
 doubtfully of it 5 in the mean while pofitive. that it was writ- 
 ten in Latin, * 
 
 The next confiderable Man, and who may be juftly called a ^^^^ 
 :Pirfi Writer in this Argu'ment, as well as Vojjius, was our learned 
 V^er. He had a good Acquaintance with Libraries, and Mar 
 nufcripts 5 and was able from Thofe Stores to produce new E: 
 vidences which Voffius knew not of. In the Year 1647, He 
 printed his La>tin Trad de Symbolis, with a prefatory Epiftle to 
 Voffius. He there appeals to the Teftimonies of RMram oiCorhey, 
 and ^nem Biihop oi P^is, neither of them at That Time made 
 publick, as alfo to Hincmars of Rheims (which had been publilh'd 
 but had efcaped Vojfmss obfervation) to prove that This Creed 
 had been confidently cited under the Name of Athmftfrns almoO: 
 
 a Petavius de Trin. 1. 7. c. 8. p. 391. 
 
 400 
 
6 7he OPINIONS of 
 
 400 Years before the Time of Pope Gregorys Legates, the Time 
 let by VoJJms. And further, by Two Manufcripts found in the 
 Cotton Library, He thought He might carry up the Antiquity of 
 the Creed to the Year 704, or even to 600. In fhort, He 
 fcruplcd not to fet the Date of it above tiie Year 447 : For He 
 fiippofes a Council of Spurn, held in that Year, to have been 
 acquainted with it, and to have borrov/ed the Filioque from it.' 
 Thus far He, without any more particular determination a- 
 bout either the ^ge, or the Author. 
 
 1647 About the fame Time Dr. Jerewy Taylor {^ftcrwtiTds Bifhopof 
 i)o->i9^ and Comtor') publifh'd his Liberty of Prophefywg^ wherein 
 He expreilcs his Doubts whether the Creed be juftly afcribedto 
 Athanafim. But as He had never feen Ufbers's Treatife, nor 
 ihdccd Foffius's, nor, was at that Time furnilh'd with any proper 
 Afliftanccs to inable Him to make any accurate Inquiries into 
 This matter 5 it may fuffice juft to have mention'd Him, in re- 
 gard to the defcrvcd Name He has fuice born in the Learned 
 World. 
 
 1659 Leo AlUtiiiSj about This Year, Y'^-m\.cd\\\s Synt/igm^^de Symboio 
 S. Athannjli ; which no Doubt mufl: be a very ufeful Piece, efpe- 
 cially in relation to the Sentiments oi \\\z Greek Churches, and 
 the Reception of this Creed amongft them : But I have never 
 feen itj only I learn from Tentzeliiis (who yet could' never get 
 a fight of it^ and La,hric'ms, that fuch a Piece was written by 
 AlUt'ms in Moder?i Greek; in 12°. publilh'd at Ro7»c in 1658, or 
 t65 9. It appears to be very fcarce, fince none of the Learned 
 who have fince written upon This Creed have either referr'd 
 to it, or given Extrafts out of it, fo £u- as I have obferved : 
 excepting only fomething of that kind at Rome, A.D. 1667, by 
 The Congregation for propagating the Faith}' 
 
 i66x Cardinal Bo7m, fome Years after, in his Book de Bivina Vfal- 
 modia, mak'es frequent mention of This Creed, touches but 
 (lightly upon the Qiicftion about its Age or Author, takes fome 
 
 a I7//er: dt S^m(>clij, p. 24. N. B. Uftjer went upon the fuppofition thit the Words, 
 • p»ire, filiac]i*e frocttJrns, were genuine; and not foifted into the CcnfJJlon of That 
 Council; as They noxv appear to have bccn^ after a more careful view of the MSS. of bcft 
 Kote. and g^reati-ft Antiquity. ' 
 
 b F/J. Tcntzel. judic. 6;c,p. 147. "^ 
 
 curfoty 
 
7he LEARNED MODERNS, y 
 
 ew-trory notice of what Fo//m had faid, but neverthelefs af^ribes 
 it to Athm^^jhiSy as being compofed by Him while in the 
 Wcflern parts, Tefie B^ronio j relting his Faith upon B^rom- 
 us, iJS his Vouclier. ' 
 
 Our very Learned Bilhop Pearf on mKis Exfofition of the Creed, 1669 
 occafionally deUvers his Opinion, that the Athanfifmn Creed was 
 written in Lmin, and by fomc Member of the LMm Church.'' 
 
 Our next Man of Eminent Charader is Pafch^fms ^efnel, 167$ 
 a celebrated French Divine. In the Year 1675, He publilh'd his 
 famous Edition of Pope Leos Works, with feveral very valu- 
 able DiffertMions of his own. His XlVth contains, among other 
 matters, a particular Inquiry about the Author of this Creed. 
 He afcribes it to Vigilius Tapfenfis,x\\Q, African"^-, and fo well de- 
 fends his Pofition that He has almoft drawn the Learned World 
 after Him. He is look'd upon as the Father of that Opinion, be- 
 caufe He has fo learnedly and handfomly fupported it : But 
 He is not the iirft that efpoufcd it. For LMe, about i 5 Years 
 before, had taken notice of Some that had afcribed This Creed 
 to VigiliuSy at the fame Time iignifying his Dillent from 
 Them ^ 
 
 The Year after ^efnel, SandiuSy the famous Ar'mn, printed 1(575 
 a Second Edition of his Nucleus ^c. \j'\.th. 2i\\ Appendix : Where- 
 in He corrects his former Judgment "^ of This Creed, taken im- 
 plicitely from P\ffius 5 and allows, nay contends and infifts upon it, 
 that This Creed was not only known, but known under the Name 
 oi AthanfifmSy as high at leaft as the Year 770^. He afcribes it 
 bpon Conjedure to onb Athanafius, Bifhop of Spire in Germany^ 
 who died in the Year 642. 
 
 I ought not to pafs over our very learned O^^u-or/^, tho* He ,^ g 
 has entred very little into the point before us. He gives his judg- 
 ment, in paiTnig, of the Creed commonly called Athanafian-, 
 that it was -written a long time after Athanafius by fome other 
 Hand. § 
 
 a Bona de Divina Pfalmod. Cap. 16. Se£t« 18. p. 864. 
 
 b Vearfon on the Creed. Artici 8. p. 314. ed. 3. 
 
 c Qaefncl. DifTert. XIV. p. 729. &c. 
 
 d Labbaei Diflert. de Script, Ecclef. Tom. i. p. 477. 
 
 e Vid. Sandii Nucl. Hiftor. Ecclef. p. 256. 
 
 f Sandii Append, p. 3j-. 
 
 g Cudworth Intelled. Syft. p. 6%o. 
 
 Henrkm 
 
S The OPINIONS of 
 
 r68o Henricus Hcideggerus is a Writer whom I have not feen, but 
 find mention'd with particular rcfpect by Cdfim: Oudin j upon 
 whofe credit, I here take notice of hispubUfhing at Zurich Come 
 Sclecl J)iJ]crt^%tio?iSy and his al'cribing this Creed to Vigilius Tap- 
 fenfis^ in his XVllIth DilTcrtation. Tom. 2. 
 T^8i Wolfga,ngGtmdling^ a German writer, the Year after puWifh'd a 
 ihull Trad, containing Notes upon a Httlc Piece relating to 
 tJie Religion of the Creek Churches, written by Euftratim Jo~ 
 hannides Zidoivski. What is chiefly valuable in Cimdling, is his 
 Account of the Greek Copies of this Creed ; ( printed ones 1 
 mean) giving us fix of them together. He occafionally expreflcs 
 liis Doubts whether the Creed be Atha.nafiH$\yO\: of ibmc later 
 Writer/ 
 1 683 i may next mention our celebrated Eccleftaftical Hiftorian, 
 Dr. Cm.'e, who about this Time publilli'd his Lives of the Fathers, 
 and particularly oi Ath/inajim. His account of This Creed is, that 
 it ^v/ls never heard of in the World till above 600 years after Atha- 
 nafius vas dead-^ hut barely mention d then, and not urged -ivith a-ny 
 tonfidence till above 200 years after, when the Legates ofPopeQio.- 
 gory the IXth produced and pleaded it at Conflanti?iopLe}' The learned 
 Doctor, it is plain, took this Account from rb//^//^^, and had never 
 feen ZTfljers Treatife j which one may juftly wonder at. Five years 
 after, in his Hiftoria Liter aria, He allows that This Creed had 
 been fpoken of by Theodulphus, which was within 436 years of 
 Athanaftus: But not a Word yet of any elder Teftimony, or 
 Manufcript, tho' Both had been difcovered, and publickly taken 
 notice of, before This Time. He ftill contends that the Creed 
 obtain'd not ni the Chriftian Churches before the ^'ear 1000, 
 nor became famous every where before 12335 but inclines never- 
 thclefs to aicribe it to Vigilius Tapferifts, who flourifhed about 
 the Year 484.'-' 
 :(6 84 Dodor Comber, in his Book intituled, A Comp^vnion to the 
 Temple, clofes in with the old Tradition of the Creed being 
 
 a Gundl'ingW notse in Ruftratii Johannidis Zialowski Dclincationcm Ecclcfix Grzcx.p. 
 •68. &c. 
 
 b Cave: l»/<r of Athannfim. Sc£l. VI. Art. lo. 
 X Cave. Hiftor. Litcrar. Vol. I. p. I46. J71. 
 
 Atha- 
 
Ihe LE/JRNED MODERNS. ^ 
 
 Arhan^fiuss', repeating the moft eonfiderable Arguments ufually 
 pleaded for that Perlwafion.* 
 
 To Him I may Subjoin Bilhop ^^i^m^^, who perhaps about 1684 
 This Time might write his Thoughts on the Creed, in his 
 Bxpofitton of our Articles, pubhlh'd after his Death. He was fo 
 diligent and knowing a Man, that had He been to confidei 
 This matter in his Uter years. He would certainly have given 
 a more particular and accurate Account than that which now 
 appears. He afcribes the Creed to Athemafms, but with fome 
 diffidence J and thinks it might have been originally a Greek 
 Compofition, but that the old Greek Copies have been loft, and 
 that the only remaining ones are Verfiom from the Latin.'' 
 
 C^ib^JJ'miiiSj in his Notitia Ecclefmjlic^, hath a Ihort Diflerta- j 5 3 < 
 tion about the Author of This Creed.= He contents Himfelf 
 w4th repeating .^efneVs Arguments, to prove that Athan^fita 
 was not the Author of it, determining nothing farther, lave 
 only that it was originally a Lutm Compofure, known ano^ 
 cited by the Council of Autun about the Year 670. 
 
 The celebrated Dnpin^ in his Ecclefidftical Hijlory, fumms up i^s- 
 the reafons ufually urged to prove that the Creed \s none of 
 AthannfmsSj and aflents to them. He determines with confi- 
 dence that it was originally a Ldtin compofition, and not known 
 till the Vlth Century j repeats Father J^efnel's reafons for 
 afcribing it to VigilmsTapfenfis, and acquiefccs in them, as ha- 
 ving nothing more certain in this matter.'^ 
 
 About the fame Time Te/^tzelm, a learned Luther/inj pub- \6^y 
 iifh'd a little Treatife up\5n the Subject j^ fetting forth the feveral 
 Opinions of Learned Men concerning This Creed. He is very full 
 and accurate in his CoUedion, omitting nothing of moment 
 that had been faid before Him by any of the learned Modcrnsy 
 but bringing in fome further materials, from his own fearches, 
 to add new Light to the Subjed. He determines nothing 5 but 
 
 a Comber Companion to the Temple p. 144. 
 b Beveridi2e on the ^th Article, p. 162. 
 e CabafTutii Notit. Ecclef. Diflert. 19, p. 5-4. 
 d Dupin Ecclef. Hiftor. Vol. ll. p. ^j-. 
 
 e Ernefll Temzelii judicia Eruditorum De Symb. Athanaf. ftudiofecolkaa. Goth£.Ano 
 D. 1687. ^ 
 
 B leaves 
 
10 7he OPINIONS of 
 
 leaves it to the Reader to make a Judgment :is He fees cauCc 
 from a full view of the Pleadings. 
 
 16 8 8 I may plaee iiere the learned P^g^j \\ ho in his Critick upon Baro- 
 wW palles his judgment of This Creed: 'v/hieh being the fame 
 with J^.cjners, and little more than Repetition from Him, I 
 need not, be more particular about Him. 
 
 1690 H;i;}iond L'Ejlrange, in his Alli;ince of T>ivine Off.ces, falls in with 
 the now current Opinion j ^ that The Creed is not AthmafiusSy 
 nor later than the Vlth Century. 
 
 1 693 Jf^fiph Anthelmiy a learned Paris Divine, firfl: began dircdly 
 to attack ,^efnel\ Opinion 5 and to fap the reafons on which 
 it was founded. He publilh'd a particular Bijjertation to That pur- 
 pofe,'^^ of which I have feen feveral, and pretty large Extrads, 
 but could never yet get the Book it felf however defirous of 
 it, or hov/ever ferviccable it migiit be to my Defign. He afcribes 
 the Creed to Fmcentius LirinenfiSj who flourilh'd in the Year 
 43 4- 
 
 The famous Tillemont wrote after Anthelmius^ for He makes 
 mention of his Treatife, and examines his Hypothcfis : And yet 
 it could not be long after? for He died in the Year 1697. He 
 commends Mr. Anthdmts performance as a confiderablc Work ; 
 but inclines ftill rather to ^efnel's Opinion. All that He 
 pronounces certai?iy is, that the Creed is none of Athana- 
 Jiuss, but yet as old as the Jixth Century, or older.^ 
 
 (698 ^'^ ^^^^ ^'*^^^ 1698, AIo?itfau,con publiih'd his new and accurate 
 Edition of Athan/ifms's Works. In the fecond Tbw^, He has an 
 Excellent Dillertation upon This Creed; the bell that is extant, 
 either for on^er and method ^ or for Plenty of ufeful Matter. 
 The Sum of his Judgment is, that the Creed is certainly none 
 of Athanajiiiss, nor yet Vigiims Tdpfe-fifiss, nor fufficiently proved 
 to belong to Vince?2tius Lirinenjis j but probably enough compos'd 
 about the Time of Vincent'mSy and by a Callicn?^ A\^riter or 
 Writers.- 
 
 a figi- Critic, in Baron. An. ^40. n. tf . p. 44.0, 
 
 b L'Eftnngc Alliance rf Divine Offices- Ch. 4. p. 99. 
 
 c Jofephi ^nthelmii Dilqiiilitio de Symbolo Athana'liano. Vitrif. i6y;. Svo. 
 
 d Tillemont. Mcmoircs. Tom. 8- p. 667. 
 
 c Syti)boliim j^ucimiue Athanalio iucunftantcr abjudicandun> arbitramur — 
 
 1695 
 
 In 
 
The LEARNED MODERNS, ii 
 
 In the fame year, Ludovic: Antonius Muratorms^ an Italmn^ 169S 
 Writer, publilh'd a fecond Tome of Anecdotii out of the Am^ 
 hrofim Library at Milm. Among other Manufcripts there, He 
 had met with an Antient Comment upon This Creed, afcribed to 
 Venmtim FortunMus, who w^as Bifhop of PoicJiers in Frmce in 
 the Vlth Century. He pubUllies the Comment, together with a 
 DiJJertMton of his own concerning the Author of the Creed : 
 concUiding, at length, that Venmtius Vortunatus^ the certain Au- 
 thor of the Commenty might pollibly be Author of the Creed 
 too. He entirely rejeds the opinion of Thofc that would afcribc 
 it to Athmafius, and difapproves of ^efneH perfwafion about 
 Vigilius Taffenfis; but fpeaks favourably of Anthelmis, as com- 
 ing neareft to the Truth.* 
 
 Fabricms, in his Bihliotheca Grdca,'' (highly valued by all Men lyiz 
 of Letters) gives a Summary Account of the Sentiments of the 
 Learned relating to This Creed. His Conclufion from all is, 
 that thus far may be depended on as certain ; that the Creed 
 was not compofed by AthanaJiuSj but long after in the Vth 
 Century, wrote originally in LMin, and afterwards tranflated 
 into Greek. 
 
 In the fame year, the learned Le ^ien publilh'd a new E- 171^ 
 dition of Dam^fcen, with previous Dijjertations to it. In the 
 firft of thefe, He has feveral very confiderable Remarks, concern- 
 ing the Age, and Author of the Athdrmfmn Creed. He appears 
 inclinable to afcribe it to Pope Anaftajius I, (who entred upon 
 the Pontificate in the year 398) becaufe of fome antient Te- 
 ftimonies, as well as Manufcripts, carrying the Name of Anafla- 
 fius in the Title of the Creed: But He is pofitive that the Creed 
 muft be fet as high as the Age of St. Aujlin, Vincentim,^ and 
 Vigilius!^ And, as y^;^^/?^/;^/^^ before had made light of the fuppo- 
 
 Afro itaque Vigdlo nihil ell quod fymbolum ^icmque tribuatiin — — — "on aegrc 
 quidem conceirerim Vtncentit &tnte editam tuifle illam Fidei profclTionem. - Hand ab': 
 re conjeaant Viri erudit'i in GdWn illud {fymbolum) fuilTe elucubratum. Mor^tf. Diatrib. 
 
 P- I'i-l- ... 
 
 a Hzc & fimilia pluribus pertradlavit cruditilTimus ^nthe^minu cuius opinicm, quo- 
 rumnam eruditorum iufFragia acceflerint, me penitus fugit : Fatcor tamen ad ventatem 
 omnium maxime illam accedere. Murator. Tom. 2. p. 212. 
 
 b Fabricii Biblioth. Gr3eca> Vol. V. p. 5 if. , . 
 
 c Omnino fateri cogor Auguftini, Vincentii, 8c Vig'di't aetate cxtitiOe expofitioncm lati- 
 aam Fjdei, qus poilmodum Athmctfio Magna attribui meruerit. Le ^iien Difllrc i.p 9. 
 
 B 2 m\oi\ 
 
:t The P I H JONS cf 
 
 fition that the internal Ch^iraUcn of the Creed Ihow it to be 
 later then Eufi^cljes ; He makes as light of the other fuppolltion 
 of the rntcmd chnr^.clcrs lettiiig it later than Ncftoritts. 
 
 <-i4. Nutiilis Jllcxandcrs new Edition of his EccUjmjtical Hiftory^ 
 bears Date A. D 1714. He had cxaniin'd into our prelent 
 QiielUon Ibme years before (about 1676 when his firft Edition 
 came abro.\d) lubfcribing to the Opinion of J^cfnel: And 
 He does not appear to have altcr'd his mind fmce. He takes 
 notice of Anthelmi\ Opinion, and fpeaks rcfpedfully of it., 
 as alfo of the Author 5 but prefers the other Hypotheiis. "^ 
 
 2715 I ought not here to omit the very worthy and learned Mr. 
 Bi/igham, to whom the Public k is lb highly indebted for his 
 Origiiics Ecclefmfiicd, colleded with great Judgment, and digeft- 
 ed into a clear Method. He had a proper OccaP.on to fay 
 fomcthing of the Athanafmn Creed, in palling, and very briefly. 
 He obferves, that it was not compofed by Athmnfius, but by a 
 later and ^a Ldtm writer j and particularly Vigilius Tapfenfis; re- 
 ferring to fuch learned Moderns as I have above mention'd, 
 for the proof of itj and giving no more than ihort Hints of 
 their reafons.'' 
 
 T-Tvi^ The learned Dr. Clarke pf St. James s, in his fecond Edition 
 of his Scripture Doctrine,^ gives us his laft Thoughts in relation 
 to This Creed. Referring to Dr. Cmje, He informs us, that 
 This Creed -ivas 7iever feen till about the year Soo, ?^ear 400 
 years after the Death of Athanafms (They are his own words) 
 nor 'was received i)i the Church till fo very late as about the year 
 1000. Yet Dr. Cave does not fay, -was never feen (for HcHim- 
 fclf afcribes it to Vigilius Tapfenfis of the 5 th Century) but only 
 that it was not quoted before the year 800, or nearly ; which 
 yet is a very great miftake. What the learned Do<n:or intended 
 by faying about the year 800, and yet only near /^oo-. years after 
 the Death of Athanafms^ or, as He elfewhere'^ cxprelles it, 
 .above 3 00 years after the death of Athanafius^ I do not under- 
 
 1 Natal. Alcxand. Eccl. Hift. Tom. IV. p. 1 1 1. 
 
 b Bingham's Antiquities of the Chnfiian Church. Vol. IV. p. II 8. &C» 
 z Clarke's 5cf//i/. Docir» p. 379 id. Ed. 
 • d Clarke's Scrip, Doclr. p. .447. ift. Ed. ' 
 
The LEARNED MODERNS. ^ |. 
 
 Hand ; but muft leave to Thofe that can compute the Di- 
 ftance between 37.5 (the lateft year that Athmtafms is ever 
 fuppofed to have hved) and the year 800. I am periwaded, the 
 Dodor was thinking, that if Athanafms had lived to the year 
 400, then theDiftance had been juft 400 years 5 but as he died 
 27 years before, the Diftance muft be fo^ much the lefsy when it 
 is quite the co^^trary. 
 
 The laft Man that has given his Sentiments in relation to This 1,722 
 Creed, is Cajimirus Oudinus, in his new Edition of his Supplement 
 ( now called a Comment ply j) to the Ecclefinftkd Writers. I need, 
 fay no more than that He does not feem to have fpent much 
 pains in re-examining this Subjed, but refts content with his firft 
 Thoughts J afgribing the Creed, with ^efnel, to Vigilius- Tap^ 
 fenfis. * 
 
 Thefe are the principal JHodems that have fallen within my 
 Notice : And of thefe, the nioft confiderable are VoJJius, Ujher, 
 ^efnely TentzelmSy Anthelmms, Tillemmty Mountfducon, Mum- 
 tortus, and Le ^ien ; as having particularly ftudied the Sub= 
 jed, and ftruck new Light into it, either furnifhing frefh mate- 
 rids 5 or improving the old by new Obfervations* Some 
 perhaps may wiHi to have the feveral Opinions of the Mo- 
 derns thrown into a narrower Compafs : For which reafon I . 
 have thought it not improper to fubjoin the following Tdle, 
 which will reprefent all in one view, for the eafe and conve= 
 niency of every common Reader. 
 
 ^ F/V, Oudin Commcntar. de Sdtptor. Eccl. Vol, i ". p. 345*, 1 448. 1 3 laL 
 
 A Dnl 
 
14 
 
 The OPINIOl^S of, &c. 
 
 A.D.I Writers | Author of the I whit O-ntury I What Year I When recicv'd. 
 I ( Cieed. j compof.d in | compofed. | 
 
 164,2! VofTius 
 
 I A Latin Autho!| 
 
 jnot IJcfore 6oo^\ A D. 1000 
 
 i644|Pctavius 
 
 I Ooubtiul 
 
 1047I hi/lHi> U flier 
 
 1 1 
 
 Vih 
 
 
 1 
 
 Before 447 | 
 
 Before 8f 1 
 
 1647I Bi/ljop T»yIor 
 
 not AthaHJifins | 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 i 
 
 l6f9|Lco Allatius 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 l66x\^ar^l. Bona 
 
 ithanaftus AUx. \ 
 
 iVrh 
 
 
 1 
 
 340 j 
 
 166^1 BipJp Pcarfon 
 
 1 \ Latin Author j 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i67jjl'archa(.Quefnel 
 
 I'igtltHi 'lapjenpi 1 
 
 Vth 
 
 
 1 
 
 484 t 
 
 Before 670 
 
 1676I Sandius 
 
 j Athanifi- of Spire ( 
 
 Vllth 
 
 
 I 
 
 Before 641 ( 
 
 Before 770 
 
 ifiy'^IOr Ciidvvorth 
 
 1 '.w Arh^mftus \ 
 
 \tter the IVib | 
 
 1 
 
 1680 (Heideggcrus 
 
 \i^'gil:tti Tapfenfii | 
 
 Vih 
 
 
 1 
 
 +84 1 
 
 i68il\V/jif Giin>'.liniJ 
 
 j')oubrful 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 l6S;| ''I Cive 
 
 1 'yijiLtfi T.%pltnfts 1 
 
 Vth 
 
 
 
 4S4 1 
 
 loco 
 
 i 6'^4\ )r Comber 
 
 \Athanafius A!ex\ 
 
 I Vth 
 
 
 
 iV> 1 
 
 
 i6b^p77^)p Be.Cii.lp;(. 
 
 J d h^mjita Ale:<..\ 
 
 iVrh 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Befbre 8fO 
 
 i68'|Cabanutius 
 
 j A Latin Author j 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Before 670 
 
 i687ln)upin 
 
 \Vtgil$us Tapfenfii \ 
 1 )oubtfiil 1 
 
 Vth 
 
 
 
 1 484 1 
 
 
 i68-|Tentzeii.is 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i6t 1 'h^i 
 
 \"igUiui iupenp^ j 
 
 Vth 
 
 
 
 
 
 l69f| lini. L'iOrane 
 
 '( 1 lot Athanajiut | 
 
 
 
 
 j Before 600 
 
 
 160^1 A-rhelmiMS 
 
 1 VtnrentiuiLtrinen^ 
 
 V(h 
 
 
 
 1 Before 4fo 
 
 
 i69f|T)llcmonr 
 
 [nor A'hanafiti-' 
 
 VIrh 
 
 or 
 
 ibonf 
 
 r 
 
 
 l69S|Montfaucon 
 
 1 A Galilean writci 
 
 s \Vfnant.Fo>-tunatii. 
 
 1 A Latin Author 
 
 Vth 
 
 
 
 
 Before 670 
 
 i699|Ant. Muratoriu 
 
 VIrh 
 
 
 
 1 ^70 
 
 I 800 
 
 i7ii|Fabricius 
 
 Vth 
 
 
 
 
 I 66^ 
 
 17 1 i|Le (^uicn 
 
 \ AnaJia/iHS i. 
 
 I Vth, 
 
 or 
 
 Vth 
 
 1 Bcture 401 
 
 
 1714! Natal; Alcxanc 
 
 C)\l'^igilius Tapfenfis 
 
 1 Vth 
 
 
 
 1 4S4 
 
 
 171 j-j vlr bingham 
 
 1 '.'igiliHi 1 ap/enjii 
 
 Vth 
 
 
 
 
 1 670 
 
 i7i()|nr Clarke 
 
 |noubrfil 
 
 |VII.h. 
 
 or 
 
 Vlllr 
 
 
 1 looo 
 
 jyialOudio 
 
 \l^igiliui Tapfenfis 
 
 1 Vih 
 
 
 
 I 484 
 
 
 a According to VoCCius'sln/l Thoughts, in a pofihiimous Work: Nequc ante 
 Gcntefimum, tufc oftendimus in libro dc Symbolis. Vojf. Harm. Evang.N/. 1. 
 
 annum fuiflc Scx- 
 c. 13. p.xif. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
CHAP. II. 
 
 Antient Tejiimonies. 
 
 HAVING taken a view of the Modems^ in relation to the 
 Creed, we may now enter upon a Detail of the Antient s, 
 and their Tefiimonies , by which the Moderns muft be tried. My 
 Defign is to lay before the Reader all the Origind Evidence I 
 can meet with, to give any Light either into the Age, or Au- 
 thor of the Creed, or its Reception in the Chriftian Churches ; 
 that fo the Reader may be able to judge for Himfelf concern- 
 ing the Three particulars now mention'd, which are what I con- 
 ftantly bear in my Eye, producing nothing but with a view to 
 one, or more of them. 
 
 Antient Tefiimonies have been pretended from Gregory Nazian- 
 z^eny Gaudentius Brixienfis^, St. Auftin^ and ifidorus Hifpdlenfis, of 
 the 4th, 5 th, and 6th Centuries. But they have been fince 
 generally, and juftly exploded by the Learned, as being either 
 Spurious, ox. foreign to the Point ; and therefore I conceive it very 
 needlefs to take any further notice of them. As to ^.otations 
 from our Creed, or Comments upon it, falling within the com- 
 pafs of the Centuries now mention'd j if there be any fuch,Thcy 
 Ihall be confider'd under other Heads, diftind from That oi An- 
 tient Tefiimonies, properly fo called, to be treated of in This 
 Ckflpter. \, 
 
 The old eft of this kind, hitherto difcovered, or obferved, is 570 
 That of the Council of Autun in Trance, under Leodegarius, or St. 
 Leger, the Bilhop of the Place in the Vllth Century. There is 
 fomc Difpute about the year when the Council was held, whe- 
 ther in 661, or 666, or 670. The laft is moft probable, and 
 moft generally embraced by learned Men. The words of this 
 Council, in Efigliflj run thus : " If any Presbyter, Deacon, Suhdeacon, 
 
 a Si quis Presbyter, Diaconus, Subdiaconus, vel Clericus Symbclum quod Sando in- 
 fpirante Spiritu Apoftoli tradideriint, Sc Fidem SanHi Athanafii PrAfults irreprehenfibiliter 
 non reccnfuerit } ab Epiicopo coadcmnctiir. Aninfiodun. SmoJ. Harduin. Tam. 3. p. 
 
 or 
 
>c ANTIENT TESTIMONIES. 
 
 " or Cierk, doth not unreprovably recite the Creed which the 
 
 " ApojHes dclivcr'd by hilpiratioii of rhc Holy-Ghoft, and alio 
 
 ^'^ The Ffiith of ihe holy VrcUte Athati^-^jms, kt Him be ccnfurcd 
 
 *' by the Dilhop."-' By The Faith of Ath;inajius is here meant what 
 
 wc now call the Jthanajia/i Creed j as may be reafonably pleaded 
 
 from the Titles \\'hich This Creed bore in the earlier Times, 
 
 before it came to have the name of a Creed: which Titles fhall 
 
 be exhibited both from Manufcripts, and written evidences 
 
 in the Sequel. Yet it mull: not be dillembled that Pafebrochitss, 
 
 a learned Man, and whom I find cited with Approbation by 
 
 Mur^itoriuSj is of opinion that the /W//? o/'y^//?;?;;^^;, here men- 
 
 rion'd, means the Nicene Creed, which Atha^nnfius had fome Hand 
 
 in, and whereof He was the great Defender. I can by no means 
 
 come into his Opinion, or allow any force to his reafonings. He 
 
 asks ; why Ihould the Nicene Creed be omitted, and noc men- 
 
 tion'd with the Apojlles) And why Ihould the Ath^najianj not 
 
 then ufed in the Sacred Offices, be recommended fo carefully, 
 
 without a word of the Nicene? I anfwer, becaufe it does not 
 
 appear that the Nicene Creed was fo much taken notice of at That 
 
 Time in the Gallican Churches, while the ApjlolicM, or Roman 
 
 Creed, made ufe of in ]japtilm, in the Wejlern Churches, in- 
 
 ftead of the Nicene ( which prevailed in the Ea^) in a manner 
 
 fuperfeded it: Which no one can wonder at who confiders how 
 
 prevailing and univerfal the Tradition had been in the Latin 
 
 Church, down from the 5th Century at lead, that the ^/o/?^//- 
 
 cal Creed was compofed by the i 2 Apoftles, and therefore as 
 
 jfacred, and of as great Authority as the infpired writings them- 
 
 felves. Befides that it appears from Hincmar, who will be cited 
 
 in his place, that it was no ftrange Thing, even fo low as his 
 
 Time, about 850, to recommend the Athanajia?^ Creed along 
 
 with the ApoJlleSy without a word of the Nicene. And why 
 
 a Atcjui, ut cruditiflTime adnotavit CI. P. Papebrochius, in Rcfponf. ad cxhibitionem Er- 
 ror, par. 2. Art. 13. n. 3. verbis iliis FiJem S. Athanafii, niinimc Symbolum Athana- 
 fianuw defignatur, fed quidem Nicanttm, in quo claborando plurimum infudaflTc Athana- 
 Jinm verifimile eft. Etcnim cur Apojiolico Symbolo commcndato Kic<niJtm prxtermifil- 
 fent Auguflodunenfes Patres? Cur Athanafiani Symholi, cujus tunc nullus erat ufus in fa- 
 cris, cognitionem cxcgifTcnt, Nianumque nc uno quidem vcrbo commernoraficnt? Mu- 
 r/nor. AnecdQt, Tom. 1. p. jij. 
 
 N Ihould 
 
AKTIENT TESTIMONIES, 
 
 iliould it be thought any objedion againft the Athanfifii^n Creed, 
 that it was not at That Time received into the Sacred Offices 
 (fuppofmg it really was not, which may be queftion'd) when it 
 is certain that the Nkene was not yet received into the SMred 
 offices in Fmnce^ nor till many years after, about the Time of 
 Pepm, or of Chiles the Grent ? There is therefore no Force at 
 all in the Argument of Papebrochms : But there is this ftrong 
 prejudice againft it, that the Title there given is a very common 
 Title for the Athdniifmn Creed, and not for the Nicene. Nor would 
 the Fathers of that Council have been fo extravagantly fond of 
 the name of Athanafius, as to think it a greater Commendation 
 of the Creed of Nice to call it after Him, than to call it the 
 Nicene. There is then no reafonable Doubt to be made but 
 that the Council of Autun, in the Camn, intended the Athanafmn- 
 Creed-, as the beft Criticks, and the generality of the Learned 
 have hitherto believed. 
 
 But there are other Objedions of real weight againft the E- 
 vidence built upon This Camn. i. Oudin makes it a queftion 
 whether there was ever any Council held under Leodega- 
 rius, a Suffragan Bilhop under the Arch-Bifhop of LyoTis, having 
 no Metropolitical Authority.* But it may fuffice, if the Coun- 
 cil was held at Amun, while He was Bilhop of the place, a 
 good reafon why He Ihould be particularly mention'd; efpe- 
 cially confidering the worth and Fame of the Man : To lay 
 nothing of the dignity of his See, which from the Time of 
 Gregory the GreM, had been the Second, or next in dignity to 
 the Metropolitical S^zo'i Lyons. Nor do I perceive any Force in 
 Oudins objedion againft St. Leger\ holding a Diocefan Synod ('for 
 a Provincial Synod is not pretended) tho' He was no Metropoli- 
 tan. 2. A ftronger Objedion is, that the Cano-a we are con- 
 cern'd with, cannot be proved to belong to the Council held 
 under Leodegariiis. If is not found among the Ca?ions of that 
 Council publiih'd by Sirmondus from the Manufcripts of the 
 Library of the Church of Angers, but it is from another Colle- 
 dion, out of the Library of the Monaftery of St. Bcnignus of 
 Dijon, with This Title only 5 Canones Auguftodun^nfes : So that one 
 
 a Oudin. Comment. <Ie Script. Ecclef. Tom. i. p. 34S. 
 
 C can- 
 
7<50 
 
 ,8 ANTIENT TESTIMONIES. 
 
 cannot be certain whether it belongs to the Synod under St. 
 Lenr^ ou to Ibmc other Synod of Autun much later. It muft 
 be own'd that the Evidence can amount to no more than pro- 
 bable prcfumption, or conjedurc. ^^'hercfore Dufm,^ Temz^e- 
 Ifus, ^ Muratorius;; and Oudiu^ do not Icruplc to throw it afide 
 as of too fufpeded credit to build any thing certain up- 
 on : And even ^^freh exprelVcs fome diflatisfaclion about 
 it 5 only, in rcfpcd to fome great Names, fuch as Sirnmidus^ 
 Peter Le Lamde^ Godfr. HcrmdntiuSj &c. He is willing to ac- 
 quiefcc in it. To whom we may add LMe^, Le Coint^j Cuba-Jjutius}^ 
 Vagi} Tillemont^ Montfducon} Ta>hricim^ Harduin,^ and our 
 learned Antiquary Mr. Bingham:-^ who all accept it as genuine, 
 but upon probable perfwafion, rather than certain Convidlion. Nei- 
 ther do I pretend to propofe it as clear and undoubted Evidence, 
 but probable only, and fuch as will be much confirm'd by other 
 Evidences to be mention'd hereafter. 
 
 Reginoj Abbot of Pro?H in Germany^ an Author of the pth, and 
 loth Century, has, among other CoUeftions, fome Articles of In- 
 quirjy fuppofed by Bduzius the Editor to be as old, or very near- 
 ly, as the Age of Boniface Bifhop of Mentz,^ who died in the 
 year 754. In thofe Articles, there isone tothispurpofe: "Whe- 
 '' ther the Clergy have by Heart Athanafius s TraEi upon The Faith 
 '■^ of the Trinity J beginning with, ivhofoever -will be faved^ &c. 
 This Teftimony I may venture to place about 760, a Uttlc after 
 the Death of Boniface. 
 
 a Dupin. Eccl. Hift. Vol, r> p. 3$. 
 b Tentzel. Jiidic. Erud. p. 61. &c. 
 c Murator. Anecdot. Ambrof. Tom, i. p. iij. 
 d Cafim. Gudin. Vol. 1. p. 348. 
 e Quefnel. DifTcrt. XI V. p. 731. 
 f Labb. DifTcrt. de Script. Ecclef. Tom. i- p. 478. 
 g Le Coint. Annal. Franc, ad Anno 663. n. ii. 
 h Cabaflut. Notit Eccl. DifTcrt. 19. p. 5+. 
 i Pagi Crit. in Baron. Ann. 340 n. 6. 
 k Tillcmont Memoircs. Vol. 8. p. 668. 
 1 Montfauc. Diatrib. p. 720. 
 m Fabric. Bibl. Graec. Vol. j-. p. 3 1 6. 
 n Harduis. Concil. Tom. 3. p. I016. 
 o Bingham, Origin. Eccl. Vol. 4. p. 1 10. 
 
 p Si Sermonem Athanafti Epifcopi de Tide SanHi TritiUat'is, cujus initium eft, ^mcun- 
 Hueiult SdvHs ejfe. mcmoritcr tcncat. Rr^in. dc Difcipl. Ecc!en\l. 1. 
 
 The 
 
AKTIENT TESTIMONIES. ,5) 
 
 The Council oi Frmkfirt, in Germany, in their 33ci Canon 794 
 give orders, that "The Cutholick Faith of the holy Trinity, and 
 ^-^ Lord's Prayer, and Creed be fet forth and deUvered to all.' 
 
 Fojfftus ^ underftands the Canon of the Two Creeds Nicene and 
 Apofiolical. But I know not why the Apojiolical, or Soman, Creed 
 fliould be emphatically called Symbolmn Fidei, The Creed, in op- 
 pofition to the Nicene 5 nor why the Nicene fhould not be called 
 a Creed, as well as the other, after the ufual way. Befides, that 
 Fides Catholica &cc. has been more peculiarly the Title of the 
 Athanafian Creed : And it was no uncommon Thing, either 
 before or after This Time, to recommend it in this manner to- 
 gether with the Lords Prayer, and Apofiles Creed, jull as we find 
 here. And nothing could be at that Time of greater fervice 
 againft the Herefy of Felix and Elipandus (which occafion*d the 
 calling of the Council) than the Athanafian Creed. For which 
 reafons, till I fee better reafons to the contrary, I muft be oi 
 opinion that the Council of Frankfort in their 3 3d Canon intend- 
 ed the Athanafian Creed, which Charles the Great had a particular 
 refped for, and had prefented in Form to Pope Adrian I. above 
 20 years before 5 as we fhall fee in Another Chapter. 
 
 Theodulphus, Bifhop oi Orleans in France, has aTreatile of the %q^ 
 Holy-Ghoft, with a Preface to Charles the Great, written at a 
 Time when the Difpute about the Proceffon began to make 
 Difturbance. He brings feveral Teftimonies in favor of the 
 Proceflion from the Son, out of Athanafms -, and, among others, 
 a pretty large part of the Athanafian Creed, from the words. 
 The Father is made of none &c. to. He therefore that nnll be faved 
 mufi thus think of the Trinity,^ inclufive. 
 
 An Anonymous Writer of the fame Time, and in the fame 
 Caufe, and direding himfelf to the fame Prince, makes the 
 fame ufe of the Athanafan Creed, in the following words ; 
 " St. Atha?mfms, in . the Expofition of the Catholick Faith, which 
 "That great matter wrote Himfelf, and which the Univerfai 
 
 a Ut lides Catltolica SanBi Trinitatist & Oratio Dominica, atque Symbolnm TiJei omni- 
 bus praedicetur, & tradatur. Concil. Francf. Can. ^j. 
 
 b VoflTius detribus Symb. Diflert. 3. c j-i. p. j-aS. 
 
 c Irem idem Pater a nulla efi facins &c. ufque ad J^« vuh ergo S^hus ejfe &c, 
 
 Theodulph. apud Sirmondum. Oper. Tora. a. p. 978- 
 
 C z '^'Church 
 
 809 
 
lo ANTIEKT TESTIMONIES. 
 
 ^' Church profcflcs, declares the Proceflion of the Holy-Ghoft 
 ♦' from the Father and Son, thus faying ; The Father is mudc 
 '■'■ of rione'' &:c." This I cite upon the credit oi Sirmoridus in his 
 Notes to Theodtdphtis. 
 
 Sop It was in the fame year that the Latm Monies of Mount 0- 
 Livet wrote their apologetical Letter to Pope Leo III, juflifying 
 their Doctrine of the Procellion/rc;^?/ the Son, again ft one John 
 of Jerujdem, a Monk too, of another Monaftcry, and of an Op- 
 pofite perfwafion. Among other Authorities, They appeal 
 to The F^ith of Athnndjius^ that is, to The Creed, as we now 
 call it. This I have from Le ^ien, the learned Editor of 
 Bamafccn, who had the Copy of that Letter from BaiuziuSj as 
 He there fignifies.'' 
 
 820 Not long after, Hatto otherwlfc called Hetto^ and Ahyto, 
 Bilhop of B^fil in France, compofed his Capitular, or Book of 
 ConJlitutionSj for the regulation of the Clergy of his Dioccfs. 
 Amongft other good Rules, This makes the 4th ; " That They 
 " fhould h.ave the Faith of Athanafim by Heart, and recite it at 
 " the Vrime (that is, at 7 ^ Clock in the Morning) every Lord's Day .'^ 
 
 %zo Agohardus of the fame Time, Archbifhop of Lyons, wrote 
 againfl: Felix Orgelitanus j >vhere He occafionally cites part of 
 the Athanafian Creed. His words are: "St. Athanafius fays, 
 *' that except a Man doth keep the Catholick Faith -xvhole and 
 '■^ unde filed y -without doubt He jhall perifh everlaflingly.^ 
 
 ^52 In the fame Age, flourifhed the famous Hincmar, Arch-Bifhop 
 of Rheims 5 who fo often cites, or refers to the Creed we arc 
 (peaking of, as a Handing Rule of Faith, that it may be need- 
 
 a Incertus Autor quem diximus, hoc ipfo utcos teflimonio, Beatus, inquit, jithanafitis, 
 in Expo/itione Catholics. Tidei, quam ipfe eirregius Doftor confcripfit, & quam univerfalis 
 confitctur Ecclelia, Proreflloncm Spirirus Saiifti <i Vatre ^ Filio declarat, ita dicens : Pater 
 a nullo (ft f actus &c.. Sirmond. Op. Tom. !■ p. 978- Conf. p. 967. 
 
 b In Regiila Sandli Benediiii quam noMs dcdic Filius vcftcr Dotnntu Karclus, qui ha- 
 bct Fidem fcriptam dc Sanfta & infcparabili Trinitatc; Credo Spiritum SanBum Deum 
 'Ltrum ex Patre procedentem (^ Filio : Kt in Dialogo quem nobis vcftra Sanditas dare 
 dignata eft flmilitcr dicir. Et in Fide S. Aihanafii codcm mode dicit. Monacii dc Monte 
 Oliv. apud Le S^uen D.flcrt. Damafc p. 7. 
 
 c IVto. Ut Fides Sanrfi Athanafii a Siccrdotibus difcatur, 8c ex corde, Die Dominice 
 ad PrimamTC^McXwr. Bifil. Capitul. apud Ilarduin. Turn. IV. p. 1241. 
 
 d hci\.\xi Aihunafius 3i\t ; Fidem C2iho]kam'ni/i qnis inte^ram, invioUtamque fsrvavtriti 
 ..^i>fqt4t dubio in AtemHtn peribh. Agobard. adv. Felic. c 3. cd. Baluz. 
 
ANTIENT TESTIMONIES. ai 
 
 lefs to produce the particular PalTages. I lliall content my 
 felf with one only, more confiderable than the reft for the Ulc 
 that is to be made of it hereafter. He direds his Presbyters, 
 " to learn Ath^nafus's Treatife of Faith ^beginning with whofo-- 
 " ever -ivill be faved) to commit it to memory, to underftand its 
 " meaning, and to be able to give it in commo?i words j ^that is, 
 I fuppofe, in the 'vulgar Tongue, He at the fame Time recom- 
 mends the Lord's Prayer^ and {Apoftles) Creed, ^as I take it, with- 
 out mentioning the Nicefie : Which I particularly remark for 
 a reafon to be feen above. It is farther obfervable, that, tho' 
 Hincmar here gives the Athanafia^i Forniulary the name of a 
 Treatife of Faith j yet He elfewhere*^ fcruples not to call it 
 {Symholum) 2. Creed: And He is, probably, as ^/;';?^o;^^^i obferves,*^ 
 the firft Writer who gave it the name it bears at This Day, 
 Which, I fuppofe, may have led Oudifi into his miftake, that 
 no writer before Hincmar ever made mention of this Creed-^ ^ a mi- 
 ftake, which, tho' taken notice of by Tentzelius^ in the year 
 1687, He has neverthelefs again and again repeated in his laft 
 Edition, the Year before This. 864 
 
 About the fame Time, and in the fame Caufe, Ratram, or 
 Bertram, Monk of Corbey in France, made the like ufe of This 
 Creed, calling it A Treatife concerning the Faith. ^ ^^5 
 
 In the fame Age, lived Anfcharius, Monk alfo of Corbey ; 
 and afterwards Arch-Bifhop of Hamburgh and Breme in Ger- 
 7nany. Among his dying Inftrudions to his Clergy, He left 
 This for one 5 that theyjhould be careful to recite The Ca- 
 
 a Unufquifque Presbyterorum Expofitionem Symboli, atque Omt'wnis Dominia, juxta 
 Traditionem Orthodoxorum Pafrutn plenius difcat— -^Pfaimorum etiam verba, 8c Di- 
 ftindliones regulariter, 8c ex corde, cum Canticis confuetudinariis pronunciare fciaN 
 Necnon 8c Sermonem Athanafii de Fide, cujus initium eft, £)uicHnqHe vult Salvus efje, 
 memorije quifque commendet, fenfum illius intelligat, & verbis communibus enuatiare 
 queat. Hincm. Capit. i.Tom. i.p, 710. ed. Sirmond. 
 
 b Vid, Hincm. Opufc. ad HiHcmar, Laudunenfem. Tom. 2. p. 475. 
 
 c Mhanafius in Symbolo dicens 8cc. de PrAdeftin. Tom, 1. p. 309. 
 
 d Sirmond. Not. in Theodulph. p. 978. 
 
 e Oudin. Gommentar. Vol. 1. p. 54^. ija-z. 
 
 f Tentzel. judic. Eruditor. p. 144. 
 
 g Beatus ^thanafius Alexandrinus Epifcopus, in Libello de Fide quern edidit, 8c omni- 
 bus Catholicis propofuit tenendum, inter catera He ait; Pater a nidlo efi fucius, neccreatus, 
 necgenhat &c. Ratram Coiur. Grsecor. Oppor.k2. c 3» 
 
 tholick. 
 
I'i ANTIENT TESTIMONIES. 
 
 tholick Faith compofc'.i by Ath.znajius.'' This is reported by 
 Rer/ihertus, the writer of his Life, and Succeflbr to Him in the 
 fame See 5 who had been Hkewife iMoniv ot Corbey : fo that we 
 have here Two confiderablc Teftimonies in one. 
 
 F68 Contemporary with Thefe was uEnc/is Bifhopof Paris, who, 
 in his Treatife againO: the Creeks, quotes the Athandjinn Creed un- 
 der the name of Tides Catholics, ^ Catholick Faith, producuiL-, the 
 fame Paragraph of it which Theodttlphus had done to years before. 
 
 ?7i Adelhertus of This Time, upon his nomination to a Cifhop- 
 rick in the Province of Rherms, was obUged to give in a Pro- 
 fefllon of his Paith to Arch-Bilhop Himmar. Among other 
 Tilings, He profeflcs his great regard to the Ath.mafia7i Creed 
 [Sermo Athanafii) as a Creed received with great veneration by 
 the Catholick church, or being of cujlomary and venerable uje 
 in it.*^ This Teftimony is confiderablc in regard to the Re- 
 ception of This Creed ; and not before taken notice of, fo far 
 as I know, by Thofe that have treated of This Argument. 
 
 00 This Creed is again mention'd in the fame Age by Ricul- 
 
 phus Bifhop of Soijjons in France^ in his paftoral Charge to the 
 Cler[:^y of iiis Diocefs. He calls it, a Treatife, ( or Difcourfe ) 
 of Catholick Faith. ^ This I take from Father Harduins Coun- 
 cils, as alio the former, with the Dates of Both. 
 
 060 Ratherius, Bifhop of Verona in Italy in the yeai: 931, and 
 afterwards of Leige in Germany in the year 95 3, and reftor'd to 
 his See o'i Verona in the year 955, did after This Time write 
 InftruO:ions to his Clergy of Verona j in which He makes men- 
 tion of all the Three Creeds, ApojloUcal, Nicene , and Athana- 
 
 a Cum infarct obitus, prarcepit ut Fratres cancrent Tidtm Cinholkam a Beato Atha- 
 nitfio comfofitam. An/char. Vit. apud Pctr. Lambec. in Append. Lib. x. Rerum Hamburg. 
 
 b Sinftus Aihanafiuu fedis AlexAndrins Epifcopus S<c. Ifem, idem in FUe Ca- 
 
 tholica, quod 5piiitus Sanftus a patre procedat & Filio, ra.'er s nulla efi faclut &c. iEncas 
 Parif. adv. Grafc. c, 19. 
 
 c In Sermcne Bead Athana/ii, quern Ecdcfia Catholica vcncrando ufii fre^ucntarc con- 
 fuevit. qui ita incipit; _:^iicunque vult Salvus cjfe, ante omnia opui efl ut teneat Catholi- 
 cHm Fiilem. ProfcflTio Adclberti Epifcopi Morinenfis futuri. Hjinluin. Concil. Tom. V. 
 d. I44f. 
 
 d Item""moncmus, ut unufquifquc vcftrum Pfalmo?, & Sermonem Fidei Catholic*, cujus 
 initium, <^uict<ni]ue vult falvas ejfe, Jc CaJioncm Mifl'x, & cantum, vel compotum, me- 
 moritcr, iT vcncitcr, & corrcdtc tencre ftudcac. Riculf. Conft. Vth. HardUin. Concil. 
 Tom. VI. p. 4>5' 
 
 Jta/z; 
 
ANTIENT TESTIMONIES. zi 
 
 fim-, obliging his Clergy to have them all by Heart: Which 
 ihows that they were all of ftanding ufe in his Time, ui his 
 Diocefs, at leaft." ,, ,^ ^,, ^^^ 
 
 Near the Clofe of this Century lived Jth, or J/hy Abbot 997 
 of Fleurvy or St. BenediSi upon the Loire in Frmce, Upon fome 
 Difference He had with Armlphus Bilhop of Orlems, He wrote 
 an Apology which He addrefs'd to the Two Kings of Frmce,. 
 Hugh and Robert. In that Apology He has a paflage relating 
 to our purpofe, running thus. "1 thought proper, in the firft 
 ''place, to fpeak concerning rhe Faith: which 1 have heard va- 
 ^'rioufly fung in alternate Choirs, both in Frmce and in the 
 " Church of England. For fome, I think, fay, in the Athana- 
 " iian Form, The Holy-Ghoft is of the Father and of the Son, net- 
 ^'ther made, nor created, but proceeding \ Who while they leave 
 " out, nor begotten, are perfwadcd that They are the more con- 
 "formable to Gregorys Synodical Epijile, wherein its written^ 
 '♦ that the Holy-Ghofl is neither unbegotten, nor begotten^ but proceed-^ 
 « ing."^ I have taken the liberty of throwing in a word or two 
 to make the fentence run the clearer. What the Author in- 
 tends, is, that fome fcrupulous Perfons both in France and 
 England, recited the Athanafian Creed with fome Alteration, 
 leaving out two words, to make it agree the better, as They 
 imagined, with Gregorys Synodical Inftrudions. As to their 
 Scruple herein, and the ground of it, I fhall fay more of it in 
 a proper place. Ail I am to obferve at prefent is, that this Te- 
 ilimony is full for the Cuftom of alternate finging the Athana- 
 fihi Creed, at this Time," in the French and Engli^ Churches^ 
 And indeed we fhall meet with other as full, and withal earlier 
 
 a Ipfarn Fidem, id eft Credulitatem, Dei, trifarie parare memorircr feftinetis: Hoc efts, 
 fecundum Symbolum, id eft, Collatiomm Apoftolorum, ficut in Plateriis correftis invcni- 
 tur; & illam quse ad Mijfam caniturj Sc ilkm Sandii ^ihanafii qux ita incipiti giuictmquc 
 
 vuh falvHs ep — Sermonem, ut fuperius dixi, ^thanafii Epijcopi de Fide Trm.taw, 
 
 cujtis initium eft, ^ticunque vult, memoriter teneat. Ratherii Synod. Epift. Harduin. , 
 Con. Tom. Vl. \>^S7. 
 
 b Primitus de Fide dicendum credidij quam alternantibtis Cboris 8c mFrancta,^ apud 
 Anglorum Ecdefiam variari audivi. Alii enim dicunt, ut arbitror, fecundum Athmafitm, 
 Spirit US SanHus a Patre & Filw non faHits, non creatus, fed procedens: Qui dun) id quod 
 eft wo?j ^e«;V«/ fubtrahunt, Synodicum Domini Gregorii fe lequi credunt, ubi ita eft Icri- 
 ptum; Spiritns Sm^us nee ingenttus efi, nee genitus fed procedens.. Abbo Floriaccnl. ApoL 
 adFrancor. Reges. 
 
44 ANTIERT 7ESTIM0NIES. 
 
 Evidence of the fame Cuilom, when we come to treat of AUyjti^ 
 fcripts in the following Chapters. To proceed with our an- 
 tient Tcflimonics. 
 
 1050 ha the next Century, we meet with Cualdo, a Monk of Corbcy ; 
 who likewife wrote the Life of AnfchMua, but in Vcrje, as Rem- 
 berttis had before done in Vroje. He alfo takes fomc notice of 
 our Creed, afcribing it to Ath^inajiHS.'' 
 
 1 1 30 li\ the Century following, Ho?wrius, a Scholaftick Divine of 
 the Church oi Autun, in his Book intituled The Pe^irl of the 
 Soul, (which treats of the Sacred, or Liturgick Offices) reckons 
 up the feveral Creeds of the Church, making in all>o«r.- Name- 
 ly, the Apojlolical, the Nlceue, the Co?iJl:a?amopolitan, and the A- 
 thmafim. Of the laft. He obferNcs, that it -was daily repeated 
 at the Prime}" He afcribes it to Athmafms of Alexandria in the 
 Time of Theodofius : Where He is undoubtedly miftaken in his 
 Chronology. For, if He means the hrll Athmmfms of Alexa?i~ 
 driay He is too early for either of the Theodofius' s: And if He 
 means it of the Iccond, He is as much too late. But a Slip in 
 Chronology might be pardonable in That Age: nor docs it at 
 all affect the Truth of what He attefts of his own Times. 
 
 1138 Otho, Bifhop o'i Trifmghen in Bavaria, may here be taken 
 notice of, as being the iirft we have met with who pretends 
 to name the Place where Athanafius is fuppofed to have made 
 this Creed j 7riers, or Treves, in Germany."^ I cite This Author 
 on the credit oi Montfoiicon; who quotes from Him the words 
 I have thrown into the margin. 
 
 J J ^ J Tentzelius informs us of an Abbot of Brunpivich, \\'ho attend- 
 ing the Duke of Brunfvick, at This Time, in his journey into 
 the Eafl, had fome Difputes with the Greeks there, upon the 
 Article of ProceJJion, and pleaded the ulual paflage out oi this 
 Creed 5 as did alfo the T>nke Himfclf whole w ords are to be 
 
 a Catholicamque FiJim quam compofuifTe beams 
 Fcrtur Athanafiut . GualJoii. Vie. Anfch.apud Limbec. 
 
 b Quarto, Fidem ^/</f««^//e T//i//,qiiotiiJic ad Vrimam iccrat, quam Athanafius Alexan- 
 drinus F.pifcopus, rogntu Theodcfii Itnperatoris cJidit. Honor. Atdgujlod. Gemm. Animae. I. 
 2. c. f. Bii.1. PP. Tom. XX. p. ioS6. 
 
 c Athanafius mancns in E'cc!clia Trtvirortim, fub Maximo ejus Ecclcfix Epifcopo, 
 ^Hicunque zhIi Scc a qujbufdam dicitur cdid;He. Oth. Friling. apud Montfauc. Diatrib. 
 
 p. 721. N 
 
 fecn 
 
ANTIENT TESTIMONIES, 25 
 
 feen in the Margin.'' What is moft to be noted is the Title 
 oi Symbolum Fidei, which now began to be common to this 
 Form, as to the other Creeds. 
 
 Robertus PauMus, Presbyter of Amiens, in the Diocefs oiRheimSj 1 1 7 S 
 fpeaking of the Offices recited at the Frime, obferves that the 
 Piety of good Chriftians had thereunto added the ^icunqtte 
 vult-, that the Articles necejjkry to fahat ion might never be for^ot- 
 ' ten mij hour of the Day}" 
 
 Beleth, a celebrated Paris Divine, is the oldeft Writer that ^^^^ 
 takes notice of this Creed's being commonly afcribed to A?mfta~ 
 fms j tho' He Himfelf afcribes it to Athanafms."^ Te?uzelim^ marks 
 fome Differences between the Prints and the Manufcripts of This 
 Author, and betwixt one Manufcript and Another. But as the dif- 
 ference, tho' in ivords confiderable, is yet very httle in xhcfenfe^ it is 
 not material to our prefent purpofe to be more particular about it. 
 
 I muft not Omit NicoUus Hydruntinus, a Native of Otranto in 1200 
 Italy^ who Tided with the Creeks, and wrote in Greek, ai^ainfl the 
 Latins. He underftood Both Languages, and was often Mter- 
 freter between the Greeks, and Latins, in their Difputes at G?;^- 
 fiantinople, Athens, and Theffalonica.^ He wrote feveral Trads 
 out of which Leo Allatim has pubhfh'd fome Fragments. There 
 is one relating to the Atha?iafian Creed, which muft here be 
 taken notice of 5 being of ufe for the certifying us that this 
 Creed was extant in Greek at and before his Time. It is This : 
 '' They (the Greeks) do not know who made the Addition to 
 '\Xhe Faith of Athmafms^Mlcd Catholick -, fmce the words, a-nd 
 '' of the Son, are not in the Greek {form) nor in the Creed (of 
 Conftanti?wple.)^ 
 
 a Unde Athnnafius in Symbolo Fidei dixit: Spiritus Sanctis a Vatre ©. liUo nc» f actus 
 im creatus, nee gen'tttis, fed proredens. Henric. Brunfuic. apud Tcnt7el, p. 89. 
 
 b His addidit Fidclium devotio, ^ncunque -vult falvus ejfe, iit Aniculorum Fid d qui 
 lunt necclTarii ad Salutem, ndla diei Hora oblivilcamur, Rob. Vauliil. inter- Ooer Hrcon 
 de S. V,acr. dc Offic. Feci. I 2. c. I. p. 265. ■ ' ■ ^ 
 
 r .^ ^".r'^ ^^ "^^^"''"''^^ Patriarcha .<4/fx/i?j./nwcompofirum eft; plcriqiie cum Anad^Cti'm 
 fjiUe falfo arbitrantur. Jam. Bcleth. de Divin. Offic. c. 40. ed. Antvcrp 
 
 d Tentzcl. Judicia Erudit. p. 91. 
 
 e Vid. Fabric. Bibl. Grxc. Vol- X. p. 39^ 
 
 ?/^ r V^ TZ""^ T ^^■''' ^''"' '^ ^ '^'^ '■^ '''^' '"e^%^^«/. '^r, c^'-nS ^,,^^iXco!' Leo 
 
 Aliat. dc Conlenl. Eccl. Occident. 6;c. 1. 3. c. i. n. 5. p. 887. 
 
 ^ From 
 
1^ ANTIENT TESTIMONIES, 
 
 From This paffagc wc may learn, that there was a Greek 
 Copy of the Atha/7/iJiiif7' Creed at this 1 ime j that it wanted the 
 words, of the Son ; that it v/as look'd upon as Athanafti.is\ j and 
 that the Title was, The CathoUck Faith of St. Jtha^ytur, which 
 is its moil: ufual Title in the Lathj^ Copies. 1 miy jiilt hint to the 
 Reader, that th.o' both z?' 915 in the CVecl', and f/^'es in the Latm 
 might juftly be rendred Creed in Englilh, rather rhan Faith, 
 whenever it Hands for a Formularj, or Confefficn of Faitii, as it 
 does here 5 yet becaufe 1 ihould othcrwife want another F-aalip^ 
 word for (jh\JLQ,Q\{i^, in the Greek, and Sjmbolum in the Latin, I 
 therefore refcrve the word Creed, in this Cafe, for diftindion 
 fake, to be the rendring of Symbolum, or crJ^CcAcj', and nothin^^ 
 elfc. But to proceed. 
 
 mo Alexander o\ Hales, in Glocejierfhire, may here defervc to be 
 mention'd, as fhewing what Creeds were then received in England, 
 He reckons up Three only (not Four^ as Thofc that make the 
 Nicene and Co?jfl'antinopolitan to be Two) namely 5 The Apoftle's, 
 The Nicene or Conftantinopolitan, and The Athanafa.^:^ A\^herc 
 we may obferve, that the Athanafian has the name of a Creed, 
 which yet was not its mofi: ufual, or common Title in thofc 
 Times : only the Schoolmen; for order and method lake, chofe 
 to throw it under the Head of Creeds. 
 
 I am next to take notice of the famed Legates of Pope Gre- 
 qory the IXth {Hajmo, Radolphus, Petrus, and Hugo) who produced 
 This Creed in their Conferences with the Greeks, at Conflarni- 
 nople. They afierted it to be Athanafius's, and made by Him 
 while an Exile in the Weftcrn Parts, and penn'd in the Latin 
 Tongue. They had not aflurance enough, it feems, to pretend 
 that it was a Greek Compofition : There were too many, and 
 too plain reafons to the contrary. 
 
 12J.0 ^^ This Age, Walter de Caniilttpe, Eifhop oi JVorcefler, in his 
 Synodical Conflitutions, exhorts his Clergy to make themfelves 
 competent Madcrs of the Pfahn called J^^ictmque -cult, and of, 
 
 a Tria funt Symbol!: primuni Apojlo'.orum, fccundum patrum Niro2:rtim, quod cani- 
 tur in Mf//i,1ertium jithanafii. Alcxand. Alcnf Par. 9 Q 69. membr. f, 
 
 Greg. IX, Harduiii, Tom. VU. p. IJ7. 
 
 ^ the 
 
 -3 3 
 
AKTIEKT TESTIMONIES. t^ 
 
 the greater and fmaller Creed (that is Nkene, and Apoftolicd) that 
 They might be able to inftrnd their people.* From whence 
 we may obferve, that at This Time the Athanftfmn Formuiary 
 was diltinguilh'd, here amongft us, from the Creeds properly fo 
 called j being named a Pfalm^ and fometimes a Hyr^n (as we 
 fhall fee from other Evidences to be produced hereafter) fuita- 
 bly to the Place it held in the P falters among the other Hymns y 
 Ppilms, and Canticles of the Church, being alfo fung^ alternate- 
 ly in Churches, like the other. 
 
 We may here alfo take notice of a juft Remark made by 1250 
 Thomas Aquinas of This Century 5 that Athanafms, whom He 
 fuppofes the Author of This Formulary, did not draw it up in 
 the way of a Creeds but in a Voclritial Form ; which however 
 was admitted by the Authority of the Roman See, as contain- 
 ing a compleat Syftem of Chriftian Faith.'^ 
 
 In a Synod of iB'Ar^/^r, in this Century alfo, we have mention 1287 
 again made of the Athanafian Creeds but under the Name of a 
 Pfalm, and as fuch diftinguifh'd from the Two Creeds^ properly 
 fo called. 
 
 William DurantSj the elder, Biiliop of Menda in France y re- 1287 
 counting the Creeds^ makes their Number T^r^^ 5 mentioning the 
 Athanafian in the fecond place, between the Apofiles and Nicene. 
 He follows the fame Tradition which Otho Frifmgenfis did be- 
 
 a Habeat etism faltem quilibet eoruni fimplicem intelledum fecundum quod continetur 
 in Tfalmo qui dicilur ^uicunque vuh, & tam in majeri quam in mtnori Symbolo, ut in his 
 plebem fibi commiflam noverint in(oraiare. Walter. Wtgorn. Conft. apuu Harduin. Tom. 
 Vh. p. 357. 
 
 b \n John WickUff's Comment on this Creed, I find the following words: 
 
 It is feid comunly that ther ben thre credis: the fir ft is of Apoftlts, that Men hiowen comun' 
 ly: the tothir is the Crede of theChirche,that declarith the former Crede: This thriddeCrede 
 is of the Trynyte, the which is Sungum as a Salm, and was tnaad in Greke Speche, of oon 
 that is cleptd Attanafie, and afiir tumid to Latyn, and Sum del ammdid, and ordeynid to be 
 feid at thefirfi our. Wickl. Ml! Bibl. Coll. Johan. Cant. 
 
 c ^thanafius non compofuit manifeflationein Fidei per modum SymboH, fed magis per 
 trodum cuju/dam Doftrinae: fed quia integram Fidei veritateni ejus Dot^rina breviter 
 continebat, auftorirate fummi Pontificis eft recepta, ut quafi Fidei Rcgti'a Libeatur. Thorn. 
 Aqu. Secund. SecundaeQu. I • Art. lo. n. 5. 
 
 d Articulorum Fidei Chriftianorum Salrem fimplicem habeant intd'efrum, prout m 
 Tfalmo, ^icunque vult, 8c in titroque Symbolo continentur. Synod. Exon. Harduin Concil* 
 Tom. VII. p. 1096. ^ ^ 
 
 D 2 fore 
 
z8 AKTIEKT TESTIMONIES, 
 
 fore, that This Creed was made atT^-zm, or Treves." It is fcnrce 
 worth notins; that fome Copies here read jin^J};ifras, iincc 
 the Circumllances plainly (how that Athnn^fitis is the Man in- 
 tended, and that An;ijlafim can be nothing elfe but a corrupt 
 
 reading. 
 j,,o Ludolphtis Saxo, the Carthufian, is cited by Vojfms, as nuni- 
 ^ brmi:; Three Creeds, with very brief, but good Hints of their 
 Ufcs refpedively : The Apofiies^ ufeful for a Ihorr compendious 
 Infnuciion in the Faitli j The Nicene for fuller Explication 5 and 
 the Athnnafmn, for Guard, or Defence'' againft Herefies. 
 1337 V/illmm of Bddenfd, or Boldejkle, a German Knight, ought 
 here to be mention'd 5 as being the firft Writer extant that 
 aferibes the Creed to Eufebius (of Verceil^ in Piedmont) along 
 with Athm^fius. The reafon, I prefume, was, the better to 
 account for the Creed's being originally Latin. Baldenfd's Tre^- 
 tife beino- the Hifiory of Viedmont, wherein He makes the re- 
 mark, is not yet publiih'd, I iuppoie : But Cardinal Bona in- 
 forms us that die Manufcript was, in his Time, in the Library 
 of the Buke of Savoy at Turin. ^ 
 I 60 Manuel Caleca, a latinizing Creek, wrote a Treatife upon the 
 Principles of the Catholick Faith, publilh'd by Combe fis, in his new 
 Auciarium to the Bibliotheca Patrum, Tome the 2d. where we 
 find fome Paflages to our prefent purpofe 5 particularly This, 
 that Caleca aferibes the Creed to Athanafius, and fuppofes it to 
 have been prefented by Him to Pope Julius.^ I know not 
 
 a Nota, quod triplex cfl Symbolum. Primum ert Symboliim ^fojlclorutn, quod vo- 
 
 catur Symbolum minus. ^ Secundum Symbolum t^, ^ucun^uevnlt falvm ejfe &c. 
 
 ab Athanafto, Patriarcha Alexandrino, in civjtatc Trevm compolitum Tertium 
 
 eft Niannm quod -vocatur Symbolum m^^j us. Gul. Durant. Rational. Divin. Offic. 
 
 lib. IV. C. 2f. ,.,-;,. 
 
 b Tria furn Symbola: primum Apcfljlorum, fecundum Nianutn, tertium Atbanafit. 
 Primum facf^um eft ad Fi-^ei JnjlruBionem, f-cundum ad F:dci Explananonem, tertium ad 
 ¥\(\ci Defenficnem. Ludr.lpli. Sax- dc Vit. Chrifti. cap. Sj- apud roj^mm dc Trib Symb. 
 DilTcrt. I. cap. i.p. j-oj.. ■ r • . j 
 
 c In hoc autcm Symbolo, five componendo. five c Grico in Latinum traduccndo. 
 Adjutorcm fjilTe Athanafto Eufeiium, Vercellenfem Ep'fcopum, rcfcrt GuUelmus BMefanus 
 in Hi.loria \edemontana, quse Manufcripta T^wr/w/ afTcrvatur in Bibliotheca Ducis S^bau- 
 ^it, ex Tabulario Vercellenfis Rccleliar. Bona de Diyin. Pfalm.^ c. i6. Scd- i8- p. 864. 
 
 d T<«e;'77)» ^Ptxv itjii 71? Tnv^; 9nrit/'r>i, c^}v''«/ i iiiti.TU^., is fA^iyx^ *A}«»««a; it -jj 
 
 «7*j'5 'la>T« -TrnTizf.)! 'Vuujnc, rr, -Trlfiw? ou,oAo^'ac cr^ffj>>cir. MaRucl. Calcc. de Fid. C. 10. 
 '>nrer h^tnd. Contr. Grxc 1. a. c. 2o. ' , 
 
 ^ whctlier 
 
ANTIENT TESTIMONIES. i^ 
 
 whether He be not the firft writer that mentions That Circimv 
 fiance, nor whether He reports it from others, or from his 
 own invention. ; 
 
 About the fame Time Johannes Cyparijjiota, Surnamed the 1360 
 Wife J wrote his Bee ads, which are publilh'd in Lut'm, in the 
 BibliothequeSj of Turrianuss Verfion. What we are to obfervc 
 from Him is, that He cites This Creed in the Name of AthyT>- 
 rmfmSj and as if it were made at the Council of Nice.^ It 
 feems, after it once pafs'd current that Athanafms was the 
 Author, there was great variety of Conjedures about the Place 
 where, and the Time when, He compofed, or prelented this 
 Greed. 
 
 I fhall mention but one more, as late as the Council of ^43 9 
 Florence-, or a little later ; and That is Johannes (afterwards Jo- 
 fephus) Plujiadenus, a latinizing Greek, who wrote a Dialogue in 
 defence of the Latins. What is obfervable in Him is, that 
 He makes the Creed to have been prelented by Athatzafius to 
 Pope Liberim, inftead of Julm^. 
 
 I have now come low enough with the Antient Tc^imon'tcSf 
 if I may be allowed fo to call thofe of the later Times. A few 
 of the hrft and eailicft might have fufficed, had I no other Point 
 in view but the meer Antiquity of the Creed : But, as my Defign 
 is to treat of its Reception alfo, in various Places, and at vari- 
 ous Times, and to lay together feveral kind of Evidences which -. 
 will require others, both early and late, to clear up and explain • 
 Them ; it was, in a manner, necefl'ary for me to bring my Ac^ 
 founts as low as I havejiere done. Befldes that feveral infe- 
 rior, incidental Qj-ieftions will fall in our way, for the refolv- 
 ing of which, moft of the Teftimonies I have here cited will be 
 ferviceable in their Turn 5 as will appear more fully in the Se- 
 quel. I have omitted feveral Teftimonies of the later Centu- 
 ries, fuch as I thoui^ht might conveniently be fpared, either as 
 containing nothing -but v/hat we had before from others more , 
 
 a Magnus Athannfius, in Expofitione Fidei, in primn Synodo, ait (^c. Joan. CypariiT- 
 Decad. 9. c. 3. Bibl. PP. Tom XXi. 
 
 t5 'tiS oc. Joan. Plu.riad. apud Conibtiif, no'» in Calec. p. 297, 
 
 ajitienj: 
 
JO ANTIENT TESTIMONIES. 
 
 antient, or as being of no ufe for the clearing up any that \vc 
 have, or for the fettling any Point which will come to be 
 difcLifb'd in the following Sheets. The Rule I have fct my fcif 
 in making the Colledion, and which I have been moft cartful to 
 obfcrve, was to take in all thofe, and none but thofc which are 
 either valuable for their AfUiquitj^ or fomething;^^^/^, z.\\\ p/irtict4,Ur 
 upon the Subjecl, or may (h-ikc fomc Light into any doubtful 
 ^efiion thereunto relating. 
 
 I (hall fhut up this Chapter, as I did the former, with 'xTMe^ 
 rcprefenting in one view the Sum and Subftance of what has 
 been done in it. The feveral Columns will contain the Te^ir 
 of our Lord^ the Authors here recited, the Country where They 
 lived, and the Title, or TitUi by Them given to the Creed. 
 The Titles oui^ht to appear in their Origind Language wherein 
 they were written ; which my EngUpo Reader may the more eafi- 
 ly cxcufc, fincc they have moft of them been given in Englijh 
 above, where it was more proper to do it. The ufe of fuch a 
 Tabid will be fccn as often as a Reader has a mind to look 
 back' to This Chapter, or to compare feveral Evidences of dif- 
 ferent kinds, proving the lame Thing, one with Another. 
 
 A Tabic 
 
A Table of the ARTIE RT TESTIMORIES. 31 
 
 A.D. 
 
 1 Authors 
 
 J Country 
 
 1 Title of the Creed. 
 
 
 670 
 
 1 Council oi Autun 
 
 [ France 
 
 1 Fides Sandti Athanafii Prafulis. 
 
 760 
 
 1 Arcicies i\^\^i, Kegmj 
 
 1 G^fiiiany 
 
 ( Sermo Athanalii Epikopi do Ftde. 
 
 794 
 
 1 C.'ounc; Franckfort 
 
 Germany 
 France 
 
 1 Fides Catholica Sandtx Trinitaris. 
 
 S09 
 
 1 Theodulphus 
 
 
 809 
 
 J ^rionymns 
 
 France 
 
 Expofirio Catholics Fidci, Arhanafii. 
 
 809 
 
 ( Monks of M. O/x;?/ 
 
 judea 
 
 Fides SandVi -Uhatiafii. 
 
 820 
 
 I H^tto. or tiitto. 
 
 France 
 
 F;des San-Tri Athanilii 
 
 8io 
 
 j AgobArdns 
 
 France 
 
 
 
 8/* 
 
 1 Hincmar 
 
 France 
 
 Sermo Aihinafji de Fide 
 Athanafii Symbolum. 
 
 864 
 
 1 Bertram 
 
 France 
 
 1 Libeilus Athanalii de Fide. 
 
 86f 
 
 1 Anfcharins 
 
 Gern-aKy 
 
 ( Athanalii Fides Catholica. 
 
 868 
 
 1 4i /p,-?j I'arif, 
 
 Ffocr 
 
 j Arhin hi F.de; Cathoiica. 
 
 87' 
 
 1 AUelbei-tui 
 
 France 
 
 Sermo Beati Athanafii. 
 
 889 
 
 1 RirtAph'-n 
 
 Franre 
 
 j Sern^o Fidei CatholiCie, 
 
 960 
 
 1' Rarheruis 
 
 Faly 
 
 Sermo Athanali hpT de Fide Trinitatis. 
 
 991 
 
 1 ^(^(^o, <;>• ^;'/5j [ 
 
 France 
 
 Fides lecundum Athanafium. 
 
 lOfO 
 
 G« 1/(^/0 1 
 
 Frorce | 
 
 F:des Catholica Athmafio adfcripra. 
 
 
 1 130 
 
 Honcr'niS | 
 
 France j 
 
 Fides j^ictncjtie zult. 
 
 
 , 11;^ 
 
 1 O'^" 
 
 Biv.nria j 
 
 Qiiicun jue vulr. c'/r- 
 
 
 1171 
 
 1 n k,- of B-//;2/w, it 
 
 1 Rnherttn Paululm 1 
 
 G?rmiiiv 
 
 Athmalii SyinholjiTi Fidei. 
 
 
 11-8 
 
 France | 
 
 Qi.lirun:V'.' ^'l-llt. ?'°rc- 
 
 
 1 190 
 
 £■■/''//; 1 
 
 Frin e 1 
 
 ^;hanilii Symb'i'um. 
 
 IZOC^ 
 
 N;c. HjJrimunitj j 
 Alexander Alenf. | 
 
 lraij>- j 
 
 T» a,yi>i ' Ajzivcixiii m^i ti Ka^aAx.;, 
 
 
 1230 
 
 Ath:n,ifii Symbolum. 
 
 iin 
 
 1 P. Gregoiyh Legates [ 
 Mealier Cp.ntilupe 1 
 
 RnglinJ 1 
 
 ''Etjani TYii THTitilC,, 
 
 1 liO 
 
 Pfalmus ^u'.cunjiue zyc- 
 
 llfO 
 
 1 Ihom- Asjuin^s 
 
 Italy 1 
 
 Athaiiaiii Man f_'lia'io Fidei 
 
 1187 
 
 [ Exori. Synod j 
 
 •Enjhnd 1 
 
 Plalnius J^uic:incfue fie 
 
 1287 
 
 1 Dur.i}itus I 
 
 France | 
 
 Aihinani Symbolum. 
 
 
 1530 
 
 j Luddphui j 
 
 Sivonv 1 
 
 Afhamli Symbolum. 
 
 
 «?B^ 
 
 1 Baldsn-^.jl. 1 
 
 CjT'mt^v 1 
 
 Atb.maii *^vnib:)lum. 
 
 1560 
 
 1 Ai.i.'j. Caleca j 
 
 Giecre j 
 Greece 
 
 'H ri? Trhiu'^ of/^hoyMT-s 'AScy/ttAa. 
 
 w6o 
 
 1 7^;j«. Cyt>^'-ijj! !a j 
 
 A'.hanafii Fxpofirio Fidei. 
 
 '439 
 
 j yo^«. Tl'.JUder.y.s j 
 
 Greece j 
 
 H T,.<i 7n?-iv^ t;4<^A'.p<» 75W 'A/wy^j-.V. 
 
 
 CHAP. 
 
3* 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Ancient Commentators ait\d Taraphrafts upon the j^tJoa- 
 
 najian Creed. 
 
 AN T 1 E N T Comments, or ParaphrafcSy may be properly 
 mention'd after aiitient TcftimonieSj being near akin to 
 Them, and ahiioft the fame Thing with Them. I call none 
 dntieut but fuch as were made before Printing 5 and therefore 
 Ihall carry my Accounts no lower than that Time. 
 A F) The firft Comment to be met with on this Creed, is one of 
 '^-Qthc Sixth Century, compofed by Vcnantius FortimntuSy an Itd- 
 limi by Birth, but one that travelled into Prance and Germanyy 
 became acquainted with the moft eminent Scholars and Pre- 
 lates all over the Weft, and was at length made Bifhop of 
 Pcictiers in Prance. His Comment on this Creed has been pub- 
 lifh'd from a Manufcript about 600 years old, =^ out of the 
 Ambrofmn Library at MiU?z, by Muratorius in his Second Tome 
 o^ A?iecdota in the year. 1698. There can be no reafonable 
 doubt but that the Comment really belongs to the Man whole 
 Name it bears, i. Becaufe in the fame Book there is alio a 
 Comment upon the Apofiles Creed '^ afcribed to Portunatus, 
 and which is known to belong to Fenantim Portunatus, and 
 has been before printed among his other Works. 2. Becaufe 
 it appears highly probable from what T'encmtius Portwidtus has 
 
 a Eft rorro nobis in Ambrofmna. Bibliotheca Membransceus Codex nnnos abhinc fermc 
 fexrentos manii defcriptus; nt ex Charaftcrum Forma, aliiiljue Con^^cfturis affirmaripone 
 mihividctur. Hcic. prxrer alia opulcuh nmlta, Trcs Symbol! expolitioncs habcntur, qua- 
 rum unam tantum nunc public! juris facio. 
 
 Prima ira infcribitur, Expc/iiio Fuiei Cmtholici. Akcri nullus Titulus prxfixus eft. P*- 
 
 firtma vcro hunc prae fc fcrt ■■, Expo/itio Fuiei Caiholic* F.rtun.ui.. ■~Tortunatus autem, 
 
 hfic memoratus, alius a-Venantio Fortnn.%to non eft, quern Infah Vulaitenfis lLCclc(la:,qucm 
 Chriftiinz pocciccs ornamcnta xternitarc donirunr. Murator. Anecdot. Tom. 2. p. 228. 
 
 b Expofitionem quoquc continct {Cod. ^;n6roJianus) Apoftolici Symboli, cum hac In- 
 fcriprionc: Incipii expofitio a Foriunato Vreslytero confcnpta. Eadcm vero eft ac Edita inter 
 FortHnatiOocYi- Tuni fcquuntur ^'cniinx cjuldcm Symboli cxplicationes, Tres Qrationis 
 Bominicd, & dux ^^//'^W'^y*^';' i>w^o/» cxpojitioncs incertis audoribus fcriptl. Tandem, uti 
 diximus, Exp^fuio Fidei Gntholia. Fortunati Icgitur. Quocirco quin ad Veniuiimm quoquc 
 SertunatHm Opufculum hoc lit referendum, nullus dubito. MJir/itor. ibid, p. 131. 
 
 occa- 
 
AKTIERT COMMENTS &c. 55 
 
 occ^fionally dropp'd in his other undoubted Works/ that Ho 
 was really acquainted with the Athmafim Creed, and bor- 
 rowed Exprcllions from it. 3. Becaufe in the Expolitions of 
 the ApojHes and Athf^najiiiii Creeds, there is great fimilitude 
 of Style, Thoughts, and Exprcillons 5 which Ihows that 
 Both are of the fajic Hand, and indeed, the other Circum- 
 ftances confider'd, abundantly proves it. It would burden my 
 Margin too much, otherwiie it were eafy to give at lead half 
 a dozen plain Specimens, where either the Expreflions, or 
 Turn of Thought, or Both are exadly parallel. Such as think 
 it of moment to examine, may eafily be fatisfied by comparini^'" 
 the Comment on the Apofles Creed, in the Xth Tome of the 
 laft BibliothequCj with the Comment on the Athi^riafia?i, in Mti- 
 ratorius. 4. I may add, that the Tenour of the whole Com- 
 ment, and the fimplicity of the Style, and Thoughts, are very fuit- 
 able to That Age, and more fo than to the Centuries follow- 
 ing. Thefe reafons intirely convince me that this Comment 
 belongs to Venfmtius FortunatuSj compofed by Him after his going 
 into France J and before He wasBilhop o^ PoicHers : And lb we 
 may probably fix the Date of it about the year 570, or perhaps 
 higher. There is an older Manufcript Copy of this Comment 
 C as I find by comparing ) in the Mufmrn at Oxford, among 
 Junius s, Manufcripts, Number 25.'' J. am obliged to the very 
 worthy and learned Dr. Haywoody for fending me a Tranfcript 
 of it, with a Specimen of the Chara^er. It is reafonably judged 
 to be above 700 years oid. It wants, in the Beginning, about 
 ten or a dozen Lines : In the other parts it agrees with Murato- 
 
 a Pr^Eclanim in primordio ponitur Cafleftis Teftimonii Fundamentum, qifia Salvns 
 ejfe non potent, qui rcfte dc Salute non crcdiderit: Fortunat. Expof, Symb, A^cfi, Bib". .PP. 
 Tom. X. 
 
 Non Deus hi Carnem verfus, Deus accipit Artus : 
 
 Non fe pcrroutans, fed fibi membra Icvans. 
 Unus in an.babus naturis,' verus in ipfis 
 jEqualis fnatri hinc, par Diitctte Patri. 
 Non fua confundens, fibi noftra fed omnia ne(flens. 
 
 De patre natus habens divina, htimanaque matris, 
 De patre fublimis, de genetrice humilis. 
 
 Venant. Fortun. 1. 8. Carm. j-- Bihl. P. Tom. X. 
 b The Title, Expnfttio in Fide Catholica. 
 
 E riuss 
 
34 ANTIENT COMMENTS ufon 
 
 r/V/i's Copy, faxing only luch Various Leftions as are to be ex- 
 pcclcd in different Manufcripts not copied from each other, 
 from the tvo Copies compared may be drawn out a much more 
 coYvcii Cor?irr2€?}t than That which Muratorim has given us from 
 Ofje : As perhaps I may ihcw at the end of 1 his \A^ork. The 
 Reader will cxcnfe my dwelling fo long upon this truly eintient 
 Comment , which bears fo confidcrable Tedimony to the 
 Aiiti^uity, early Reception^ and \i\'^ Value of our Creed j as will 
 appear more fully in the Sequel. 
 
 I intimated above, that Muratorim fuppofes This Vetjantius For- 
 tunatiis to be the Author, not of the Comment only, but Creed 
 alfo. But his Reafons which plead flrongly for the former, are 
 of no Force at all in refped of the latter : which He is lb icw- 
 fible of Himfelf, that while He fpeaks with great Aflurancc of 
 the one. He is very diffident of the other/ And indeed, not to 
 mention fcveral other confiderations (landing in the way of his 
 conjedurc, who can imagine Ve?iantius Fortunatus to have been' 
 fo vairi-j as, after commenting on the Lord\ Prayer, and Apofiles 
 Creed, to fall to commenting upon a Compofition of his own ? 
 
 This Comment of Forttmatus is a great Confirmation of 
 what hath been above cited from the Council of Autun : For, 
 if the Creed was noted enough to defcrvc a Comme-at upon it, 
 fo early as the year 570, no wonder if we find it ft'rongly re- 
 commended by That Council in the year 670, a hundred years 
 after. And it is obfervable that as That Council recommends 
 tiie Apoftolical and Athanafmn Creeds, without laying a Word 
 of the Nicene ; fo Fortundtus, before Them, comments upon 
 Thofe Two only, taking no notice of the Third. 
 
 I cannot take leave of This Comment, without obferving 
 to the Reader, that in Vareuss Notes on This Creed, I Jiavc 
 met with a Paflagc which I am not well able to account for. 
 He cites a Comment upon this Creed, under the name of Fu- 
 phronius Presbyter,^ does not fay whether from a Print, or a 
 
 a Wa]\i& Symboli Aiiftor cfTc potuit Vchvuiut Fortunatas : Saltern fuii Ijujus Expofnit- 
 an AjiitoT.^furalor. p. 117. 
 
 Non ita mcis conjcdluris plauJo, ut ficilius non arbitrcr Extinfuiorum potius quam 
 jyt/U>oluM huic AuAori tribuendum. /</. p. 1^1, 
 
 b £«;//ro7y;/<; Preibytcr in expofitionc Jiujus Syn.boli Atbanafii,^f;Vf/, inquit, Catholicity 
 
 Ma?iU' 
 
The ATHANASIAK CREED. 35 
 
 Manufcript'. But the words He produces are in this very Com- 
 ment of i^or///;^/^/^^. Who this Euphromus is, 1 can no where 
 find 5 nor whether an mtient, or modem Writer. There was 
 an Euphronms Presbyter (mention'd by Greg, of Tours) who lived 
 in the 5th Century, and was at length Billiop of Autun: But I 
 never heard of any writings of his, more than an EpiJHe afcribed 
 to Him and Lupus of Troyes, I would not however omit the 
 mentioning this Note of Parens, becaufe a Hint may fome- 
 times lead'^to ufefui Difcoveriesj And others may be able to 
 refolve the Doubt, tho' I am not. 
 
 Our next Commentator, or rather Paraphrafi, is Hincmur of 852 
 Kheims: Not upon the whole Creed, but upon fuch parts only 
 as He had occallon to cite. For, his way is to throw in fe- 
 veral words of his own, as Explanatory Notes, lo far as He 
 quotes the Creed :^ And He fometimes does it more than He 
 ought to have done, to ferve a Caufe againft Gothefcdcm: 
 Which I may hint, in pafling ; to fay more of it, would be 
 foreign to our prefent purpofe. 
 
 S. Bruno, Biiliop of Wurtzburgh in Germany, has a formal 1033 
 Comment,'and much larger ih2in Fortunatuss, upon the Athana- 
 Ctm Creed. It is at the end of his Pf alter, and has been feveral 
 Times printed with it. Father Le Long reckons up fix Edi^ 
 tions^ in This order: i, At Nuremberg in Eolio, An. D. 1494. 
 2. By Antonius Koburger in 4to, A. D. 1497- 3. By Cochleus 
 at Wurtzburgh. in 4to. A. D. 1531- 4^% At Leipfick, in 
 4to, 1533. '5/^/7 In the Cologne Bibliotheque A. D. 161 3. Tom. 
 m! 6thly in the Lyons <2>ih\. PP. A. D. 1677. Tom. XVIII. 
 The OU Editions are icarce, and not eafy to be met with. I 
 have feen Two of them in our Publick Library at Cam- 
 bridge, Thofe of 1494, and 1533. There is an elegant one 
 of the former ( as I conceive by the defcription fent me by a 
 
 feu miverfahs, dicitur: Hoc efl, recla, quam Ecckfia Univerfa, temre debet, David. Parei 
 nor. ad Symb. Athan. p. i «8. 
 
 a Vid. Hincmari Oper. Tom. l. p. 4f»- 4^4- 4^9* 9S^- Sfl' ^ ■ t ^ ' vr. 
 
 b Commentarii in totum Pfalteriam Sc in Cantica Vet. & N. Teftamenti. l" ^O'" Jf" 
 rmbergsi. ,494. In 4to per Antonium Koburger 1497. Idem zJoan.Coc^^Aeo rcft.mtumm 
 4to HerbipoU 1531. Li^ftA. 1^33. Bibl. PP. Colonienfis & Lugdunenhs. Le Long. liiw. 
 B.bK Tom. ^, p. 6,4. ^ ^ ^^^^^^^ 
 
x6 ANTIENT COMMENTS npon 
 
 learned Gcntlcmanj in the Bodleian, at Oxford. It is in Vellttmy 
 in a black, and red Letter, relervcd among the Manufcripts, and 
 mark'd X/^W E. 8 i.Tiie Two Editions of 149 7> and 1531, 1 never 
 faw : yet Biihop V^^er makes mention of an Edition in 1531,* 
 and feems to iiave known of none older. 1 (hould have fufpe- 
 (fled 15 3 1 to be a falfe print f)r 1533, had not Le Long con- 
 firmed it that there is Inch an Edition as 1531, and named the 
 ?Uce where it was prmted : Iho' I cannot but obicrve that He 
 makes a I^olio of it in his hrft Tome,*' and a J^arto in the 
 fecond ; which is to me an argument that He had never feen it, 
 but perhaps took the Hint from Upoer. Dr. Crahe, tho' dcfirous 
 of it, had never feen either That of 15 31, or That of 1533.'- 
 But leaving the printed Editions of This Comment of Bruno's^ 
 let us next fay fomething of the Aianujcripts of it, and their 
 Differences from the Prints, or from each other. There are 
 many Manufcript Copies, which I fhall mention in order, 
 
 I. The tirft and moil: valuable Manufcript is in the Li- 
 brary of Wiirtzhtirghj as old as the Author, left by Him as a Le- 
 gacy to That Church. The firft printed Edition ( if I millake 
 notj was taken from That very Or/V/;^^/ Manufcript j'l which at 
 the lowed computation muft be 680 years old. The Title of 
 the Creed 5 Fides CuthoLica S. Athanafii Epifcopi. 
 
 2 There is a fecond, which I have feen in Trinity-College in 
 Cambridge, annex'd to a Pf alter defcribed at large by the learned 
 Mr. Wanley in his Catalogue,^ and judged by Him to have been 
 
 a Pfalterii editio vulgata latina, obelis Sc Aftciifcis diftinfla, cum Brunonis Her6ifoler,/is 
 Fpifcopi Commcntariis, Anno ly^i. a yo/jantte CocbUo in lucem c(t cmilTa, Uj]er, lie E- 
 ditione LXX Interpr. p. to+. 
 
 b Pfalterium vetus obelis 8c Afterifcis difli,i(fluni, cum Comrnentariis S. Brttnonii, 
 i\.\i<}i\o Joannii Cochhi Editum, in fol. Herbi^oli, ijji- in 410 Lipliae iJJJ- Lt Lo/>g. 
 Tom. 1. p. 274. 
 
 c Grabe Prolegom. ad F falter* AkxanJr. c. 5. 
 
 d Poftcris Filiis fuis (5'. Bruno) mcmornbilcm & fanftum Pfalmorum Librum, f.v quo 
 iVt iviprejfus fy'?, Tiimptuofc fcriptum, quafi hircditatis fpiritualis non minimam portio- 
 uem reliqiiit. Prolog, ad Editionem Anni 1494- 
 
 Prcciolum iftum Thcfaurum poftcritati port fc reliquif, & quidem infi2ni fcriptura 
 fuirptiiofe dcfcriptiim— — — — extat Durium iIImJ meirorabile & corilpiciium in lociiple- 
 te antiquorum Voluminum LJ;bliothcca Heriipolen/JiEcdcCix: Quod fane rcligiofa pictarc, 
 vclut Harredi^as quadam hujus Sanfti Patris Cufloditur. j^can. Cotl.l, prolog, ad Edit. 
 An. ifB?. 
 
 e .7 '/?«/£ //'Catalog. MflT. Soptcntr. p. £68. ^ 
 
 writtcii 
 
7he ATRAKASI AN CREED. 57 
 
 written about the Time of King Stephen, So tliat This is about 
 a hundred years later than the former, or about 580 years old; 
 no Title to the Creed. 
 
 3. There is a Third, of much the fame Age with the former, 
 or fome years older, in the Bodleian at Oxford, marked Land, 
 H. 6 1 . the Title of the Creed, Fides Catholics Sun^ti Athannfii 
 Epifcopi. 
 
 4. A Fourth I have feen in the CMhedralUihmiy at York, which 
 may be 500 years old. No Title. 
 
 5 . There are, as 1 conceive, Three more, which Tentzelim ' 
 gives us fome Hints of, in the BafU, Gotha, and Leipjick Libra- 
 ries: Tho' I have nothing to ground my Conjedure upon but 
 This, that the iirft words, recited by Tentzelius, agree with Bruno % 
 Comment. The Copift has added another Comment upon 
 the fame Creed together with Bruno's ; one running down in a 
 Column on the right Hand, the other on the Left, as I imagine. 
 The Leipjick Copy is judged to be above 500 years old 5 The 
 Title, Fides Anaflafd Tapd. 
 
 6. There is another, in the Library of St. German de Prez, 
 about 500 years old. Montfaucon, having met with it, pub- 
 liih'd it'' as an Anecdoton 5 not knowing that it was Bruno % Com- 
 ment, or that it had ever been before printed. It is not indeed 
 quite fo ftdl, nor any thing near fo corred as the printed Copies : 
 But ftill it is plainly Bruno's Comment. The Title 5 Trahatm 
 de Fide Catholica. 
 
 .7. There is alio, in my Lord -K^r/tf/s Library, a modern Ma- 
 nuscript of this Comment, 'written at Augsburg, in the year 1 547. 
 (by Charles Peutenger, Son to the famous Conrad) where the 
 Title is. Fides Catholica Sancii Anaflafii Epifcopi. The miftake 
 of Anafiafii for Athanafii, we find, had crept into the German 
 Copies fome Centuries before : wherefore This is not to be won- 
 der'd at. All the oide.r Copies, as well as the Original Manur 
 fcript, have Athanafii, in the Title, where there is a Title, and 
 Athanafms in the Beginnini^ of the Comment. 
 
 a Ten(z.elii: Jud. Enidifor. p. 114. and Preface. 
 b Montfaucon. Athanaf. Opcr. Tom. i. p. j7,f. 
 
 The 
 
5S ANTIENT COMMENTS upon 
 
 The Manufcripts which 1 have here recited, ail but the firft, 
 fccm now to be of no great ufc ; if it be true, as I fuppofe, that 
 the fufl: prints were taken from the very Original at Wurtz.burgh. 
 It is certain that They are very imperfcd, and uncorred (I 
 have collated Three of thcmj in comparilbn of the printed Co- 
 pics: Nor could I obferve above two or three places, and thofe 
 not very material, where the printed Copies feem to iiave fol- 
 lowed a falfc reading, or may be corrected by thofe Manufcripts. 
 One Thing I a little wonder'd at, that the three Manufcripts, 
 of St. Germans^ Trinity College^ and Tork^ Ihould all leave out fome 
 Paragraphs which appear in the printed Copies, and the fame Pa- 
 ragraphs. But I have fince found, that Thofe very Paragraphs 
 were taken out of Tortu7zatuss Comment, and belong not pro- 
 perly to Bruno s. This, I prefumc, the firft Copiers underftood, 
 and therefore omitted them. Probably, ^r«;?^'s own Copy might 
 at firft want them, (tho' they muft have been added foon after) 
 or if Bruno Himfelf inferred them, yet He had left fome mark 
 of diftindion, which was undcrftood at That Time ; tho* not 
 by the Editors of this Comment, fo many years after. But to 
 proceed. 
 
 In the next A^e, the famous Teter ^helard wrote Comments 
 upon this Creed : which are printed amongft his other Works. 
 The Title in the Prints, is, Petri Abaelardi Expofitio Eidei, in 
 Symbolum Athmafii. I fufped that the Editor has added the lat- 
 ter part, in Symbolum Athanafii^ as a Hint to the Reader. The 
 Comment is a very fhort one, fcarce three Pages in 4to, and, 
 for the Age it was wrote in, a pretty good one 5 tho', as I 
 conceive, from fome Plaws in it, printed from a Copy not 
 very Correct. 
 1170 Of the fame Century is Hildegarde, the celebrated Abbefs of 
 St. Ruperis mount, near Birpghen on the Rhine. She wrote Ex- 
 plications of St. BenedicTs Rule, and of the Athanaftan Creed : 
 Which may be feen. Bibl. PP. Tom. XXllI. p. 596. 
 X 2 1 o Simon Tornaccnfis, Prieft of Tournay, in the beguining of the 
 thirteenth Century, taught Divinity at Paris, with great Repu- 
 tation. - His Manufcript Works are in many Libraries 5 and, 
 among his other Writings, there is an Expofition of the Atha- 
 
 ^ nafian 
 
ne ATHAN^SIAK CREED. ^^ 
 
 Jian CreedJ" Oudin reckons up four Manufcript Copies of it, in 
 as many difund Libraries, and acquaints us where Tiiey are to 
 be found, and of what Age they probably are. 
 
 Contemporary with tiie former, is Alexander Neckham, an En- 1220. 
 glip3man. Abbot of Exeter. He wrote a Comment on the A- 
 thanajian Creed, which is extant in Manufcript, in the Bodlemn, 
 at Oxford (mark'd N. E. 7. 8.) coeval probably with the 
 Author. 
 
 There is another Commentary upon this Creed written by i340 
 Richardus HampoluSy Richard Rolle of Hampole, a Native of Tork- 
 foire, and a Monk of the Order of St. Aufl'm. It contains, in 
 a manner, Bruno % Comment intirc, with feveral Additions, and 
 Infertions cither of the Author's own, or fuch as He had bor- 
 rowed elfe where. It has been twice printed, firft at Cologne in 
 the year 1536, and afterwards in the Bibliotheca Patrum, Lugdun, 
 Tom. XXVI. p. 624. 
 
 To the Latin Comments here mention'd I may add an En~ i ■> go. 
 gUpj one, which I fuppole to be Wickliff*s, and which I have 
 above quoted as his. If it be not his, yet certainly it is of his 
 Time, and not far from the middle of the XlVth Century. I 
 will firft give fome Account of this Englifh Comment, and then 
 fhow both why I afcribe it to Wickliffj and why I do it not with 
 full Affurance, but with fome degree of Diffidence. I firft met 
 with it in a Manufcript Volume (in 11°) belonging to the Li- 
 brary of St. Johns College in Cambridge. The Volume con-- 
 taii^ an E?^glijh Verfion of tlie ?falms,zv\di Hymns of the Church,, 
 with the Athanafian Creed, produced. Paragraph by Paragraph, 
 in Latin, interfperfed with ^\\ Englifh Verfion of each Paragraph, 
 and commented upon quite through, Part by Part. After the 
 Comment, follow Proverbs, Ecclefiaftes, Song of Songs, Wifdom^^wd 
 Ecclefinfiicus , all in old Englifh, without Glofs or Comment. 
 Now, the Reafons why I incline to afcribe the Comment to 
 Wickliff, are thefe. 
 
 a TE.xpofitlo Symbolt, per Simonem Tornacenfis Ecclefiae Canonicum, & Parifienfem Do- 
 aorem, qm Jtc incipit j Apud Arijiotelon Argumeiitum eft P.atio faciens Fidem, ied aped- 
 Chriftum argunicntum eft Fides faciciii Raiionem. Ondm. Tom. 3. p. 30, 
 
40 ANTIENT COMMENTS vfon 
 
 I Dr. Langhd'me, of J^eens College in Oxford^ in a Letter 
 to Bifhop l^Kr, bearing Date A. D. 1647, tediiics that He 
 had feen fiich a Comment, and that He found it to be Wickliff's^ 
 by comparing the Beginning of it with B.tlej' This, very pro- 
 bably, is the fame Comment 5 tho' there is no fuch Manufcript 
 now in Mdz^et^lcu Colkiie Oxon^ as was in Dr. Latizy^ines 
 Time. 
 
 2. All thofe Parts of Scripture which go before and after 
 this Comment, in the fame Volume, are of the fame Verfion 
 with That of Wicklijf's Bible in the Library of £;»^/?«f/ College, 
 without any difference, (except that St. Johns Copy, being ol- 
 der, retains the more antient Ipelling ) as I am well afllired by 
 comparing them together : So that if thofe Parts be Wicklijf's, 
 it may appear very probable that the Comment is his too. In- 
 deed, our very learned Whm-ton was of opinion that the Verfion 
 commonly afcribed to Wickliff^ was really John Trevifas who 
 was a Contemporary of Wicklijf's, and Vicar of Berkely in Corn- 
 -ivdl. But his Reafons for it have appear'd to Others not fa- 
 tisfadory,*^ and have in part been confuted.'! \ i^n^ ^ot enter far 
 into That Difpute, being ahiioft foreign to my purpofe : And it 
 is not very material whether TVickliff, or Trevifa fif Either) be 
 judged the Author of the Comment. This only I may obfervc, 
 by the way, that Mr. Wharton s Argument drawn from the Nor- 
 folk Manufcript of the Gofpels (Cod. 254J which He is pofi- 
 tivc belongs to Wicklijf, appears to be of fomc weight, fo far 
 as concerns the Neiv-Teflament 5 and the Inference may reach to 
 feveral parts of the Old-Teftament alfo. Either ,Mr. JVharton mufl 
 have been miflaken in afcribing the Norfolk Copy to TV/cklijf or 
 die, for any thing I fee, his Argument will fland good. The 
 CharacHerifiick which He lays down whereby to dillinguifh^/V/'- 
 
 a while I •teas there ( in M^gd. College Librnry) tumillnt, amor.^ft their Bocks, I light 
 upon an old Enghfh Comment upon the yfalms, the Hymns of the Church, and Athanafius's 
 Creed; which I prefently Cchjeiiured (tho' there be no nAme to it) to be Wickliff's. And 
 comparing the Beginning wth Bale, found that I had not erred in the CcnjeBnre. Laogbaine. 
 dfmng Ufhcr'j Letters- p. 5-1 ;. 
 
 b li'hartvn. Auftariutn Hiftor. Do^mat. p. 4if. 416. 
 
 c Oudin. Comn-cnr. de Scripror. KccleC Vol. 3. p. 1 044. 
 
 d Vid. Le Long B,bL Bibl. Vol. i. p. 416. 
 
the ATHANASIAN CREED. 4^ 
 
 U/Ts Verfion (namely, the frequent infcrtion of Syaon-ymous 
 words) will by no means agree with the common Veruoii: 
 And then the Specimen He gives of the two different rendrings 
 of Luke 2. 7. is diredly contrary.* But a fuller Difcullion of 
 that Point may be left with Thofe who have more leifure, and 
 have more particularly ftudied it. I am content to fuppoie that 
 the common Verfion afcribed to Wicklijj is really his : Per- 
 haps He might give two Editions of it 5^ or elfe Trevifr\ may 
 be little more than Wicklifs Verfion, correded, and poliih'd, 
 with great Liberty, both as to Senie and Expreffion, where it 
 appear'd needful. To proceed. 
 
 3, A third Reafon 1 have for the afcribing The Comment 
 to ivicklif, is, that fome parts of it feem to fuit exadly with his 
 Humour, and Manner, and Way of thinkings particularly the 
 Gird upon Popes, and Cardinals in the Clofe.'^ 
 
 Neverthelefs, 1 am far from being pofitive in This matter ; 
 Much may be offer'd to take off" the Force of thefe Reafons, or 
 to counter-ballance them. i. This very Comment is annex'd 
 to a manufcript Commentary y upon the Pfalms and Hymns of the 
 Church, now in Trinity-College Library in Cambridge: which 
 Commentary appears not to he Wicklifs, tho' fuppofed to be his 
 by Mr. Wharton.^ The Englijh Verfion of the Pialms going a- 
 
 a WicklePus fic reddit: And futtide Him in a Crauhe ; for place was not to Him in the 
 
 comyn Stable. . . , ^i ^ tt ■ 
 
 Alrer interpres fic : And leide Him m a Crutche ; for there was no place to Him tn no 
 
 £haumi>re. \Vh3.non. ■p. ^i6. ^ ,, . ^u t-l i ■ l. 
 
 I haze a Manufcript of the NewTeJiament entire, belonging to our College Library, which 
 
 reads Luke: i. 7. according to the firft reading, and whch has many Inflames o/bynony- 
 
 mous Infertions every where. It is a different Verfion from That which ts commonly ajcribed 
 
 to Wickliff. ^ ^ „ . , ,. 
 
 b Pater, aut antiquiorem fuifTe quandam S. Scripturse TranQationem ^nglicam, aut 
 
 duplicem tuifle TfanQationis Wicleviant Editionem. Wharton. Auftor. Hift. Dogm, p. 456. 
 
 c And algtf this Crede accorde unto Prejlis, netheley the higher Prelatts, as Popis and 
 
 Cardynals, and BH(hoph JJmlden more fpecially Kunne this Crede, and teche it to Men tm- 
 
 dir hem Cotnin. on the Atiiin. Creed. 
 
 Compare fome words of WickM's Bilevx;. , /■ , /; 
 
 Ifuppofe, over this, that the Pope be moft o6liJl,id to the keping of the Gofpel among au 
 
 Men that liven here; for the Pope is higheft Vicar that Chrifl has here tn Erth. Collier. 
 
 Eccl. Hift. Vol. I. r- 71?. r A u M<s 
 
 d Cowmentarius in P/almos, aliofque SacvA Scripture ac Liturgii Ecclefiaftici Hymnos. MS. 
 in Collegio S. Trinitatis Cantab. F. Commentarius in priores 89 Pfalmos habctur m:>. 
 m Bibliothcca Lambethana. Wharton fub Wtchlef Append, ad Cav. H. L. p. f4- 
 
 E lon.f^ 
 
42 ANTIENT COMMENTS ujon 
 
 long with That Commentary, is not tiic fame with that oiWick- 
 liff's Bible : I have compared them. The Commentary, and Ver- 
 fion too arc reafonably judged to be Hampole's. I find by a 
 Note left in a Blank Page at the Beginning ( (ign'd J. Eujjel) 
 that there is a Copy of this Commentary in the Royal Library, 
 (E. 15. 12.) but imperfed 5 the Prologue the very fame, and cx- 
 prefsly aferibed to Richard oi Hampole : From whence it may be 
 judly fufpcftcd that the Comment upon the Athanafian Creed 
 at the end, appearing in part (for, two Leaves arc cut out) is 
 Hampolesj as well as the reft. There is in Bennet Library, in 
 Cambridge, another manufcript Copy of the fame Commen- 
 tary (Mark'd, i-i. Catal. p. 69 J with the Comment upon the 
 Creed entire. The Prologue I found to be fame as in the other, 
 
 o 
 
 as alfo the Comment on t\\z firjl Pfalmj by which I judge of 
 the reft." The Comment on the Canticles^ at the end is like- 
 wife the fame ; only the Canticles are not all placed in the fame 
 Order. At the Bottom of the Second Leaf of the Commenta- 
 ry, there is left this Note, by an unknown Hand : Author hujus 
 Lihrij Richardus, Heremita de Hanipole. Now, if this Commen- 
 tary really be Hampole's, of which I can fcarcc make any quc- 
 ftion, it will appear highly probable that the Comment on the 
 Creed is his too. 2. What favors the Sufpicion is, that here 
 the Comment is annexed to other Comments in like Form with 
 it felf, and not to meer Verjions as in the Manufcript of St. 
 John's Library. Nay further, This Comment on the Creeds as 
 it appears in St. Johns Copy, has the feveral parts of the Creed 
 in Latin, and in red Letter, preftx'd to the rcfpcdive Verllon 
 and Comment ; juft as we find, in Hampole, the leveral parts of 
 each Pfalm exhibited firft in Larin^ and in red Letter : Which 
 Circumftancc is of fome weight. 3 • Add to this, that there are 
 lome Exprellions in the Comment on the Creed very like to 
 thofe which are familiar with the Author of that Commentary 
 on the Pfalms: Suchasthcfej /'/ is feidcormmly,that t her ben &cc. 
 Clerkis fcin thus, and thus 5 fo that from /imilitudc of Style an 
 
 a Q. H^ether there bi not one, or tvo more (Copies of the [awe, in The ^oil\chr\. See the 
 "^odlcizo Mmn/crif>t}, /« /^f Gwer.f/ Catalogue. N. 243S. iCHf. 
 
 Argument 
 
7he AlEANASIAN CREED. 43 
 
 Argument may be drawn in favor of Hampok, as well as for Wid- 
 M', Thefe Confidcrations fuffer me not to be pofitive on the 
 other Side. The Comment may be Hampoles ; or it may be Wick- 
 ///f' sj which latter Opinion I the rather incline to for the Reafons 
 before o^iven, appearing to me fomething more forcible than the 
 other, tho' not much. However it be, the Comment may be 
 ufeful : and if it be HampoleSj it muft be fet 40 years higher than 
 I have here placed it. The diftance of 30, or 40 years makes 
 no great Alteration in any Language : So that meerly from the 
 Language, efpecially in fo fmall a Trad, we can draw no Con*, 
 fequence \.o \\\^ Author -^ excepting fuch peculiarities as may have 
 been rather proper to this or that Mm, than to this or that Time. 
 
 Thefe are all the mtient Comments upon the Athmi^fim 
 Creed that I have hitherto met with, or heard of; excepting 
 only fuch as have no certain Author, or none mentiond. 
 
 Mumtorius informs us of Two Comments without Names, 
 which are in manufcript, in the Amhrojim Library, near 600 
 years old. One of them bears for its Title, Expojitio Fidei Ca- 
 tholics ', The Other has no Title. By the Age of the Manufcripts 
 (if Mumtorius judges rightly thereof) one may be allured that 
 That They are diftind and different from any of the Comments 
 below AheUrd'. And that They are neither of them the fame 
 with Bruno's, or Forttmatuss may reafonably be concluded, be- 
 caufe MurMorius was well acquainted with Both, and would 
 eafily have difcover'd it. Whether either of them may prove to 
 be AbeUrds, which has for its Title Expofitio Fidei, and may fuit 
 w^U with the Age of the Manufcripts, I know not. Mumtori- 
 us, while He makes mention of Bruno, and Hildeg.irdis, whole 
 Comments He had feen, fays nothing of AbeUrd's : So that pof- 
 fibly one of his manufcript Comments may prove the fame 
 with That. But if Neither of them be the fame v/ith AbeUrd^s, 
 nor with each other,. They muft be allowed to pafs for Two 
 diftind Comments, whofe Authors are not yet known. 
 
 Tentz^elius informs us of a namelefs Comment (whereof there 
 are three manufcript Copies, one at Gotho; a fecond at B^^J/l, 
 a third at Leipftck) which runs parallel with Bruno s Comments 
 along with the Athmafmn Creed. He gives us a pretty large 
 
 F 2 Paragraph, 
 
44 ANTIENT COMMENTS iifon 
 
 Paragraph, with which it begins , ' and which 1 have tran- 
 fcribcd into the Margin. The Leipfick Manufcript is above 
 500 years old. W^hether This Comment be a diftinct one by- 
 it fclf, or may fall in with Ibme or other of Thofe before 
 mention'd, cannot certainly be known, unlefs we had Them 
 all to compare. It is obfervable that The Paragraph, in the 
 Margin, with very little alteration, occurs in HampoU's Latin 
 Comment: Which begins alfo as Bmnos does, with Hie Beams 
 Athdnnfms Liherum arbitrium pofuit. From whence I Ihould 
 imagine that the Copies Tentzeliui refers to are nothing elfe 
 but (o many Copies of HampoleSj were it not that one of them 
 is confidently averr'd to be above 500 years old. If That be 
 really fo, then Rich. Humpole muft be faid to have gather'd up 
 his Comment out of Brums and the other, with little or per- 
 haps nothing of his own: And fo Tentzelims will be a diftind 
 Comment, older than Hampolis. I very much fufpedt , that 
 Hampoles is really nothing elfe but a Collcdion from older 
 Comments, without a Syllable of his own : And (o much the 
 rather, if what I call Wicklijf's lliould prove to be Hampclc's, 
 For, That EngUpj Comment has no refcmblance at all witli 
 Hampoles fuppofed Latiri' One. 
 
 Nothing now remains," but to clofe This Chapter with a 
 Tabic, as I have the former, reprefcnting in one view a Sum- 
 mary of what is contained in it. 
 
 a In dextro prims pngim hiclegi. 
 
 Haec ratio Fidei Catholicae traditur in veteribus Codicibus a bcato ^najlafio AUxfirdn- 
 ■10 fcripta. Et puto quod idcirco tarn pleno & brcvi fcrmone tradita fuenr, ut omnibus 
 Catholicis 8c iDi'nus cruditis tutam dcfcnfioncm praflhret adverfus illam Tcmpcftatcm 
 quam contrarius ventus (id eftj Diabolus cxcitavit per Arriittn: quam Te.npcftatcm qui 
 f<;^ere defidcrar, banc Fidei veritatcm intcgre 6c inviolabilitcr tencar. Ttntz.el. p. uj. 
 
 A Table 
 
The ATHANASIAn CREED. 
 
 45 
 
 A Table of the ARTIE KT COMMENTS, 
 
 A.D.| Commentators | Countiy I Title of the Creed. 
 
 570 
 
 Venmt. Tortund- 
 tus 
 
 Poidicrs 
 
 Fides C^holica. 
 
 ^$2\H'mcmar 
 
 Rheims 
 
 \Symboltmi Ath^nafii, 
 
 1033 Bruno 
 
 Wurtzburgh 
 
 Fides Catholic/^ S^n^li Athana- 
 fti Epifcopi: 
 
 11 ioIMS. Amhrofmn. 
 
 1 Italy 
 
 [Fides Catholics. 
 
 II 10 
 ri2o 
 
 MS. alter Amhrof. 
 
 1- Italy 
 
 1. 
 
 Pet. AbaeUrdus 
 
 France 
 
 \Symholum Athdnafii. 
 
 \\7d\S. Hildegardis 
 
 1 France 
 
 1 
 
 iiSolMS. Lipjienf. 
 
 Germany 
 
 \Fides Andfiajii Pap£. 
 
 1 2 1 Simon Tonm- 
 cenfis 
 
 France 
 
 Symholum Athiimifii. 
 
 1 
 
 1220 
 1340I 
 
 Alex. Neckhnm. 
 
 1 England 
 
 1 
 
 Rich. Hampolus | 
 
 England 
 
 [Athanafii Symbolum. 
 
 1380J John Wickliff 
 
 England 
 
 \Crede, or Salm, of Attmafie, 
 
 V. 
 
 CHAP, 
 
4(J ANTIENT LATIN MSS. of 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Latin Mannfcr'tps of the Athanafian Creed. 
 
 I 
 
 Coiitinc my felf in this Chapter to the LMm Manufcripts, 
 fince the Creed was undoubtedly written originally in La- 
 tm-y and therefore the Manufcripts in any other Languages will 
 be more properly treated of in another Chapter, among the 7^^^- 
 jions. None of the Learned at this Day make any queftion but 
 that the Creed was originally a Lutin Compofurc. This They 
 pretend to be certain of, and unanimoufly agree in; however doubt- 
 fully they may fpeak of other Things, or however They may 
 differ in their Opinions about the Age, or Author. Even Thofe, 
 many of them, who have afcribcd the Creed to AthannfiuSy have 
 yet been obliged by plain and irrefiftible Evidence to acknow- 
 ledge, with the Legates of P. Gregory IXth, that it was original- 
 ly ^Liitin. The Style and Vhrdfeology of the Creed ; its early Re- 
 ception among the L^ins^ while unknown to the Greeks ; the 
 Antiquity^ and Number of the Liitin Manufcripts, and their A- 
 greement (for the moft p^rtj with each other, compared with 
 the Lfttenefs, the Scarcenefs, and the Difagreement of the Greek 
 Copies, all concur to dcmonftrate that this Creed was originally 
 a Lmtin compofure, rather than a Greek one : And as to any 
 other Language befides thefe two, none is pretended. 
 
 I proceed then to recount the Latin Manufcripts as high as 
 we can find any extant, or as have been known to have been 
 extant j and as low as may be necellary, or ufeful to our main 
 Defign. 
 A. D. T he oldeft we have heard of is one mention'd by Bifhop V^er, 
 600 which He had fcen in the Cotton Library, and which He judged 
 to come up to the Age of Gregory the Great?- This Manufcript 
 
 a Latino-gallicum illud Pfalterium in Bibliothcca Cottonianav\d\mus: ficut 8c a}')i latina 
 duo, lonse rrajoris antiquitatis; in quibiis, prsrter Hymnum Hunc (Sc. Te Deum) fine 
 uUo' Autorii nomine, Hymnt ad mMntlnas, titulo infcriptum, & AthanafianHm habebatur 
 Symbolum, 8c Apo floUc urn ^oi\<lcm oirnino.quot hodiernum noflnim continens Capirula. 
 In priorc, quoJ Gregont I Tempore non fuifle rcccntius, turn ex antique Piadrx gencrc 
 
 ^ has 
 
the ATHAN/iSlAN CREED. 47 
 
 has often been appealed to fmce Ujhers Time, and upon the 
 credit of Ufher, by the Learned on this Subjed : As particular- 
 ly by Comber, VEfir^^inge, Tentz^elius, Tillemont, Le ,^ien, Mu-^ 
 ratoriuSj NMalis Alexander, and perhaps feveral more. Momfau- 
 con takes notice of Ufher s Manulcript j but obferves that Ujhet 
 Himfelf allowed the Chara^er to he much later than the Time 
 of Gregory^ Which would have been a ftrange inconMency in 
 ufher, who forms his Argument for the Antiquity of the Ma- 
 nufcript from the Character it felf, and from the a^tient kind 
 of Piiltire. But Montfaucon is plainly miftaken , confounding 
 what Ufher had faid of Another Manufcript, in Bennet Library 
 at Cambridge^ with what He had faid of the Cotton Manufcript 
 at Wejlminfter. The Two Manufcripts are very diftind, and dif- 
 ferent as poflible 5 nor has the Latter any Athanafian Creed in 
 it : Only, its being called Gregorys r falter, occafion'd, I fuppofe, 
 the miftake of making it the fame with the other. Te?zt' 
 z,eUu^ feems firft to have confounded them together : And pro- 
 bably Montfaucon followed Him implicitely, not having Ufher 
 at hand to confult 5 which would immediately have difcovered 
 the Fallacy. Were there no other Objection againft Ufher s Ma- 
 nufcript befide what hath been mention'd, all would be Vv'ell, 
 But it is of greater weight to obferve, that there is not, at This 
 Day, in the Cotton Library any fuch manufcript Copy of the 
 Athanafian Creed ; nor indeed any Latin Pfaltcr that can come 
 up to the Age of Gregory, or near it. There is an antient ? fal- 
 ter ^iiark'd Vefpafian A) wix)te in Capitals, and illuminated 5 and 
 which might, by the CharaBer, be as old as the Time of Gregory 
 the Great j were it not certain, from a Charter of K. Ethelbald, 
 
 collig;tijr, turn ex Literarum Forma Grandiiifcula, Athanafianum (\\i\itvni'Eidei Catholic£> 
 
 -^ilterum vcro Symio'i Apojiolorum pTxkrt Tkuluw. In pofteriore, quod Regis- 
 
 JEthelfia»i a,\iqu:indo fait, Afiojiolicum, vice verla, Symbolum fimpliciter, alterum autem 
 7idei SanUi Athanafii Alexmdrini "nuncupatur. UH^r. deSynib. Prsf. p. 2, 9. 
 
 a Codicum omnium quihadenus vifi memorarique font, antiquiiTiir.us ille eft qui ab 
 I7/em laudatur, ^MoGregorii ALi^wi confcriptLis j fi tamen ea vcre lit ejus MS. a;tas; ram 
 addit Ujferim, fcripturam dvo Grfgorii longe ejfe tcftenorem. Montf. Diatr. p, 711. 
 
 b In Pfalterio Graeco Papse Gtegorii, ur prifert Titulus (Tcriptura enini sevo Gregorh 
 lOfige eft poftcriorj Pfalterio videlicet Grsco & Romano, latinis utroque literis defcnpto, 
 quod in Benedi^tni, apud Cmtubngtenfes, Collegii Bibliotheca eft reconditum, Ufl'er. de 
 Symb. p. 9. 
 
 c Tentz,elii Judic £ruditor. p. 49, £/ Exercit. Selea. p, ic>. 
 
 Wiittca 
 
48 ANTIENT LATIN MSS. of 
 
 written in the fame Hand, and at the fame Time, and formerly 
 
 beloni;ing to it/ that it cannot be let higher than the year 7 1 9 
 when EthelhM began to reign. 
 
 This Vjdter has the Te Deum^ with the Title of Hymnus W 
 Miitutinurfi, as Ufhers had ; and alfo the Athdnajitin Creed with 
 the Title of Fides Catholics \ but Both in a very different and 
 much later Hand than That of the P falter it Seifj later by fe- 
 veral -Centuries, as the very learned Mr. Wmley^ JLidges, v/ho 
 fets the Age of the ? falter about 1000 years, but of the Atha- 
 nafian Creed, &c. at the Time of the Norman Conqueft. A 
 Sufpicion, however, may from hence arife, that This very 
 f falter, with what belongs to it, might be the ? falter &c. 
 which V^er fpake ofj elpecialiy fmce there is none other in 
 the Cotton Library at all like it. But, on the contrary, it is 
 to be confider'd, that This ? falter has no Apoftolical Creed at 
 all in it, which V^er affirms his to have had : Nor has it the 
 .Hym?ms Matuttnus, beginning with, Gloria in excelfis Deo, which 
 Ufhers alfo had.'^ Neither is it at all probable that, if Uj)jer had 
 intended the P falter now extant in the Cotton, He ihould give 
 no hint of the Saxon Vcrfion going along with it ; efpecially 
 confidcring that it might be made an Objeclionto its Antiqui- 
 ty. Nor do 1 think that fo inquifitive a Man as up)er could 
 cither have being ignorant of the Age of Ethelbald, or of his 
 charter having been once a part of That Manulcript. In his 
 Hijloria Dogmatical He takes notice of this very P falter ( now 
 
 a Conftat vero ex Hijforia & Svfiopft Biblioth Cottonia-ijs, quam in iiigens Reip. litera- 
 r\x Bcneficium cdidit, aniplificandis bonis Litcris natus, doftifflmus Thomas Smuhm no- 
 ftcr, & indtculo Pfalterii latini in majufculis fcripti cum Vcrfione Saxonlc:* intcrlineari, 
 O'jod notatur Vefp.i/iMi. A. I. Chartaiii hinc {JEihdbaUi R. Aujlralmm Saxonnm) ex ifto 
 MS. cxfciflam cfle. Quod etiam illius quum mcnfura qu« cum Foliis illius MS. quad- 
 rat, turn etiam Manns in utroquc prorf js eadem, turn dcniquc Locus MSS, unde itifla 
 eft, inter Folia X, & XI, codicem vertcntibus oftaidit. Hukef. Dijftrt, Epijl. in Lmgn. 
 Scptentr. Thefaur. p 67. 
 
 b Vid. M^anltii Cii\.&\. MSS. Septentrion. p. lit. 
 
 c Ad Fincm vcterum Ffalterioruni Latinorum, cum ^pofiolico 8c Athanafiano Symbo- 
 lo, etiam Hymnus iftc (^c. Gloria Sac.) habctur adjecftus. in antiquifTimo Cotioniano ir- 
 ■tmy^ap^ eft: in JEthtlftaniano proximo, Hymnus in die Domtmco ad Matutinas, infcri- 
 bitur. Uffer, dc Symbol, p. 7,1,. 
 
 d In Bibliothcca D, Koberti Cotton cxtat Pfaltc-ium Romanum vctuftifTunum, cum vcr. 
 fione interlincnri Saxonica: Clnrader idem cum charta JEtJpilbaltli Anglorum Regis, anno 
 736 dat2. Ujfer Hislo. Dogmat. p. 104, 
 
 marked 
 
%e ATBAKASIAN CREE^. 4;, 
 
 marked, Vefpajim A) and of the Saxon Verfion in it, and like- 
 wile of its being in the fame Hand with Ethelbald's Charter : 
 And there He lets the Age of it no higher than the year 7 3 6, 
 ( that is, above 1 3 o years later than Gregory I. ) without the 
 leaft Hint that He had ever miftaken the Age of it before, or 
 had thought otherwife of it than He did at the Time of his 
 writing this later Treatife. Thefe Confiderations convince me 
 that Billiop U/Jfj^-r had feen fome other Manufcript, which hasfince 
 That Time, like many more,* been loft, or ftoilen from the Cottoji 
 Library. He that was i^o accurate in^every Tittle of what he fays 
 of K. Athelfians Pfalter, (mention'd at the fame Time ) could 
 never have been fo negligent, or rather plainly carelefs, in re- 
 fped of the other. I conclude therefore, that there really was 
 Ilich a pfalter as Ujher defcribes, with the Athanafian Creed in it > 
 fuch as He judged to be of the Age of Gregory I, from more 
 Marks than one : And how good a Judge He was in Thofe 
 Matters, is well known to as many as know any thing of That 
 Great Man, one of the brighteft Ornaments of his Age, and 
 thoroughly vers'd in all kinds of Literature. 
 
 Next to This o^ Bijhop Ufber we may place the famous Ma- 660 
 nufcript of Treves, from which the Colbert Manufcript (to be 
 mention'd hereafter in its place) was copied. Mr. Anthelmi fets 
 it as high as the year 450, upon a prefumption that the Col- 
 bert Manufcript is as old as the year 600, and that 150 years 
 may reafonably be allow'd between the Colbertine Copy and 
 TUat from which it was Copied. Tillemont, fuppofing, or ad- 
 mitting the Colbert me to be near the Age that Anthelmi men- 
 tions, yet thinks 5 o years difference might be fufficient ; and 
 that therefore the Age of the Treves Manufcript might be fix'd 
 at 550, or thereabout.'' But, iince the Colbert Manufcript can- 
 not reafonably be fet much higher than 760, as we fhall fee 
 in its proper place; Llliall not pretend to fet the Treves Ma- 
 nufcript above 660 ; and that only under the favourable Al- 
 lowance of a probable Conjecture. The Authority of this Ma- 
 nufcript of Treves ftands upon the Credit of a Paifage prefix'd 
 
 a Vid. rho. Sm'iibt Praefationem ad Catalag. MSS. Bib'. Cotton. 
 <b TilUmcnt Merrioircs. Tom. 8. p. 670. 
 
 G to 
 
50 ANTIENT LATIN MSS. of 
 
 to the Colbert ine Copy/ which declares that the latter was co- 
 pied from a Maiiulcript found at Treves. It was not a Copy 
 of the i?Hire Creed, but began at the Second Part wliich relates 
 to the Incarnation. For, after the Words, believe rightly the In- 
 carnation of our Lord Jefus Chrift, (being only part of the fore- 
 going Sentence) follows j For^ the right Faith is, that we believe , 
 and fo on to the end of the Creed. This remaining part of the 
 Creed is very different from the common Copies, and feems to 
 have been fo contrived with defign, as 1 Ihall have occafion to 
 obferve more at large in the Sequel. And it is to me an Argu- 
 ment that the Manufcript was written while the i^^/jV^^/^^ Con- 
 troverfy was at the Height, about the End of the 5th Century, 
 or Beginning of the Sixth 5 tho' 1 here fet it a great deal lower, 
 becaufe This is not the Place to explain that matter fully, nor 
 would I too far indulge a bare Conje^ure. It is fufficient to 
 fuppofe ir written in the Vllth Century, as it was undoubted- 
 ly copied from, as early if not earlier than the Vlllth. 
 700 After the Manufcript of Treves, may juftly follow the Ambro- 
 fian Manufcript, which is in the Ambrofian Library at Milan j a 
 Copy of which has been publilh'd by Muratorius, in his Second 
 Tome of Anccdota. It was brought thither from the famous 
 Monajlery of Bobbio (of High-Lombardyj in the Milaneje) found- 
 ed by Columbanus, A. D. 6 1 3. The Character of the Manufcript is 
 Langobardickr, and it is judged by Muratorius (who has more par- 
 ticularly examin'd it) to be above 1 000 years old.'' By his Account 
 then, who wrote in the year 1698, we ought to fet the Age 
 of This Manufcript higher than 698. Yet, becaufe Montfaucon^ 
 who in his Travels through Italy had alfo feen it, puts it no 
 iiigher than the Vlllth Century,*-" we lliall be content to place 
 
 a H«c inveni I'reviris in uno Libro fcriptum, fie incipiente, Domini nofiri Jefa Chrifii 
 {y- reUqua. Domini nrftn Jvfu Chrijli fiileliter rrcJat. Apiid Montf. Diatrib. p. 72-8. 
 
 b In alio etian^ vetuftiHimo Ambrolianae Bii^liothccx Codicc ante mille cr> plitres annos 
 fcripto, Symbolum idem fum nadtu?. Murator, Tom. i. p. i6- 
 
 Cxteruni opuiculum Hoc (bachiarii Fides) mihi dcpromptum eft ex antiquiflimo-r^;»- 
 hrofinn*. Biblioih^cac Codice, quern ante Anna minimum mtlle conlcriptum, CharaAcrum 
 Forma non (^ubitantcr teftatur. Fuit autem olim Celebris Monafterii Bcbienfis, ftc ex 
 illo in Amirofianam UMiHitaa migoo Card. Frederico Borromio &c. Murator. Tom. i. 
 p. 8. item p. 114. 
 
 c Codex VllI- Ssculi, Charafterc Lungobardico, in quo CemaJii liber dc Ecdcfiafticis 
 
 it 
 
Tk ATHANASIAN CREED. 51 
 
 it between theVIIthand Vlllth, or in the year 700, to make it 
 a round Number. There are in this Manufcript fome Re^Jmgs 
 different from the common Copies j v/hich lliall be carefully 
 noted hereafter. It is without any Title. 
 
 We may next fet down K. ^//7^//?WsP falter, of which Bifhop 70% 
 Ujher had taken Notice, making it next in Age to the other moft 
 antient one of the Age of Gregory I. He and Dr. Gr^be Both 
 fix the Date of it to the year 703, from the Rule of thzCde?^- 
 dar found in it." Dr. Srrikh, in his Catalogue of the Cotton Ma- 
 nufcripts, inclines to think that the Manufcript is later than That 
 Time, but taken from one that was really as early as the year 
 703 j the later Copift tranfcribing (as fometimes has been) 
 the Book and the Rule word for word, as He found Them.^ 
 Allowing This to have been the Cafe here (tho* it be only 
 Conjedurej it will ftill be true that there was a Manufcript 
 of the Age of 703, with This Creed in it; from whence the 
 later One, now extant, was copied : which ferves our pur- 
 pofe as well 5 and the reft is not material. I have nothing 
 farther to obferve, but that the Vfdter wherein This Creed 
 is, is the Gdlicm Pfalter, not the Rom^.n; and the Title is. 
 Fides SanBi Athmafii Alexmdriniy The Faith of St. Ath^nafms 
 of Alexandria : The oldcft Monument, of any we have extant, 
 afcribing this Creed to Athmafms; excepting only the Coun- 
 cil of Autun in 670, if we may depend upon the G?;^^;^ afcribed 
 to it. 
 
 Dogmatibus, Baehimi Fides, Symholum ^thanafii, omnia eadem raanu. Montfattc. Diar. 
 Ital. p. 18. 
 
 a Pfalterium illud anno cierx noflrx Chriilianse 703, longe ante JEthelflani regnantls 
 Tempora, ex Regulis KcilencUrio in libri initio fubjunftis fcriptum fuilFe deprehendi, t/^er. 
 de Synib p. 6. 
 
 Quod Regis Mthelfiani fuilTe dicitur, atque Anno 703 Scriptum eft. Gral>ii Prologom. 
 in Pfalt. Alexandr. c. 5. . 
 
 b Hie vero venerandx Antiquitatis Liber fere ante mille Annos defcriptus; ut Quibuf- 
 dam ex Calendario, quod Annum Chrifti 705, certo deiignat, illic prEfixo videtur. Sad 
 cum Librarios eandem Temporis adnotationem, quse ad vetuftilTimos Codices proprie 8c 
 
 peculiariter Speftat, fuis exemplaribus appofuiffe faepiffime obfcrvaverim —an fit 
 
 jlle ipfe Codex autographus qui tantam prae fe ferat atatem, vel annon potius fseculo, sut 
 circiter, ante Tempera &theljlani dclcriptus, vix pro certo prsftareiiij ad poftcriorem 
 fententiara favcntiori animo inclinaturas. Smith. Bibl. Cotton. Hiftor. p. 44. 
 
 G 2 Wc 
 
5t ANTIENT LATIN MSS. of 
 
 760 We may now take in the Colbertme Copy, of which I have 
 before fpokcu, referring the Date of it to the year 760, or 
 thereabout. Montfdiicon fets it abo\'e the Age of Charles the 
 Cireutt^ allowing ic to ha\e been written about the Time of 
 Te^in^ who began to reign in the year 752. So that I can- 
 not be much out of Time in placing it as I have done. It is 
 written in Saxon Cliaracler, and is imperfect 5 wanting the lirft 
 Part, above one Half of the Creed, jufl as the Manufcript of 
 Treves from which it v/as copied. 
 
 760 The Manufcript of St. Germans j at Paris, is intire, and of 
 the fame Age with the former.^ It is mark'd, num. 257, and 
 written in a Saxon Letter, as well as the other. The Title, 
 Fides Sancii Athanafii Epifcopi Alexa/idrix. It differs in fome 
 places from the common Copies fas Ihall be noted hereafter) 
 tho' not near fo much as the Colbert Manufcript before men- 
 tion'd. 
 
 772 Next to thefe is the famous Manufcript of Charles the Create 
 at tlie end of a Gallic an Pfalter, written in Letters of Gold, 
 and prefented by Charlemagne , while only King of France, to 
 Pope Adrian I, at his firlt Entrance upon the Pontificate, in 
 the year 772. Lambecius in his Catalogue of the Emperors Li- 
 brary at Vienna, where I'his Manufcript is, gives a large Ac- 
 count of it.'-' The Title is > Fides Sancii Athanafii Epjcopi A- 
 lexofidriniy 
 
 SCO There is Another Manufcript in the i?o^^/ Library at Farts-, 
 
 a Nongentos fupcrat Annos,C(?/^?r//««i codex 78+. Saxonicis defcriptus Uteris, &, mca 
 quidem fententia, ante statem Caroli Magni cditus— — Sunt qui Codicem ilium i loc 
 annorum efle adfirmarunt : Vcrum periti quique xvo circiter P//>/«/ exaratum arbitrantur. 
 Mcntf. Diatr. p. 711. 
 
 Nee tamen Codicis Colbert'mi Auftoritate nititur Hasc Sententia, quam arbitratur An- 
 thelmius iK.o annoruni. Rtenim fquod pace viri cruditifllmi, mihique aniicifTimi dica- 
 'ur) multo minoris aetatis Codex efTe comprobatur ; nemo cnim peri'.us cui Librum ex- 
 iiibucrim, Oflavo earn Siculo antiquiorcm arftimavir. Mentfauc. ibid. p. 724. 
 
 b Paris Saltern Antiquitatis cfl: Sangerm;inenfis noftcr, num. if?. Saxonicis pariter literis 
 cxaratus, qui Titulum habcl, Fides SauHi Athntmfii Epifcopi Alexandra. Montf. p. 711. 
 
 c Lambecii Catnl. Biblioth. Vindobonenf. Lie 5. p. %6i. 29(5. 8cc. Carolus Magma 
 proprio carmine luo tcftatur fe ilium Codicem fummo I'ontifici Hadriano I. dono mi- 
 iifTej 8c qutdem. ut ego arbitror, illo iplb Anno 771. cujus die decimo Februarii jam 
 memoratus Hadrianns in fummum Pontificepi clcdus eft. Lambec, ibid. 
 
 X mark'd. 
 
Ih ATHANASJAN CREED. 55 
 
 mark'd 4908, which Montfmcon judges to be near 900 years 
 old/ He wrote in the year 1698. So if w^e place it in the 
 year 800, we Ihall want a Httle of 900 years, from That Time. 
 He fuppofes it of very near the fame Age with the Vienna, 
 MantUcript. It bears no Tttky nor any Name, or Note of 
 the Author. 
 
 I may here place a Manufcript of Benet College Library in 850 
 Cambridge y whole Age I cannot certainly fix to a year ; But by 
 all Circumftances it cannot well be fuppofed later than This 
 Time. It is at the end of a ? falter, which by comparmg I 
 find to be a Gdlican Pfaltcr. It feems by the Names of Samts, and 
 other marks, to have been written in England. Bilhop Parker 
 left a Remark in it about it's being in the pofleflion firft of 
 one of the Arch-biihops of Canterbury, and at length conveyed 
 down to the Hands of Beckett who was Arch-bilhop of G«;2- 
 /d-r^/^rj in the year 11 62. The great Antiquity of the Manufcript 
 appears from the Martyrs, ConfeJJors, and Virgins addrefs'd to in it 5 
 all of the early Timcs.^ There are fome few Variations in This 
 Copy, fuch as are alfo found in the moft antient Manufcripts 
 of this Creed ; particularly the word, Et, frequently inferred be- 
 fore Spiritus Sanclus, which has been fince eras'd by fome offi- 
 cious Hand. The Title is obfervable; Fides SancH Anaflhafii 
 Epifcopi. Anajlhafiij for Athanafii, by a Tranfpofition of Syl- 
 lables. 
 
 Montfaucon informs us of a Manufcript in the Colbert Libra- 860 
 ry, Num. 1339, which once belong'd to Charles the Bald,^ w^ho 
 di^ in the year 8775 began to reign 840. It cannot therefore 
 
 a Regius Codex, num. 4908 annorum penc nongentorum, nullum habet Titulum, nul- 
 lumque Aucloris nomen. iEquahs ipfi eft, qui memoratur a Lambecio &c. Montf. ibid, 
 p. 7ZI. 
 
 b Hoc Pfalterium {^N. X] laminis argenteis decauratum, 8c gemmis ornatum, quon- 
 dam fuit N. Cantuar, Archiep. tandem venit in manus ThowA Becket quondam Cant. Ar- 
 chiep. Quod teftarum eft in vctfri fcripto. Matth. Cant. Vid. Catal. MSS.CC. C. C.p. 43. 
 
 c In Litaniis, Orate pro nobis, Sanfte Contujlor, Sanfte Herafme, Sanfte OwoUe 8cc. 
 Martyres. S^n(keCuth&erte, Siniie Germme, SunGiG Placide, Sandte Columbane, S&n&cCau- 
 re»r/«c&c. Confeflbres. Sanfta Br/^^rV/^, Sanfta £//^e>7//?, Szr\^2.'Euklia, Szv.Aa Petronella, 
 &c. Virgines. Et non funt hifce recen.tiores. Catal. JVISS. B;bl. C.C C.C. p. 43. 
 
 d Colbertinus N. ijjp. Qui fuit Karuli Cahi iraperatorisj inCcribituri Fitles Athana-- 
 fii. Moutfauc Diatrib. p. 7ii. 
 
 be 
 
3 4 ANTIENT LATIN MSS. of 
 
 be much amrfs to fix upon 860 for the Date of it. The Title 
 it bears is l-ides yithm^Jii. 
 
 S 3 ^ There is a Second Manufcript Copy of the Ath^nafinn Creed, 
 ill the Library of Be7iet (or Corpis chrifli) College, mark'd N. 
 O. V. It is at the end of a Gdlican Pfalter, in the fame hand, 
 and carrying its certain Date with it. It was written in FrancCy 
 by Order of Count Amadeus^ or Ach^dem\^ and in the year 
 883, as appears from the Litnitj.^ The Title is. Fides Ca- 
 tholics. 
 
 930 Mr. Wsinlcj gives us an Account of a Roman Pfalter in the 
 Ro)d Library, ( formerly of St. James's ) with an interlinear 
 Saxon Vcrfion to it, written about the Time of King Athel- 
 flm."^ Among the Canticles at the End, there is alio This Creed, 
 under the Title of Hjmnus Athanafii : A Title w^hich feems to 
 have been then cuftomary in England, as may be probably ar- 
 gued from a Saxon Verfion (to be hereafter mention'd) of the 
 fame Age, or very near, and bearing the like Title.'i I muft 
 be fo juft to my Reader as to acquaint Him, that after diligent, 
 and repeated Search into the King^ Library, This Manufcript 
 could not be found : So that I cannot be abfolutely certain 
 that hlymmis Athanajii means this Creed. But yet I can fcarcc 
 make any doubt of it, confidering the Vlace it has among the 
 Canticles, and that This very Title ufed to be given to the 
 Creed. 
 
 957 In the Arch-biihop's Library, at Lambeth, there is a Galilean 
 Pfalter, written, according to Mr. Wa-nley,^ in the Time of 
 King Edgar, or a little before. At the End, there is the A- 
 thanafian Creed in the fame antient Hand, with an interli- 
 
 a Ad Finem Pfalterii, AchaJeus, mifericorilia Dei ccmes hunc P/alterium ftribere jujft. 
 Vid. Catal. MSS. p. 46. 
 
 b Oratur, tit Marinum Apojlolicum in Sanffa religione confervare digntrts, ut Karloman- 
 num Kegem perpetua profperitate confervare dignern : ut Regmam confervare digneris: $tt 
 Tiilconem Epifcoptim cum omni grege fibi commijjo in tuo apto fervitw confervare digneris. Vid. 
 Catetlng. MSS. C.C. C.C. p. 47- 
 
 c Jf^«/f/» Catal -MS. Septentr- p. iSi. 
 
 d Hymnus Athmafii de Fide Trinitaris. Vid. Wootoni con/peHnm Brevem opera Hicke- 
 
 fiani. p- 77. 
 
 c TVanlTii Catal. p. 169. EaJgari Regis Anglofaxonum Temporibus, aut paulo ante, ut 
 
 vidctur, cxaratiis. ' ' 
 
 Wharton, Auaarium Hiftoriac Dogmatical p. 374- Alfred^ ^irxxvn rccentior vidctur. 
 
 near 
 
The ATHAN/ISIAN CREED. 5^ 
 
 near Saxo^ Vcrfion. The Title, Fit^es Cafhclka S^n^i Atha- 
 n/ifn Epifcopi. 
 
 There is another Manufcript Copy of this Creed, much of 970: 
 the fame Age with the former, in my Lord Hurleys elegant Li- 
 brary, richly furniOi'd with all kinds of curious, and valuable 
 Manufcripts. This Creed is at the End of a Gallicdn Pfalter, 
 and has an interlinear S^xon Verfion to it. Mr. Wanley who 
 was fo kind as to acquaint me with it, and to favor me 
 with a fight of it, refers it to the Time of King Edgar 5 who 
 began his Reign in 957, and died in 973. The Title is, Eides 
 Catholica^ Athi^nafti Alexandr'mi Epifcopi. 
 
 In the Cotton Library, there is a Gdlicm Pfalter, with Saxon 103 1 
 interlined fmark'd ViteU'ms. E. 18.) which Mxi.Wanley refers to 
 the year 103 1.' The Athmmfian Creed at the End, as ufual, 
 among the other Canticles, bears the Title of Fides Catholics 
 Athanafii Epifcopi Alexandrmi. 
 
 In the Norfolk Library, there is alfo a C^/Z/V^^^ Pfalter, whofe 1050^ 
 Age is fix'd by Mr. Wanley^ to the Time of Ed^vard the Confef- 
 for. The Creed is in it, and has an interlinear Saxon Verlioa 
 running along with it. The Title, Fides Catholic a Athanafii Alex. 
 
 In Benet College Library is a manufcript Copy of this Creed 10^4 
 without any Title. The F falter wherein it is, is called Fortiforium 
 ofwaldi^ and is mark'^d, K. i o. An Account of the Book may 
 be feen in Mr. Wanley, and in the Catalogue. 
 
 I may here place the Cotton Manufcript before mention'd, 1066 
 bou^d up with the 2inticnt Roman Pfalter mark'd, Fefpafian A ; 
 tho' of a very different, and much later Hand. The Creed has 
 an interlinear Saxon Verfion, as ufual 5 and its Title is. Fides 
 Catholic a. Mr. Wanley judges it to be as old as the coming in 
 of the Normans.^ 
 
 Of the fame Age'^ is tlie Roman Pfalter in our Publick Li- io64 
 brary at Cambridge^ witli the Latin Text in black Letter, a Saxon. 
 Verfion in red, and the Titles in green. The Creed is inter- 
 
 a V/xnU\i Catal p.222. 1.^\. Smith. Catal. Cotton, p. lOr. 
 b Wanliit Catal. MSS. Septentr. p. 291. 
 c iVanle'u Catal. p. aii. ^w/V/?. Bibl. Cutton. Hiflor. p. jj-.. 
 i. IVmlmQzxA- p. 152. 
 
 lined 
 
 «\' 
 
S6 ANTIERT LATIN MSS, of 
 
 lined witli Saxon, as well as the Vfaiter, but has no Title : For, 
 from this Time, I conceive, The Title began to be left out in 
 fome Copies, for Brevity fake, or becaufe it was thought 
 fuperfluous. 
 
 It will be needlefs to take notice of any Manufcripts below 
 this Time, excepting only fuch as contain fomething ffitr- 
 ticidar. 
 
 1090 <^iicfnel,'' and after Him Tagi^ fpeaks of a manufcript Copy 
 of this Creed in a Brevity and Pjlilter for the uie of the 
 Monks of Mount Caffin, judged to be about 600 years old. 
 I fuppofe, This may be the fame Breviary that .^eftiel has 
 made Obfervations upon, in another Work, which I have not 
 fecn, but find referr'd to by Father Le Long:^ And there J^^/^ 
 nel fixes the Age a little below io'^6 , paulo pojl Annum 108 (5. 
 The Title of the Creed is, Fides Sii Athanafii Epijcopi: The 
 Letter, Langohardick. 
 
 1120 In my Lord Harleys Library I had a fight of a Manufcript writ- 
 ten in Germany about 600 years ago, fortheufe of the Church 
 of Augsburg 5 which bears for its Title ; Fides Anaftafti Fpifcopi. 
 
 T24.0 Ujher takes notice of a Copy of This Creed then in the 
 Royal Library at St. Jarizes^ ( formerly belonging to Lewis the 
 IX) the Title, Fides Catholic a. 
 
 1300 Montfaucon informs us of a Latin and a French Copy of this 
 Creed found in a Manufcript about 400 years old j placed in 
 oppofite Columns. What is remarkable is, that the Latin has for 
 its Title Canticum Bonifacii^ and the French over againfi the 
 other, Ce chant St. Anaiflaife qui Apofioilles de RomeA 
 
 In the Bodleian at Oxford, there is a manufcript Copy of this 
 Creed ( num. 1204) which has for its Title, Anafiafii Fx- 
 pofitio SymboU Apofiolorum. It is about 300 years old, and be- 
 long'd oncp to the Carthufian Monks at Mcntz-. The Carthu- 
 Jians are particularly noted for their more than common Ve- 
 neration for this Creed, reciting it every day at the Prime, as 
 
 a ^ffntl. Diflert. XIV. aci Leon. Opcr. p. 731. 
 
 b Pagt Critic, in Biroii. Vol. i. p. 44.1. 
 
 c Le Long Bib!. Bibl. Vol. 1. p. 144. 
 
 <i Montfaiicon. Diatrib. p. 712.727. >• 
 
 Cardinal 
 
 1400 
 
The ATHANASIAN CREED. 57 
 
 Cardinal 5^;^/? teftifies, both of Them and the Ambrofiam-,' which 
 I remark by the way. I obferve, that the German Copies of 
 this Creed, for 5, or 6 Iiundred years upwards, have moft com- 
 monly Amfiafms. inftead of Athmafms. I make no queftion but 
 that This firft arofe from a Miftake of the Copifts, and not out 
 of any Defign. One may perceive, that Anaftajius is fometimes 
 v/ritten where ^-^^^^^^^^ oi Alexandria mufil have been intended, 
 and none elie. 1 fuppofe, at firft, fome Copies had accidentally 
 Amjihafms for Atharmfms (as one in Benet College Library men- 
 tion d above) by a tranfpofition of letters or fyllables ; as eafi- 
 ly happens in writing, or fpeaking. Thus Phrunmm for Fhnrnu- • 
 tus, Marivadiis for Varirnadus, and the like. NoW, when the 
 Copies had thus introduced Amfthafms, {Anaf-tha, for Atha-naf:) 
 Thofe that came after left out the /?, to make it Anafiafms , 
 That being a common Name, which the other was not. This 
 I thought proDcr to hint tliat it may appear how little reafon 
 there i^ for afcribing this Greed to Anafiafius, whether of Rome-, 
 or of Antioch, or Any Other. 
 
 I have now run through the Manufcriprs of greateft note, 
 or ufc, either for Antiquity, or for any thing f articular, to give 
 light to our further Inquiries. Two only 1 have omitted, which 
 have been thought confiderable j not fo much in themfelves, 
 as upon account of the other Tra^s They were found to be 
 join d with. I would iiavc taken notice of them in tlieir place, 
 had I certainly known what Time to refer them to. The one is 
 the Manufcript found in tl^e Library of Thuanus (Codex Thuanem) 
 annex'd to fome Trads which were once fuppofed to belong to 
 Vitilius Tapfenjis, tho' now certainly known to be none of his. 
 _^ejnel was much pleas'd with the Difcovery of this Manu- 
 fcript, as favouring his Hypothefis about Figilius rapfe?2fis:^ And 
 
 a Bona de Divin. Pfalmod. c. i8. p. 897. 90°' . 
 
 b Abioluta Diflertationum noftrarum Editione, inveni Codicem Thimieim, m quo Dia- 
 logus V>giln Tapfcnfis adverfus Ariams, Sabellianoi, & Fhothiimos legitiir, fub hoc Titulo; 
 iKcipit Altercatio Athanafn cum H^refibus. Port hunc Traftatum habccur Symholum Nicp 
 w{frj, 8c Formula Fidei Ariminenfis Concilii, quam proxime fequkur Symbolmn Aihanaji- 
 anum cum hoc F.pigraphe: VUei dia» a SanSlo Athanafio Epifcopo. Porro, Conjeftura: 
 noftrae de AuSore hujus Symboli non parum fuffragatur. quod in anticinijjimo^ Codice il- 
 ligatum rcperiatur Opufculo cui nomen Athanafit pariter proefixum legitur, led quod Vt- 
 ntlii Tapfenfis efle indubitatum habetur 2<c. ^uefnelin Addend, p. 913. 
 
 '^ ^^ "^ II Anthel^ 
 
5 8 ANTIENT LATIN MSS. of 
 
 Anthelmius has taken fome pains in confuting Him ; {howing 
 that the fuppolcd Works of Vigtlim arc none of his, * and that 
 if they were, yet no certain Argument could be drawn from 
 thence to make f'/^i//«i Author of the Creed; fince it is a com- 
 mon Thing for Trads of feveral Authors, efpecially if They 
 relate to the fame Subjedt, to be tack'd to each other. 
 
 The Second Manufcript is one that was found annexed to 
 x\\z Fragments oi HiUry oi Voiciiers -^ which Circumftance was 
 i;hought a reafon for afcribing this Creed to HiUry. VoJJius 
 firft, and after Him many Others throw it off as a very fliglit Ar- 
 gument, fuicc the Manufcript pretended is very modern, nor is 
 the Creed afcrib'd to HiUry in that Manufcript, but only bound 
 up with his Fragments, as any other Work might be, however 
 little akin to them. Montfuucon takes notice of This matter, 
 in few words,'= Tentz^elius more at large.'^ It is fufficient for me 
 juft to have hinted it. 
 
 Having now given as particular Account as was needful of 
 the more antient Latin Manufcripts of this Creed, I may juft 
 obferve that as to Modern ones, they are innumerable, there be- 
 ing fcarce any manufcript Utin Pfalter of modern Date but 
 what has the Creed in it> and generally without a Title. I may 
 next fubjoin a Table of the Manufcripts here recited, reprefen- 
 ting in one Viev/ the Age, the Title, the Country where writ- 
 ten, and the kind of Pfalter wherein found : All which Cir- 
 cumftances will be of ufe to us in our following Inquiries. 
 Particularly, as to the P falters, it will be of moment to obferve 
 whether They be Roman, or Gallican -, becaufe from thence we 
 may be able to difcover in what Places, or Countries, this 
 Creed was lirfl: received, according to their ufe of This, or That 
 
 a Vtd. Montfaiic. Athan. Op. Tom. 2. p. 60;. 714.. 
 
 b Invcnirur id fimiliter in Fragmentis HiUni hiftoricis in Cod. vetcri part, 2. Sub 
 Fmem. FeUhman. Var. Leift, Open. Athan. p. 83. 
 
 c Hilario nonnulli adfcriptum voluerunt, quia ninairum in Codicc r^uodam cxftat pofl 
 yiilarii Fragmcnta. Quafi vcro id non vulgo & in plcrifque Cod;cibus obfcrvetur, ut 
 mulra diverforum opera confcqucntcr in manufcriptis dcfcribentur. Cum autem in 
 eiuCmodi Codice pofl Hilariana opera, nullo praEmifTb Au(floris nomine cornpareati hinc, 
 Mtijam fupft diximus, inferenduni, turn cxaratum tuilTe cum pro Afhanafiano nondum 
 rulj^o haberetur. Mont/. Diatrib. p-723> ' ' 
 
 d Tentztl. Judic. Erud. p. a, 3. ^e. n 
 
 Pfalter. 
 
The ATUANASIAN CREED. 55? 
 
 Pfdter. But becaufe, perhaps, fome Readers may be at a lofs 
 to know what we mean by thofe different Names of Roman, and 
 Gallkan Pfalters 5 it may not be improper here to throw in a 
 few previous Inftrudions relating to the different kinds of Latht 
 Pfalters, and the Names they have gone under. 
 
 There are four kinds, or forts, of Latin Pfalters 5 which have 
 pafs'd under the Names of It dicky Romany Galilean^ and Hebrmck. 
 One of them was before Jerom\T'm\Q,\ the Three laft are all 
 Jeromes as He had a Hand, more or lefs, in every one of 
 them. I fhall treat of them diftindly, in their Order, as 
 follows. 
 
 I. The Itdick Latin Pfalter, is of the old Tranflation, or 
 Verfion, fuch as it was before Jerom's Time. I fhall not enter 
 into the Difpute whether it were one Verfion, or many. The 
 common Opinion is, that there were feveral Latin Verfions 
 before Jerom,"- but one more Eminent than the refl called Ita- 
 lick^ as being received into common ufe in Italy."^ However 
 that be, it is become cuflomary with fuch as treat of this Sub- 
 jed, to fpeak of all that was extant before Jerome as of One 
 Verfion^ under the Name of Fetus Vdgata, or Verfio Italica. There 
 are intire ? falters of this old Verfion, print ed^ and manufcript -^ 
 tho' now no where in ufe in Divine Offices, except fuch par- 
 cels of it as, having been antiently taken into the Roman Mif- 
 fals, or other old Liturgies, remain there flill, the People being 
 accuftom'd to them, and there being no great neceillty for 
 cl^anging them. But all the intire Pfalters in uie are of another 
 kind. Martianay, in his Edition of Jerom's Works, once intend- 
 ed to give us an intire and corred Pfalter ('with fome other 
 of the Sacred Books) of the old Italick Verfion. But the Various 
 
 a Quienim Scripturas ex Hebrxa Lingua in Linguam Gr&cam verterunt numerari pof- 
 funt, 'Latim autem interpretfs nullo modo: ut enirn. Cuique primis Fidei TeriTporibiis in 
 manus venit Codex, & aliquantulum facnltatis fibi utriufque LinguK habere videbatur, 
 aufus eft interpretari. Auguft. "de Doftr. Chriftian. 1. a. c. xl. p. if. Tom. 3. 
 
 b In ipfis autem interpretationibus Itala CJeteris prscferatur: nam eft verborum tenacior 
 cum perfpicuitate fententiae. Auguft. ibid. p. 17. 
 
 c Ecclefia latina a principio, vel ferme a principio, ufa eft vcrfione latina Teftamenti 
 Vet. ex Graeca tSk tranflatioue fadla, qux Itala vulgo dicebatur, quoniam in /?a/m prius 
 ufitata in alias inde latinoruni Ecclefias recipiebatur. Humphr. Hodins. De Biblior. Text. 
 Origin, p. 342. 
 
 d Le Long Biblioth. Bibl. Vol. 1. p. 245. 
 
 H 2 Legions 
 
60 ANTIENT LATIN MSS. of 
 
 Leciions were fo many, and fo different, that the Work appear'U 
 too laborious and ditHcult for Him ; for which rcafon He then 
 laid it afide." This Vcrfion, or Vcrfions, is what all the Latins 
 iifcd before Jerom 5 and many alfo after Him, the Africans efpe- 
 ciaily , down to the Vlth Century at leaft, or beginning of 
 the Vllth. 
 
 2. The Roman Pfalter is not very different from the Old Jta- 
 lick. It is nothing ellc but That Old Verfion curforily, and 
 in part, corrected by Jerom^ in the Time of Pope DamaJ'uSj A. 
 D. 3 8 3 . It has had the Name of Roman, becaufe the Ule of it 
 began the fooneli, and continued the longcft in the Roman Of^ 
 fices. It obtain'd in Gaul near as foon as at Rome, but was laid 
 afide in the Vlth Century, when Gregory of Tours^ intro- 
 duced the other Pfalter, fmce c^Wcd Gallic an. The Roman Pfalter 
 however ftill obtain'd at Rome till the Time of Pope Pius^ the 
 Vth : And it is ftill ufed in the Vi^tican Church, and fome few 
 Churches befides. 
 
 3 The Gallican Pfalter is Jcrom's more corred latin Tranfla- 
 tion made from Origen\ Hexaplar, or moft correct Edition of 
 the Greek Sepuagtnt, fiU'd up, where that was deficient, from 
 the Hebre-iv ; diftinguilh'd .with Obelisks, and v^<?m/T, denoting the 
 common Greek Verfion in thofe places to be either redundant, 
 or deficient. Many of the old Manufcripts'^ ftill retain thofe 
 
 a Appendicem Sacrorum aliquot Voluminum, juxta Te/frfw Vulgatam ufu receptam 
 ante Hierohymum , hoc loco edendam ftatueramus : Sed quum Opcri manus jamjam ac- 
 cederer, tantani inter MSS. Codices hujia zer/ionis latino deprehendimus diflbnantiam, 
 lit impofflbilc eflct vel folas v^riantcs horum Codicum Le£iiones tdnotafle nifi maximo 
 Tcmporis intcrvallo. Quarc ne in fcqucntcm annum differrctur Editio hujus Diztns 
 "BiblwihecA, Appendicem praediftam latioriOperi, ac majori Otio rcfervavimus. Martian- 
 Not. ad Hierohym. Vol. i. p. 14 19. 
 
 b PfalmoB autem cum fecundum LXX. Intcrpretes Romani adlmc habeant j Ga//i gc Ger- 
 manorum Aliqui fecundum Emendationem, quam Hieronymus Pater dc LXX. Edirione 
 rompofuit, Pfa'.tcrium cantant: quam Gregorius, Turonenjis Epifcopus, a partibus Roma- 
 nis mutuatam, in Galliarum dicitur Ecclcfias tranftulifle. Walafrul. Strab. dc Rcb. Ec- 
 clcf. c. If. 
 
 c Vjd.CW. Bona rerum Liturgic. 1. i.e. 3. Humphr. Hod. p. 385. MAblllcn. deCurf. 
 Gallican. p. 391}. 
 
 d The C\)"-on h'anufcript cf 705, and the Benct of 8P3, Lambeth of^'j'j, and Bruno*.f 
 •w» Manu!" ,'t of 1033. Befides many more in France. Quanta porro tuerit diligentia No- 
 ftralium in-Jcfcribendo hoccc Pfaltcrio, cum Afterifcis 8c obelis, non aliunde teftatum 
 Yolumus quam ex infinita copia Codicum MSS. qui cum talibus diftin(5lionibus,fupcrfunt 
 iii Gallicanis Bibliothccis, Martin. Hteronym. Op. Vol. i. ProlegQin, 2. c, j-. 
 
 Marks • 
 
The ATEANASIAK CREED. 6i 
 
 Marks : But more have left them out, I fuppore, to fave Trouble. 
 This more corred Pfaiter was drawn up by Jerom in the year 
 389, andobtain'd firli mGatd about the year 5 So ; or however 
 not later than 595: From which Circumftance it came to have 
 the name of GaUican, in conrraditlindion to the Rommi. From 
 Caul, or France, it pafs'd over into England before the year 5 97,. 
 and into Germdny^ and Spain^ and other Countries. The Popes 
 of Rome, tho' they Themfelves ufed the other Pialter, yet pa- 
 tiently connived at the ufe of This, in the Weftern Churches, and 
 even in Italy it felf, and fometimes privately authorized the 
 ufe of it in Churches and Monafteries -^ till at length it was 
 publickly authorized in the Council of Trent, and introduced 
 a while after into Rome it felf by Vim the Vth. It was admit- 
 ted in Britain, and Ireland, before the coming of Augujiine the 
 Monk, and prevaii'd after, except in the Church of Canterbury^ 
 which was more immediately under the Arch-bifhop's Eye, and 
 more conformable to the Roman Offices, than other parts of 
 the Kingdom. This very Gallican Pfaiter is what we ftill re- 
 tain in conftant ufe, in our Common-Prayer Books : The other, 
 in our Bibles, is from the Hebreiv, by feveral learned Hands. 
 
 4. The Hebraick latin Pfaiter means Jerom' s own Tranllatioii 
 immediately from the Hebrew, made in the year 391. This 
 tho' otherwife of great Efteem, was never ufed in the publick 
 Church-Offices.*^ There are but few Copies of it, in compari- 
 fon, any where to be met with, becaufe This R falter, as be- 
 fore hinted, having never been in common ufe, like the Ro- 
 
 a Anno 1369. XJrbani V. Autoritate Sancitum, ut CaJJinenfes Pfalterio Gallicano ute- 
 rentur. Montfauc. Diar. Ital. p. 331. P. Adrian, long before, had recommended the CsX- 
 lican Pfaiter to the Church o/Breme. See below in Ch.Vl. and C. Bona, p. /06. 
 
 b Ante Adventum ^ugitflini Monachi, primi Archiepifcopi Cantuarienfis, in Angliam, 
 i. e, ante annum 5*97, Bcclefia: BntannicA & Hibemici. Pfalterium Gallicanum recepeianti 
 KAugMJi'mui hue a Gregorio M. raiflus Romanum fecum advexit, & Eccleliae fujE Cantuari-^ 
 enfi tradidit. Sed loco illius invaluit tandem, per omnes Ecclefias Anglicas, uliis Calltcanii 
 Bodius. de Text. Bibl. Origin, p. 384. 
 
 c Tertium eft de Hebr^o in latinum quod Jeronymus tranftulit de Hebraeo in Latinumi 
 Sed non eft in ufu Ecclefix, fed viri ftudii literati & fapientes eo utuntur. Koger: Bacont 
 apud Hodittm da Text. Original, p. 3 8+. 
 
 Hsec autem (Verjio ex HebrAo) idco recepta non fuit, quia duae priores, quotidiano ufa 
 la Ecclefiis frequentatar, fine magna divini officii perturbatione non poterant abrogari. 
 ^na, Rerum Liturg. 1. 2. c. 3. p. _j-o6. F;</. etiam Hodiftm. p. 38/. 
 
Ci ^NTIENT LATIN MSS. of 
 
 man and Gdlioin , has been confined to a few Hands. W'! 
 are not to expect an Athan^fiari' Creed in This Pfalter, as not 
 being intended tor the Uic of the choir : neither are we to 
 cxped to meet witii it in the Ualicl: P falters which are few, 
 and which were grown, or growing, out of ufe before the A- 
 th.majian Creed was brought into the Pubhck Offices. But in 
 the Roma?i and Giillicnn Pfalters, we may find it : And it will 
 be of moment to obferve in wliich of them it is found. In- 
 deed, fome manufcript Pfalters there are, which have the Roman 
 and Gullican together in oppofite Columns, the Gallican always 
 fet firft/ Others have the Hebrmck and Gailtcan fet Column- 
 wife as the former : And fome have all the Three Verfions of 
 Jerom placed in the like order. Dr. Hody informs us of Two 
 fuch Manufcripts, to which maybe added a Third now in. Trini- 
 ty -College in Cambridge, which has the Athanafitm Creed with 
 Brums Comment in it 5 as intimated above. Nay fome Ma- 
 nufcripts have the Greek alio with the other, making a 
 Fourth Column : An account of fome Manufcripts of this laft 
 fort may be feen both in Dr. Hodj^ and Le Long}' Thefc Double, 
 Triple, or Qtiadruple Pfalters came not in, I prefimie, before 
 the end of the Ter^th Century, or begmning of the Eleventh. 
 For Berno Augienfis of that Time acquaints us with the occa- 
 fion and ufe of them, and how They came to be fo contriv- 
 ed. When the Roman way of Singings firft adapted to the Ro- 
 man Pfalter, had been introduced into France , and Germany 
 (which was firft done in the Vlllth Century) in proccfs of Time 
 it bred fome confufion in the two Pfalters, mixing and blend- 
 
 a Hody de Text. Bibl. Original, p. 385-. 
 
 b Le Long Biblioth Bibl. Vol. I. p. 244. 
 
 c Inter cxrcra, ex emendara LXX Interprcturo Tranflatione f[aL er Grate* in Lati- 
 num vertit {titer onym us) illudque camandum omnibus G^//f«, ac quibufdam Germanii^C' 
 cicfiis tradidit. Et ob hoc GaUicnnHm ffultermm appellavit, Romanis adhuc ex corrupt* 
 vulgata Editiorie. Pfalterium canentibus : ex quz Roman i cantum compofucrunr, nobifque 
 ufum cantandi contradidcrunt. Unde accidit qucd verba, qui in diurnis vel nofturnif 
 Officiis canendi more modulantur, inrermifceantur, & confufe noftris Plalmis inferan- 
 tur ; ut a minus pcritis baud facile poflit difcerni quid nojln, vcl Rom.ms. convcniat Edi- 
 tioni. Quod pius Pater ac peritus Magiftcr intuens, tres Edttionts in uno Voluminc com- 
 pofuit: & Gallicmum Pfalterium. quod nos canimus, ordinavit in una Columna, in altera 
 RomnHum, iri-tcrria Heir mm. Berno Augienf. Epift. inedit. apud Maiill. dc curfu Gallica- 
 no- p-39<5. Ho<//«w dc Text. Original, p. 38'a. 
 
 ing 
 
The ATHAN^SIAN CREED. dj 
 
 ing them one with the other j that it was difficult to diftin- 
 guifh what words belong'd to This, and which to That. To 
 remedy This inconvenience, a way was found out to have Both 
 the Pfalters diftindly rcprefcnted to the Eye together, in Two 
 feveral Columns : And thus came in the kind of Pfalters be- 
 fore mentioned. We eafdy fee why the Gdlican ufed to 
 be fet in the firfl Column : Namely, becaufe Thofc Pfalters, 
 were contrived by the French y and Germans, who made ufe of 
 the Galilean, and fo gave the preference to their own. If I 
 have detained my Reader a little too long in This Digrellion 
 about the Pfalters ; I hope the ufefulnefs of the Subjed may 
 make Him fome amends, and be a juft Apology for it. I now 
 return to our Creed, and what more immediately belongs to it j 
 clofmg This Chapter, as I promis'd, with a T;?^/^ reprefenting a 
 Summary, or Ihort Sketch of what hath been done in it. 
 
 A Table 
 
^4 
 
 A Table of MAMVSCRITTS. 
 
 1300 
 
 A. Dnl 
 
 MSS. 
 
 1 Pfaltcrs 
 
 Tiiles of the Crred. 
 
 60 J 
 
 Bp. Ull}ir'5 
 
 1 1 
 
 Tides Catholtc.-i. 
 
 660 
 
 Treves 
 
 I i 
 
 
 700 
 
 Ambrojian | | 
 
 70? 
 
 Cotton I 
 
 1 Gnliican . 
 
 t'tJes 'iancli Athanajts Aiexa.nrittu 
 
 760 
 
 Colbert i | | 
 
 760 
 
 St. ■Germani 
 
 1 
 
 Fides Sancii Athana;ii Epi'copi. 
 
 77* 
 
 Vienna 
 
 1 Gallican 
 
 Fides SanBi Athanajii Epifcopi Alexandrini. 
 
 800 1 
 
 Regius, Paris \ \ 
 
 8fo j 
 
 Benet. Coll. C.vnt. i . 
 
 1 Gallican J 
 
 Fides Sancii ^najlhafii Epi/copt, 
 
 S60 
 
 Co'.bcrt 2 
 
 1 1 
 
 Fides Athavnjii 
 
 883 
 
 Benet C. 2 
 
 1 Gallican 
 
 Fides Cathciica. 
 
 930 
 
 S/. James's i 
 
 [ Roman | 
 
 I Gallican 
 
 Hymnus jithanajii. 
 
 95-7 ! 
 
 Lambeth 
 
 Fides CAthoitca S. Ath:inafii Epifcopi. 
 
 970 
 
 Harley i 
 
 1 Gjllican 1 
 
 Fides Catholica Athanafii Alexandnni Epiffopt. 
 
 1031 
 
 1 Cotton 2 
 
 1 Gallican 
 
 Fides Cathoiua Atkanafii Epifcopi Alexa>idrini. 
 
 lOfo 
 
 1 Norfolk 
 
 1 Gallican | 
 
 Fides Catholica Aihan.i/ii Alexandnni. 
 
 10.')+ 
 
 1 Bei.et C. ^ 1 1 
 
 1 066 
 
 Cjtton } 
 
 1 
 
 Fides Catholica 
 
 1066 
 
 1 Cambriilge 
 
 1 Ronian 
 
 
 1090 
 
 CaJJinenfis 
 
 
 FrJes Sancii A:l;ana{ii Epifcopi. 
 
 I 120 
 
 \ Harley 2 
 
 
 Fides Annftafii Epifopi. 
 
 1240 
 
 1 St. fameih 2 
 
 
 1 Fides Cathoiua. 
 
 Friars Minors 
 
 Galilean I Canticum Bonefacit. 
 
 Ce Chant fi^fl St Anai/laie qui Apofloilles de Rome. 
 
 1400 I Bodleian 
 
 Anajh/ii Expojitio Symboli Apojlolorum. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
^5 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Antient Verjions, printed or mamifcript . 
 
 SOME Account of the antient Veriions, of the Athmmfin-ii 
 Creed, may be of ule to fhew when and where it has been 
 received, and what Fdt^e hath been fet upon it, at feveral Times, 
 and in feveral Countries. I fhall note the Time, in the margin, 
 when the firfi Verfion into any Language appears to have been 
 made : And 1 lliall rank the Verfions of the feveral Countries 
 according to the Chronological Order of Thofe Firft Verfions 
 rcfpedivcly. 
 
 FrenchVersions. 
 
 Undei the name of French Verfions, I comprehend all Ver- 
 fions made at any Time into the njulgar Language then cur- 
 rent in Fr^.nce, whatever other Name fome may pleafe to give 
 them. I beg leave alfo to comprehend under the fame Name 
 all Ord Verfions delivered by word of mouth, as well as writ- 
 ten ones : Otherwife I am fenfible that I ought not to have 
 begun with French Verfions. I do not know that the Gauls, or 
 French had any written {landing Verfion of This Creed fo ear- 
 ly as 850, or for feveral Centuries after. Their oldeft Verfions 
 of the P falter are fcarce earlier than the Xlth Century,' and of 
 the intire Scripture fcarce (^ early as the Xllth:^ And we are not 
 to expect a written Verfion of the Athanafian Creed more an- 
 tient than of their Pfalter. But what I mean by fetting the 
 French Verfions fo high as I here do, is that the Athanafian Creed 
 was, as early as is here faid, interpreted out of Latiri> into the 
 vulgar Tongue for the ufe of the People, by the Clergy of France, 
 in their verbal Inftrud-ions. This is the fame Thing, in effed, 
 with a written {landing Verfion, as fupplying the Place of it 5 
 and is as full a proof of the general Reception of the Creed, at 
 That Time, as the other would be. Now, that the Athanafian 
 
 a See Le Long, Biblioth. Bibl. Vol. i. p. 313. ^c. 
 
 I Creed 
 
 )^' 
 
CC ANTIENT VERSIONS of 
 
 Creed was thus interpreted into the vulgar Tongue in France^ 
 as early as the year 850, or earlier, I prove from the words of 
 Hincmnr^ above cited, giving Orders to the Clergy of his Pro- 
 vince to be able to exprels Tliis Creed communihus 'verbis ^ that 
 is, in their vulgar, or Mother Tongue. What That mix'd kind 
 of Language which They then ufed, fnould be called, is of no 
 great moment to our prcfent purpofe to inquire. Some per- 
 haps, with Vitus Amerbachius, and Bifhop Ujljerj ^ will call it 
 Teutonick-, or German, becaufe the Franks and Germans, being 
 Originally the fame, fpake the fame Language. But I fee no 
 confequencc that, becaul'c Fra-aks and Germans ufed the tame 
 Language, therefore Franks and Gauls mix'd together mull: Hill 
 keep the fame 5 any more than that a mix'd Nation of Nor- 
 mans, and Saxons, mull all agree either in Norman, or Saxon. 
 One would rather exped in fuch a mix'd People, a mix'd Lan- 
 guage too, as ufually happens in fuch Cafes. As to France in 
 particular, at That Time, Mr. Wharton has plainly fhewn that 
 the Language there fpoken was very widely different from the 
 Teutonick, or Gcrma-n. 
 
 The Concordate between the Two Brothers Lewis and Charles, 
 at Strasburgh, puts the matter out of Difpute : Where one ex- 
 prefs'd Himfelf in the Teutonick, the other in the Language then 
 current in Fra-ncc-, called Romanenfis, or Rufiica Ro-majva, corrupt 
 Roman, or Latin-^ nearer to the Latin than to the German, but 
 a confufed mixture of Both. Such was the Language then vul- 
 garly fpoken in France, as appears from the Specimen of it 
 given by Wharton from Nithardus. And this I prefumc is the 
 Language into which our Creed was interpreted in Hincmars 
 Time 5 for which rcafon I have fet the French Verfions fird. 
 If any one contend that the Teutonick prevailed then in the /)/- 
 ocefs of Rheims, tho' not in the other parts of Gaulmo\:c remote 
 from Germany, I fhall not thmk it of moment to difpute the 
 point, fincc it is not material to our prcfent purpofc. 
 
 As to the French Verfions, properly fo called, ivritten (land- 
 ing Verfions, 1 have faid, that none of them reach higher than 
 
 a Vfftr. Hiftor. Dogmat. p. in. 
 
 b Vid Wharton. Au6lar. Hiftor. Dogmat. p. J44.. 
 
 the 
 
rk ATHAKASJAN CREED. 6y 
 
 the Xlth Century. Montfmcon gives us one, tho' imperfed, 
 600 years old j' that is, of the Xlth Century, and very near 
 the end of it, about 1 09 8, fix hundred years before the Time of his 
 writing. And this is the oldeft that I have any where found 
 mention'd. Next to which, perhaps we may reckon That in 
 Trinity College in Cambridge \ I mean the interlinear Verfion 
 whicli Mr. Wa-aley° calls Normanno-Gallican, about 580 years 
 old. There is one in the Cottort Library {Nero. C. 4.) above 
 500 years old, according to Mr. Wharton. "^ Montfaucon gives 
 us Another above 400 years old.'^ But it is needlefs, and foreign 
 to my purpofe to number up all theVerfions: T\\Q.firJi in its 
 kind is what will be chiefly ferviceable to our following In- 
 quiries. 
 
 German Versions. 
 
 As to -written and (landing Verfions, the Cermim, io far as S70 
 we find any Records, ought to have the firfi: place. There is 
 in the Emperor's Library at ViennpL,'^ 3. German j or Temomck^ 
 Verfion of This Creed made by OtfriduSy Monk of Weiffenberg 
 in the IXth Century : The Manufcript, as Lambecius afliires us, 
 is coeval with the Author. There have been feveral later Ger- 
 man Verfions, a brief account of which may be feen in Lam- 
 hecius^ TentzeliuSy^ and Le Long -^ but more particularly in Tent- 
 zelim. It is fufficient to my purpofe to have taken notice of 
 the frjij and mofl: confiderable in its kind. 
 
 V Anglo-S^axon Versions. 
 
 There have been Anglo-Saxon Verfions of this Creed as ear- p,Q 
 ly as the Time of K. Athelfian 5 as appears from the Manu- 
 
 a Mantfaucon. Diarrib. p. 72.1. 727. 733. 
 
 b Wanleii Catal. MSS. Septentr. p. 168. 
 
 c IVharion. Au(ftar. Hiftor. Dogmat. p, 390. 
 
 d Monrf. Diatr. p. 712. 
 
 e Lambec. Catal. Biblioth. Vindobon. I. 2. p. 460. 760. 
 
 i Lambtc. Catal. L. 2. p. 763. 
 
 g Tentz.eL Judic. Erudit. Praef, & p. zi6. 
 
 h Le Long. Biblioth. Bibljc. Vol. i. p. 376. 
 
 I 2 fcript 
 
^8 ANTIENT VERSIONS of 
 
 fcript of the Royal Library with an mterlinear Vcrfion, noted 
 above J and whicli I place in 930. The Lamhcth Manufcript 
 of 957 has alfo an interlinear Saxon Verfion. Both which 
 Manufcripts confirm the Account which our Learned Dr. 7^^//£';2 
 <;ives of an Anglo-Saxon Copy of this Creed which He has 
 printed from a Manufcript of the Church of Salisbury. He 
 judges the Ferfion it felf to have been made about the middle 
 of the Xth Century, or about 950; which fuirs exaftly with 
 the Age of the Manufcripts before mention'd. Only , This 
 we may exped, that the Saxon Copies of thofe Manufcripts (if 
 They happen to contain the fame Ferfion) will be found much 
 more correct than the Sarum Copy, being written at a Time 
 when the Saxon Language was lefs corrupted, and retain'd more 
 of its primitive purity 5 whereas the Sarum Copy was written,* 
 as Dr. Wot ton conjectures, after both Danes and Normans had 
 much alter'd the Language. I before obferved that the Title 
 in Dr. Wottons Copy is Hymnus Athanafii, as in St. James ^ 
 Copy: And there is fomcthing farther worth the noting, which 
 is the Rubrick following the Title, direding the Creed to 
 be fung alternately^ which confirms the Account given hy Abbo 
 Floriacenfis of the cuftom of the Galilean and Englipj Churches 
 in that Age. But to pixDceed j From the Time wc have had 
 any Verfion of this Creed into our Country-Language , wc 
 may reafonably conclude that fuch Vcrfions have varied, by little 
 and little, in every Age, in proportion to the gradual Altera- 
 tion in our Language 5 till at length the Verfion became fuch as 
 it (lands at This Day. Such as are defirous of having a Specimen 
 of the Creed in very old Engllflj verfe, may find one in Dr. Hicks s 
 
 a Vcrfioncm iftam circiter medium Dff/w/ S<^«/» efTe fa£tam ipfius Sermonis cum pi> 
 ritate (ubi non hallucinatur Intcrpres) conjunfta proprietas cft'erdir. Receniim vcro dc- 
 fcriptam fuifle, fub Nortmannorum in Angliam Advcntum, non tantum Librani Lin- 
 guae SaxonicA haud gnari rcccntior manus in qua exaratur, (od pravum ilhid Anglo Da^ 
 nicum, vcl forftta Anglo Nortmanmcum,icn\>zi\d\ genus d^mon^v^t.Wotton. Nor ad Brevero 
 Confpeft. Opcris Hukefiani. p. 75-. 
 
 b Hymnus Athanafii, Je Fide Trinitatis. 
 
 *Qucm Tu concelebrans, difcutientcr intcllege. Incipit de Fide. 
 
 On vhich Dr. Wotton makes this Note. 
 
 * Ita M^. Hoc eft, qucm Tu anhfhon,itim, vcl altermtim pfallcns, animo percipe. 
 
 p.- 7.7- 
 
 Thefau^ 
 
rhe ATHAUASJAN CREED. 6p 
 
 Thefaums ;* And They may fee a good part of a Trofe-Verfion in 
 old Engli^ (tho' confiderably later than the other) in Wkkliff\ 
 Comment. But thefe and the like Obfervations are out of the 
 compafs of my Deitgn, and fo I pafs on. 
 
 Greek Versions. 
 
 I have before intimated that this Creed was Originally Ldtin^. 
 and therefore the Greek Copies can be no more than Verfions, 
 And They appear to be very Ute alfo, in comparilbn to the 
 former. However, fuice the Greek is one of the learned Lan- ' 
 guages, fince the Creed has been afcribcd to a Greek Author, 
 and has been alfo fuppofed by Many to have been written in 
 Greek j it will therefore be proper to give as particular and as 
 diftind Account as is poflible of the Greek Verfion, or Ver- 
 fions. Our Inquiries here will lie within a littl^ compafs : 
 For the Greek Copies are neither rminy, nor antient. Montfau- 
 con^ a very diligent Searcher into thefe matters, frankly pro- 
 fefles that He had never feen any Greek Copy of this Creed fo 
 old as 3 oo years ; nor ever heard of any that was antient!!' He 
 fcruples not to fay farther, that there had not been yet feen 
 any Greek Record, of certma and undoubted credit, whereby to 
 prove that This Creed had been known to the Greek Church 
 for more than 500 years upwards.'^ He fpeaks only of Greek 
 Records: As to Latin ones they afford Sufficient proof that 
 This Creed was pleaded againft the Cr^^/'i in the Dilpute, about 
 the ProceJJio?h in the 8th or 9th Century at lateft, and therefore 
 mt^ have been in fome i^ieadire known to them. The Greeks 
 and Latins had fome Difpute on that Head in the Synod of 
 Gent illy, not far from Paris, in the year 767, under K. Pepin, 
 
 a Hkkef: Thefaur. Linguar. Septentr. p. 352. 
 
 b Sane nuiium vidimus Grscum hujus Symbol! Godicem qui trecentorttm fif annorum; 
 nee antiijHum alium a quopiam vifum fuifle novinu's. Montfauc. Diatrih. p. 7^7- 
 
 c Adjicere non pigcat non vifum ha£tenus fuifle Gncorum quodpiam monurnentam 
 (certum fcilicet ac indubitatum^^-quo ab annis plus quingentis notum Ecclefi^ Crxcifviffc 
 Symbolum, ^iikunq<^e, poi^l^ comprobari. Montf. ibid. p. 711. 
 
 To the fame purpofe /peaks ComheRs of this Greet!. 
 
 Vix enim extat praterquam in recentiorum Colleflaneis, librifque eorum Polcmicis, 
 quibus ipfum vel impugnant, vel etiam defendunt: fdque volimt illi qui aiunt non hiiberi 
 inGncorum libr'u; non enim fie ftupidi videntur ut negent GrAce haberf. Combef. Not., 
 ad Mm> Calec. p i^J. 
 
 But 
 
yo ANTIENT VERSIONS of 
 
 But perhaps this Creed was not pleaded at That Time : At lead 
 it docs not appear that it was. 
 
 It cannot be doubted bat that the Greeks had heard fomething 
 of This Creed troni the LAt'ms^ as early as the Days of Ra- 
 tKi^m J and JEneiis Parifie^fis -^ that is above 850 years ago, 
 Avhcn the Dilputc about the Vroceljlon between the Greeks and 
 Latins was on Foot : This the Teftimonies above cited plainly 
 fhew. But This is not enough to prove that the Greek Church 
 had yet any value for This Creed, or that there was then ex- 
 tant any Greek Copy of it. 
 1200 NicoUm HjdruntirmSy cited above, who flourifh'd under Alex- 
 ius IV, Emperor of the Eaft, and Pope Innocent the Third, that 
 is, in round numbers about 1 200, He gives us the firft notice 
 of This Creed being extant in Greek in his Time. He obferves, 
 that the Article of the ProceJJion from the Son was not in the 
 Greek Copy of This Creed, as neither in the Nicene, blaming 
 the Lfitins^ as I apprehend, for interpolating Both. Which 
 was a juft cenfure with rcfped to the Nicene Creed, but not 
 with refped to the Atha?mfian, which certainly never wanted 
 That Article j as is plain from the Agreement of the Latin 
 Copies, and the carlieft of them, thofe of a Thoufand years 
 Dare : which I remark by the way. As to our prefent purpole. 
 This is certain that, fome Time before This Nicolaus of 0- 
 tranto wrote, the Creed had been tranflated imo Greek, by a 
 Greek, or at leafi: by one that took part with the Greeks in the 
 Qiieftion about the Procellion. It can hardly be imagined that 
 NicoUtis had tranflated it Himfelf, and that He appealed to his 
 o-ivn Verfion. There muft have been a Verfion before un- 
 doubtedly : And one can fcarce fuppofe lefs than 50, or 100 
 years before, fince both the Tirne and Author of it were for- 
 gotten, and This Greek Verfion pafs'd with NicoUus for Atha- 
 najiuss Original. Manuel Caleca^ who wrote about the Year 
 
 a Teflantur autem hanc ipfam Fidei Confeflionem Sanfti viri (Athanafti) efle, atque 
 id didlum ira fe habere, qui contra Latinos multo ante fcripfcrunri quam fibi ut adver- 
 fam truftra labefaftare nituntur. Atque, ut intelligi datur, tunc quidem adhuc fervaba- 
 tur; poJimoJum vero pertinaciorct ad contradicendum fafti, omnino auferre voluerunt.* 
 ctfi modo jiihilominus curiole inquirentibus raro, licet in vetuftiflimis Codicibus, ita ha> 
 bere invcnitur. Mun. Calec. contr. Grid, a. B. PP. Tom. XXVI. p. 414. 
 
 1360, 
 
The ATUANASIAN CREED. 71 
 
 I ? 60, intimates that there had been Greek Copies long before 
 his Time, and that the moft antient of all had the Article of 
 the Proceflion from fhe Son-^ and that the older Greeks who 
 wrote againft the L^itim did not pretend to ftrike out That Ar- 
 ticle, as thofe did that came after. Could we depend upon 
 this Report, we might then be certain that the Greek Copies of 
 the Time of NicoUus Hydruntinus, were late in Comparifon, and 
 that there had been other Greek Copies much more antient. 
 But This I leave to the confideration of the Learned. Howe- 
 ver this fad be, one thing is certain, that the oldeft Greek 
 Copy could be only a Verfion^ whether fooner or later. 
 
 As to Greek Copies now extant in manufcri^t^ They are but 
 few, and modern. I may here give a Ihort Account of them, 
 of as many as I have hitherto found mentioned in Books, or 
 Catalogues of Manufcripts. 
 
 I. There is one in the Emperor's Library at Viennti, faid to 
 be in p^per, mztient, and oi good Vdue"". Thefe words are too 
 general to fix any certain Date upon : One may guefs from the 
 Taper, that the Manufcript is not very antient ; fince Tiiper came 
 not into frequent, or common ufe before the Xlllth Century. But 
 not to infill upon That, one may judge from what is written 
 in the fame Volume, and, I fuppofe, in the fame Hand (for 
 Nefjelim makes no DiftindionJ that the Copy of the Creed is 
 not earlier than the middle of the XlVth Century. Maximus 
 VUnudes makes a part of the Manufcript : He flourifh'd about 
 the year 1340. 
 
 2^ There is Another Greek Manufcript of this Creed in the 
 fame Library, a pfiper one too, and faid to be pretty d/itient, 
 by NeJJelmSj who gives account of it'', from the mention: 
 
 i CCXIV. Codex MS. Theologicus Grxcus eft Chartaceus, mtiqtiHi, & bo7iA tiou \a 
 4to. Conftatque foliis 541. 
 
 Continentur co Hzc. 
 
 Imo &c. 
 
 2do & quidem a Fol. 77, ad Fol. 79. S. Athanafii Archiepircopi;Al;x-ai]drinl .^7«^o//^« 
 Fidei, cujus Titulus 8c principiunr T» dyas 'Ajztyxrn'ii t« fj!,i}.cc'^^. "O-m '/' ccv ,'iii^>i'T^ 
 mi^icq, istSi •mi'm^'i y^^vt x-o^n't* Tn^i ^c. NefTel. Catal p. 344. Vol. !• 
 
 b CXCinus Codex MS.— ——eft Chartacem, med'wcriter antiquus, 8c ion a not a, in 
 4to. Conftatque nunc Foliis 332, & ad Johmnem SamhtiCMm dim pertinuir. Continentur 
 eo Haec. I prime 0f. 
 
 therein 
 
ji ANTIENT VERSIONS of 
 
 therein made of the Creed's being prefented to Pope Julius, 
 I fhould be apt to conclude that the Manufcript is not earUcr, 
 nor copied from any carHer than Afa»uel Caleca's Time, or 
 the XlVtli Century : But there are other Marks, particularly 
 fome Pieces of Julianm Cardindis^ which demonftrate that the 
 Manufcript cannot be much older than the middle of the 
 XVth Century. 
 
 3 . Felchman had a manufcript Copy of This Creed in Greek, 
 without any Title to it, or any Author named '. I can fay no- 
 thing to the Age of it, for want of further Particulars. 
 
 4. Felckman had Another Manufcript out of the Palatine Li- 
 brary, (which Library is fince transfer'd to the Fatican) with a 
 Title to it, (Tii(/.Co\ov tb kyls ' AfoLVoLTiy, St. Athanafiuss Creed ^. 
 The Title alone is a iufficient Argument of it's being modern^ to 
 any that confider what were the more ufual and antient Titles, 
 rcprefented above. It is to be noted that Thofe Two manu- 
 fcript Copies arc fo nearly the fame, that They make but one 
 Copy in Print, which has been inferred in all the Editions of 
 Athanafiiiss Works after Felckm/iri's, as well as in his, and makes 
 the fifth in Gundlingius,^ who gives us fix Greek Copies of this 
 Creed. It is obfervable, that This Copy owns not the Pro- 
 ccflion from the Son : From whence we may infer that it was 
 not made by the Latins, or however not by any who wete not 
 Priends to the Greeks. 
 
 5. Laz^arus Baifius's Copy ^j which He had from Venice, in 
 
 180 Et quidem a fol. 305. ad fol. 504, S. ^thanafihnAgni, Archicpifcopi Alcxandrini, 
 ConfeJJio Catholica FiJei,ad S.J-ultum Pontificem Ronianum; cujus & Ticulus & I'rincipium 
 
 l»>,«ov Iloirmv Vitj/yt!,. Tm ')t>,cvn ezuji^vuf Scc. Kcjfel. Catal. Vol. I. p. 281- 
 
 a Extat Hog Symbolum in noftro Codice z anonymo, fed abfquc Titulo 2c nomine 
 Autorisi iinde & fie editum. Felckmai. ^i]. Aihanaf. Commelin- p- 83 
 
 Incipit ; « TH ^Ao( ai-Pjvtiaji (zs^ 'Tnlvmv xf>> c^-^rtS r^v ^^oAj*>i» kj^t^jw^ th^v. Sec. 
 
 b Invcnimus id ipfuni etiam poll in CoJicc quodam ^.ihtim Bibl:othecs, cxprefsc A- 
 thanafio infcriptum (licet id recentiorcs Grsuci nolinr, ut viderc eft ex epiftola Meletii Con- 
 ftantinopolitani Patriarchx ad Douzam ) ex quo etiam difcrepantias quaidam notabimus. 
 
 Incipit} 1/775 S^iAH ffzit'y>iyaf, <a^ TmiTut ^ffiK' «fv <»«* th* KU%>UKti» x^tho-jj Tn^r. gcc. 
 Felckman. Hi J, 
 
 c Gundlmgii not. ad Eujlratii & p. 76- 
 
 d Titulus E>^6i<ni ow-eAep^a? Tr.i xx^oXikki; Ttiftuc, nu fjutj^Xn'Ajx^ur.is TncTQ/ieif^if 'AMlcif- 
 
 Incipit. '0?i5 uf (it'JXiKTxj (TM^T'^i Cvt? Tmrrc-y ^c>i Kfxjx^t njf x(«doA«KV 5T7?ji'. 
 
 the 
 
The ATHAN^SI^N CREED. 7^ 
 
 the Time of frmcis 1. in the year 153 3» was publifhed by 
 Genebmrd, An. 1569. This Copy, probably, was contrived by 
 a Latin ("having the Proceilion from the So?z in it) or at leaft 
 by fome honeji Greek who would not vary from the Origind, 
 I conclude this Greek Copy to be modern^ from the Title 5 for 
 a reafon before hinted. 
 
 6. There was Another manufcript Copy * of this Creed, 
 which NicoUus Bryli?7g firfl printed at B/^fdy and afterwards //. 
 Stephens in France , in the year 1565. This alfo muft, in all pro- 
 bability, be very modern^ becaufe of aufiQo\ov in the Title. It 
 acknowledges the Proceflion from the Son, conformable to the 
 Original. 
 
 7. In the i?oj^/ Library at Paris. fNumb. 2 502,) there is ano- 
 ther manufcript Greek Copy of this Creed,^ written in the year 
 1562. publifhed by Genebrard 1569, and faid by Him to belong 
 to the Church of Conjiantinople. This was taken from an older 
 Manufcript, but how much older cannot certainly be known ^ 
 One may imagine from the Title ^, and Beginni?ig of it, that the 
 Form is the fame with one of thofe in the Emperors Library, 
 and that they were copied from each other, or Both from a 
 Third Copy. This Manufcript acknowledges the Proceflion 
 from the Son. I had underftood, from A^ontfaucons general way 
 of Exprellion, that Genebrard had publifh'd his Copy from this 
 very Manufcript of the Royal Library, Num. 2502. But obfer- 
 
 a Titulus : Sw/*foAo» t5 «><» 'AJu.hu.t.h. 
 
 Incipit: "o??; /SaAsra^ t^fiijKi/ 8cc. 
 
 b ^e graecis autem Codicibus pauca fuppetunt dicenda, cum unum tartum nobis in- 
 fpicere licucrit, fcil.. Reg. 2/ci. In quo extat Symbolum fuperiore fsculo cxaratum. 
 Montf. Diatrib. p. 722. 
 
 Secunda, quam edimus formula, jam dim public! juris fafta per Genebrardum Anno 
 ij"69, quam ait ille efTe Ecclefiae Conftantinopolitanae, extat in Regie Codice num. 2'5oi, 
 olim ex Bibliotheca Johannis Huralti Boiftallerii a Carolo IX. Venetias Legati. in quo Co- 
 dice haec leguntur, ante Dialogum S. Athanafii cum Ario >tranfcnptus ^- recognifus 
 liber Hie cfi, ex 'vetuflifptno exemplars Cretico; Venetiis An. 15-62. impenfst fa^^ aureorum 
 X. Zachjtrias Sacerdos tranfcripfu'iQf habitit. Montf. Diatrib. p. 727. 
 
 c Incertum autem utrum ex illo quod memorat VetufiiJ]:mo Exemplari, Syrmhohm etiara 
 fit mutuatiis ; Codex qwippe arrpla; molis multa 8c varia compleftitur, qua: dubitare licet 
 ex unone Codice exfcripta fuerint, an ex Compluribus. Monif. ibid. 
 
 d Titulus. TS cv dyfoii UxTfii; v,[jjuv 'Ajuvxaia t» [Af^Xev oy^Xo'^ioi t?? xxJvMkTu •m^iuc, 
 >]» ?^x£ "JT^c, 'I»A(e» UctTmv 'Paw/jc. 
 
 Incipit. T« ^'Aovti 3Zc'^v«/, &c. 
 
 K vino; 
 
74 ANTIENT VERSIONS of 
 
 ving that Genebrard's wants fomc words (ki^oi o 7raT-/)f, ai'^05 
 '^:i^ oti'iloy TO 'TtrZuua To a.'}iov) which Montfaucon\ Copy has, I 
 conchidc that He meant only the jame Jrorm, as to Matter and 
 Words, tor the nioft part, not the fame Manulcript. 
 
 8. There is Another manufcript Greek Vcrllon, or rather 
 Paraplirafe of this CreeJ, havini^ leveral hiterpolations, pubhih'd 
 by Bilhop V^kt A. 1647, from a Copy fcnt Him by Patrick 
 Toung. It has been often fuice printed : m the Gouncth, in Gund- 
 Jmg, and in Montfaucon, 
 
 It leaves out the Article of Procedlon from the Son 5 from 
 whence we may judge that it was compofed by a Greeks or 
 Grecizins; Latin. The Title mfmuates that the Creed was drawn 
 up in the Nicene Council * : an opinion entertain'd by Johan, 
 Cyparifjiota^ about the year 1360, as obferved above. When 
 Ihis Story, or Fidion firft came in, I cannot pretend to de- 
 termine. Bi(hop U/lb^/' fpeaks of a ijery antient M^nuCcnpt, part- 
 ly in Irifh, and partly in Latin^ which hints at the iame Thing: 
 But He fixes no Date to the Manufcript ; the words, ^ery 
 antienty are too general to give Satisfaction in it. The Creed 
 is there faid to have been compofed in the Niceyie Council by 
 Eufebius, and VionyJJuSy and 2.Third Ich Namelefs^, as not being 
 known. The Author of that Book of Hynms muft have been 
 very Ignorant, not to know AthanafmSj who was undoubted- 
 ly the Third Man, and for whofe lake (to account for the 
 Creed's being wrote in Latiri) the whole Story feems to ha\c 
 been contrived. By Eufebius muft have been intended Eujebius 
 of Verceil in Picdmontj a Latin, and a great Friend and Intimate 
 of Athanafius : By Diunjfius undoubtedly is meant Bionyfius 
 Bifhop of A^ilan of the lame Time, and of the fame Principles, 
 and well acquainted with Eufebius^. Had the Contrivers of 
 
 a *£» "^ d^eci i d'xevjLt/fyty.'iii r?? ci Nuca-oi, <zsct Tn^ieoi; kxtu avtivf/jixn, >C Tntie, /i? ttk^HiW) 
 rnv c-'XtiCti x,Q/KJecyov. Ujjcr. dc Symb. p. l6. 
 
 h In Hymnorum, partim Latino partim Hibernico Sermone fcriptorum,Codicc vetuHif- 
 
 ^Imo notatum leperi, triiim Epifcoponim opera, in cadem Kutnn Synodo illud fu- 
 
 jfTe compofitum, EHfeiii, & Dwnyfii, (^ nomeu tertii (lie cnim ibi Icgitur) nejcimus, 
 Ujfcr. de Symb. prxf. 
 
 c It feents highly probable, that the -whole Fable about Eufebius, and Dionyfius, was firji 
 ta'tfed out tf a Pajfage of .S/. Anibrolc, which rnight be though: to hint fame fiuh Thing- ^^^* 
 -seordi are: ' i 
 
 the 
 
Jhe ATHANASI AN CREED. 75 
 
 the Fable laid their Scene at Alex^ndrm, where Athan^fius and 
 this EuJehiuSy with I'everal other Latins^ met together in the year 
 362, They had made it the more plaufiblc. But let us return 
 to our Greek Copies, from which we have a httle digrels'd. 
 
 This is obfervable of the Greek Copies in general, that They 
 •differ very widely from each other, and therefore cannot be 
 Copies of one and the fame Verfion. Polfibly, Three, or Four 
 of them may be thrown into one, admitting however many 
 Furious Legions : But ftili there will be as many remaining, which 
 cannot be fo dealt with, but muft be look'd upon as diftind, 
 and different Verfions. Such as defire to fee all the Copies to- 
 gether, may find them in Gundling, and Morttfaucort' 5 Four at large, 
 the reft exhibited' only by Various Leciions. I do not know whe- 
 ther the Manufcripts of the Vtenrm Library have been colUted 
 for any oi xho, prmted Editions : Perhaps not 5 I do not remem- 
 ber that 1 have met with any mention of them, in any of the 
 Editors of the printed Copies. 
 
 It may be of ufe to let the printed Editions, after our Ac- 
 count of the Manufcripts, in Chronological order, as diftindly 
 ^s may be, fmce we cannot fix the Dates of the manufcript 
 Copies. 
 
 I. TheFirft printed Edition was by NicoUus Bryling," a Printer 1540 
 of B^fiL My Authors have been deficient in not fetting down 
 the Date of it. I have endeavor'd to fix the year, but have not 
 yet been fo happy as to come to a certainty in it. Where- 
 •fore, I hope, my Reader will excufe it, if, rather than fet no 
 yc^r at all, I chule one x^hich I know cannot be very much 
 over, or under, becaufe of other Pieces printed by the fame 
 Bryling about That Time. Fabricius mentions Michael Meander 
 as Editor of the fame Copy after Bryling, and before Stephens: 
 
 Itaque ut Eufebius Sanclus prior levavit VexUlum Confejjionis, ita Bmtus Dionyllus in 
 txilii locis, priori Manynhus Tnulo viiam exhalavit. Ambrof. ad VercelUnf. Fp. 63. p. 
 1039. 
 
 a Quod olim evulgavit Bafiles Nicolaus Bryling; dcinde in Gallia An. i^6f. Henricus 
 Stephanui. Genebrard. in Symb. Athanaf. p. 8. 
 
 Quam poft Nie. Brylmgium, & Mich, Neandrum^ H. Stephanus in lucem edidit. Fahric, 
 Bibl. Gric. Vol. V. p. 3,5. 
 
 K 2 But 
 
7<; ANTIENT VERSIONS of 
 
 But what year, is not laid. Tentzelius mentions a Third ^^ na- 
 mely Sebajiian Lepufculus, whofc Edition was in 1559 ; and ^z^- 
 fhens\ in 1565. 1 have not fcen Lepufculns's, Copy : But I can 
 make no doubt of it's being the fame '' with Brjl'mg^ : which 
 has been called the Vulg^ite, or Common Vcrfion. 
 
 ^^^9 2. The Second />r/>/r^^ Copy was taken from the Manufcript 
 of Lazarus Bai-ffius, which He received from Dionyfim '-■, a Greek, 
 in the year 1533, as before hinted. This was lirfl: printed by 
 Cenehrard in the year 1 5 69^ ai2;ain in 1 5 8 5, and oftcntuncs fince. 
 This Copy is fometimcs called the 'Dionyjian Copy ; and it is 
 obferved by Gundl'mg to differ from the firft Copy but in fenjen 
 Places 5 and therefore thefc Two have been commonly thrown 
 into one, by all the Editors of Both. 
 
 1569 3. The T/;/>^ Copy was alio firft prmted by Genebrard, at the 
 fame Time with the other. It has gone under the Name of 
 the Cofifi amino folit an Copy, becaufe Genebrard fuppofed it to 
 have been in ulc at Conflantinople^. It differs conflderably from 
 Both the other, and is never thrown into one with them, but 
 kept diftind by it felf 
 
 1600 4. The Fourth is the Commeli?ie, or Felckmans Copy, from the 
 Palatine Manufcripts, often reprinted with Atha-najiuss Works. 
 This alfo ftands by it felf, as a diftind Verfion. 
 
 e647 5. The Fifth was firft publiili'd by Ujherj in the year 1647. 
 
 a Sebajlian : Lepnfculi Compendium Jofephi Gorionidis, cum Colleftaneis quibufda'm. 
 "Rafil. Iff 9' Vid. Tentz.el. p. i66. 
 
 b Nic. Serarius, tpho wrote, in the year i<)Cfo. /peaking of that firft Copy printed by ^ryVrngt 
 M»d Stephens, fays as follows, 
 
 Quarum prima, "vulgata dici potcft, eo quod badenus ca fola hie apud nos, Germanix 
 & Gallta, typis evulgata fucrit. Nicol. Serar- de Symbol. Athanaf. Opufc. Theolcg. Tom. 
 2. p- 9. From hence one rmy juftly conclude, that Sebaftian'i Copy, in iffp. reas no new one. 
 For there was no Second, before Genebrard'j, publifij'd in France, or Germany i as we may 
 learn from what Serarius here lefiifies. 
 
 c Hoc Symbolum reperi in libro Gracco MS. de ProccfTione Spiritus Sanfti, quern La- 
 z^aro Baijfjo Oratori Regis Francifci I. apud Venetos, obtulit Dionyfim Grrcus, Epifcopus 
 Ziinenfis & Firmienfis An. ifBj. Gensbr. Comm. in Symb. Athinaf. p. 8. 
 
 In manus meas pcrvenit liber quidam Graecus, de FrocefTionc Spiritus Sanfti, oblatus 
 Lazaro Bayfio claro Regis noftri francifci I. apud Venetos Oraton, anno Chrifti if 3 3. 
 Quem manu fua cleganrifllme pinxerat Huolaus Scphianus Patrum noftrorum rvo vir 
 valde do(fTtis. Cenebr. ibid. p. 2. 
 
 d Supcrius Symbolum, Athanafii verbis -aliquantuium immutatis, Ccnfiantinopolitani fie 
 Grzce legunt, 8c recitant- Cenebr. ibid. p. i4« . 
 
 This 
 
The ATHANASIAU CREED. 77 
 
 This differs extremely from all the reft, having, befides many 
 V^ri^.tions, and flight Infertions, one very large IntcrpoUtion. It 
 hath been often reprinted fmce Uflers Time. 
 
 6. The Sfxth and laft was firft publiili'd by LMe and Cojjkrf- 1671 
 in the fecond Tome of Comicib. This Copy comes the neareft 
 to the Two firll:, and therefore is fometimes thrown into one 
 with them : But it differs from Both in about forty Places, ac- 
 cording to Gwadlmgs Computation. 
 
 Thefe are all the frh:ted Copies j which are fometimes call'd 
 lour and fometimes Six: Four, becaufe the Ftrji^ Second, and 
 Sixth may be tolerably thrown into One ; Six, becaufe They 
 may alfo be kept diftincl, and may be reckon'd as fo many 
 Coftes at leaft, if not io many feveral Verfions. So much for 
 the Greek Verfions of our Creed. 
 
 To the Verfions already mention'd may be added the ScUvo- 
 niiin, of feveral Dinlecis, and, as I conceive, pretty antie?7t : But 
 we have little or no Account of them ; only, as I Ihall fnow 
 in the Sequel, we may be certain that there have been fuch. 
 There are /m//^w, Sp.j?zifh, Irifh, and TVe/ch Verfions j bur whe- 
 ther any that can juftly be called antie?it, I know not. Fu- 
 ture fearches into Libraries may perhaps produce farther Difco- 
 veries. Fahricius makes mention of an Hebretv Verfion of late 
 date, and of an Arabick one ftill later ^: But thefe or the like 
 modern Verfions will be of no ufe to us in our prefent In- 
 quiries. 
 
 a Hebraice Verfum a Jnho Mar cello Romano MS. in Bibliotheca Vxt'tcana memorat Tm- 
 honatus m'&M. Latino Hebraica p. 149. Sed omirto recentiores V crdoncs, ut Arabicany 
 a Nijfelio editam Lugd. Bat. 1656. 4to, una cum Cantico Canticor. Fabric. Bibl. Grsc. V. 
 5. p. 515-. 
 
 Georgius Nijfelita Symbolum Athanafii Arabico idiorratc cum Cantico Canticorum iE- 
 
 tliiopicc & Arabice edito Ludg. Bat. An. 165-6, conjunxit id tamea non haufit ex 
 
 Codice MS, fed ipfe in Arabicum Sermonem tranftulit. Tentzel. p. 115. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
550 
 
 7$ ANTIENT RECEPTION of 
 
 C H A P. VI. 
 
 Of the Reception of the AthannHan Creed in the 
 Chrijlian Churches. 
 
 FROM the Materials here laid down, \vc may now be able 
 to determine Ibmcthinii; about rhc Reception of the Creed, 
 clpccially in the TitJIem Lhrnohcs -^ among which the Churchc? 
 oi FrmicCy ox G aid, ought undoubtedly to be named firft. 
 
 France, or G a ul. 
 
 This Creed obtain'd in France in the Time of Hincmar, or 
 ^ Yy about 850, without all difpute. \Vc may advance higher up 
 to 772 : For it was then in Charles the Great's Plalter, among 
 the Hymns of the Church. The Cotton manuicript Pfalter, with 
 this Creed in it, will carry us up to 703 : And the Canon of 
 the Council of Autun to 670 ; at which Time the Galilean 
 Clergy, at leafl of the Dlocefs of Autitn, in the Province of 
 Lyons^ were obliged to recite this Creed together with the 
 Apofiles , under pain of Epifcopal Cenjure. Which ihows 
 of how_great Value and Efleem the Creed was at that Time, 
 and affords a flrong Prefumption (as J^efnel, and Pagi * well 
 argue in the Cafe) that it had been in ule there long before. 
 There will be fome doubt, as 1 intimated above, about the 
 fuppofed Canon of the Council of Autun j which will in feme 
 meafure abate the force of our Evidence, and of the Argument 
 built upon it. But as it is certain from other Evidence, that 
 This Creed was receiv'd in the Galilean Churches as high as 
 772, or 703 5 So it muft be own'd that This very much con- 
 firms the Suppofition of the Council of Autun: And the con- 
 
 a Dubium non eft quin rrultis anre Synodum uhm Anpijlodunenfem annis compofitum 
 cfTct, & jam olim per toram Ecclefiam celebrc evafifret : Nunquani enim SapientifTimi Prx- 
 fules id commirifTont, ut iftam Fidei Fonnulam omnium Ordinum Clericis ampleftendam, 
 & tTtprehentlbiltter, ut aiunt, rcccnicndam, Synodali Bdi(flo fub conJemnationis ptna praeci- 
 pcrcnt ; imo & illam c rcgione rum Symbolo Jipoflohco ponerenr, niii jam longo ufu recepta, 
 approlata. 8c inter gcrmanns Magni ^ hanafii L.ucubnrioncs numerata fuifletj quod nili 
 port pluTium annoruni Senem fieri v.x potuit ^uefne!. Dil". XlV. p. 7^1. 
 
 Quarc jam ante centum fere Annis opOs illud Athanafio attributum fuerat. Pagi Critic, 
 in Baron. Vol. I. p. 441. >. 
 
 cutting 
 
The ATHAN ASIAN CREED. j^ 
 
 curring Circumftanccs give very great Light and Strength to 
 each other. But what mod of all confirms the foregoing Evi- 
 dence, and the reafoning upon it, is, that Vcnantius Fortund^tHS^ 
 a full hundred years before the Council o^ Auttm, had met with 
 this Creed in the Gallican Parts, and found it then to be in 
 fuch Efteem as to deferve to be commented upon, like the Lorcts- 
 Prayer, and Apofile's-Creed : Accordingly He wrote Comments 
 upon it, as well as upon the other. This wonderfully con- 
 firms the reafoning of ^efnel, and Pagiy that this Creed muft 
 have been in ufe there near a hundred years before the Council 
 o{ Autun, that is, as high as 570, about which Time Forttmatm 
 flourilhed, and wrote. And confiderins; that this Creed muft 
 have been for fome Time growing into repute, before it could 
 be thought worthy to have fuch Honour paid it, along with 
 the Lord's-Prayer and Apojile's-Creed-^ I may perhaps be allowed 
 to fet the Time of it's Reception, in the Gdlican Churches, fome 
 years higher : Reception of it, I mean, as an excellent Formu- 
 lary, or an acknowledged Rule of Fmhj tho' not perhaps ad- 
 mitted into their Sacred Offi^ccs. Upon the whole, and upon the 
 ftrength of the foregoing Evidences, we may rcafonably con- 
 clude, that the Reception of this Creed, in the Gallic an Churches, 
 was at leaft as early as 6705 underftanding it of it's Reception 
 into the Publick Offices : But underftanding it of it's Reception 
 as a Rule of Faith, or an orthodox and excellent Formulary 
 and Syftem o^ Belief, it may be juftly fet as high as 550, 
 which is but 20 years, or thereabout, before Fortunatus Com- 
 mented upon it. Le ^w;^ fcruples not to fet it as high as 5 00.* 
 
 Spain. 
 
 Next to France, we may mention her near Neighbour ^p^^, ^^^ 
 which fcems to have received This Creed very early, and with- 
 in Icfs than a hundred years after the Time before fix'd for it's 
 Reception in France. As to the Truth of the Fad, it may be 
 argued Two feveral ways. i. From the near /Affinity and Re- 
 lation between the Spanip: and Gallican Ofiiccs, before cither 
 
 a Non nifi ex eodem i'ymbolo, qnod iam ante receptum-Q^ict., Avitus Viennenfa »-^ 
 
 alicubi fcribebat &c. Le ^uien. Difleru Damaicen. p. 98, 
 
 Francs 
 
So ANTIENT RECEPTION of 
 
 France, or Spam had received the Roman, i. From the IVth 
 Council of Toledo J their quoting Pafiagcs from this very 
 Creed. 
 
 I. As to the firft Argument, tho' 2. ge?ieral one, it muft ap- 
 pear of Ljreat W^eight. If the Sacred Offices in France and Spain 
 were in rhofe Times tlic fame, or very nearly fo ; then the 
 Reception of this Creed in France will afford a very confider- 
 ablc Argument of it's Reception in Spam alfo. 
 
 Cardinal Bo?ia is very large and diffufe in fetting forth 
 the Agreement and Harmony of tiie old Gallican Offices with 
 the Spa}iiJ)j, in fundry Particulars'. And He fuppoles this Uni- 
 formity of the Two Churches to have been as early, at leaft, 
 as the days of Gregory Bilhop of Tours, who died in the Year 
 595. Mabillon, after Him, frequently afferts the fame Thing**, 
 and with greater Affurancethan Bona had done; having met with 
 new, and fuller Evidences to prove it ; Only, He dates the A- 
 grecment of the Spanifh Mojarabick Offices with the Gallican^ 
 from the Hid and IVth Councils of Toledo,^ the latter of which 
 was in the Year 611. Mr. Dodiirll, fpeaking of the fame mat- 
 ter, fays, " Nor docs Mahillon Himfelf judge it probable that 
 " the Innovations attempted by Pope Vigiiius in Spain held long, 
 " of what kind foever they were. All Spain was foon after 
 ** united in one Form, and that different from the Romafis, and 
 *' agreeing with the Gallican^. It is therefore a plain Cafe, that 
 the Galilean and Spanijh Offices were very much the fame in the 
 beginning of the Vllth Century, and fo continued for Ibme 
 Time. If therefore the Gallican Churches received the Atha- 
 nafian Creed into their Publick Offices before the year 670, it 
 will appear extremely probable that the Spanifh receiv'd it alfo, 
 and about the fame Time. I here make a Di{lin(flion, as I did 
 before, between receiving the Creed as a Rule of Faith, and 
 receiving it into the Solemn Offices, to be recited, or lung in 
 Churches. The Reception of it, in the firit Senfe, I conceive to 
 
 a Bona Rerum Liturg. I. i. c 1 1. p. 1572. 
 
 b Mabttlon- lic Liturg. Gallican. Pixf. 5c lib. i. c. 3. p. 10, 23. 
 
 c Mabtllon. Lib. 1. c. 4. p. 31. 
 
 d Dodwell oi Inccnk. p. 1 90. 
 
 have 
 
the ATHANASIAN CREED. 8i 
 
 have been fomewhat earlier, in Spm'/^j as well as in Franco ^ 
 than it's Reception in the latter Senfe. But as different 
 Churches in France had antiently different Cuftoms, lb alfo 
 was it in Spain-. And therefore it is probable that the Re- 
 ception of this Creed into the publick Offices was in Ibme 
 Churches fooner, and in others later, according to the various 
 Rites, Cuftoms, and Circumllances of the feveral Churches. 
 
 But I proceed to the Second Article, whereby we are to prove 
 the Reception of this Creed in Spam. 
 
 2. The IVth Council of Toledo cites a confiderable part of 
 this Creed, adopting it into their own Confejjion^. We may 
 be confident that The Creed did not borrow the Exprellions 
 from Them, but They from the Creed ; fmce we are certain 
 that This Creed was made long before the year 633. The 
 Reference to this very Creed appears lb plain in the words of 
 That Council, that moft of the Learned have concluded from 
 thence, that the Spanipj Fathers had both feen, and approved 
 this Creed. Barcn'ms is pofitive that the Council took their 
 Exprellions from it ". Calvifms dates the Fuhlicatiori- of the Creed 
 from That Council '^ : So alfo Aljledius^. GavantuSj in his Com- 
 ments upon the Roman Breviary, concludes from thence that 
 This Creed had been read in the church, as high as That Time ^. 
 
 a Nee perfonas confundimus, nee Subftititiam feparamu?. Patrem a nullo factum, vel 
 gcnitum dicimus: Filium a Patre non fadurn, fed gcnitum alTcrimus: Spiritum vero 
 Sanftum nee creatum, nee genitum. fed procedentem a Patne &. Filio profiremur, ipfurti 
 
 aiitem Dominum Jefum Chriftum,^ ex fubftantia Patris ante fsecula genitum^ ae- 
 
 qualis Patri feciindum Divinitatem, minor Patre fecundum Humanitateni.^ -H^c eft 
 
 Ecclefise Catholic3e Fides: Hane Confefflonem Confervamus, atqua tenemus. Quam 
 quifquis firmiffime Cuftodierit, perpetuam Saluteni habebit. j Cowi/. TvUt. IV. Capitul. F, 
 
 b Ex eodem Athcmnfii Symbolo ea verba primi Capituli Toletant quarti Cosicilii de- 
 du<5la nofcuntur, quibus dicitur, Patrem a nullo facium &c. Baron. Annal. Ton), j. 
 p. 436. 
 
 c Repofirum fait in Archivis, nee pubUcAtum, nifi, quantum ex Hiftoriis conjicere 
 !icet, poft trecentos fere Annos, ubi in Conciiio Toletano quarto quardam ex eo trai.flata 
 verba recenlentur. Seth, Calvif. Op. Chronolog. p. 596. 
 
 d Symbolum Athanafii ab illo fcriptum eft Rom£ itidem contra Ariuf?). Publicatum eft 
 poft ?oo fere Annos in Coneilio Toletano, & inde ufque ad noftra Tempora in Erclelia 
 ufurpatum. ^//?e</. Thefaur. p. 1 78. 
 
 e Athanafius dum eftet Romi, fcripfit latine Symbolum— ——— 6c recitavit coram 
 Pontifice 8c ei alTidentibus, Ann. 34a, ut fcribit Buron'ms; 8c eft illud idem, non muta- 
 tum, legique Jolitum in EccU/ia, ante annos nongentos fexaginta. Vide Annates ad Annum 
 prKdifium, Barthol. Gavant. Commcntar. in Rubric. Bretjiarii Romani. p. 106. 
 
 L Helvicus 
 
Si ANTIENT RECEPTION of 
 
 i^dvicHS * falls in with the Opmion of Cclvifms, and Aljle- 
 dm, grounded upon the Exprefllons of this Council being 
 parallel to thofe of the Creed. Thefc Authors have perhaps 
 carried the Point too- far, in fuppofing This a fufficicnt Proof 
 of any publkk Reception of the Creed in Spmn, at That Time, 
 or of it's being read in their Churches: But it is clear enough, 
 that the Spanifh Fathers had both feen and approved it ; other- 
 wife They could not, or would not, have borrow'd fo plainly 
 from it. Thus much is allowed by moft of the learned Mo- 
 derns, as .^efnel ^ Natdis Alexander % Montfaucou d, Tillemont ^y 
 Muraforms, Oudm^, and Others, that the Expreffions of That 
 Council, and This Creed, are parallel, and one borrow'd from 
 the other, and the words of the Council from the words of 
 the Creed: Only, Murdtorius hints as if a doubt might be made 
 whether the Council took from the Creed, or the Creed from 
 the Council § ; which may feem flrange in Him, who fuppofes 
 the Creed to have been made by Fortunatus, many years before 
 That Council was held. But, I fuppoic, He is there fpeaking 
 of the Argument drawn from the words of that Council alone, 
 abftracling from the other Circumftance, and previous to the 
 Confideration of Fortunatm's Comment : Other wife He is guilty 
 of a very great Over-fight. It appears then, that this Creed 
 was known, and approved in Spain as early as 633 : And it is 
 obfervable how exadly This falls in with the Time, when the 
 Spamfh Churches are fuppofed to have received the Gdlic^fn 
 Offices, according to Mabillorh Account. Wherefore it is cx- 
 
 a ^;^4»<3r/;/« Symbolum fcribit 'R.omst,, & Concilio offert; non tamen publicatur, nifi 
 pofl: 300 fcrniC Annos in Cov^cX\o Toletano- Helvic. Theatr- Hijlor. ad An. ^^p- 
 
 b Imo & jam ab Anno 653 aliqua ey ifto Symbolo dclcripta mihi videntur in ea Con- 
 feffione Fidei, q'laeedita efl; a Concilio Toletano. 4. habeturque Capit, i.cjufdem. ,^e/nel, 
 DiflTcrt. XIV.* p. 751. 
 
 c Natal. Alexand. Tom. IV. p. 109. 
 
 d Montfauc. Diatrib. p. 72c. 
 
 e Tillemont. Memoires- Tom. 8- p. 670. 
 
 f oudin. Comment, de Script. Eccl. p. 548- 
 
 g Vcrum ne majoris qiiiJcni momcnti funt verba ilia, qus in Concilii Toletani quarti 
 ProfcHione leguntur: Quamvis enim Phrafes nonnulla: ibidem inyeniantur Symboli Phrali- 
 bus oppido finiilcs, attamen ejufmodi noft funt ut iis Patribus Symholnm jam innotuifle 
 dcmonftrent. Quin ex eoJem Concilio has formulas quis deiibaJTe videri poteft, ut inde 
 $yn)bolHm iftud conflaret, Mtiratorii Anecdot. Ambrof. Tom. 1. p. 223. 
 
 trcmely 
 
7he ATEANASIAN CREED, S| 
 
 ttemely probable, that about This Time They rccsivd this Creed 
 fiom the Gallica?^ Churches ; received it as an Orthodox Formu- 
 lary, and an approved R^le of Fmh. As to their taking it into 
 their pMck Service, and Pfrlmody, I pretend not to let it fo 
 hi^^h, having no Proof that they did receive it, in that Senfe, 
 fo^early : But as foon as the Gdlicm Churches made it a part 
 of ihcin Pfdmody, we may reafonably think that the Spmijh did 
 fo too 5 or within a very fhort Time after. 
 
 German y. 
 
 Next to Frmce, and Spam, we may mention Germmiy^, not Soo 
 only becaufe of their nearnefs of Situation to Trmce, but 
 alfo becaufe of their mutual Intercourfe, and Affinity with each 
 other. This Creed, very probably, was received in fome Parts 
 of Germmyy foon after it obtain d in the Gdlicm Church. The 
 mutual Intercourfe of the German and Gdlicm Churches makes 
 it probable : And the antient Manufcript of the Creed found 
 -at Treves, or Triers, in Germany, may perfuade the fame Thing. 
 Our pofi'tive Evidence is however clear and certain for the Re- 
 ception of the Creed, as early as 870, being then tranflated by 
 Otfridus into the German, or Teutonick Language. Anjchariuss 
 Inftrudions to his Clergy (above mention'd; will afford an Ar- 
 gument for the Reception of this Creed in Germany from the 
 Time of his holding the See of Hamburg, or from 830: And it 
 was received at Bajil, as we learn from Hatto Bilhop of the 
 Place, before 820. Indeed, I have above refer'd ^^/Z to 7^//?;^^^, 
 confiderino; how it flood in Hattos Time, and that it was part 
 of antient^ Gaul : But then it was upon the Confines of Ger- 
 many, and has in later Times been reckon'd to it 5 and we have 
 good reafon to think that the Cuftoms of thz German Churches 
 in the IXth Century were nearly the fame with thofe of the 
 Church of Bajil in 820. What pafs'd in the Council oi Frank- 
 fort (if I miftake not in my Conflrudion of it; may warrant 
 the carrying it up as high as 794- And it was 6 years before 
 That, namely in the year 7 8 8, that Pope Adrian fent to St. 
 Willehad, Bifhop of Breme,^ The famous Pfaltcr of Charles the 
 
 L 2 Great, 
 
84 ANTIENT RECEPTION of 
 
 C;r^/% with this Creed in it, the fame that I have fpokcn of 
 above. No wonder therefore that Anfcharius and RembertuSj after- 
 wards Archbilhops of Hamburg and Breme, fo very highly valu'd 
 This Creed. The particular regard paid to this Creed by Charles 
 the Cre^t, in the year 772, may plead perhaps in favor of a more 
 early Date : At Icaft, no doubt can be made but as foon as He 
 came to be Emperor^ if not a great deal fooner, the GemifLn 
 Churches (as well as the Gdlicati before) admitted this Creed, even 
 into tho^i): public k OlHces. It is of This Time that an Aaonymous 
 Author cited above, in a Trad direded to Charlemagne^ then 
 Emperor, fays, that this Creed was profefsd by the Umverfal 
 church. We cannot therefore be miftaken in fetting the Re- 
 ceptiori' of it in Germany , as high as the year 800. So high may 
 pals for certain Fad: And there is great probability for the 
 mnning it up many years higher. 
 
 England. 
 
 %%o As to our own Country, we have clear and pofitive Proof of 
 the Creed's being fung alternately in our Churches in the Tenth 
 Century, when Abbo of Fleury an ear-witnefs of it, was here j 
 and when the Saxon Veffions, ftill extant, were of {landing 
 ufc for the Inftrudion and Benefit both of Clergy and People. 
 Thefe Evidences alone will prove the Reception of this Creed 
 ui England to have been as early as 950, or 930, or the Time 
 of Athelftan, whofe Latin Pfalter, with, the Creed in it, remains 
 to this Day. The Ag^c of the manufcript Verfions will war- 
 rant us thus far : But, polllbly, if thofe Verfions were thoroughly 
 cxamin'd by a Critick in the Saxon, it might appear that the 
 Verfion, or Verfions were many years older than the Manu- 
 fcripts. This I am no judge of my felf j nor have I an oppor- 
 tunity of Examining : But I am willing to leave a fhort Hint 
 
 a Codex iftc— — — in Bibliotheca cubiculari fummi Pcntificis HaJriani I. pcrmanfit uP 
 que ad Annum DCCLXXXVIII, quo S. M^'illehadus ab codem, cum confcnfu Caroli M. 
 primus Epifcopus Iire7)}enfis dcclaratus eft. Tunc videlicet P. P. HaJnanus cundcm ilium 
 Codicetn Pfalterii, queni ipfe in principio Pontificatus fui tanquam munus gratulatorium a- 
 Carob Magna acceperar, cadem ratione donavir S. Wdlehadcy ut ille, in novo Epifcoparu 
 Tpp, fru^tetur uft^.^cri iftiuj^ munerist Lttm^tc CataL B.bl. Vindsb. 1, 2. c. f. p-'z97- 
 
 with, 
 
Jhe ATEAUASUN CREEJ>. 2^ 
 
 with Thofc that have fuch Opportunities, and can judge with 
 ceuainty, from a thorough Acquaintance with all. the little, 
 gradual Alterations introduced into the old i'-^j^ow Language, 
 from the firft coming in of the T>mes,'' that is, from the year 787. 
 There is yet another Rule for determining the Time when This. 
 Creed came firft to be received in England ^ which is from it's, 
 having a place in the Lmti' Pfalters, fuch as were written in 
 Bnglmd at fuch a Time. For I perfuade my felf, that it would 
 aot have been inferted in the Pfdters among the other Cmtklei 
 of the Church, but when it was receiv'd as well as Thofe. Such 
 a Tfdter^ as I conceive, there now is in Benet College Library 
 in Cambridge^ written in England^ and in the Ninth Century. 
 Wherefore, upon the v^^hole, and all Circumftances confider'd, 
 \ may prefume to name the year 880, or thereabout, for the 
 Reception of this Creed in England, in the Time o^Y^, Alfred. 
 Further Inquiries may perhaps carry it up higher : But it can- 
 not reafonably be brought lower, and fo there 1 leave it. 
 
 Italy. 
 
 We learn from Ratherius, above cited, that This Creed was ^sa 
 in common ufe in fome parts of Italy, particularly in the Diocefs 
 oi Verona in Low Lombardy, in his Time, that is about 960, 
 He then fpeaks of it as a Man would do of a Formulary that had 
 been cuftomary amongft them, and of long ftanding. He ex- 
 horts his Clergy to make themfelvcs Mafters of the Three Creeds, 
 Apofiles, Nicene, ^indAthanafiany without the leaft intimation o£ 
 the laft of them being newly introduced. I incline to think that 
 from the Time that Lombardy became a Province of the French 
 under Charles the Great (about the year 774.) This Creed ob^ 
 tain'd there by means of That Prince , who had fo great 
 a value for it, and whofe Cuftom it was to difperfe it abroad- 
 wherever He had any ' Power, or Influence. He prefented it. 
 to the Pope Himfelf in 7 7 2 : He delivered it, about the fame 
 Time, or before, to the Monks^ of Mount-Olivet in Jerufalem of 
 his Foundation. And it appears to have been with his confent, 
 
 5l_ Vid. E'ukeJ, Grammat. Anglo-Saxon, p. 85. 
 
 OS 
 
n ANTJENT RECEPTION of 
 
 or perhaps at his Rcqucft, that Pope Adrian conveyed it to UIU 
 lehjid , the firft Bilhop o't Breme, in 7S8. Thefc Circumftances 
 make it highly probable that the fame Churles the Great intro- 
 duced this Creed into Lombardy foon after his ConqueO: of it. 
 •And indeed nothing could be more (crviceable at That Time, 
 in X Country which had fo long before been corrupted with 
 Ar'mnifm. Add to This, that it appears highly probable that 
 the Galilean Plalter was introduced into the Churches of Italy j 
 foon after Lombardy became a Province under the Kings of 
 France: And if their Pf alter c^xno. in, no doubt but their Creed, 
 Then a part of their Pfalter, came in with it. Cardinal Bona 
 obferves, and fcems to wonder at it, that the GalLican Pfalter 
 obtained in moft parts of Italy in the eleventh Century." He 
 might very probably have fet the Date higher, as high 
 perhaps, or very near, as the conqueft of Lombardy by Char- 
 lemagne. Thus far at leaft, we may reafonably judge, that 
 Thofe parts which were more immediately fubjed to the Kings 
 of Trance , Verona efpecially, one of the firfl: Cities taken, 
 receiv'd the Galilean Pfalter fooner than the reft. However, 
 fince I here go only upon Probabilities, and have no po- 
 fitive Proof of the prcdife Time when either the Greedy or the 
 Tfalter came in, and it might take up fomc years to intro- 
 duce them, and fettle them There ( new Cuftoms generally 
 meeting with difficulties , and oppofition at the firil) Thefe 
 things confidcred, 1 am content to fuppofc the fame Time for 
 the Reception of this Creed in Italy, as I have before named 
 for our own Country 5 which is but 80 years higher than Ra- 
 theritis, and is above 1 00 years from the intire conqueft of 
 Lombardy by Charles the Great. There may be Ibme reafon to 
 fufpccl that This Creed had been known in Italy, and re- 
 <-^/i^^^, at, leaft in fome of the Monajleries there, near 200 years 
 before. The Manufcript of Boblo, in Langobardick Character, and 
 written about the year 700, or fooner, will afford a very ftrong 
 Prcfumption of it. And if we confider how from the year 
 639, in the Time of Rotharls, one of the Lombard Kings of 
 
 a Bona: rerum Liturg Lib. j. c, 3. p. fo6. ^ 
 
 Italy 
 
the ATBAKASIAK CREED. By 
 
 Itdy, there had been a conftant ftruggle between the Catholkks 
 and ArianSy and a Succeflion of Bifhops on Both Sides kept up, 
 in ahiioft every City of his Dominions, for many years to- 
 gether 5 I fay, from Thefe confiderations, one might reafonably 
 prefume that the Catholicks had about that Time procured This 
 Creed, together with Bdchiiirii Fides, and Gennadims Trad, out 
 of the Gdlicfin Parts, to arm themfelves the better againfl the 
 fprcading Herefy. But as This does not amount to a publick 
 Reception of it , nor is the Fad fo clear as not to be liable. 
 to difpute, I pretend not to infift upon it. 
 
 Rome. 
 
 Rcme is of diftind Confideration from the other parts of 931 
 Italy, and was always more deiirous of impofing her own Of- 
 fices upon other Churches, than of receiving any from Them. 
 The Filioque, in the Conjlfintinopolitan Creed, had been long ad- 
 mitted into all the other Weftern Churches before Rome would, 
 accept it ; which was not (at leaft it does not appear that it 
 was) till the Middle "of the Eleventh Century, or about 1050. 
 The Cuftom of reciting the Nicene, or Confiantinopolitcm Creed, 
 in the Communion- Service, had prevailed in Spain, France, and 
 Germany for feveral Centuries 5 and was at length but hardly 
 admitted zx. Rome in the year 1014. It was thought civil enough 
 o^the Popes of Rome to allow the other Weftern Churches to 
 vary from the Roman Cuttoms in any thing: And Thofe other 
 Churches could not enjoy that Liberty and Privilege in quiet, 
 without complying with the Roman Offices in moft Things be- 
 sides. The Ufe of the Athanafian Creed was one of thofe 
 Things wherein They were before-hand with the Church of 
 Rome^ and in which .they were indulg'd j as was alfo the Ufe 
 of the Gallic an Pfalter, which the Weftern Churches in general 
 were allowed "" to have, while the Romans were tenacious of 
 
 a Mexcmder IV in fua Conftitutione qux eft Sexta in Bdlario Ordinis 'Eretnit arum San. 
 St\ Aiigiifiini, mandat Trior', Cenerali & reliquis Fratribus in Tufcia, ut recitent Officium 
 juxta morera Romma Ecclefije, iXQ^pKoP/alierio. Bona; Rer. Liturg. 1. a. c, 3. p. fo6. 
 
 their 
 
S8 ANTIEMT RECEPTION of 
 
 their own. But tho' the Romans retained their own P falter all 
 the way down to the middle of the XVIth Century i yet They 
 had Ions before borrowed This Creed from the Gdlic^in^ and 
 received it into their Omces. This is certain Fad ; but as to 
 the precife Time when it was hrit done, it may not be eafy 
 to determine. It was, without all qucftion, before Thomas 
 Aquinafs days; who tells us (as above cited) that This Creed 
 was reccivd by the Authority of the Pope : 1 wifh He had told us 
 -whfit Pope. That it was not recei\ed into the Roman. Offices 
 fo Toon as the year 809, may be probably argued from a Cafe 
 that then happen'd, which has been hinted above. The Latin 
 Monks of Alount Olivet ^ (founded by Charles the Great) in their 
 Apoiogetical Letter to Pope Leo III, made the beft Defenfe 
 they were able of their own Pradice in their publick Profefling 
 that the Holy Ghoft proceeds from the Son. They pleaded the open 
 Acknowledgment of the fame Doctrine in Charles the Great's 
 own Chapel; and that the fame Doclrine had been taught Them, 
 in St. Greeory's Homilies, and in the Rule of St. Benedid, and in 
 the Athanajian Creed, and in a Dialogue given Them by Pope 
 Leo Himfelf ^ Now, had the Athariajian Creed been at That 
 Time recited in the publick Oflices at Rome^ Thofe Monks 
 who were fo particular in every little Circumftance pleadable 
 in their Favor, could not have failed (cfpecially upon their 
 mentioning the Athanajian Creed) to have pleaded a Thing fo 
 notorious, and which would have given the greateft Counte- 
 nance and Authority poiliblc to Them, and their Dodrine ; 
 and mufl: have been of the greateft Weight and Force with Pope 
 Leo, to \\ hom They were writmg, and whole Protedion They 
 
 Sicquoquc S. Francifctts, ut teftatur Trajfen'ms fDifqu. Bib. C.6.S. i.) illius Ordinis 
 Fratcr, in Re^u!a liiorum pricipit : Clerici fuciant Divinum officinm fecimJum Ordmem 
 fanBs. Romanx Ecclefiji, excepto Pfalterio. Hod. de Text. Bibl. p. 383. Vid. ctiam fupra 
 p. 6 r. 
 
 a BcnignifTime Pater, dum efTcm Ego Leo, fervus vcftcr. ad Sanfti vcfligia vefira, &ad 
 pia vcftigia Domni Karoli, piiffimi Impcratoris, Filiiquc veftri, audivimus in Capclla ejus 
 dici in Symbolo Fidei, cjui ex patre Ftltoque procedit. Et in Homilia S. Gregoni, quam 
 nobis Films vcftcr Domnus Karolus Iinperator dedit, in parabola Ortavarum Pafchar, ubi 
 dixit : Sed ejus mifp.o ipfa procejjlo efl, qui de ratre procedti c"" •f"'^'"' Et in Regula S. Eene- 
 fliiti, qiia"rn nobis dcdit Filius vefler Domntf! Karolus, — — — Sc in Dialogo qucm nobis 
 vefira Janriitas dare dignata eft, fimilitcr dicit. Et in Fide S. At hmafii co^cm modo dicit. 
 T.pifi. Monach. Montn-hlivet: a[>ud Le J^ae/j, Damafc. D.flcr^ pra;v. p. 7. 
 
 were 
 
the ATEAKASIAN CREED. 8p 
 
 were then feeking, and humbly imploring. From hence then 
 one may rcafonably infer, that This Creed was not received 
 into the lioma^ Offices Co early as the year 809. Let us now 
 inquire whether we can fix upon any later Time for it's com- 
 
 mg ni. 
 
 Genebrard teflifies that in the oldeft Roman Breviaries He 
 could meet with, or hear of, This Creed always made a part 
 of the Service "". But This is too general, nor can we be 
 certain how antient tliofe oldeft Breviaries were, nor whe- 
 ther They belonged to the Roman Church, ftridly fo called, 
 or to other Wejlern Churches. And indeed, I know not how 
 we can come to any Certainty in This Matter, unlefs it 
 be by examining into the Roman Pfalters which have This 
 Creed in Them. Whenever The Creed came into the Roman 
 Pfalters, we may juOly conclude, that at the fame Time it came 
 into the Roman Offices. We have in our Publick Library ac 
 Cambridge a Roman Pfalter, written for the ufe of the Church 
 of Canterbury ( as our judicious Mr. Wanlej rcafonably con- 
 jedures^Jand about the Time of the Conquefi^o): ix little before, 
 fuppofe 1 060. The Church of Canterbury more efpecially ufed tiic 
 Roman Pfalter, as hath been obferved above, and was in all Things 
 conformable, of old Time, to the Roman Offices. Now, if 
 this Creed, which had long before been introduced into the 
 Gallican Pfalters, did at this Time obtain in the Roman alfo; 
 it is obvious to conclude, that it at the fame Time made a 
 part of the Roman Offices, even at Rome it felf, as well as Can- 
 terbury , fince one was conformable to the other. This Argu- 
 ment may carry us up fome years higher: For there is another, 
 an older Roman Pfalter, taken notice of above, which has This 
 Creed in it ^ > written about the year 930, in the Time of K. 
 
 a In vetuftifTimis Romans Ecclcdx a p^>.oy.oi'', ( H:pc nunc vocamus Breviaria ) fuh A- 
 thanaf:i nomine ejus ad Primam recitatio uAi reccpta cA. Gembr. in Symb. Athanal. 
 p. J. 
 
 b Notandum vero in Litania extare \\xc verba' Ut Archiepifeopum nojlrutv, ^ omntm 
 Congregatiomm illi commijj'^im, in fancfa, religinne confervarc e!ig!T'ris,te regnmus: quibu.s pcnc 
 inducor ut credam hunc Cod. olim pertinuiflc ad Ecciefiam Chiifti Salvatoris Cantuariac. 
 Wanleii Catal. p. ifi. 
 
 c 1 have been certified of 1 his fince my -writing of page tie "^^'h The Creed in That 
 pfalter bears the very fame Title with Dr. Wottoa'^ alove. p. 63. 
 
 M Atheljlan. 
 
i?o ANTIENT RECEPTION of 
 
 Jthelfim. It is faid to have belonged formerly to Archbifhop 
 Cranmer. Perhaps This alio might have been written for 
 the life of the Church of Canterbury : 1 know of no Church, 
 amongft us which at that Time ufed the Rom^n Pfalterj but the 
 Church of Canterbury. However, it is highly improbable that any 
 Church which complied fo far with Ronnie, as to ufe the Rom:in 
 Pfaltcr, fhould take This Creed into That Pfalter before fuch 
 Time as Rome it iclf had done the fame Thing. Upon the 
 Strength of This Argument, tho' it be not demonftrative, but 
 probable only, ffuch as the Cafe will admit of, and fuch as 
 may very well pafs till we can fix upon fomething more certain) 
 I fay upon the Strength of This, I incline to date the Reception of 
 this Creed at Rome from the Tenth Century, and the Beginning 
 of it, about the year 930. From this Time forwards, I pre- 
 fume, the Athnnafmn Creed has been honoured with a publick 
 Recital, among the other Sacred Hymns and Church Offices, all 
 over the Weft. The way has been to recite it at the Prime, or 
 Firft Hour {one a Clock in the Lfitin Account, with us /even 
 in the Morning) every Lord's-Day ^ ; and in fome Places Every 
 Day ^ But as the Cuftom of making it only a part of the 
 Sunday-Service is the moft a?ttient, fo has it likewife been the 
 moft general, and prevailing 5 and is at this Day the common 
 and conftant Ufage of the Churches within the Roman Com- 
 munion. And let This .fuffice fo far as concerns the Weft em 
 Churches. 
 
 of the Greek md Oriental Churches. 
 
 As to the Greek, or Oriental Churches, I referved This Place 
 for them, that I might not entirely omit them. It has been 
 queftion d, whether any of them ever received This Creed at 
 
 a Die Dominico ad prirnam recitetur. Hatt* "BafiL A. D. 820. 
 
 Per omnes occidentis Ecclefias Dominicis Temper diebus Pfallitur ■ ■ ■ in Cun6Hs 
 
 Ecclefiis publics cani prxcepta. Manuel. Calec. Bibl. P.P.Tom, XXVl- p. 4.14. 
 
 b Fidem, ^tticunque vtilt, quoridie ad primam iterat. Honor. Augtift. Ad primam di- 
 cuiu quotidie Symbolum Athanafii. Bona de Carthufianis. p. S97. Pfalmod. 
 
 Ad primam ■■ quotidie fubditur Symbolum Athnnafit, Bona de Ambrofianis p. 
 
 900. Diyin. Pfalmod. 
 
 alL 
 
The ArHAN.^SIAN CREED. pi 
 
 all. VoJJius^ feems to have thought that they never have: And 
 To alfo Combefifms^. And Dr. Smith, in h\s Account of the Greek 
 church, is pofitive that as to the Creed of Athanafius, the Greeks 
 are wholly Strangers to it^. 
 
 Neverthelefs, I find fome very' confiderable Men of a con- 
 trary Perfwafion, and not Roryianifis only, as Buronim, Spon- 
 danus^, MurMorius^, Renaudot ^, and others, but Proteflants. 
 alfo, as particularly Gundling, whofe words I have put into the 
 Margins. We may obferve however, that thus far is agreed 
 on all Hands, that This Creed is not received in All the 
 Greek Churches ; and, if it is in Any, yet it is there differently 
 read in the Article of Proceffion. It is not pretended that Any 
 of the African Churches, Alexandrian, Nubian, or Ethiopian 
 (which are, moft of Them, of the Jacobite, or Eutjchian Sed) 
 have received it. So far from it, that They have not, (at leaft 
 the Ethiopian or AbyJJ'ene Churches have not) fo much as the 
 Apofiles-Creed amongft them, if we may believe Ludolphus : ^ 
 So little are They acquainted with the Latin Forms, or Con- 
 
 a Nee qui noftra aetate Patriarcha Akxandrinus, & Prxfes Ccnjlamlnopoleos fuit, pro ger- 
 mane i'.Iud Symholum habuit. Sic enim Meletius literis luis ConJiantinopoU, Anno if97, ad 
 Johannem Dounnm, Nordovicem datis, & a Filio Georgia Donza editis. " ^thanajio Eiifo 
 "zdicr'i^tMm Symbolum, cum appendice ilia Romanorum Pomificum adulteratum, luce 
 ♦'lucidius conteftamur. Vojf. de Trib. Symb. DilTert. i. c. 20. p. j-zi. 
 
 b Combef. not. ad Calec. p. 297. & notatione 48 in vitam Balilii Pkudo-Amphiloch. 
 .- Symbolum Athanafii Grui ut ejus non recipiunt. 
 
 c Smith. Account &c. p. I95. 
 
 d Spondanus epiiominmg the words of Ba.Ton\us, as I find quoted by Tentzelius />. l/t. 
 
 Cum autem e Romanae Ecclefiae antiquts monumentis, veluti eruderatum emerfit in 
 lucem, turn a Latinis omnibus, turn a GrAcis aeque fufceptum eft: non ab Ecclefia Con- 
 Jlantinopolitana tantum, fed Serviana, Bulgarica, Kujjica, Mofcov'ttica, & aliiss licet ab eis 
 dempta inde pars ilia fuerit, qua Spiritum Sanflum a Patre Filioque procedere exprelTum 
 habetur. 
 
 ^ Re vera, non Ecclt;fia tantanVCcnfiantinopolhana, fed Serviana, Bulgarica, Rujfica, 
 MofcoTitica, aliaeque Ritui Graeco addidlx , etfi Athanajiano Symbolo in Sacris Liturgiis 
 utantur, hanc tamen particulam, ^ Ftlio, inde exclulere. Muratov. Tom. 2. p. 227. 
 
 f Quod dicitur Domini Filius afTumpliiTe Hominem ^c. redum eft, Symbolo quod A- 
 ?/;^«;i/7/ dicitur, 8c a Cracis Laiinifque recipitur, conforme. Renaud. Orient. Liturg. Vol. 
 2. p. 6+3. 
 
 g Mirari quis poffit cur Graci Proceffionem Spiritus Sanifli a Filio regent, Additionem 
 ad Sytnbolum Nianum tarn a?gre feianr, cum taracn Symbolmn Athamtjii recipiant. Gund- 
 ling. Not. ad Euftrat. ^c. p.-68. 
 
 h Ltidolph. HiRoT. ^Ethiop. 1. 5. c. j-. Symbolo Fidei Catholics Nicccno communiter 
 
 utuntur— iilo quo nos utiniur, uti caeteri Orientales, carent ; baud levi indicio A- 
 
 pojlolos iliius Autores non efle. 
 
 M 2 fclllons. 
 
c,i ANTIENT RECEPTION of 
 
 fcfllons. Nor is it pretended that the more Eaftern Chri- 
 ftians, belonging to the Patriarchates of Antioch , and Jeyii- 
 J'alem, have any Acquaintance with the Athnnajlan Creed : No 
 not the M.ironites,- tho' They formerly llibmitted to the See of 
 Rome-, and are flili llippoled to hold Communion therewith, 
 and to acknowledge the Vope for their Head. All that is j5Ve- 
 tended, with refpect to This Creed, is, that the Churches of 
 Confl dntimple ^ Ser^via,, Btdga,ria^ RuffJa, and Mujcovy^ acknow- 
 ledge it as Athdnafius^j or make ufe of it in their Common 
 and Sacred Offices. And for proof of This, it has been ufual 
 to appeal to a Paflage of C^;r./2;/(?T7/<j, a Poliih Knight, in a Letter 
 of his to Calvin: which Letter 1 have not feen, but find quoted 
 both by Genebrard ^ Tun^iFoJJms^, Men of oppofite Principles, and 
 therefore the more fafcly to be relied on where They agree. 
 But what does C^zamvius confefs? That the Greek, Servian , 
 Ruffian, and Mujcovite Churches acknowledge the Athanafian 
 Creed, as Athanajiuss j only curtaiL'd (or, as They would fay, 
 corrected^ as to the Point of t\\Q, Proceffwn. A Confefllon from 
 a Socinian Adverfary, in this cafe, is of lome A^^eight ; and efpe- 
 cially if it can be inforced by any corroborating Evidence. Let 
 us fee then what may be further learn'd concerning the feveral 
 Churches here named, and the Reception of this Creed in them. 
 I may take them one by one. 
 
 I. To hzp.w ^ixh. Mufcovy, where the Matter of Fa6l feems 
 to be mod fully attefted of Any. In the Account given of 
 the Lord Carlijle's Embafly from K. Charles II. to the Great 
 Duke oi Mufcovy, in the year 1663 S I meet w^th This Pallage, 
 relating to the A^ufcovites, and their Divine Service : " The 
 *' whole Service is perform'd by Reading of certain Pfalms, or 
 " Chapters in the Bible : Sometimes the Prieft adds Athana- 
 
 a Si Athanafii cfl, cujiifnam illud erit quod nunc Cncerum, Serviorum, Rtijforum, & 
 Mofionwi Kcclffis Tub cjuldcm AthaKafit titido retincnt, ac pro genuine agnofcunt? 
 Cazanov. ad Calvin. Epift. apud Gcncbr, dc Symbol. Athmaf. p. 7. 
 
 b Cazanoviui Sarmata — ctfi multum ei Hoc Symbolum dilp iccat, agnofcic tamen 
 
 Athaunfianum vccaii.non in Latina folunn F.cclcfia, led ct\am in Conjiantinopoli/ana, Serviana, 
 Bulgarica, Alofcovitic.i» VolV. de Symb. DifT. 2. c. i . p. j"i6. 
 
 c Harris'j CompUat CotUBion &c. Vol. 2. p. 181. See aI/o the Duke 0/ Holftein'j Tra- 
 veU. ibid. p. 36. 
 
 " Jius's 
 
The ATH AN ASIAN CREED. 5^3 
 
 "_/?^/s Creed, or fings certain Hymns, and St. Chryfo/lom's 
 »' Homily. In another Treatifc intituled, of the antient (ind 
 modern Religion of the Mufcovites, written m French, and printed 
 at Cologne 1698, and fincc tranflated h\to Englijlj, there is this 
 Account of the Mtif coxites ; tliat " They recei\c the Creed of 
 " the Apofiles, and That of Nice^ and Atha,nafius ^ Thefe two 
 Teftimonies are undoubtedly llifficient, fo far as concerns 
 Mufcovy. Now, the Mufcovites received their Religion, and 
 their Orders from the Patriarch of Confiantinople, about the Xth 
 Century, or Beginning of the Xlth : And their receiving of 
 this Creed will be a prefumptive Argument in favor of it's 
 Reception at Conftmtinople alfo, if there be no evident Reafon 
 againft it. That the Mufcovites did not receive the Creed from 
 the Latins, but from the Ceeks, is very plain, becaufe their 
 Copies of the Creed are without the Article of the Proceflion 
 from the Son. ^ For They pretend that the Latins have interpo- 
 lated the Creed, appealing to their own uncorrupted Copies ; 
 and they blame the Latins, farther, for inferring the Filioque in- 
 to the Nicene ^ From what hath been faid it appears to be cer- 
 tain Fad, that the Mufcovites receive the Athanafian Creed : 
 How long they have had it, or how far fhort of 700 years, 
 (reckoning from the Time that Chriflianity was receiv'd, or 
 reftored amongft them) I cannot fay. I Ihould obferve that 
 x\\Q A^ufcovites always perform their Service in their o'wnFulgar 
 Tongue, as is allowed on all Hands ^ : Since then the Athana- 
 fian Creed is a part of their Service, They muft have had a 
 
 a Harris'^ ColUB. of Travels. Vol. i. p. 238 See alfo t^, 240. 241. 
 
 ife Vid. Tentzel. Judic. Erudit. p.Vf i. 
 
 c See Harris I'^/V/. p. 240. 
 
 d In caeteris autem Regionibus, videl'cet in Servia, Myfia, Bofnia, Bulgaria, Rujfa ml- 
 nori Regi Foloni^^ fubdita, in Volhinia, Fodalia, & parte quadam LituanU, aliifque finiti- 
 mis provinciis, ritu Gr.o^o divinum pcragiturofficium, tranflatis Grsfcorum Typicis xnScla- 
 "jonicam Linguam. Rofdem GricosRitus, cadem Lingua, fervant Mofcoviu, quorum Regio 
 :Ruffia major, feu Roxolania nuncupatur &c. Bona de Divin. PfaliDod. c. 18. Seft. 17. p. 
 911. F/</. etiam UJfer. Hiftor. Dogmat. p. 246. 
 
 Armeni {\xo quoque nativcf fermcme dudum facra celebrant, turn oui Orthodoxam 
 Fjdem rcti^nuerunt, turn Jacobite, ut Mofcoviu feu Rutheni, Conftantinopolitans fedi fub- 
 jedti, Rsff^co; & a'ii quidam de quibus pauca fcimus. Renaudot. Liturs. Orient. Vol. i* 
 Diflertat. 6. p. 43. ^ 
 
 Verfam 
 
5-4 ANTIENr RECEPTION of 
 
 Ferfion of it in the Mufcovite Language, which is a Dialed of 
 the SclavonitDz. \Vhcrcfoi'c This altb, after our Proof of the 
 Tiling, may now be added to the other Verfions above men- 
 tion'd. 
 
 2. RuffiHy as dirtinguifh'd from Aiufcovy^ mull: mean Rufjia> 
 Minor ^ or the Black Rtijjia^ a Province of Poland. As many as 
 there follow the Greek Rites, are of the lame Account with the 
 Mujcovites before fpoken of: And therefore what has been faid 
 Q'i the former, with refpecl to the ufe of the Athanafian Creed, 
 will be applicable to thefe alfoj and fo I need not be more 
 parti<;ular about them. The Patriarch of Alufcovy ordains their 
 Archbijhop, who is therefore lubjed to Him, and follows the 
 fame Rites and Cuftoms : And their Language is alfo a Dialed 
 of the Sclavonmn, like the other. 
 
 3. Servia, now a large Province of the Turkiflj Empire, part 
 of Northern Turky in Europe, firfl: received Chriftianity about the 
 year 860, by the means of Cyril I and Methodius, who are faid 
 to have invented the ScUvonian Letters , and to have trans- 
 lated the Scriptures into the Sclavonian Tongue. Cyrill was 
 a Greek, and came from Conflantinople 5 And Methodius was a 
 Greek too, Both fent by the Greek Emperor to convert the 
 Country; which therefore became inftrudcd in the GreekY\X\.zs 
 and Religion. It is not improbable that They fhould have the 
 Athanafmn Creed, as well as the Mufcovites and Rufftam -, or 
 perhaps before them, being converted fooner: And They alfb 
 muft have received it from the Greeks, and not from the Latins, 
 becaufe of their varying, in the Article of the Vroceljion^ from 
 the Wejlern Churches. 
 
 4. Bulgaria is likewife part of Turky in Europe, and has been 
 fo from the year 1396. Chriftianity was planted there in the 
 year 845- There were of old great Difputes between the Two 
 Bilhops of Rome, and Conflantinople, upon the Queftion to whofe 
 Patriarchate^ the Bulgarians did of right belong, hi Conclufion, 
 about the year 870, the Greek Patriarch prevailed over the Ro^ 
 man, by the hitereft of the then Emperor of Co?ifia7itinople. 
 The Bulgarians of confequence fell to the Share of the Greek 
 Church, ^and fo have been educated in their Rites, and Culloms. 
 
 Their 
 
7he ATH AN ASIAN CREED, 
 
 Their Language is a Dialed of the Sclavonm?^^, in which They 
 perform their Sacred Offices : And therefore, if they malce ufc 
 of the Atharmfidn Creed, They mufl be fuppofed to have it 
 m their own Vulgar Tongue. I have no particular Evidence, 
 of their ufmg it, beyond what has been mention'd from Caz^a- 
 novius, and the Romi^ Writers; which yet feems to be fuffici- 
 ent, fince it has been fully proved that it is ufed in Mufco-oy,. 
 and in Ru(fi(i, to whom the Bulgarians are Neighbours, and with 
 whom they conform in their other religious Rites derived 
 from the fame Fountain, namely, the Conftantinopolitan Greeks. 
 
 5. It remains then, that we coniider the Fad in refped of 
 Conftar^tinople it felf, and the Greek Church there: For, This 
 alfo, as we have feen, has been named with Others, as receivincr 
 the Athanafian Creed. Genebrard is pofitive in it, and gives ut 
 the very Creed it felf, which the Cmftantinoplitans, as He fays, 
 ufe and recite ^ He wrote in the year 1569. The Truth of 
 his Report is very much doubted, becaufe the Forrrt, which 
 He exhibits, acknowledges the Proceffion from the Son, which 
 the Conftantinopolitans admit not : And even Thofe who, as be- 
 fore feen, allert, or allow that They receive this Creed,' yet at 
 the fame Time intimate that it is not the intire Creed, but 
 curtailed in That Article. However, Genebrard might be in the 
 right, as to the main Thing, that the Conftantinopolitans do re- 
 ceive the Creed, tho' miftaken in the particular Form : Or pof= 
 :fibly fome Latiniz,ing Greeks at Conftami?wple might have one 
 Form, and the reft another, and thus all will be well. But 
 let us inquire what further Evidence there is of this Creed's 
 havmg been ever received at Conftantinople^ and by the Greeks 
 prdj)erly fo called. An Ai^ument thereof may be drawn from 
 the Greek Copies that vary from the Latin, in the Article of 
 Procellion. For, who fhouid draw up, and curtail the Greek 
 Copies but the Greeks ? And why fhouid They be at the trou- 
 ble of correcling (as They will call it) the Creed, if They did 
 not receive \u A fecond Argument may be drawn from the 
 Cieeds bemg found in the Horologia belonging to the Greeks, 
 
 Gr'JeT/unt^rre^lr'V -^'^r^'/^'^^i^ ^''quantulum imnmtatis, Confi,nuno^dUani fie 
 urxce legunt, & reataat. Gmehanl. m Svmb. Athan. p, i.j. 
 
 that 
 
 i>f 
 
^C ANTIENT RECEPTION of 
 
 that is, in their Breviaries (as \vc fliould call them) their Books 
 of Service tor the Canonicil Hours. How Ihould the Creed 
 come in there j unlefs the Greeks received it into their Sacred 
 Offices ? As to the Fad, riiihop UJher's Copy found in fuch a 
 Brcviarjy is a fiifficient Evidence : And it is plain from the 
 Copy it felf, that it was no Latmiz.ing Greek that made it, or 
 ufed it 5 fince the Proceflion from the Son is ftriick out. Fur- 
 ther, This Horologion belong'd to a Monk of ConjLi^ntinople ' j 
 which argues the Reception of the Creed in That very City: 
 And as a Token of their Efteem of it, and Value for it, it is 
 afcribed to the Nicene Council it felf j which all the Greeks re- 
 ceive and refped with the greateft Veneration. From hence 
 then it is plain that the Cotijldntinopolitdn Greeks (fomc of them 
 at leaft) receive, or have received This Creed, but with fomc 
 Alterations proper to their pecdliar Tenets in oppofition to the 
 Latins. This Fad, of the Confi-antifiopolitans their receiving Tiiis 
 Creed, might be farther proved from the CofifeJJio?i of Metro- 
 phanes Critopulus (in the year 1620, publilhed in 1667.^) who 
 admits the Creed, and looks upon it as owing to a very par- 
 ticular Providence, that the Greek Copies (as He fuppofes) have 
 been preferved pure and entire, while the Latin ones have been 
 corrupted, or interpolated. We find by Nicolaus Hydruntinusy 
 above cited, that fuch .had been the general Perfwafion of the 
 Greeks^ 500 years upwards, in relation to This Creed j not re- 
 jedine the Greedy but the Latin Interpolation only, as they 
 take It to be. 
 
 Which when I confider, refleding withal how the Mufco- 
 vites, RuJJians^ &c. (who derived their Religion from the Greeks 
 fmce the IXth Century) have all come into this Creed, (only 
 ftriking out the Proceilion from the Son) and that no good 
 Account can be given of fuch Agreement, but that They all 
 received the Ihme Form Vx'hen they firft received their Reli- 
 gion 5 1 fay, when I confider, and compare thefe Things toge- 
 
 a In Thecarr, Conflantinopolirani Monachi, Grxcorum Hymnorum Horologio {Z-Ravio 
 tiortro ex Orienie hue advecJo) Symbolum Hoc, eo quo pofl: fiiiem hujus Diatribs cernitur 
 intcrpolatum nnodo, Nic^m Synocio adlcriptiim rcpcri 8<c. Ujfer. de Svmb. p. i. 
 
 b Metrophjnis Critopuli, Frotfifyngeli Conftantinopolitani ' O (jis>^oylct, ry,i ivaTrAnxi-; ik- 
 «A):(n«;-cdit. Helmftad. w /^x.o,2i Jostnn, Horntiio: Vid. cap. i. p. ib. apud Ten/zel.p- 150. 
 
 ther, 
 
the ArUANASJAN CREED. ^j 
 
 ther, it cannot but give me a Sufpicion, that This Creed had 
 been received by the Greeks foon after their firft Difputcs with 
 the Lafms about the Trocefjion j only They took care to ftrike 
 out a part of it, hoping to folve all by charging the L^'ms with 
 Interpolation. 
 
 However This be, not to infift upon a bare Conjecture with- 
 out antient Records to confirm it, one Thing is certain, and, 
 I think, hath been proved abundantly, that the profefs'd Greeks^ 
 even under the Patriarch of Conjlantmople, have in former Times 
 received, and ftill do receive tiiis Creed, with fuch Alterations, 
 or Corredions as are proper to their Principles : And fo I un- 
 derftand Dr. Covel^, where He fays, fpeaking of wliat is done 
 amongft the Greeks-, that Athanafius's Creed is owned, as corrupted x, 
 that is, with fuch Corruptions as the Greeks have made to it. 
 Upon the whole, therefore, I cannot but clofe in with thofe 
 many learned Romfinifis who have affirm'd, and dill do affirm, 
 that This Creed is received both by Greeks and Latins. If the 
 Exprellion be thought too general, fince it is certain that the 
 Creed is rejeded by innumerable Greeks, or more properly 
 Orientdifis, in Afia and Africa ; as the Cophtes, and Nubians, and 
 Abaffines, and Maronites, Armenians, Nejlorians, &c. I fay, if 
 this be objected j it is to be confider'd, that the Romanifts, un^ 
 der the name of Greeks, mean generally the Orthodox Greeks only, 
 the Melchite Greeks, or as many as hold Communion with the 
 Patriarch of Conjiantinople -, making no Account of the reft, as 
 being by their Herefics cut off from the Church, and there- 
 fore of little or no Confi^eration ^ Now, in this Senfe, it is 
 cxcufable enough to fay, that the Creed is received both by 
 Greeks, and Latins. 
 
 To Sum up what hath been faid of the Reception of this 
 
 a Covel: Account of the Greek Church, pref. p. 9, To vphich I may add a Remark of the 
 learned Dr. Hickes, that This Creed, tho' of an uncertain Author, was for it's excellent 
 Compofure, received into thcGreck, and Lati?i Churches. Hickes. Serin. Vol. 2. p. ijf. 
 
 b Attamen hoc 3svi (ub Orientalis EcclefU nomine diverfarum Nationum Orien'alium 
 Eccleua; venunt; quaz hcet a Gr^ca fuam cognofcant Originem, propter camen variaruni 
 Hxrefium coiluviem, & alia prseter mores Chriftianos pcffima introdiKSla, a Gr^ca longif- 
 fime abfunt. Grui enim illius Religionis Homines, ta'nquam a fe disjunftos, arque im- 
 probiffimos, arcent, & deteftantur. Leo Allac, de perpec Confcnf. Ecc). Occid. 5c Orieut. 
 
 N Creed, 
 
^S ANTIENT RECEPTION of &c. 
 
 Creed: From the foregoing Account it appears that it's Re- 
 ception has been both general^ and antient. It hatn been re- 
 ceived by Greeks and LatinSj all over Europe: And if it hath 
 been little known among the African, and yljidn Churches, the 
 like may be laid of the Apojiles Creed, which hath not been 
 admitted, icarcc known, in Afric/i, and but little mAjia'', ex- 
 cept among the Armenians, who are laid to receive it ^ So 
 that, for generality of Reception, the Athanajian Creed may vie 
 \\'ith Any, except the Niccne, or Conjlantinopolitan, the only ge- 
 neral Creed common to all the Churches. As to the A?itiqtaty 
 of it's Reception into xhc Sacred Offices, This Creed has been re- 
 ceived in feveral Countries, France, Germany, England, Italy^ and 
 Rome it felf, as loon, or fooner than the Nicene j which is a 
 high Commendation of it, as gaining Ground by it's o\^'n In- 
 trinfick worth, and without the Authority of any general Coun- 
 cil to inforoc it. And there is this Thing further to be faid 
 for it, that while the Nicene and Apojlies Creeds have been 
 growing up to their prefent Perfection in a Courle of years, 
 or Centuries of years, and not complcated till about the year 
 600, This Creed was made and perfected at once, and is 
 more antient, if confider'd as an i?uire Eorm, than either of the 
 other ; having received ' it's full Perfection, while the others 
 wanted theirs. No confiderable Additions or Defalcations have 
 been made to it, ("it has needed nonej fince it's firil: compiling, 
 till of late years, and in the Greek Church only 5 which yet arc 
 fo far from correcting or amending the Form, that they have 
 rendred it lb much thclefs perfed : And the only way of reflo- 
 rin[i it to it's Perfeftion, is to reftore it to what it was at the 
 liril. But I pafs on. 
 
 a Il!o quo nos utimur, uti caercri Oricntalcs, carent ' Habeffni) hiiid levi indicio, A- 
 poftolos illius Autorcs non elTe, quamvis dodrinx raiione Apo/lol:cum redte vocefur. 
 ludo'.ph. Hijii M:hiof>. 1. ?. c. f. n. 1 9. 
 
 bymbolum ncc ab Apojloln, ncc a Synodo ulla j^cncrali faftum cil : Adhxc, nee in G>«y . 
 see iri Often', ullis Ecrldiis obtinuit, fed in Ecclcfii Roin^na. Suicer. Ihtjaiir. p. J 093. 
 
 b Sr Paul Riciut, Prefau State of the Greek Church, p. 409 
 
 C H A P. 
 
>fi 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Of the lime when, and Tlace where the Creed was 
 
 compofed, 
 
 'A V I N G obferved when, and where this Creed hath been 
 
 received, wc may now afccnd higher, and confidcr when 
 
 iind where it Avas made. Our Inquiries here will be in fome 
 meafure dark, and conjeduralj ftrong Probabilities will perhaps 
 be as much as we can reach to : Wiiich made it the more necefla- 
 ry for me to begin, as I have, at the lower end, where Things are 
 more plain, and clear, in hopes to borrow fome Light to'^con- 
 dud our fearches into what remains ftill dark, and obfcure. 
 Whatever we have to advance in this Chapter, muft reft upon 
 Two Things, i. Upon External Tefiimony from Antient Cita- 
 tions, Manufcripts, Comments, Verfions, and the like, fuch as 
 have been previouQy laid down. 2. Upon the Interfutl chara- 
 ckrs of the Creed. 
 
 I . To begin with the External Evidence ; Our Antient Tefti^ 
 monies, above recited, carry up the Antiquity of the Creed as 
 high as the year 670, if the firft of them be admitted for ge- 
 nuine} as it reafonably may, not withftanding fome Objedions. 
 Our Ma?mfcripts, now extant, will bring us no higher than 700,* 
 but fuch as have been known to. be extant may reach ud to 
 660, or even 600. This muft be thought veryconfiderable to as 
 many as know how great a Rarity a Manufcript of eleven hundred, 
 or of a Thoufand years Date, is; and how few Books, or Traces 
 tl>ere are that can boaft bf Manufcripts of fuch Antiquity. The 
 Injuries of Time, ofDuft, and of Moths, and above all, the Ravages 
 of War, and Deftrudions of Fire have robb'd us of the antient Mo- 
 numents, and left us but very thin Remains 3 that there isfcarce 
 luch a Thmg to be found as a Manufcript of the IVth Centu- 
 ry, higher none at all, of the Vth very few, and even of the 
 Vlth not many. So that our want of Manulcripts bevond the 
 Vlth, or Vllth, Century is no argument againft the ^Antiquity 
 -ot the Creed, however certain : an Argument may be drawn 
 
 N 2 ' from 
 
100 7he ATHANASIAN CREED 
 
 from Thofe wc have, Co far as They reach. But, beyond all 
 This, wc have a Comment of the Vlth Century, of the year 
 570, or thereabout; and this certain, and unqueftionable : 
 \^'hich may fuperfede all our Difputes about the Antient Tejii- 
 monicSj or AIa,?mfcripts, of more doubtful Authority. Here then 
 we fiand upon the foot of external Evidence : The Creed was, 
 about the year 5 70,conriderable enough to be commented up- 
 on, like the lords-Prayer, and Apoftles-Creed, and together with 
 Them. Here is certain Evidence for the Time fpecificdj and 
 prefurnpive for much greater Antiquity. For, who can imagine 
 that This Creed, or indeed any Creed, fhould grow into fuch 
 Repute of a fudden, and not rather in a Courfe of Years, and 
 a long Trad of Time? Should we allow 100, or 150 years for 
 it, tho' it would be Con'^eclure only, yet it would not be un- 
 realbnable, or improbable Conjecture. But we will let This 
 Matter reft here, and proceed to our other Marks of Di- 
 redion: 
 
 2. The Interned Characters of the Creed. The Creed con- 
 tams two principal Doftrines ; one of the Trinity, and the other 
 of the Incarnation. PofTibly from the Manner wherein thefe 
 Do(ftrines arc there laid down, or from the Words whereby they 
 are exprefs'd, we may be able to fix the true Date of the Creed, 
 or very nearly at leaft ; certain however thus far, that it muft 
 be fomewhere above 570. 
 
 From the Dodrine of the Incarnation^ as exprefs'd in this 
 Creed, we may be confident that it is not earlier than the Rife 
 of the Apollinarian Herely, which appear'd firft about the year 
 360, and grew to a head about 370, or a little Later. This 
 Creed is io' minute and particular againft: Thofe Hereticks 
 (without naming them, as it is not the way of the Creed to 
 ' name Any) obviating every Cavil, and precluding every Eva- 
 fion, or Subterfuge, that one cannot fuppofe it to have been 
 written before the Depths of That Hcrefy were perfedly feen 
 into, and the whole Secrets of the Party difclofed: which we 
 have no reafon to think could be before the year 370, if fo 
 foon. This Confidcration alone is to me a fufficient Confu- 
 tation of Thofe who pretend, that Athanajlm made this Creed 
 
 cither 
 
WHEN AND WHERE M4BE. jo, 
 
 either during his Banifliment at Treves, whicb ended in the 
 year 338, or during his Stay at Rome in the year 343 ; or that 
 He prefented it to Pope Julms, or Vo^q Liberim, who were Both 
 dead before the year 367. 
 
 I muft add, that Eftphmius * marks the very Time when the 
 Creeds firft began to be inlarged in Oppofition to the Apolli- 
 rnirim Herefy 5 namely the Xth year of Vdentinim and Vdem, 
 and the Vlth of Grmiln (it fhould be Vllth) which falls in 
 with A.D. 373, the very laft year of Athamftuss Life, accord- 
 ing to thofe that place his Death the lateft 5 fome fay, He died 
 a year or two fooner. If therefore He made this Creed at all, 
 it muft be about that Time. And, indeed, were there no 
 ftrongcr Objeaions againft t\iz, Antiquity of the Creed, or againft 
 it's being made by Athm^ifms, than the common Objedion 
 about the fuppofed Condemnation of the Nefiorian and Euty- 
 chian Here/ies 5 I fhould fcarce think it at all improbable that 
 Athmafms fhould be the Author, admitting that He lived to. 
 the year 373. For Epiphmiuss larger Creed made about that 
 Time, appears to me as full and exprefs againft Both thofe 
 Herefies, as the Athanajian can be fuppofed to be, and in fome 
 refpeds more fo : And yet Neither of thofe Herefies were then 
 in Being, nor for many years after. But, there are many other 
 reafons which convince me, that the Athanafim Creed muft be 
 placed lower than thi^ Time. I take Epiphmim's larger Creed 
 to have been the firft that inlarged the Article of the Incarna- 
 tion, in oppoiition chiefly to the Apollinarians : And That Creed 
 being drawn up, as Epiphmius exprefsly tcftifies, by the join£ 
 Advice of dl the Orthodox^ Bifbops, and the wbok Catholick Churchy 
 became a kind of Rpde, or Model for moft of the Creeds that- 
 came after 5 among which I reckon the Athmafmn. 
 
 For, from the Dodrine of the Trinity, as particularly, and 
 minutely drawn out in That Creed, it is to mc very plain, 
 
 w u "^^ ^^ ^°"^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^' ^^^^ Crci^^ of Epiphmius :. 
 which will evidently appear to any Man who will but be at 
 the Pains to compare the Two Creeds together, 
 
 a Epiphan. Ancoratt c. 1 a i . p, 1 2,|, 
 
102 7he ATUAKASIAN CREED 
 
 One very obfcrvable particular is the manner of cxprcflingthe 
 
 U^iity by a fingular Adjective j t7v«5 ,£tcrf.HS,u}?us immeiiJltSj ^a. One 
 
 et criifily one incomer ehenjible J tScc. and the condemning the Exprcf- 
 
 fion of Tres dterm, Tres imme?iji, &c. The Greeks never laid down 
 
 any luch Rule of Exprellion, never obferved or followed it, but 
 
 have fometimcs run counter to it^j meaning indeed the very fame 
 
 Thing, but not fo expreffing it. As to the Lutins^ we Ihall find 
 
 none of them (at leall, I have not obferved any) coming into 
 
 That way of Expreirion hQ.io\:c Ambrofe'^ ^w^Taufiifms'^ (in the 
 
 years 381, and 384) wlao are the 'ii'ii^ that ufe it, and that but 
 
 once, or very fparingly; not repeating and inculcating it, like 
 
 the Athan.'iji/m Creed, nor leaving it deftitute of Explication. 
 
 But St. Attjlin^ afterwards, in his Books of the Trinity, in the 
 
 Vth efpecially, inlarges in ]ufl:iiication of this Rule of Expref- 
 
 fion, and is full and copious upon it. His Proofs, liluftrations. 
 
 Example, and Authority gave new Strength and Credit to this 
 
 Rule, which might then pals current, and become fit to appear, 
 
 without farther Explication, in a Creed. For This Rcafon, 
 
 principally, I incline to think that This Creed was not made 
 
 before St. Auftins Books of the Trinity were puhlick (which 
 
 was not till 416) or not before 420, or thereabout, to allow 
 
 fome Time for his Works to be read, confidcr'd, approved, 
 
 and to gain a general Eftcem. If it be faid, that St. Aufiin might 
 
 as well copy from this Creed, as the Creed from Him 5 1 fay, 
 
 No : For, the Reafon is diiferent. Creeds and other the like 
 
 Formularies which are to be put into every ones Hands, and fpread 
 
 round about, ought not to contain any thing till it has been 
 
 maturely weigh'd, long confidered, and fully explain'd, as well 
 
 a Tp<5r eixHfuv uTTHfo* <fVfjL,<ptj:u)i. Naiisnz. in Bapt. Orat. 40. p. 668. 
 
 b Ergo fanftus Parcr, fandtus Filius. famflus & Spiriru*: Sanftus: fed non tres Sanfli, 
 quia unus eft Dcus fanrtus, unus eft Dcminu?. Una eft crenim ven San<f>iras, licut una 
 eft vcn Divinitas , una ilia vera Saiidtiras naturalis. Ami/rof.. de Sp. S. lib. 3. c. 16. 
 p. 6?8. 
 
 c ScJ ne iIhos o/»«/'/'fl/p«;ej intclligas, prrcavcndum eft: licet cnim & Parer fit omni- 
 potens. Sc Filius, tamen unm eft ommpotens, ficut & unus eft Dcus; quia Patris £c Filii 
 eademomnipotcntia cft,licut & eaddm dciras ^c— — Oftcnditur Unitas Divinitatis in Patre 
 & Filio, fjcut & OmnipotentU, & quicqm'd omnino Dtvim Siilft.vuU eft; hoc folo dif- 
 fcrens a Patre Filius, quod ille Pater eft, & Hie Filius. Fauftin. de Trinit. c. 3. p. 125, 
 1*4. 
 
 as 
 
WHEN AND WHERE MADE. loy 
 
 as proved, and generally acknowledged bv the Churches of 
 Chrift. It is therefore much more • cafonable to beheve that 
 St. Atifiins Writings fhouid go firfl, and a generd Approbation 
 of them in That particular ; and then the Creed might con- 
 veniently follow, the way being now open'd for it*. 
 
 I may obferve the like of another Article of the Athmafmn 
 Creed j namely, the PrQceffion fro?n the Son: A Dodrine enter- 
 tain'd indeed both by Greeks and Latins (as may appear by the 
 Teftimonies commonly cited for that purpofe) and exprefs'd 
 frequently i7z Senfej tho' rarely in Terms 5 but llich as came not 
 to be much inculcated, or infilled upon till St. Aujiin under- 
 took to aifert and clear it, and to render it lefs hablc to any 
 Difpute hereafter. For which rcafon the modern Greeks have 
 look'd upon Him, in a manner, as the leather of that Dodrine, 
 being at leaft the principal Man that brought it into Vogue ; 
 however weakly they may pretend that He invented it. Thus 
 far is certain, that his elaborate Arguments, and folid Proofs, 
 from Scripture, of the Truth, and of the Importance of the 
 Doctrine, made it pafs the more readily 5 and gave it Credit 
 and Authority enough to have a place in a (landing Creed, or 
 Confeffion: Which is to me another Argument of the Creed's 
 being made after St. AtiJHns V/ritings were wtU kiv)wn in the 
 World, in That Place, at leaft, where the Creed was made. 
 From the Premifes then I prefume to infer, that the Athanafian 
 Creed is not earlier than the year 420. 
 
 I will next endeavour to Ihow, that it cannot reafonably be 
 fet lower than the Eutjchim Times, not later than the Council; 
 o^Chalcedon, or than the'^year 451 : And This alfo I lliall at- 
 tempt from the internal CharacJers of the Creed, in like man- 
 ner as above. 
 
 c Combefis, /peaking to this PointJeemJ incUnabh to fuppofeihut .?/. Auftin IimI borrow ^ 
 from /^e Creed i but correcliyig Himfelf aftervp.irds,He fuppofes rather that //^e Creed borr^roe?. 
 from Him. Hts words are thefe. . 
 
 Ejus Symholi, feu FcrmuU Fidri, Antiquitatem prcdunt iUi ejus -vei-fiadi qms totidan 
 -vefbts Kaoet K\ig\\^. in Libris de Trmitsie ^. alibi, qnos non almrJe de'ump/ijfe vidintu* 
 
 (juam ex eo SymbAo ^cine^uam nihil vet at dicere ipfitm potau Symbolt Auftorem ex 
 
 Auguftino, aliiji^ne P.p./jtaCcn/arcinaffe. Comien/, not. in Man. Calec, AusSlar. Tom. 2= 
 p- 296. 
 
 I. Thera, 
 
^04 11^^ ATHANASIAN CREED 
 
 1. Thci'c is not a Word in the Creed dircdly and plainly' 
 exprefling Tii>o N/itures in Chrift, or excluding 0}7e Nature : 
 Wiiich Crit/cil Terms, againfl the Error of EutycheSj are very 
 rarely, or never omitted in the Creeds drawn up in the Euty- 
 chi:ir^ Times, or the Times immediately following. 'Tis true, 
 there is, in the Athanafian Creed, what may be fufficicnt to ob- 
 viate, or preclude the Futychian Herely •-, as there is alfo in the 
 hrger Creed oi Epiphanius A. D. 373, and in the Works of 
 Naz^ianzen 2i]\<\ Ambrofcj about the year 3805 and in PeUgiuss 
 Creed A. D. 4175 and in the writings of Atijlin^ and Vincen- 
 tim oiLerins^ Both before the year 43 5, many years before Eu- 
 tyches. The ftrongeft Exprellion of the Creed againft the Eu- 
 tychiamj and which has been moft frequently urged in this Cafe, 
 is, IJnus omtuno, non confufione Suhjla?iti£-, fedunitdte PerfonA: One 
 altogether J not by Confufion of Subjlmice, but by unity of Perfon : 
 Which yet is ufed by Vincent'ms^ and by Aujiir^ too, almofl in 
 Terms. And if this be no reafon for making Either of thofe 
 Authors, or the Trails afcribed to them, later than Eutyches-, 
 why fhall the like ExpreHion be of any Force in refpect to the 
 Athanafian Creed? There is nothing in the Creed but what 
 was common and ordinary in Catholick \Vriters before the 
 Eutychian Times : But there are vvanting thofe criticd, diftin- 
 guifhing Terms of Two noctures, or One nMure, neceilary to be 
 inferted in the Creeds after thefe Times, and never, or very 
 rarely omitted ^ which is one reafon, and a very confiderable 
 one, for fetting the Date of the Creed higher than 451. 
 
 2. Another Argument of the fame thing, near akin to the 
 former, is, that this Creed makes no mention of Chrift being 
 Confuhftant'ial with us-, in one Nature, as He is Confubfldntml with 
 the Father in another: A Tenet exprefsly held by fome of the 
 Ecclefiaftical Writers before Eutychess Time ; but feldom or 
 iiever omitted in the Creeds^ or ConfeJJions about that Time, or 
 after. To.be convinced of the Truth both of this, and of the 
 
 a Unus autem, non— — Divinitatis 8c Hurr.anitatis confufionc, fed unitate perfona:. 
 Vincent. Lerin. c. ly. p. 58. 
 
 b Idem Deus qui Homo; non confu/ione nzt^irx, fid unitate ferfon*. Auguft. Tom. V. 
 p. 8Sj. . 
 
 preceding 
 
WEEK AND JVHERE MADE, lo; 
 
 preceding Article, one need but look into the Creeds and For- 
 muUries of thofe Times : Namely, into That oiTunibms of Spmn 
 in 447j of FUvian of Confiantinople, as alfo of Pope Leo iu 
 449, of the chdcedon Council in 45 i, of Pope FelixViS. in 485, 
 and Anajiafms II in 496, and of the Church oi Alex^ndrid in the 
 fame year : As aUb into Thofe of Pope HormlfdaSy and the 
 Churches of Syria, and FulgentiuSj and tlic Emperor Jtifii- 
 nian>^ and Pope John II, and Pope PeUgius I. within the Sixth 
 Century. In all which we fhall find either exprefs denial of 
 One nature J or exprefs affirming of Two natures^ or theDod:iine 
 of Chrift's Confuhftant'mlity with us, or all three together, tho' 
 they are all omitted in the Athanapa-n Creed. This is to 
 me a fecond realbn for fettino; our Creed hii^hcr than the 
 Eutychian Times. 
 
 3. I may argue This point farther from a Paflage of the 
 Athannfian Creed, running thus : One^ not by Coriverfion of the 
 Godhead into Flejh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. This 
 would not, I conceive, have run in thefe words, or in this 
 manner, in the Eutychian Times. For tho' the Eutychia'ns were 
 fometimcs, (as well as the ApoUinarians often) charged with the 
 Dodrine of a Converfion of the Godhead into F/eJh 5 yet nothing 
 more certain than that the generality of them abfolutcly difown'd 
 and detcfted any fuch Tenet, teaching rather a Converfion of the 
 Manhood into God, juft the Reverfe. And, by the way, I would 
 here oifer it to the learned Reader to confider, whether we may 
 not from hence give a probable Account of a very noted Va- 
 riation obfcrvable in many of the moft antient Copies of this 
 Creed, which run thus ; Unus autem, non converfione divinitatis 
 i^Scarne, fed ajjumptione titimanitatis in Deo : where there is came 
 for carnem, and Beo for Dcum. A flight Alteration in the Words, 
 but a very great one in the Scnfe. A Change of the Godhead 
 in the Flefo the Eutychians admitted, by making the tn>o natures 
 become 0/2^; tho' they allowed not a Change into Flefo : So that 
 by this little Alteration of came for carnem, the Creed would 
 ftrike more diredly at the Eutychian Principles. Then again as 
 to Deum, if that Reading was to ftand, the Creed inftead of 
 confuting the Eutychians would fcem rather to tavor them j 
 
 O for 
 
iQ<S The AJHAKASIAN CREED 
 
 for They taught that the Manhood v^zs ajjuwed into God, and that 
 in To literal and llr-cl a Senfc as really to become Gcd, or to 
 be ablbrb'd and loft in the divine Nature, Both Natures becom- 
 ing one div'me Nature. Such a Conftruclion might the words 
 of the Creed be liable to. But put Deo for Deton, and it is en- 
 tirely defeated : For then the Senfe is not that the Manhood 
 is alllimed into Gcd, but that God aflumed the human Natiu-Cj 
 v.hich is true, and not liable to any fuch Milconftruclion as 
 the other. However this be, as to the Variation of the Copies, 
 and the realbn here allign'd for it (which I offer only as a 
 probable Coniechire to be further inquired into) yet This is 
 cenain, that rhefe words of the Creed, according to the com- 
 mon Copies, are not lb cautioufly, or accurately chofcn as They 
 might, or would have been, had the Creed been drawn up after 
 the Eutychijin Times. 
 
 4. A fourth Argument may be drawn from the Similitude 
 in the Creed, running thus : As the reafonabte Soul, and Flejhy 
 is one Man j fo God and Alan is one Chriji. This familiar, and 
 eafy Comparilbn was much made ulc of by the Catholicks, 
 down from the Apollmarian Times, to the Time of Eutyhes : 
 By NazioKzen, Auftin, Fincentius, Claudianus Mamertus-, and 
 Others. But no iboner did the Eutychians wreft the Comparifon 
 to their own Scnle, pleading for One nature in Chrilt, like as 
 Soul and Body make One nature in Man, but the Catholicks 
 grew ftrangely averfe to the Similitude, and rarely made ufe of 
 it : Or when They did, it was either to dilpute againft ir, and 
 condemn it, or elfe to guard and qualify it with proper Cau- 
 tions and Reftridions. Wherefore it is by no means probable 
 that This Similitude would have been inferred, at fuch a Time, 
 ui a Catholick Creed, and there left without Guard or Cau- 
 tion, for the Eutychians to make an ill ufe of This fourth 
 Argument I take from the learned and acute Le ,^uien, whofe 
 words may be feen in the Margin'. And may we not from hence 
 
 a Quod qoidem Simile, (^■ao Thtologus ctiam, aliique Patres AftWnariftai confutarunt.tanti 
 pofthac non fecerunt infequentis, feu quinti faeculi dcflnentis Dodiore^, ut iLud in ^po- 
 jittcne FiJei inlercren: ; cum Monophyfitt, Snero prjercrtim Duce, eo vehcmcntius contra 
 CzthiUiBi fagnArmt, ut unMm in Chrifto naiHram dTe ex Dcitate 8c Humaaitate compofi- 
 
 sivc 
 
IFHEN AND INHERE MADE. 107 
 
 give a probable Gueis at the reafoii why the antient Manufcript 
 of Treves, and the Colhertine, copied from it, have entirely 
 omitted this Similitude, throwing in a few words, both before 
 and after, to folve the Breach, in fome Meafure, and to pre- 
 ferve a Connexion : which Ihows that it was no cafual Oniif- 
 fion, but made with . defign. But I pafs on. 
 
 Thefe reafons convince me that the Creed was not made fo late 
 as the Council of Chdcedon, but before the year 451. It cannot 
 therefore be afcribed to Vigilius T^pfenfis in the year 484 : Not 
 to mention that the Phra^feolo^y of it agrees not with That Wri- 
 ter's ufual manner of Exprellion, as Le J^ic/z hath obferved*. 
 Befides that the principal reafons on which ^uefiiel refted his 
 opinion in regard to That Author ^ are now found to have 
 been grounded on a falfe Prefum prion of certain Works being 
 Figiliuss which are none of his^. And I may add, that to 
 Me there does not appear in Vigiliuss Pieces any thing of 
 that Strength, Clofenefs, and Acutenefs, which we find in the 
 Athnrmfmn Creed. 
 
 But I proceed to (how that This Creed is earlier than even the 
 Times of Nejiorius, or the Ephejine Council of the year 431. 
 It is certain that this Creed does not condemn the Neflorian 
 Herefy in fuch full, direct, critical Terms, as the Catholicks 
 found to be necellary againif the M^iles and Subtilties of thofc 
 Men. There is not a word of the Mother of God, or of 0?2€ 
 Son only, in oppofition to Two Sons, or of God's being born, fuf- 
 fering, dying : which kind of Exprelllons the Creeds are full of 
 ^fter Nejl'oritiss Times, and after the Council of Ephefus, to 
 
 ta>9 evincerent. Quinimo omnes ingcnii vires expllcare coadi funt, ut varias difcrepantias 
 reperirent inter Unionem Deitatis cum Humanitate in Chrifto, & Unionem Aniins cum 
 Corpore in Homine. Le ^hiien. Diflert. Damafc. p. lo. Confer ?etav. Dogm. Theol. 
 Tom. V. 1. 5. c. 9. 10, ^c. 
 
 a Sunt qui Sufpicenrur Expofitionem iflam Fidei fuKTe concinnatam a Vigilio Tapfenji, 
 qui fcripfilTe exiftimatur libros tres contra Varimadmn Arianum: Sed ab illorum Opinione 
 me dererruit verfus ifte, Unus ojnntno, »on Confufione Subfiantis, fed Umtaie Per/cm. 
 Nam Vigilius iQL\hr]s quinque contra Eutychem nufqiiara LTw/Vij/Pw Verfons, dicit, fed paffim, 
 
 & frequentiffirre Unionem VerfonA.-— Cumque varix fuperfint hodie-F/^/V/rT^/) p«y//Con- 
 
 fefliones Fidei de Trinitate 8c Incarnatione, nulla earum fimilitudo 8c Convenientia cum 
 Symholo Athanafiano , quoad Stylum animadvertitur. Le J^Hitn. Diflert. Damafc. 
 p. 9. 
 
 b Vid. Montf. Diatrib. p. 724. 
 
 O 2 guard 
 
io8 The ATHAN ASIAN CREED. 
 
 guard the more certainly againft Equivocatwm, and to cxprefs 
 the Catholick Doclrine in ftrong Terms, fuch as could not be 
 eluded. As to what the Athan^fian Creed really does exprefs, 
 and is conceiv'd to ftrike directly at the Nefiorian Hcrefy ; it is 
 Demonftration that the words arc not more full, or cxprcfTivc, 
 than may be found in elder Creeds, and in the Fathers that 
 wrote againft the ApollmM'mns and others, before ever Neflorius 
 was heard of*. I know not how to give my Reader a clear 
 and juft Idea of this whole Matter, but by letting down in 
 Chronological order the Dodrine of the Jncdrnntion^ as exprefs'd 
 in Catholick Writings from the Apollmarian Times down to 
 the Nefiormn^ from the year 373 to the year 431. One Thing 
 only 1 would remark before-hand, to make the following Ac- 
 count the clearer, that the ApoUirmrians really held a Dodlrinc 
 very near akin to That which afterwards was called Eutychian ; 
 and They malicioufly charged the Catholicks with That very 
 Dodrinc which was afterwards called Neftoridn : So that the 
 Catholicks, in their Charge upon the Apoll'maridns, condemn'd the 
 Emychmn Dodrine long before Eutyches ; and, in their Defenfc 
 of themfelves,They alfo condemn'd the iVlf/?or/;^« Tenets, before 
 Nefiorius. I fhall firft juftify the Truth of This Remark in 
 Both it's parts, and then Ihall proceed farther to what I intend. 
 As to the firft part, that the ApoUinnrUns held a Dodrine 
 very near akin to That which was afterwards called EutychUny 
 it is a Thing fo well known that I need not cite many Tefti- 
 monies for it. Twas one of the commoneft Charges againft the 
 Entjchims, that They had revived the Herefy of the Apollina- 
 ri.-ms ^ in fome confiderable Branches of it : Petavms briefly 
 fhows what thofe Branches were ^. 
 
 a Le Quien is beforehand with me in the obfervation, rehofe words I may here cue. 
 
 Nee cuiquam negotium facen-at, quod Hejlont & Euiychis Hxrcfes ei (Formula) pr!us 
 pcfTjadatae efTcnt, quam ipfarum Autorcs cmergerent : Albi fiquidem ortenfum fuit SS. 
 Patrcs, qui contra AbMinArtum calamum ftrinxeranr, difcrtifllmis etiam verbis Amborum 
 iiiipictafcs proicripfifle Le -^Hien DiHert. Damafc. p. 9. 
 
 b Eutyches..' .per impios vetenim Ilrrcticorum volutarus errores, tetrium ApoUi- 
 naris dogma djlc^it ; ut nei^atae Humanae carnis atque Animae vcriratc, totum nominum 
 noftrum Jcflim Ch.iftuni «'ii«j a fT rat efle ««r/<r<£.tanquam verbi i">eitas ipfa fe in Carnem 
 animanujLe converterit. Leon F.',A\. 97. p. 6^} j^ienell ed- confer Ep 134. p. 699. 
 
 c Sane cum & multiplex, 8c ab Autorc fuo interpolata fxpius ApoUmnris Haercfis fye- 
 
 A$ 
 
U^HEN AND WHERE MADE, lop 
 
 As to the other part of my Remark, that the Apollinnrmm 
 charg'd the CathoHcks with the oppofite Extreme, afterward 
 called Nejiormn, That has not been fo much obfcrved, but is 
 no lefs true than the other j as may abundantly appear from 
 the Teftimonies in the margin ' j befides others that will occur 
 as we pafs along. This alio is obferved by Le ^ien in his 
 Notes to Dum^fcen ^ whereupon He rightly infers, that it will 
 be a falfe Conclufion to argue that fuch or fuch Writings muft 
 belong to the Nefiorian Times, only becaufe of their treating of 
 an Unity of Verjon in Chrift. 
 
 Thefe things premiled, I now proceed to lay down the Do- 
 drine of the Incarnation, as exprels'd in Catholick Writers from 
 the year 373 down to the year 431, inclufive. 
 
 I begin with the larger Creed of EpiphaniuSj which fets forth 
 the Incarnation in the following Terms. 
 
 *' The word was made Flefh, not by undergoing any Change, 17% 
 '' nor by converting his Godhead into Manhood, but by co- 
 '• uniting it into his one holy Perfection and Godhead. For 
 " there is one Lord Jefus chrijl, and not Two 5 the fame He is 
 *' God, the fame He Lord, the fame He King'-'. 
 
 Here we may obferv'e that the Creed guards, juft as the Atha^ 
 nafian does, againft the Two Extremes j againft the Apollinariar^ 
 
 fit, ut capire fexto Jocuimus ; ea parte cum Ifto confenfit Ewyches, qua Carncm Chrifti 
 non ex utero fumptam B. Virginis fed e cselo delapfam Apollinarii credidit; turn quate- 
 nus literque unicam naturam aireveravit, & utriufque permiftam ac contufam Subftantiam, 
 ?etnv. Dogmat. Theo!. Tom. V.I. i. c. id. p. 37. 
 
 a Neque vero Alium Jefum Chriflum, Aliatn Verbum dicimus, ut Nova Hsre/is ex- 
 Jumniatur, fed eundem, & ante faecula & poft Cxcuh, & ante rrundum & port Mariami 
 im^ex Maria, magnum Deum appeliamus. Htennym in Tit. c 3. p 431. 
 
 Qui Apollinarii Dogmat-a defendant, per querimoniam quam advcrfus nos faciunt fua 
 confirmare conantur, carnale Verbum & Dominum faeculorum, Homin'S Filium immoria- 
 lem Filii Deitatera Conftruentes. Profenrnt enim quod Aliqui quafi Ecclefisp Carholicse 
 exiftentcs, Dua coI^n^ Tilios'm Dogmate; unum quidem fecundum nanram, a''erum au- 
 
 tem fecundum Adoptionem poflea acqu.fitam j nefcio a quo tal-a aiidientes. nondum 
 
 enim novi eum qui Hsec fubloqui'ur Gregor. Nyjfen. at. Concil. V. Coliat 6. p. 106. 
 Hardutn. Vid.etiam. ^mbrtf. de Ir.cam. c.7.p. 721. Athanaf. epift. ad Epi&et. p. 907. 
 
 b Le ^ien Not. in Damafcm Vol. 1. p. 9-. 
 
 notioa 
 
 xjiMvu Epiph. Ancor. p» 124> 
 
no the ATBANASIAK CREED. 
 
 notion of the Godhead being converted into Fiefh, and againft 
 the Apollin^iri^ri' Calumny that the CathoUcks made Two Chrifis 
 inftcad of One. 
 
 ^80 Gregory N,'iz,i^nz,en, not long after, exprefles Him felf in Terms 
 
 to the like cifed. '' We divide not the Man from the God- 
 
 *' head, but we make them one and the fame {Ferfon^ If 
 
 " any one imagines Aidry not to be the Mother of God, He has 
 
 '' no part with God. If any Man introduces Two Sons, One 
 
 " of God and the Father, and a Second of the Virgin-Mother, 
 " and not one and the fame Him, let him forfeit the Adoption 
 ^ of Sons promis'd to true Believers. For, God and Man are 
 " indeed Two Natures, like as Sod and Body : But They are not 
 " Two Sons, nor ftwoj Gods*. 
 
 Here, again, we find the Neflorim Tenets very fully obviated, 
 while Nazmnz.en is anfwering the Apollinarian Calumny againft 
 the Cathohcks : And at the fame Time, the Eutychmn Herefy 
 (afterwards fo called) is as plainly precluded, while Nuz^idnz^en is 
 laying down the Church's Faith in Two Natures agauift the Apol- 
 linnri^'ms who made but one. 
 
 382 Amhrofe, in like manner, confutes the Apolli?im'mns, without 
 
 naming them. " We ought alfo to condemn Thofe who, 
 " in another Extreme, teach not one and the fame Son of 
 " God, but that He who is begotten of God the Father is One^ 
 *' and He that is generated of the Virgin Another : when the 
 " Evam^elift faith, that the word was m^ide Flefh, to inftrud us 
 
 '' that there is but one Lord J ejus, not Two. There are 
 
 " Others rifen up who pretend that our Lord's Flefh and God- 
 
 " head are Both of one NMure. And when They fay 
 
 *' that The Word was converted into Flefh, Hairs, Blood, and 
 '' Bones, and changed from it's own Nature j after fuch a pre- 
 " tended change of the divine Nature, They may take the Handle 
 
 f Ou'A yx^ -Tin uoi^oiTnv ^^.^ou.ii "rvf, ^iijvr(^, iAA' ivec, k) lif xuTVt ^eyyjx-n^ef/jit. 
 
 -«■ P- 738,. 739* 
 
 to 
 
ffHEN AND TVHERE MADE, m 
 
 " to wreft any thing to the wcaknefs of the Godhead, which 
 " belongs to the Infirmity of the FleOi \ 
 
 Ambrofe fcems here to intimate as if there were really Some 
 at That Time, who had run into That very Error which the 
 Apollmarians charged upon the Catholicks, and which was after- 
 wards called NeftoYMn. However That be. He condemns it in 
 the name of the Catholicks j as He condemns alio the Apolli- 
 nMmn Extreme, which afterwards became Eutychian. There 
 is another Paflage of Amhroje cited by Theodoret, feemingly fo 
 full and exprels againft the Nefiorian and Eutychian Herefies, 
 that one can hardly be perfwadcd to think it really Ambrofe s. 
 But, on the other hand, it appears to be fo well attefled, that 
 the late learned Editor of Ambrofe could not but yield to 
 place it among his genuine Works. Tom. 2. p. 729. 
 
 There is a Creed of Pel^ms (as learned Men now agree) ^^'^ 
 inferred among the Works both of Jerom ^ and Aufi'm '^. It. 
 was made feveral years before the Nefior'mn Controverfy. Our 
 learned Y)Y.Wall has tranflated it into Engli{h\ fubjoining fome 
 excellent Notes of his own to it : I Ihall tranfcribe as much as 
 is to our purpofe. " We do in fuch manner hold that there 
 *' is in Chrift one Perfon of the Son, as that we fay there are 
 " in Him two perfed and intire Subftances {or, NMures) viz,. 
 " of the Godhead, and of the Manhood which confifts of Body 
 
 " and Soul. We do abhor the Blafphemy of Thofe. 
 
 " who go about by a new Interpretation to maintain that 
 " fmce the Time of his taking Flelh, all Things pertaining ta 
 " the divine Nature did pafs into the Man lor. Manhood^ and 
 ♦' fo alfo that all Things belongmg to the human Nature were 
 
 V 
 
 a Et illos condemnare debemus qui adverfa erroris linei, non unu.ii eunderaque Filium 
 Dei dicunt, fed Alium elTe qui ex Deo Patre natus fir,^//«OTqui fir gencratus ex virginei 
 cum Evangelifta dicat quia verbum euro facinm ejl, ut Unum Doniinum Jefum non duoi 
 
 cicderes — emergunt alii qui Caniem Domini dicant & Divinitatem unius efle nature 
 
 ■■Deinde, cum ifti dicant quia Verbum in Carmm, Capillos, Singuinem, & Ofla 
 converfum eft, & a natura propria mutatum eft, datur illis locus ut infirmiutem Carnis ad- 
 inhrmuatem Divinitatis, quadaiii.fa<aa divinse naturae mutatione, detorqucant. Ambrof. de 
 Incarn. Lacram. c. 6. 
 
 b Hieronym. Oper. Tom. V. p. 125. Bened. edit. 
 
 c Augufttn. Open. Tom. V. Append, p. 588. 
 
 d fr^/i\Hift. <j/ Inf. Bapt. p. 200. 
 
 f^g^jj^ ^^ trans- 
 
lit , the ATHANASIAK CREED 
 
 " transferred into God [or the Svme NMure,'] From whence 
 " would follow (a Thing no Hcrefy ever offer'd to affirm) 
 " that Both Subftances [or Natures'] 'viz. of the Divinity and 
 '' Humanity, would by This Confufion feem to be extinguifh'd, 
 " and to lofe their proper State, and be changed into another 
 *' Thing : fo that They who own in the Son an imperfed God 
 " and an imperfect Man, are to be accounted not to hold 
 " truly either God or Man. 
 
 Dr. Wa^U hereupon judicioully remarks, that there wmted only 
 the Accuracy of fpeakmg, which Pelagius had here ufed^ to clear 
 and fettle the difpute between the Neftorians, and Eutychians. 
 I would remark farther, that if Pelagius s Creed, in the year 
 417, had fo plainly obviated both the Neflorian, znd Eutychian 
 Herefy, before Neforius, or Eutyches was known 5 it may eafily 
 be conceived that the Athanafian Creed might do the fame 
 Thing, at or about the fame Time. 
 
 ^22 ^ might next ihow, how St. Auftin likewife has exprefs'd Him- 
 
 felf in as ftrong Terms againft Both thofe Herefies, as the 
 Athafiafian Creed has done : But, becaufe I Ihall have another 
 Occafion to cite the PalTages, where I draw out a feled Num- 
 ber of Exprcflions parallel to Thofe of the Creed 5 I may 
 fpare my Self the Trouble of doing it here. 
 ^ ^ I might go on to obferve what palled in the Cafe of Le- 
 
 porluSj a Man of the fame Principles, in the main, with 
 NefloriuSj but fome years before Him. His Recantation-Trea- 
 tife {Lihellus Satisfaciionis) fuppofed to be drawn up by Sr. Au- 
 ftin in the year 426, would furnKh me with many full and 
 ftrong Expreflions againft the Neftorian Principles, beyond any 
 to be met with in the Athanafian Creed 5 fo that there is no 
 juft Argument to be drawn from any Expreftlons in That 
 Creed, for fctti ng it fo low as the Neftorian Times. 
 
 43 X I ihall conclude this Account with the recital of a Creed 
 
 made about the fame Time, or in the fame Year that the 
 Council of Ephefus was held againft Nejlorius. It is the Creed 
 of John^ Patriarch of Antiochy appro\'ed by Cyril of Alexandria^ 
 and thought fufficicnt to wipe off all Sufpicion of Neforianifm 
 frona. the Author of it. It runs thus : " We confcfs then that 
 
 Jefus 
 
<l 
 
 WHEN AND WHERE MADE. nj 
 
 Jefus Chrift our Lord, the only begotten Son of God, is 
 perfe^i God, and ferfeci Man^ of a refi^fonMe Soul, and Body j 
 '■* born of the lather before the V/orlds, as touching his Godhead^ 
 '* The Jame alfo in the end of days, for us and for our Sal- 
 " vation, (born) of the Virgin Mary, as touching his Manhood. 
 *' confubftantial with us according to his Manliood. But there 
 '* was an Union made of Two Natures^ on which account we 
 '* profefs one Chrift, one Lord, one Son. Conformable to this 
 '■^ Senfe of an Union without Confufion, we acknowledge the 
 " holy Virgin as Mother of Godj becaule that God the J^'^ord 
 ** was incarnate and made Man, and from the very Con- 
 *^ ception united to Himfelf a Temple which He had taken 
 " of Her^ 
 
 Here we may obfcrvc feveral Exprellions nearly refembling 
 thofe of the Athanafian Creed , but withal feveral others more 
 particuIarjZV\d explicite againft the Neftorian Principles than That 
 Creed is : One Son, and Him Confubftantial with us, in reipecl of 
 his Manhood 5 The N'vi^\x\, Mother of God, and the like. Such 
 is the conftant Strain and Tenor of the Creeds, and Co-nfefjions^ 
 and Catholick Vv^ritings, treating of the Jncarnationj at This Time, 
 and after: As might be ihewn at large from G*^/^?;^ about 43 1, 
 and Vince7ttius in the year 434, and from Flavian, and Pope Leo I, 
 and Others before the Council of Chalcedon. We have there- 
 fore very great Reafon to believe, that the Athanafan Creed 
 was drawn up cither before the Neftorian Controverfy had made 
 much noife in the World, or at leaft before the Compiler had 
 notice of it. The Sum then of my Argument is This 5 there 
 isviothing in the Ath^nnaf^n Creed but what might have been 
 faid, and had been faid by Catholick Writers before the Time 
 Q^Neftorius : But the Creed wants many of thofe particular and 
 
 a Confitemur igiturDominum noftrum JefumChriftum, Filium Dei unigenirum, Demti 
 peyfe£lum ^ Hominem perfeciuw, ex anima rational! 8c Corporcj anre fjecula quiciem ex 
 patre natum fecundum Deitatem : in fine vero dierum eamlem propter nos & propter 
 noilram falutem de Maria Vir*ine fecundum Humanitatcm, Confiibtlanti-'ikm nobis iecun* 
 dum Humanitatcm. D:i.jrnm vero Nutwaram unirio taifla efl:; propter quarri unum 
 Chrifium, unum Dominum, unum Fil'mm confitemur. Secundum hunc inconfufae i:n:onis 
 intelleflum, confitemur SancTtim Virginem Dei Genitricem, propter quod Deus Vsrbitm in- 
 carnatus ell: 8c inhumanatus, & ex ipfa conceptione fibimet univit Templuraquod ex ipfa 
 fiiTcepit. Johan, Untioch, Harduin. Tom. I. p. ifjS. 
 
 P critical 
 
114 ^he ATHANASIAK CREED 
 
 cyitical Expreillons, which came into ufe after That Time: 
 Theretbic, iince ilie intenid Characters of the Creed fuit ex- 
 aclly with the A^oH'marian Times, and not with the Nejloriany 
 it ought to be placed fomewhere between Apollmarius, and 
 Nei'lo.'/'iSj not lower than 430, or 431 at the utmoft. And it 
 is fomc Confirmation of what hath been faid, that Venantim 
 Fortunaim-, who li\'ed in the Eutychmn Times, and commented 
 upon This Creed about the year 570, as before obferved, yet 
 in his Comment takes not the lead notice of any part of This 
 Creed being oppoied to the Errors of Nejiorius, or Eutyches, but 
 only to thofe elder Herefves of Sahellms, Arm, and ApoUinarms ; 
 whom He fpecially makes mention of I perfwade my felf 
 therefore, that This Creed ought not to be placed lower than 
 430 or thereabout; And I have before Ihown why it fhould 
 not be fet higher than 420 ; fo that now we have brought it 
 within the Compafs of Ten years 5 where we may let it reft a 
 while till we confider farther what Place, or Country, the Creed 
 was moft probably compofed in ; which may help us to fettle 
 the Time of it's date within fomewhat ftricl:er and narrower 
 limits than before. 
 
 There is great reafon to believe that This Creed was made 
 in Gatil. The Confiderations which perfwade us thereto are 
 thefe following, i. It's early Reception in the G^/Z/V/^^^ Church, 
 ih far as appears, before all other Churches. 2. The great 
 Efteem and Regard untiently paid to it by the Ga>Uica}z Coun- 
 cils, and Biihops *. 3. The Creed's being firft admitted in- 
 to the Galliciin Pfalter, and firft received in thofe Countries 
 where That Pfalter was received, as in Spain, Germany^ and 
 England. As the Gallican Churches delivered their Plaltcr 
 to other Churches, fo is it reafonable to believe that the Creed 
 was received from Them hkewife. 4. Theoldeft Verfiori we hear 
 of is Gallican, in the Time of Hincmar. 5. The oldeft Au- 
 thors that make mention of it, are like wife Gdlican: For 
 l^roof of which I refer to the antient Tefiimonies above. 6. The 
 
 a Taiiti namque apud Gallos Symbolum Hoc fuit ut una cum Symbolo Apofto'orum 
 mcniorix commendaii Preibyteris pra:cipiat Hmci/iarus ideal in Capitulis, Clencis omnibus 
 Svfiodus ^tigujlodnncnjis. Sirmond. Oper. Vol: 2. p. j>7&. 
 
 firft 
 
WHEN AND WHERE MADE. ny 
 
 firft that cite the Words of it (as it fccms) arc Ukcwife Gdlkm, 
 I will here mention Two 5 Avitus oi Vlemie in Gmi'', and Gc- 
 farms of Aries -^ I have fet their words in the Margin, 
 7. The oldeft Commentator upon it, tho' an ItdUn by Birth 
 and Education, had yet travelled into France, and was at length 
 Bilhop of Poiciiers. 8. The Number and Amiq^uity of the Ma- 
 nufcripts of this Creed found in France confirm the fame Thing: 
 which has made feveral very learned Men fubfcribe to This 
 Opinions that the Athanafim Creed came firft from Gml 
 And it is certain, that no other Country, or Church in the 
 World has fo fair, I may now fay, fo clear a pretence to it: 
 Many Circumftances concur to make good their Title , as 
 we have already feen ; and more will appear in my next Chap- 
 ter, when I come to inquire who was the Anther. 
 
 Let it be allowed then, for the prefent, that our Creed was 
 
 a 7he Wards of Avitus Viennenfis, -who tests BifJjop in 490. died m fr-^. 
 
 De DivinitateSpiritus Sandli, quern nee fctclum legimus, »?c aeattnn, mc gon'sttan ■— 
 
 Nos vero Spintum difcimus ex Vatre ^ Tdw procedere Sicut eil proprium Spiritui 
 
 Sanfto a Patre Filioqtte procedere, iflud Fides Catholica etiamfi renuentibus iion perfuaferir, 
 in fuse tamen Difciplinx Reguk non excedit. Sinmnd, Op. Vid. Le ^tien Panopl. cbntr. 
 Schifm. Grxc. p. 241. 
 
 Non nifi ex eodem Symbolo, quod jam ante receptum cHet, Avitus Viennenfis alicubi 
 Icribebat De Divinit.ne Sp. S. &:c, Le ^tden. Didert. Damafcen. p. 98. 
 
 b The Words ^/Caefarius, whs xpas Bifljop in j-oj, died in 54^, 
 
 Rogo & admoneo vos, Fratres cariflimi, ut ^^icun^ue vult Salvus effe, fidem re£lam 
 
 ■& Catholicam difcat, firmiter teneat , invioUtantque confervet.. —Deus Pater, Deus Fi- 
 
 lius, Deus e^ Spiritus SunSiHs: fed tamen non tres Dii, fed unus Deus. '3)udis Pater, talis 
 Filius, talis 0> Spiritus Sanffus. Attamen credat unufquifque Fidelis quod Filius aquaiis 
 eft Fatri fectmdum Divinitatem, 1^ minor eft Fatre [ecundum Hummitatem carnis, quara de 
 noftro aflumpfit. C*far. Arelat. apud Auguft. Op. Tom. V. App. p. jjpp. 
 
 N. B The Editors of St. Aud'm adjudge This to Cjefarius; us does alfo Oudinus : Cor»- 
 mentt de Icript. Eccl. Vol. i. p. 1348. 
 
 _ c Caetcrum cum ex allatis fupra Teftimoniis vidtatur in Gailiis primnm- cel-bmrt cc&- 
 pifTe Hoc Symbolum, haud abs re conjedant eruditi viri, in Galiiis illud fuiile ehicubratutn. 
 Quod idem forte fuadeat antiquinimus ille in Gsiliiis & in ^ytgliz Mos Symbolt alrernatim 
 concineudii iteraque \s\%'i. GalUcanerum Copia Sc Antiquiias- MonifMc Diatnb. p. 
 116. 
 
 E GalUs primum prodiilTc Symbolum Athannfianum animad'/ertimus, turn quod a Gallis 
 fcnptoribus ante omnes cclebratum, a Synodis Epifcopifque Gdlsarum receprum.Sc com- 
 mendatum antiquitus fuerir, "turn etiam quod Tre^^iris in Galliarum Metropoli illud lucu- 
 oratum fuiire opinio increbuerir. Quapiropter P/.v^^ijewj, ac Vojftus, alsique eruditiffin-i viri 
 Galium Hominem Symboli Parentem opinati funt; Antelmius vero, hac potilVimum ratione 
 dudlus, non Vigdium in Africa, epifcopum, fed Vmcentinm Lirinenfem Opulculi hujus Aa- 
 '<ftorem affirmavit. Lud. Mnrator. Tom. 2. p. 229. 
 
 P 2 oridnailv 
 
11^ Tlje A7HAHAS1AK CREED dec, 
 
 originally Gallictin,2ii\d made between 420, and 430: We may 
 next confidcr, whether we cannot come a little nearer towaius 
 fixing the Time of it's Compoiition. We muft point out lome 
 Seafon when St. Atijihis Works were known, and Ihidied, and 
 well efteem'd of in C.taI\ and when the Circumflanccs of tue 
 Place might the moil: probably give occafton for the compihng 
 fuch a Creed. Now, it is oblbrvable that about the year 426, 
 Sx..Atiflm held a very clofc and intimate Correfpondence with 
 the Gdlican Churches. Lcporms had for fome Time Ipread falle 
 Doi!.lrine in Gaulj chiefly relating to the IncdrnMioa. His Herefy 
 was much the lame with what Nefloriusi, was afterwards. The 
 Cdlicfin Lilhops ccnfured Him 5 and He was forced to quit his 
 Country, having given general Offence to all there. He took 
 his leave of Caul, and pallid over into Africa^, with fcveral 
 Others of the fame Party, and Principles: where lighting up- 
 on Aiirel'ms Bifhop of CarthagCj and St. Aufi'm, He was by Them 
 brought to a Senle of his Error, and induced to fign a full Re- 
 cantation, called L'tbellus S.itisfa,cHoms ; whereupon St. Atifliny 
 and Aurelim, and other Africa72 Bilhops became IntcrcelTors with 
 the Bilhops of Gaul, in favour of Leporms , that He might be 
 again received and reflorcd by them. One can fcarce imagine 
 any more likely Time, or more proper Occafion for the com- 
 piling Inch a Creed as the Athanafmn is. All the Lines and 
 Charaders of it fuit extremely well with the Place, the Time, 
 the Occafion, and other Circumflanccs 5 which conau' to per- 
 Iwade us that the Creed was, in all Probability, compofed in 
 Gaid, fometimc between the year 426, and the year 430: So 
 that now we are confined to the narrow Compafs of four or 
 five years, upon the moft probable Conjedfure, and upon fuch 
 Evidences as a Cafe of this Nature can admit of, where more 
 cannot be cxpeded. 
 
 CHAR 
 
117 
 
 CHAP. VIIL 
 
 Of the Author of the Creed, 
 
 IF wc have hitherto gone upon fure Grounds, about the Time,. 
 and Vldce, we cannot long be at a lofs for the Author of 
 This Creed. Who were the mod confiderable Men, and beft 
 quaHiied for fuch a Work, at That Time in Gml? Anthelmius 
 will fay, Vmcentm Lirinenfis. But I have feveral Reafons to 
 perfwade me that it was not, or could not be Vincentms. No 
 Contemporary of his, nor any antient Writer ever gives the 
 Icaft Hint of his compofing fuch a Work. Anthelmius fuppofes 
 it to be after his Commonitory ^ that is, after 434 5 which if 
 it had been, we fhould undoubtedly have found the Creed 
 more particular, and explicite againft the Neftori^m Herefy : We. 
 fhould have read in it Mother of God, One Son only, and fome- 
 thing of God's being born, fuffering, dying, or the like ; It can- 
 not therefore be juftly afcribcd to Vincentius. Not to mention, 
 that fuch a Work appears to have been much fitter for a Bi^op 
 of a Church, than for a private Presbyter j in as much as Bipoops 
 generally were obliged to give an Account of their Faith, up- 
 on their firft Entrance upon the Epifcopate : And They had 
 the Privilege likewife of making Creeds^ and Forms of Prayer^ 
 for their refpedive Diocelfes : For which Reafons, cdteris pari-* 
 bus, this Creed ought rather to be afcribed to fome Bijljop of 
 that Time than to an inferior Presbyter. And who more, 
 likely to compofe fuch a Creed xh:i.i\HiUry Bilhop of Aries, a 
 cehbrated Man of That ^ Time, and of chief Repute in the 
 Gdlicm Church ? His Title to it will ftand upon the follow- 
 ing Circumftances. 
 
 i« He was madeBiihop in G^iul within the Time mention'd, 
 about the year 429. 2. He is allowed to have been a iVlan of 
 great Parts and Capacity, of a neat Wit, and elegant Style, 
 for the Age He lived in 5 infomuch that Livius, a Poet, and a^ 
 celebrated Writer of that Time, did not fcruple to fay, that 
 if Aujiin had come after HiUry, He would have been judged 
 
 his 
 
11 8 Of the AUTHOR of 
 
 his Inferior *, 3 . Genn/^dius*s Charadcr of HiUry's Writings, that 
 They were frriall 7rMh^y but extremely fnc, liiits well with 
 our piefjQt Suppofition : But what moft of all confirms and 
 ftrengthcns it, is what Honoratus of M^rfetlles, the writer of 
 his Life, tells us 5 that Hilary compofcd an Expofitiotty a very 
 ftdmirahlc Expofition [ Symboli Expojit/o ambienda'] of the Creed ^, 
 He calls it an Expofition of the Creeds (not a Creed) which is the 
 proper Title for it, and more proper than that of Symbolum, or 
 Creedj which it now bears. And fo we find that ir was but 
 very rarely called Symbolum by the Antients j once, I think, by 
 Hincma^r, and never after for feveral Centuries : And when it 
 was, yet it was obferved, by Thomas Aqmnas, that That was not 
 lb proper a name for it, not being compofed per mcdum 
 Symbolic in the way of a Creed ; as indeed it is not. What the 
 more anticnt, and ufual Titles were, may appear in one View in 
 the Tables above. Among others, we Ibmetimes find the Title 
 oi Expofitio Catholic A Eidei-^QX. yet nearer, Expofitio Symboli Apoflolo- 
 ru77i, Ari' Expofitioiz of the Apoflle's Creed, which is as proper a 
 Title as any, and not unlike to This of Honoratus. 4. I may 
 farther obfcrve, that This Hilary of Aries was a great Admirer 
 and Follower of St. Anftin d, and had ftudied his Writings : 
 which may account for his very often following St. Aufiin^ 
 
 a Quid plura dicam? Nifi dicendi Paufa dcfnpcr eidem aJveniflcr, fermonem finire non 
 potHcrat, tanra gratia exundante, & miraculo &. ftupore crefcente, ut perkiflimis delpera- 
 tionem tunc Autoribus fx'culi ejus inf^rret Oratio; in tap.tum ut Livius Temporis illius 
 Pocta, 6c Autor iufignis, puhlice proclamaret; Si AugnftinHs pojl Te fttijfet, judicaretur 
 inferior, Honoratus, in Vira StJ Hilarii p. 74O. edit. j^iefiielU 
 
 h liigenio vero immortali, aliqua & parva edidit, quje eruditA Animt, & fidelis LingtHi 
 indicio funtj in quibiis prarcipue &C. Gennad- de Hilario Arclat. c. 69. p. 32. 
 
 c Graria ejus ex his opcribus, qua: cadcm dtccndi impctu concqjir, gcnuit, ornavir, 
 protulit, poffic ablque Hxfitatione dignufci: Vita Icilicet Antiftitis Hontratii Homilir in 
 Totius Anni Fcftivitatibus expedite, iymboU expofitio ambtehda, Epiftolarum vero tantus 
 numerus O-c Honorat. Vit. Hilar, p. 7 4''« 
 
 N.n. There is fome d&ubt ivhethir Ravcnnius 0/ Aries, Sucajfor to Hilary, or Honoratus of 
 Marfcillcs be the Author of This Life: Bm there is good re^m to afcribe it to the Latter. See 
 Quef.iel. Vol. 2; p. 7;o. and Anthelmiu?, de lerii opcribtts Leon. M. p. 567. 
 
 d Unum Eorum prsecipuar Audloritatis, & fpiritualium Ihidiorum Virun\ hn(\.umHi- 
 lariutn, .Arelttttnfon Epilcopum, fciat Beatitudo Tua Admiratorem, Seflatoremque in aliis 
 omniifus tu3E. eflfe dodlrinz; Va de hoc quod in querelam irahit, jam pridem apud Sanfti- 
 tateni tuam fenfum fuum per litems vclle conferre. Pro/per ad Angujlin. ep. nj. p- Si/. 
 Bencd. ed. 
 
 Thoughts 
 
The ATBAKASIAN CREED. tip 
 
 Thoughts in the compiling of the Creed, and fometimes his 
 very Exj?reffiom -, and indeed forming the whole Compofition, 
 in a manner, upon St. Aujiins Plan, both with refped to the 
 Trmity, and Incdrndticn. He did not indeed come heartily in 
 to St. AujHn\ Dodrine about Gn^.ce, Fredefimatm^y Tree-ivill^ &zc. 
 any more than the other G^Jlica-a Bifhops ; But as to other 
 Points, as Profier obferves, Hikry was intirely in Auftins Sen- 
 timents. 5. Hence likewife we may account for the Simili- 
 tude of Thoughts and Exprellions between Vincentius LirinenftSy 
 and the Author of the Creed 5 which Anthelmius infifts much 
 upon to juftify his afcribing it to Vincentitss. HiUry and Vm- 
 centius were Contemporaries, and Country-men, and Both of 
 the fame Monaftcry in the lile of Lerin^ much about the fame 
 Time : So that it is natural to fuppofe that They ihould fait 
 into the like Exprellions, while treating on the fame Things 5 
 or that Vimentms might affed to copy from fo great a Man as 
 BiUry (firft, Abbot of Lerm, and then Archbifhop of Aries) when 
 writing on the fame Subjed, 6. As to the Style of HiUry, xX\o 
 we have but little of his left to compare the Creed with, 
 yet what there is anfwers very well to the Idea one Ihould 
 have of a Man that might be able to draw up fuch a Piece. 
 His Life of the elder Hmomtm, who was his Predeceflbr in the See 
 o-i Aries y IS an excellent Performance, and comes nothing ihort 
 of the Charader He had raifed for Wit and Eloquence. Thq 
 Style is clear and frrong, Ihort and fententious, abounding with 
 Antithefes, elegant Turns, and manly ftrokcs of Wit. He does 
 but touch a little, in That Piece, upon the Subjed of the Tri~ 
 nity. So that one cannot from thence difcover how He wou'd 
 have exprefs'd Himfelf upon That Head. Only, that little there 
 is There, is very like to a Paragraph in the Athmafmn Creed, 
 both for Turn, and ExprelTion. Speaking of HonorMus, or ra- 
 ther to Him, in the way of a Rhetorical Apofirophe, He ob- 
 ferves how clear and expreffive He had been in his Difcourfcs 
 
 a Quotidianus fiqiiidem in finccrifTimis Traaatibus Confeffionis Patris. ac Filii, ac 
 Spiritus bandti Teftts fuiai: Nee facile tarn exerte, tarn lucide Quilquam de DivinitatisTri- 
 Bitate diUermt, cum earn Vcrfonh diftingueres, & gioruE {glorifi,,) sternitate. ac Majt-aate 
 lociares. Uihr. Vit. Honorat. p. 770. ^c/ndl. ed, 
 
 concern.-. 
 
I20 Of the AUTHOR of 
 
 concerning the Trinity in the Godhead-^ m^ing the Verjons di- 
 ftinct, but co-uniting; them in Glory, Furn^ity, and Majefty. 
 Which may remind us of the Words of the Athannfian Creed, 
 *' There is one.Perfon of the Father, <!^c but the Godhead of the 
 ''Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Glioil is all one, 
 "The Glory equal , the MajeJIy co-eternal. However That be, 
 This we may learn from it, how great a Connricndation it 
 was, in Hilarys Account, to be able to fpeak clearly, and ac- 
 curately upon the Subject of the Trinity, and how ambitious 
 He might be of fo doing Himfclf : And we know, from his 
 dyifig hiftrudions ^ to his Friends about Him, how much He had 
 the Subjed at Heart. Thefc, I confefs, are but little Circum- 
 flances : Yet They are of fome weight along with others more 
 confidcrable, and therefore ought not to be intirely omitted. 
 What v/cighs mod: with me is, that He was, in his Time, a 
 Man of the greateft Authority in the GalUcan Chw^d^, without 
 whofe Advice, or Privity at leaft, fuch a Creed would hardly 
 have pafs'd ; and that He actually was the Author oi fuch a 
 Work as This is, and which muft either be This, or elfe is 
 loft. This Creed has been fomctimes afcribed to the elder Hi- 
 lary of PoiclierSj tho* neither the Diciion, nor the Aiatter, nor 
 the Marnier of it look any Thing like his : Only, it feems. This 
 Creed in one Manufcript was found tack'd to fome Pieces of 
 That Hilary. I pretend' not to draw any Argument from hence 
 in favor of our Hilary : Tho' had the Manufcript been a very 
 antient one, or copied from one that was (neither of which 
 appears j I fhould have thought it of fome moment 5 fuice the 
 fmiilitude of Names might pollibly have occafion'd it. 
 
 a Among tphich thii is one,' and the fi'-Jl, 
 FidcTi Trinitatis immobilitcr retinctc. Vit. Hilar, p. 747. 
 
 b Qucfnel quotes This el&gium of Him, from ConQanrius Presbyter of the fame Time. 
 llluflrabatur Hxc Civira5 if.'/jnoSaccrdotc, muliimodi virtutepretiofo: Erat enim Iidei 
 •i^Ktus Torrcns, cxleftis cloquii, 8c prxceptionis divinas Opcrarius indcfeflus. ^utaell, p. 
 
 f43- 
 
 To which may be added one Line of hit Epitaph. 
 
 Gemma Sucerdotum, Plebifquc, Orbifque Magifler. Quenell, iLid. 
 
 Tanta fuit ejus in diccndo vis, ut Silvius, Eufc/>i;ts, Domnultts, Auftores coaevi, admira- 
 tione fucccnfi in hxc verba prorupcrint: Non Docirinam, non Eloquentiam, fed r.efcto quid 
 fiiper Homines confeaituin* Natal. Alexand. Sec. V. c. 4. Art. 1 9. ex Honorati Vit- Hilar, 
 c. .\ I . 
 
 Having 
 
The ATHANASIAN CREED m 
 
 Having confidcred fucli Reafons as fecm to favor the Conic- 
 ^ure about HHary of ^ries 5 it will next be proper to confider 
 alfo what may be objedcd againft it. 
 
 1. It may be objeded, that This ///Z^;'^' lived to the Year 449, 
 faw the Rife, Progrcfs, and Condemnation of the Nefiortdu 
 Herefy, and the Beginning at lead ofthe Eutychimi. May it not 
 therefore be reafonably prefumed that, had He been to compile 
 a Confejjion of F.iithy He would have made it more ftdt and 
 particular againft Both thofe Herefles than I have fuppofed the 
 Creed to be ? To This I anfwer, that the Objedion would be 
 of weight if I fuppofed this Creed to have been made by Him 
 in the laft years of his Life : But as I take it to have been made 
 a little after his Entrance upon his Epifcopate (to be a Rule to 
 his Clergy all his Time, as well as to fatisfy his CoUegues of 
 his own Orthodoxy) the Objedion afFeds not me. Admit the 
 Creed to have been drawn up by Him about the Year 42 9, or 
 4305 and then it is juft what it Ihould be, exadlyfuited to the 
 Circumftances of Time, and Place : And as to his inlarging, or 
 altering it afterwards, upon the Rife of the Two Herefies, it 
 might not be in his Power when once gone out of his Hands : 
 Nor would it be necejjary, fince Both Thefe Herefies are fuffi- 
 ciently obviated in This Creed, tho' not fo explicitelj condemn d 
 as in many that came later. 
 
 2. It may be ask'd, how the Author's Name came to be 
 fo ftudioufly conceal'd even by Thofe that received and ad- 
 mired the Creed 5 and how it came to take at length the 
 Name of AthanafmSj T^ixhzx: than of Hilary} I anfwer: This Ob- 
 jedion will equally lie againft any other Author alfignable 
 w^tever, except Atha?mjiiis Himfelf whom we cannot, with 
 any colour of reafon, afcribe it to. It will be as eafy to ac- 
 count for the ftudious Concealment of the Author's Name, fup- 
 pofmg it HiUry^ as for any Other, or perhaps eafier. This 
 Hilary had ftoutly defended the Rights of his See againft 
 Pope Leo's Encroachments, in the matter of Appeals^ and o- 
 ther Branches of Jurifdidion. This brought the good Man 
 under disfavor, and difrepute j as muft happen to die beft of 
 Men when They have Perfons of greater Figure and Authori- 
 
 Q. ty 
 
Ill of the AUTHOR of 
 
 ty than thcmfclvcs to contend with, however righteous and 
 clear their Caufe may be. Befidcs This, Hilary had cntertain'd 
 a didike to Ibmc of St. Atifl'nt's prevailing Doftrines, about 
 Grace, growing much in Vogue ; fo tliat St. Aujli?is more zea- 
 lous Diiciplcs had a Pique againft him on That account, and 
 had the lefs vakic tor his Name. The way then to have This 
 Creed pafs current, and make it generally received was to ftifle 
 as much as poilible the Name of the Author, and to leave it 
 to ftand by its own intrinfick worth and v/cight. As to the 
 Name of Athanafius, I take it to have come Thus. Upon 
 the revival of the Arian Controverfy in Gaul, under the influ- 
 ence of the Burgundian Kings, it was obvious to call one fide 
 Atha-fiafians, and the other fide Arians-, and lb alfo to name 
 tlic Orthodox Faith the Athanafian Faith, as the other Arian. 
 This Creed therefore, being a Summary of the Orthodox and 
 Catholick Faith, might in procefsof Time acquire the Name of the 
 Athanafian Faith, or Fides Athanafii, in oppofition to the contrary 
 Scheme which might as juflly be called Fides Arii, or the Arian 
 Faith. The equivocal nefs of the Title gave a handle to thofc 
 that came after to underftand it of a Form of Faith compofed 
 by Athan-afius; juft as the equivocal Title of Apoftolical given to 
 the Roman Creed occafion'd the miftake about its being made 
 by the Apofiles. This appears to me the mofl: probable Account 
 of the whole matter : And it is very much confirm'd by what 
 we fee of f:vcral Trads, wrote in the fifth and ilxth Centu- 
 ries T>ialogue-ivije, where Athanafius is made the Mouth of the 
 Catholick Side, and Arius of his Party, and Photinus of his : 
 Not meaning that Athanafius, Arius, and Photinus were really 
 the Speakers in Thofc Conferences, but the Readers were to 
 underftand the Athanafian, Arian, and Photinian Principles as 
 being there fairly reprcfented under Thofe leading Names. 
 
 3 \i it be ask'd farther, why This Creed was not cited 
 during the Neftorian and Eutychian Controverfy, when there 
 was fo frequent occafion for it : I anfwer, partly becaufc the 
 Creed was not particular and explicite enough to have done 
 muchfervice; but chiefly, becaule the Author had been eclips'd, 
 and his Reputation obfcurcd by greater Names than his, i'o 
 
 that 
 
Ue ATHANASIAN CREED. 113 
 
 that his Authority had weighed httle; and to produce it 
 witliout a Name would have fignified lefs. This Objedion 
 tiierefore, tho' it might be of great Force in the Queftion about 
 Athmafius, is of no weight at all againft our prefent Suppofi- 
 tion about Hilary of Aries. 
 
 Thefe are all the Objedions which to me occur: And 
 they Teem to be fo far from weakening the Grounds upon 
 which I proceed, that they rather tend to ftrengthen and 
 confirm Them. And tho' I do not pretend to ftrid 
 Certainty about the Author of the Creed j yet I periwade 
 my felf that none that have been hitherto named have any 
 fairer, or fo fair a Claim to it as the Man I have mention'd. 
 Not Athmafmsy not Hilary of Poitiers, not Eufebius of Ferceil, 
 not Pope Anaftafms I, nor any of That name ; not Fincemius 
 LtrinenfiSj nor Vigilius Tdpfenfis, nor Athannfms of Sfire, nor 
 Fortunatusy nor Bonifrcius, nor Any other that has been thought 
 on. From the many Conjectures heretofore advanced by learn- 
 ed Men, one may perceive that it has been judged to be a 
 Thing worth the inquiring after : And as Others have taken 
 the liberty of naming fuch Author, or Authors as to Them ap- 
 peared moft likely to have made the Creed, fo have I, in my 
 Turn, not fcrupling to add one more to the Number. 
 
 The Sum then of what I have prefumed to advance upon 
 probable Conjedure, in a Cafe which will not admit of full 
 and perfed Evidence, is This : That Hilar j once Abbot of Le- 
 rins, and next Bifhop oi Aries, about the year 430 compofed 
 The Expofition of Faith which now bears the Name of the Atha- 
 nO'fian Creed. It was drawn up for the ufe of the Gallicm 
 Clergy, and efpecially for the Diocefs, or Province of Aries. It 
 was ^efteemed by as many as- were acquainted with it, as a valu- 
 able Summary of the Chriftian Faith. It feems to have been 
 in the Hands of Vinceritius,U.Q\^k of Zm^/!i, before 434, by what 
 He has borrowed from it 5 and to have been cited in part by 
 Avitus of Vienne about the year 5 00, and by C^farius of Aries 
 before the year 543. About the year 570, it became famous 
 enough to be commented upon like the Lord's-Prayer, and Apo- 
 ftles Creed, and together with Them. All this wJiile, and per- 
 
 Q^ 2 haps 
 
124 of the /lUTHOR of, &c. 
 
 haps for fcvei-al years lower, it had not yet acquired the Name 
 of the Athxnafi.^n Fmthybwt was fimply ftiled the Catholick Fmh. 
 But before 670, Athanajiuss admired Name came in to recomr 
 mend aiid adorn it ; being in it felf alfo an excellent Syftem of 
 the Athanafmn Principles of the Trinitf' and Incarnation^ in Op- 
 pofition chiefly to ArUns, MMedonium, and ApDllinarinm. The 
 Name of The Faith of Athanajius, in a while, occafion'd the 
 Midake of afcribing it to Him, as his Compofition. This gave 
 it Authority enough to be cited and appealed to as Standard, in 
 the Difputcs of the middle Ages, between Greeks and Latins a- 
 bout the Proceffion: And the fame admired Name, together with 
 the intrinfick worth and value of the Form it felf, gave it Credit 
 enough to be received into the Vuhlick Service in the Wefiern 
 Churches ; tirft in France, next in S^ain, foon after in Germany^ 
 England, Italy, and at length in Rome it felf 5 while many other 
 excellent Creeds drawn up in Councils, or recommended by 
 Emperors, yet never arrived to any fuch Honour and Efleem as 
 This hath done. The truly good and great Author fas I now 
 fuppofe Him) tho' ill ufed by the then Pope of Rome, and not 
 kindly treated, with refped to his Memory, in after Ages, 
 has neverthelefs been the Mouth of all the Weftem Churches, 
 and fome Eafiern too, for a long Trad of Centuries, in cele- 
 brating the Glories of the Coeternal Trinity. And fo may 
 He ever continue, till the Chriftian Churches can find out 
 (which They will not eafily do) a jufter, or founder, or more 
 accurate Form of Faith than This is. 
 
 a Romanc ego Ecclcfia: quafi Symbolum, incerto Autoie, exiflimem, hinc Athanafiidl- 
 clum 8c putanim quod dilucide Catholicam ij lamque Athanafii Fidem f de Trinitate, 
 /naxime) complefterctur; cujus inter Catholicos fie fpedlata Fides, ut ejus Communio 
 velut Teflera Catholici elFetj cenfereturque £//« condemnatio ipfa Niciw* &C<»/^o//V£ Fidei 
 cjuratioi uti fe res hibuit in Liberio Romano Antillitc &c. Combefif, not. in Cake. NoVc 
 Auftar. Patr. Ton^. 2. p. 296. 
 
 CHAP 
 
12.5 
 
 C H A P. IX. 
 
 The Creed it felf tn the Original Language with Paral- 
 lel Tajfages from the Fathers. 
 
 MY Defign in this Chapter, is 5 
 I . To exhibit tlie Creed in its Native Language, that 
 is, in Latiuy according to the moft anticnt, and moft corred 
 Copies. The Various Legions will be placed at the Bottom, un- 
 der the Creed : The Manufcripts therein referred to fhall be de- 
 noted by fuch Names, or Marks as appear above in the TMe 
 of Manufcripts. 
 
 2. Oppofite to the Creed, in another Column, I place p(t>- 
 rdlel Paflages, feleded from Authors that lived and wrote be- 
 fore 430, principally from St.Auflin: And this with defign to 
 inforce and illuftrate my main Argument before infifted on 5 
 namely, that the Creed contains nothing but what had been 
 allerted, in as full and exprefs Words as any Words of the Creed 
 are, by Church Writers before the Time Ipecified. 
 
 3. I fubjoin under thefe, at the Bottom of the Page, fomc 
 farther feled Paflages from Church Writers before or after the 
 Time mention'd 5 partly to ferve as Comments upon fome Places 
 of the Creed, and partly to Ihow how fome Writers of the 
 Vth Century, Vincentim cfpecially, exprefs'd themfelves o\\ the 
 fame Heads, that the Reader may from thence judge whether 
 They appear prior to the Creed, or the Creed prior to Them. 
 
 Ivought to ask my E^igUpj Reader's Pardon for This Part j 
 which He may pleafe to pafs over, and to go on to the next 
 chapter, intended chiefly for his Satisfadion, and to make Him 
 fome amends for the prefent Interruption : For, my Defign in 
 fubjoining an EngUfh Commentary is to ferve much the fame 
 purpofes with what is here intended by the Latin ; tho' not 
 all of them, but as many as the Nature of the Thing will 
 allow, 
 
 Loca 
 
116 
 
 The ORIGINAL CREED 
 
 Loca parallcla cxccrpta ex Variis ; 
 Ante An. 430. 
 
 1. Cztholicx Difcij^lmji majefiafe in- 
 fl I tut urn eft, ut (iccedentihus ad Religionem 
 Fides terjunde^itur ante omnia. 
 
 Auf^ufl:. Tom, 8. ^. 64. 
 
 H&c eft fides noftr^y quo?iiam h^c eft 
 Fides reci^y quA etimn Catholica nuncu- 
 patur. ^'""- S- 7^9' 
 
 2. Hdvetici • Simplici Fide Ca- 
 tholica contenti ejfe nolunt \ cjua una 
 parvulis Salus eft. 
 
 Auguft. Tom 4. f. Cq. 
 G^fg. Hazian. Orat. 23. p. 41*. 
 
 4. f^ H.et o;^;;^M ^/f^ confufe unum 
 funt, nee disj uncle trin funt. 
 
 Auguftin. Tom. 2. p.'Coc). 
 
 5 . Impietatem Sabellii decli?iantesy Tres 
 
 Txcerpla ex fatribus. 
 
 1. Credamus ergo Fratres ; Hoc eft primum prar- 
 ceptum. Hoc eft Initium Reiigionis 8c vitae noftrse, 
 iixum habere Cor in ¥ide. Auguft. Tom. <,. p. 195-. 
 
 2. Catholicoruni Hoc fere proprium, depofita fan- 
 ftonim Patrum &: commifTa lervare, damnare profa- 
 nas novitates: 8c ficut dixit, 8c itcrum dixit Apofto- 
 lus ; fi (jiiis annunciaverit, prtterquam quod acccptum 
 eft, anathemare. Vincent, c. 34. p. Hi. 
 
 3. Catholica Ecclefia unum Dcumin Trinitatis ple- 
 nitudinc, 8c item Trinitatis aequalitarcm in una Divi- 
 nitate vencratur. Vinum. c 21. Sc c. i8. 
 
 4 Utncque fingularitas fubftantiae perfonaruni ron- 
 fundat proprietatcm, ncqiie item Trinitatis diftindlio 
 unitatem feparet Dcitatis. Vincent. c. 22. 
 
 f. Quia fcilicet alia eft perfona Patris, alia Filii.alia 
 Spiritus fandi Vhicent, c. ijj. 
 
 FIDES CATHOLICA. 
 
 I. Quicumque vult falvus 
 eflc, ante omnia opus eft ut 
 tencat Cathoiicam Fidcm. 
 
 2. Quam niii Quifquc intc- 
 gram inviolatamque fervaverit, 
 ablque dubio in sternum per- 
 ibit. 
 
 3. Fides autem Catholica 
 Hxc eft, ut unum Dcum in 
 Trinitate , & Trinitatem in 
 unitate veneremur : 
 
 4. Neque confundentes pcr- 
 Ibnas, neque Subftantiam fe- 
 parantes. 
 
 5. Alia eft cnim perfona 
 
 Varianfes LeEfiones. 
 1 ( falvus effe. ) efte falvus. Cod, .Amm 
 brof, & Fortunat* in MS. Ambrof. 
 
 J. {®u\(aiHt) Quis. Cod. Ambrof. (in vio- 
 latamcjue) inviolabilemque. Cod. San-germ. 
 (abfque Jiibio) deed in Cod- Reg. Pari/. 
 
 (in sternum pericis) peribit in sternum, 
 Snn-germ. 
 
 f . ( alia Tilii) alia Terfona Filii. Cod. 
 Ambrof. item Fortunat, (alia Spiritus) alia 
 Terfona Sp. fanft. Cod. Ambrof, 
 
 perfonas 
 
luith PARALLEL P 
 
 ^erfonm exprejfrs fub proprietate difiin- 
 guimus — Aliam TMris, aliam FtUi, aliam 
 Spirit us fan^ii — perfonam. 
 
 Pehgn Symbol. p. Z74..apud Lambec. Cdtal.Bibl.Vindob. 
 
 6. Confut antes Arium, tmdm eandem- 
 que dicimus Trinitatis ejfe Suhfiantidm. 
 
 Pclag. Symb. 
 
 Patfis^ dr Filii & Spiritus fancii una,m 
 FirtHtem, unam Subfiantiam, unum Dei- 
 tatem, mmm Majejiatem, tmam Gloriam. 
 
 Auguft. Tom. 8. t. 74.4. 
 
 7. Qualis efi Pater fecundum Subflan- 
 tiam, Talem genuit T ilium : ^ Spiritus 
 fan£ius — eft ejufdem (jr Ipfe Subflantidi, 
 
 cum Patre (^ Filio. Fauftini. Fid. 
 
 8. .^icquid ad Seipfum dicitur T>euSy 
 (jr de ftngulis perfonis fmgulariter dicitur, 
 dr fimuL de ipfa Trinitate. 
 
 Auguft. Tom. 8. ?. 838. 
 
 9. Magnus Pater ■> magnus FiliuSj mag- 
 nus Spiritus fan£ius. 
 
 Auguft. Tom- 8. p. 837. 
 
 10. Hoc (jr de Bonitate, c^^^ ^ter- 
 
 6. Sed tamen Patris & Filii, 8c Spiritus fandi non 
 alia & alia, fed una eademque natura. Vincent, c, 19. 
 
 V 
 
 8 Illud prjecipue tenearaus, quicquid ad (e dicitur 
 praeftantiflima ilia 8c divina fublimitas, fubjiamialtter 
 dici ; quod autem ad aliquid uon fubfianttdtter, fed re- 
 lative : Tamamque vim efle ejufdem lubjlantm in Patre 
 Sc Filio & Spiritu fanfto, ut quicquid de fingulis ad 
 feipfos dicitur, non pluraltter in'fumma, Ced fingula- 
 ntey accipiatur. AHguftin, Tom. 8. p. 837. 
 
 ASSAGES. 117 
 
 Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus 
 fandi. 
 
 6. Sed Patris, & Filii, & Spi- 
 ritus fandi, una eft Divinitas, 
 sequalis gloria, coaeterna Mar- 
 jeftas. 
 
 7. Qualis Pater, Talis Filius", 
 Talis & Spiritus fainStus. 
 
 8. Increatus Pater, increatus 
 Filius, increatus & Spiritus 
 fan£tus. 
 
 9. Immenfus Pater, immen- 
 fus Filius, immenfus & Spiri- 
 tus fandus. 
 
 10. ^ternus Pater, xternus 
 
 6. (Coiterna) Codd. nonnulli habent El 
 Costerna. Deeft Et in Cod. Ambrof. 8c ia 
 Forttmat. 6c Brunon. aliilque multis. 
 
 7 ( Talis & Spiritus SanBus ) Ita Codd. 
 Ambrof. Reg: Far if C. C. C. C. i. Cot- 
 tori. I. Jacob, i. Fortunat. item Cxfarius 
 Arelat. antiquiffimus. MSS. recentiores, 8c 
 editi omittunt Et. 
 
 8 (Et Spiritus SanBids.) Deeft vocula Et 
 in recentioribus Codicibus : retinent pleri- 
 que antiqniores hoc in loco. 8c iimiliter in 
 fubfequentibus, ante Spiritus SanBus. Quae 
 le6lio, opinor, vera eft, ab /utore Symholi 
 profeifiaj Icilicet, ad majoren* Emphalim, 
 propter H^ertfim Macrdonian/im nondum 
 penitus exftindlam. Noftrum autem eft ')yra- 
 bolum exhib^re quale fe primitus habuit. 
 
 nitatC;, 
 
12,8 The ORIGINAL CREED 
 
 nitatc,c>" ^^ Omnipotcntia De/ dicimn Filius, xternus & Spiritus fan- 
 
 flt. Afguft. tbid, p. 839. (^tlS. 
 
 JEternus Vater, coat emus FiliuSj coater- 
 ntis SftrittiS f and us. Aug. Tom.^. p f^^. 
 
 1 2 . iVcv/ tmne?i tres magnij fed unus 
 nmgnus. 
 
 Augufl. Tom.Z. p. 837. 
 
 I 3 . Itaque Omfiipotens Pater , Omiupo- 
 tens Fflius, Ommpotem Spiritus fandus. 
 
 Aug. de Trin. /. j-. c. S. 
 
 14. iV^^ tamert Tres omnipotentcs, fed 
 umis omriipotcns. ^"g- "^'''• 
 
 1 5 . jyeus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spi^ 
 
 ritUS fmctuS. ^uguft. Trin. /. 8. c. 1- 
 
 (y. Serm. 1 05 , p, 5-41. Tow. f . 
 
 1 6. Nee tamen tres Bit ■ fed unus 
 
 Deus. Auguft. ibid. 
 
 1 7. i'/V & Dominum fi qudras, Sin- 
 gulum J^ernque refpondeo • 
 
 Aug. Tom. 8. p. 729. 
 
 1 r. Et tamen non Tres x- 
 tcrni, fed unus a:tcrnus. 
 
 12. Si cut non tres increati, 
 ncc tres immenfi, fed unus in- 
 crcatus, & unus immenfus. 
 
 1 3 . Similiter , omnipotens 
 Pater, omnipotens Filius, omni- 
 potens & Spiritus fanclus. 
 
 14. Et tamen non tres omni- 
 potentes, fed unus omnipotens. 
 
 1 5 . Ita Deus Pater, Deus Fi- 
 lius, Deus & Spiritus lanclus. 
 
 1 6. Et tamen non tres Dii, 
 led unus eft Deus. 
 
 17. Ita Dominus Pater, Do- 
 minus Filius, Dominus 6c Spiri- 
 tus laniflus. 
 
 1 1. Nee magnos tres dicimus, fed magnum unum, 
 ruia non participationc magnirudinis Deus magnuseft, 
 fed feipfo magno magnus cl>,t]uia ipfc fua eft magni- 
 tude. Augtijl. de Trin. 1. 5-. c. lo- 
 
 15 Scd ne duos omnipotentes inteliigas praccaven- 
 dum eft: licet enim & Pater fit omnipotens, 8c Filius, 
 tamen unus ejl omnipotens, ficut & unus eft Dejs, 
 quia Patris & Fiiii eadem Omnipotetnia eft, ficut & 
 cadem Deltas. Taufitn. p. iij. 
 
 14. Sicut fimul illi Tres unas Deus, fie fimul illi 
 Tre.<; unm omnipotens eft , & invifibilts unus , Deus 
 Pater Sc Filius &; Spiritus Sanftus eft. .Au^ti/im. Tom. 
 8, p. 6«;4. Vid. p. 86f. 
 
 16 Unus Deus propter infeparabilem Divinitatem ; 
 ficut unus Omnipotens propter infeparabilem Omnipo- 
 tentiam. ^:igiijl de Civit. Dei. p. i()o. 
 
 In ilia fumma Trinitate, qusincomparabilitcr rebus 
 omnibus antecellit, tanta eft inftparabilnas, ut cum 
 Trinitas Hominum non pofiTit dici unus Homo, Ilia 
 unus Dens & dicatur & fit. Aug. dc Trin. 1. ly. c. 23. 
 
 12. {Untts increatus, ^ unus immenfus) 
 Unus immenfus, 5c unu? increatus. Cod. 
 Ambi of. 
 
 14,. {Et tamen) deeft tamen in Cod. 
 Ambrof. 
 
 16. {efi Deus) dccft efl in MS. Am- 
 brof 
 
 18. Sed 
 
nuith PARALLEL PASSAGES, 
 
 1 8. Sed fimul omnes non tres Dominos 
 DeoSy fed urmm Domimim Beum dtco. 
 
 Auguft. ibid. 
 
 19. Cum de iingulis qudritur, tmtif- 
 quifque eortim ^ Bens, c^ omnipotem ejfe 
 refpofideatur j cum vero de omnibus fimul, 
 non Tres Bit., 'vel tres omntpotenteSy fed 
 unus Beus omnipotens. 
 
 Auguft. de civit. Dei. /. II. f.24. />. 290. 
 
 20. Bicimus Patrem Beum dc nullo. 
 
 (Auguft. Tom. 5. p. 680.; 
 
 Non enim hubet de quo fit^ dut ex 
 
 quo procedat, Aug. Tom. 2- p. 829. 
 
 2 1 . FHius Patris folius — Hunc quippe 
 de fua Subjlemtm genuit, non ex nihilo 
 
 fecit. Aug. E/>. 1 70, alias., 66, 
 
 2 2. De Filio Spiritus fan^us proce- 
 dere reperitur. (Auguft, de Trin. /. 15. c. 17.) 
 
 Neque natus efi ficut Unige-aitus-, neque 
 fd^ius, &:c. ^^- '• S' ''■ If- ;>• 841. 
 
 18. Non funt enim duo Domini ubi Dominatus unus 
 eft; quia Pater in Filio, & Filius in Patre, 8c idcoD^- 
 tfunns unus, Ambrof.-de Sp. S. 1. 3. c. 1 j*. p. 686. 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 22. Spiritus quoquc fanftus non, ficut creatura, 
 ex nihilo eft fadus ; fed fie a Patre Filioque procedit, 
 ut nee a Filio, nee a Patre fitfaftus. auguii. ep. 170. 
 
 1 8. Et tamen non Tres Do- 
 mini, fed unus eft Dominus. 
 
 19. Qiiia ficut fingillatim 
 unamquamque Perfonam & 
 Deum & Dominum confiteri 
 Chriftiana veritatc comoeili- 
 
 L 
 
 murj ita tres Deos, aut Do- 
 minos dicere Catiiolica Reii- 
 gione prohibemur. 
 
 20. Pater a nullo eft fadus, 
 nee creatus, nee genitus. 
 
 21. Filius a Patre folo eft, 
 non fadus, nee creatus, icd 
 genitus. 
 
 22. Spiritus fandus a Patre 
 & Filio, non fadus, nee crea- 
 tus, nee genitus eft, fed pro- 
 cedens. 
 
 18. (Efi Dominus) deeft efi. Cod, A^n- 
 brof. 
 
 »9' ('Et Deum ^ 'Dominum) Ira MSj 
 Ambrof, & MS. OtiQrs. Fcrtunat. reaifijiT;e. 
 Cod, Fortunat. Ambrof. aiiique, turn MSSo 
 turn imprefii, habent Deum 8c Dominum. 
 Brunonis Cod. Deum ac Dominum. San ger- 
 nianenlis, Dominum ^ Deum Plerique 
 editi, Deum aut Dominum. Quae ledlio, me 
 judice, omnium peffima eft. 
 
 (Prohibemur) MS. Ambr. legit, prohibe- 
 mus: male. 
 
 2 2. {Sed procedens) Cod. Ambrof. zA]q^^ 
 habet ifta j Tatri ^ Filio coaermu eft. G'of- 
 fa, uti videtur, ex margine in Textam im- 
 mifla: Nifi forte Librariiis verba ilia ex 
 Bachtarii F/V^, quam fimul defcripferat, hue 
 tranftulerit; five ofcitanter, five majoris e- 
 lucidationis gratia. Vid. Bach.ar. Fid apud 
 Murator, Tom, 2. p. 16- 1 8. 
 
 R 
 
 3 3 . Unus 
 
no rhe ORIGIN 
 
 2 3 . U^ms ejl Pater j non dm vel tres ; 
 Cr unm Filitts^ non dm -vel tres j o^- unus 
 f.mborum Spirit us , non dm vel tres. 
 
 Auguft. Coiitr. Maxim, p. "jiij. 
 
 24. In hacTrinitate, non efi aliudalio 
 r/hyuSj dut minus. Augurt. lom. f. p. 948. 
 
 Nee enim prorfus aliquis in Trinitate 
 Cradus: nihil quod infer ius^ fuperiuj've 
 
 dici pojflt. I'elagii Symb. 
 
 z 5 . Vid. fupr^y in Articulo 3 . 
 
 2(5- vide fupra. Artie, z. 
 
 27. Dominus (lutem manens^ cum difci- 
 pidis per qufidragintd Dies, fignificure 
 dig?iatus e[l qui^ per iftud Teinpus ncccf- 
 Ihiia ell: omnibus Fides Incarnationis 
 Chfiili 5 cj^uA infirmis ejl neceffdria. 
 
 Auguft. Serm. 264, Tom 5. />. 1077. 
 
 AL CREED 
 
 23. Unus ergo Pater, non 
 tres Patres 5 unus Filius, non 
 tres Filii ; unus Spinrus lanclus^ 
 non tics Spiritus lancli. 
 
 24. Et in hac Trinitate ni- 
 hil prius aut poftcrius, niiiil 
 majus aut minus, icd totx tres 
 perlbnce coxtcrnx fibi lUnt, & 
 "coxquales. 
 
 25. Ita ut per omnia, ficut 
 jam fupra dictum eft, & uni- 
 tas in Trinitate, & Trinitas in 
 unitate veneranda fit. 
 
 26. Qui vult ergo falvus 
 clTe, ita de Trinitate fentiat. 
 
 27. Scd neceflarium eft ad 
 xternam Salutem, ut Incarna- 
 tionem quoque Domini noftri 
 Jefu Chrifti fidelitcr crcdat. 
 
 j(,Ai)TH' uXX etc, TTwrtif, (? «5 't^o?, y^ «? 7rwgjcxA(3T»5.P/^«</» 
 Jgnnt. ad Philipp, c. i. p. i i8. Cotel. ed, 
 
 24. Incrcaca & inaeftin-.abilis Trinitas, quz unius 
 eft xternitaiis & Gloriae, nee Tempus nee Griduni 
 vcl pofterioris recipit vel prioris. Ambrof. de Fid. L. 
 4. c. II. p. 547. 
 
 If. Ita Tota Deltas fui perfcdione ajqualis ed, ut 
 cxceptis vocabulis qiiK proprictarcin mdicant Perfb- 
 narum, quicquid de una perfona dicitur, de tribus di- 
 gn'lTime polTit intell'gi- Vdag. Symb. 
 
 16. Si quis hanc Kidcm non habct, Cathol'ictts dici 
 non potcd, quia Catholicam non tt-nct Fidcmi 6c ideo 
 Llienus ell ac profanus, & adverfus veritatem rcbcilis 
 Fides S. ^itnhrcf. apud LatnOec. Catalog. Bibl. Vindob. 
 L. ». p. 268. 
 
 27. Ideo Converfatio ipfius in Carnc port Refurre- 
 f^ionen per qiiadraginta dies erat nccefTaria, ut de* 
 -•Donffrarct tarn diu clfc necelTariam Fidcm Incarnatio* 
 lis Chrifli quamdiu in ilia vita docetur Area in dilu- 
 ii;(i flu^ar^, ^ngtiji, Tom, f. p. 1078. 
 
 24. (Et inh»c)6tt(i et in Cod, Smitrm^ 
 
 2S. rro' 
 
tWl 
 
 ith PARALLEL PASSAGES, 
 
 2 8. Promde, Chriftm Jefus, Dei Fi- 
 liusy eft dr Dei4S ^' Homo, 
 
 Augull. Euchir. Tom. 6- p. no. 
 
 19. Deus ante ormiin fdcula: Homo 
 in noftro faculo — unus Dei Filius, idem- 
 que Hominis Filius. Auguft. ibid. 
 
 30. Confitemur in Chrifto unam ejfe 
 Filii perfonamy ut dicamm duas eJfe per- 
 feftas atque integras Subftantias, id eft, 
 Deitatis, & Humanitatis qu^ ex anima 
 continetur (jr corpore. ?t\%g, symb. 
 
 3 I . Mqualem Patri fecundum Divi- 
 nitatem. Minor em autem Pat re fecundum 
 Carnemy hoc eft ^ fecundum Hominem, 
 
 Auguft. "Epifi. 137. />. 406. 
 
 3 2, Agnofcamus geminam Suhftantiam 
 
 Mi 
 
 28. Eft ergo Fides re61:a, ut 
 credamus & confiteamur, quod 
 Dominus nofter Jefus Chriftus, 
 Dei Filius, Deus pariter & Ho- 
 mo eft. 
 
 29. Deus eft ex SubftantiaPa- 
 tris ante faecula genitus : Homo 
 ex Subftantia Matris in fxculo 
 natus. 
 
 3 o. Perfedus Deus, perfedus 
 Homo ex anima rationali & 
 humana carne fubfiftens. 
 
 3 1 . ^qualis Patri fecundum 
 Divinitatem : Minor Patre fe- 
 cundum Humanitatem. 
 
 32. Qui licet Deus fit 3c 
 
 19. Idem ex Patre ante frcula genitus, idem in 
 fzculo ex matre generatus; Viricent, c. ip. 
 
 30 Adverfus Arium, veram 8c perfeftam VerbiDi- 
 vinitatem j adverfus Apollinarem, perfeftam Hominis 
 in Chrifto defend imus veritatem. Auguft. Op. Tom. 
 f. Append, p. 591. 
 
 Perfeftus Deus, perfeftus Homo: in Deo fumma 
 Divinitas, in Homine plena Humanitas: quippe qux 
 Animam fimul habcat 8c Carnem. Vincent, c. 19. 
 
 ;2. Caro Chriftus, 8c Ant'ma Chriftus, 8c Verbum 
 Chriftus ; nee tamen tria Hsec rres Chrifti, fed unus 
 Chriftus. Auguft, m Johan. p. 612. 
 
 l8. Csnfiteamur quod) Ita Coi.Ambrof. 
 atque editi nonnulli. Plures habent (j«x«: 
 sAmbroftana Ledlio praeferenda. 
 
 {T>eui pariter © Himo eft) Ita Codd. Be- 
 ned. I. Cotbertin. Jacob. I. 8v Fortunnt. Am- 
 brof. & San germ, legjnr, 0> Be .i pariter 
 (^ Homo eft Editi, Deus ^ Homo eft. 
 
 Xg Ex ftibftantia) Colbert n. de fubftan- 
 tia: 8c mfra, de fubfttintia mutris. (Homo) 
 Ambrof. Cod legit Qr> Homo eft. Fortunat. 
 Et Homo. Poft, matris, San germ. Cod. ha- 
 bet. in ficulo genitus perfecius H^mo. 
 
 30. (Rationaii) rationabili. Codd. Am- 
 brof. Colbert. 8c Sm-germ* 
 
 R 
 
 chrifti i 
 
i$z The ORIGI 
 
 Chrifli ; divmam fcilicet qua dtqualis efl 
 Patrij hiimdndm qua major cjl Pater : U- 
 tnimque auteryi' fimul non duo, fed unus 
 
 elt Chriftus. ^"g- Traft.in Joh. p. 699. 
 
 3 3 . Verbum caro factum efi, a Divini- 
 tate came fufcepta^ non in carnem Divi- 
 nitate mutata. 
 
 Auguft. Enchirid. c. jf . 
 
 3 4. Idem Deus qui HomOj ^ qui Deus 
 idem Homo: non confufione nature, fed 
 unit ate perfona. Auguft. Tom.':,. ;. gSy. 
 
 3 5 . Sicut enim unus efl Homo Anima 
 rationalis cr Caro 5 fc unus eft Chriftus 
 Deus d^ Homo. 
 
 Auguft. Traft. in Joh. />• 699. 
 
 36. Defcendit ad inferna, tertia die 
 refurrexit a mortuis. 
 
 Symb. Aquilciae, apud Ruffin, 
 
 NAL CREED 
 
 Homo, non duo tamen, fed 
 unus eft Chriftus. 
 
 53. Unus autcm, non con- 
 vcrfione Divinitatis in Carnem, 
 fed adfumptionc Humanitatis 
 in Deum. 
 
 34- Unus omnino , non 
 confufione Subftantia;, fed uni- 
 tate Perfonx. 
 
 3 5. Nam ficut Anima ratio- 
 nalis & Caro unus eft Homoj 
 ita Deus & Homo unus eft 
 Chriftus. 
 
 3 6. Qui pan us eft pro Salute 
 noftra, defcendit ad Inferos, 
 tertia die refurrexit a mortuis. 
 
 3}. Nemo ergo credat Dei Filium converfum 8c 
 cooimutatum cfle in Hominis Filium; fed potius cre- 
 damus, & non confumpta divin3,8c perfeile aflumpti 
 iv.imani fubftantia , manentem Dei Filium faftum 
 Ilomitiis Filium. auguft, Tom. 5 p 887. 
 
 Deus ergo Hominem alTumpfit, Homo in Deum 
 tranGvit: non naturx verfibilitate, ficut ApollinariJiA 
 'Jjcunt, fed Dei dignatione. Gennad' Eccl. Dogm.'c. 2. 
 
 5<5. Quis crgo.niriinfidelis, ncgaverit {u\Ke apud In- 
 feros Chriftum? ■ " ' — 
 
 Quamobrem tcncamus firminime quod fides habet 
 
 fundatiffima Audtoritatc firmatum •& caetera 
 
 »jU2e de illo tcftatiflima veriratc confcripta funt; in 
 quibus etiam Hoc eft, quod /»/>«</ Inferos fmt. Auguft. 
 i9. 1C4. p. jr74, Sl^ 
 
 53. (In carnem) in carne. MSB. ^ml>rof. 
 Colbert, San germ, aliique plurimi, & ve- 
 tufti. Habenr ctiam in Deo, pro, in Deum. 
 At multi etiam Codices, cum FortunaiiCod. 
 >Atnbrofi.Tio, receptam leftionem prxferunt ; 
 quE utique prasferenda vidctur. Cod. San- 
 germ- pro converfione habet converfatio- 
 ne. Cod. Colbert: totam hanc pericopen 
 fie exhibet; Unus autem, non ex eo quod 
 /it in carne converfa Divinitas, fed quia esi 
 in Deo adfumpta dignnnter Hum.initas, 
 
 34. (Unus omnino) unus Chriftus eft. Col- 
 bert. 
 
 3f. (Nam ftcut^yc.) Totum omittitCod. 
 Colbertinuf,. Scilicet, uti credo, nc Simile 
 illud in crroris fui patrocinium arriperent 
 Monophyfitt. {Rationalis) rationabilis. Am- 
 brof. 
 
 36. (ad inferos) ad infernos. Cod. San- 
 germ, nd inferna defcendens. Cod. Colbertin. 
 
 (Tertia die) decfl: in Cod. Ambrof. San- 
 germ. Cotton. I.Jacob. I. (refurrexit) fur- 
 rcxit : Cod. Ambrof. Eortunat. 
 
 57. Afcend' 
 
'■with PARALLEL P 
 
 37. Afcendit ad cdos, fedet W dex- 
 ter am Patris 5 mde vent urns judkare 'vi- 
 vos cr mortuos. 
 
 Symb. Roman. Vet. 
 
 38. Refurre^ionem etiam carms con- 
 fitemur ^ credimuSj ut dicamus nos in 
 eadem qua nunc fumus veritate mem- 
 brorum ejje reparandos. 
 
 Pelag Symb^ 
 
 39. Et precedent qui bona fecerunt-, 
 in Refurreliionem vitaj qui vero mala 
 egerunt in RefurreBionem judicii. Jo'*- f- ^^^ 
 
 Ibunt Hi in fupplicium sternum ^ jujii 
 autem in <vitam dternafn. ^^"- *f- 46* 
 
 40. Cavete, dile6iijjimij ne quis vos ab 
 Ecclefix CatholiccB Tide ac mutate fe- 
 ducat. .^i enim njobis aliter Eva7igeli- 
 zaverit prdterquam quod accepifiis^ Ana- 
 thema fit, Auguft. Turn. S' h f9*- 
 
 58. Si id refurgere dicitur quod cadit, care ergo 
 noftra in veritate refurget, licut in veritate cadit. Et 
 non l'ecundiinaO''/^fWfw?, immutatio corporuraerit ^f. 
 Gennad. Eccl. Dogmat. c. f- 
 
 3^9. Poft Rerurre<flionem &: judicium, non creda- 
 mus reftitutionem futuram, ficut Origenes dclirat, ut 
 Daemones vel impii Homines poft Turmenta quafi 
 Tuppliciis expiirgati, vel //// in Aiigelicam qua creati 
 funt redeant Dignitatem, vel Ijii juftorum Societate 
 donentiir. Gennad. ibid. c. 9. 
 
 '^•jTui. F-fend — Jgmt' ad Phtlipp p. 1 1 §. 
 
 AS SAGES, 133 
 
 37. Adfcendit ad Carlos^ fe- 
 det ad dcxteram Patris? inde 
 venturus judicare vivos & mor- 
 tuos. 
 
 3 S. Ad cLijiis adventum om- 
 nes Homines refurgere iiabent 
 cum corporibus fuis, & red- 
 dituri funt de Fad:is propriis 
 rationem. 
 
 39. Et qui bona egerunt, 
 ibunt in vitam asternam, qui 
 vero mala, in Ignem ster- 
 num. 
 
 40. Hsec eft Fides Catho- 
 lica, quam niil Qiiifque fide- 
 liter , firmiterque crediderit ,, 
 falvus efl'e non poterit> 
 
 IT. (Sedet.) Sedit. Cod- Amhr. (Dexterami 
 Tatris) Ita Codd. Ambrof. & Fortunat, 8c 
 Symb. Roman. Vet. Dexteram Patris Om- 
 nipotent is. Cod. San germ. Dextram Om^ 
 nipotentis. Cod.^runoim. Dexteram Dei Pa- 
 tris fedet, fictit vohis in Symbolo traditum efi. 
 Cod. Colbert. Dexteram Dei Vatris Omnipo- 
 tent is. Codd. reccntiores, cum excufis. 
 
 38. (Refurgere habent cum corporibus fuis,. 
 (Q>) dcfunt in Cod. Ambrof. Colbert inus le« 
 git ; ad cMJus adventum erunt omnes Homi- 
 nes fine dubio in pits corporibus refurredmri, 
 Scd nihil mutamus. 
 
 39. (Egerunt) egerint. Cod. Ambrof. To' 
 turn hunc Articulum fie legit Colbertinus -, 
 Ut qui bona egerunt, eant in vitam itetnami 
 qui mala tn ignem .iternum. 
 
 (.^ui vero) Cod. Ambrof. 8c Cotton, I. 
 omittunt vero. Codices nonnulli Jegunt, ^ 
 qui vero: alii, 1^ qui mala. 
 
 40. ( ^iifque) Cod. Ambroid uniifquif.. 
 que. Colbertinus fie. pergitj Hsc efi lidti 
 fanBa ^ catholica, quam omnis Homo, qui. 
 ad vitam Aternam pervenire defiderat, fcir»- 
 integre debet, ^ fideliter cuflodire. 
 
 CHAP, 
 
134 A COMMENTARY on 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 A Commentary on the Athanafian Creed\ 
 
 I TJ/HOSOEVER will be faved, before all Things it is necef. 
 
 ^-^ f^ry that He hold the Catholick Faith. 
 
 By the Words, before all Things^ is meant in the firfl Place, 
 Faith goes before PraUice 5 and" is therefore firfl in Order, tho' 
 Praciice may be, comparatively, more confiderable, z^A firfl in 
 Value^ as the End is above the Means, 
 
 2. which Faith except every one do keep -whole ^ anct uitdefiled^ 
 'ivithout doubt He fhall perifh everlaflingly. 
 
 which Faith, that is, the Catholick Faith before fpoken of, 
 which is another Name for the true and right Faith as taught 
 in Scripture ; called Catholick, or Univerjal, as being held by the 
 Vniverfal Church of Chrift, againfl which the Gates of Hell fhall 
 nos^t prevail. The meaning then is, that every one is obliged, 
 under pain of Damnation, to preferve, as far as in Him lies, the 
 true and right Faith, in oppofltion to Thofe that endeavor to 
 corrupt it cither by taking from it, or adding to it. That 
 Men fhall perifh Eternally for unbelief, for reje&ing the Faith 
 in the Lump, cannot be doubted ; when it is exprefsly faid 
 {Mark 16. i 6.) He that believeth not foall be damned: And as 
 to rejeding any particular Branch, or Article of it, it muft of 
 confequence be a Sin againft the Whole ; againft Truth, and 
 Peace, and therefore damnable in it's own Nature, as all wilful 
 Sins are without Repentance. As to the Allowances to be 
 
 a In K. Edw.ir<i'j Prayer book, A. D. i f 49. ;/ is barely intituled. This ConfcfTion of our 
 Chriftian Faith: And it was ordered to be fong, or fayed, upon Six Feajls in the year. At 
 theRevifal 0/ the Common-Prayer, M«</cr J^^Elii. it was appointed to be ufed on feveral Feafts 
 in the year, the -whole Number Thirteen. But the Title Jlill continued the fame, till the laji 
 Review under Charles the Second; when were added there'o, connionly called the Creed 
 ot Sr. Arhan^us; Frofn whuh Time the running Title has been S. Athanalius'j Creed, as be- 
 fort Quicunque vult, in our Prayer Books. 
 
 b In K. Edward'i Praytr Book, it was read ho\y, injlead of whole, by » miftake, I fuppofe, 
 of the Printer; which m^jlAke was continwd through feveral Editions afterwards. I have ob- 
 ferveJ it in an Edition of the year 1600, by the Quccn'j Printer, I fuppoje, the old way of 
 writing hoolc, and hole, for whole, might occafion it, 
 
 made 
 
tk ATHANASIAN CREED. 135 
 
 made for rnvmcM Ignorance, Prejudice, or other unavoidable 
 Infirmities; as they will be pleadable in the Cafe of any other 
 Sin fo may they, and will they alfo be pleadable m This : But 
 it was foreign to the purpofe of the Creed to take notice of ^ 
 in This cafe mrtkuUrly, when it is common to all cales ot like 
 Nature, and is always fuppofed, and mderjlood, tho' not fpeci- 
 
 ally mention'd 
 
 ^. And the C^tholick Faith is This-, thM we worfhtp one God m 
 Trinity, md Trinity in Unity. ^ . ,. , -r • u j 
 
 Orie of the Principal Branches of the Catholick Faith, and 
 which is of neareft Concernment cfince our Wbrjhip depends 
 upon it, and the main Body of the Chriftian Religion is bound 
 up in it) is the Dodrine of a Trinity in Unity, of Three Perfons 
 and one God, recommended in our Baptifm as the Objed of our 
 Faitk Hove, and Worjhip. He that takes upon Him to corrupt, 
 or deprave This moll Fundamental part of a Chriftian's Faith, 
 cannot be innocent; it being his boundenDuty to maintain and 
 preferve it, as He will anfwer it another Day. 
 
 4. Neither confounding the Perfons, nor dividing the Sub" 
 
 ■fiance. 
 
 Here would be no need of thefe particular Cautions, or cri- 
 tical Terms, in relation to This Point, had Men been content 
 with the plain primitive Faith in it's native Simplicity. But, 
 as there have been a Set of Men, called Sahellims, who have 
 erroneouHy taught that the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft are 
 all one Perfon, who was incarnate, and fuffered, and rofe again;, 
 making the Father (and Holy-Ghoft) to have fufered, as well 
 zs^thc^Son (from thence falfd Patripaffians) hence it becomes 
 neceftary to caution every pious Chriftian againfl: confomdmg 
 the Perfons as Thofe Men have done. And as there have been 
 Others, particularly the Arians, who have pretended vcry^ falfe- 
 ly, that the Three Perfons arc Three Suhftmces, and of dijje^ 
 rent Kinds, divided from each other, one being before^ the o- 
 ther, exifting when the other two were not, as alfo being 
 prefent, where the other two are not prefent 5 Thefe falfe and. 
 dangerous Tenets having been fprcad abroad, it is become ne.= 
 ccftary to give a Caution againft dividing the Suhftmce, as 1 hele. 
 
 have 
 
1^6 A COMMENTARr on 
 
 have done, very much to the Detriment of Sobriety and 
 Truth. 
 
 5 . For there is ori-e Pcrfo'a of the Tuther^ Another of the Son, 
 And Another of the Holy-Chof. 
 
 The SabeUiam therefore were extremely to blame in confound- 
 ing the Perfons, and running them into one, taking away the 
 DiJlincHcn of Perfons plainly taught in Scripture. 
 
 6. But the Godhead of the Father^ of the Son^ and of the Holy- 
 Ghoji is all one, the Glory equal, the Majefly coeternal. 
 
 The Arians therefore were equally to blame for dividing the 
 Suhfia?zce, and Godhead in the manner before hinted. To be 
 a httle more particular on this Head, we may go on to open 
 and explain This Unity of Godhead, equality of Glory, and co- 
 eter?uty of Majcfty. 
 
 7. Such as the Father ist fuch is the Son, and fuch is the Holy- 
 Ghofl. 
 
 That is, as to their Suhflance, and Godhead, there is no Dif- 
 ference or hicquality amongfl them 5 tho' there is a Difference 
 in relpecl of fome perfonal Ads, and Properties, as fhall be 
 obferved in it's Place. In real Dignity, and Perfe^fio-n They are 
 equal, and U72divided, as in the Inftances here following. 
 
 8. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy-Ghoji 
 uncreate. 
 
 Thefe Three Perfons were never brought into Being by the 
 will of another ; They are no Creatures, nor Changeable, as Crea- 
 tures are 5 They are all infinitely removed from dependence or 
 precarious Exigence, one as much as another, and every one as 
 much as any one : They exift in the higheft, and moft cmpha- 
 tical Senfe of Exifting, which is called Necejjary-Exifience, op- 
 pofed to contingent or precarious Exigence, hi a word 5 every 
 Perfon muft, and cannot but cxiih and all muft exift together, 
 having the fame unchangeable Pcrfcdions. 
 
 9. The Father inco?nprehenjible, the Son incomprehenfible, and the 
 Holy-Ghof incomprehenfible . 
 
 Thefe Words are not a juft Tranflation of the Latin Origi- 
 nal, tho' containing as true and juft a Propofition as the Latin 
 Words- do. Jmme?jfus fignilics onmiprefcnt, rather than i?icom- 
 
 prehenfible. 
 
the ATHANASIAN CREED. i 37 
 
 frehenfible in the modern Senfe of incomprchcnfible. But if 
 by mcomprehenfible be underftood, not to be comprehended with- 
 in any Bounds, it will then anfwer to the Lmn pretty nearly. 
 The TranHator here followed the Greek Copy % taking perhaps 
 the Greek to be the Original Language wherein the Creed was 
 written. However, fome Lati?ts have underftood by irnmeizfusy 
 incomprehenfihle ^ in fuch a Senfe as has been hinted. 
 
 ID. The Father eternal^ fhe Soii eternal^ and the Holy-Ghofi 
 
 eternal. 
 
 None of the Perfons ever began to be, nor ihall ever ccafc 
 to be 5 They always were, they always will be, and muft be y 
 the fame yefteiday, to day, and for ever. 
 
 II. And yet They are not Three Eternals, but one Eternal. 
 
 Some Account ought to be given of this manner of fpeaking, 
 becaufe it often occurs in the Creed, and may be thought mod apt 
 to offend the malicious, or to mi (lead the unwary. The way of 
 fpeaking came in a little after the middle of the fourth Cen- 
 tury, and then only into the Latin Church 5 for the Greeks ne- 
 ver ufed it, but taught the fame Things under a different Form 
 of Expreillon. What Creeks and Lati-ns Both intended was, 
 that as the Three Perfons are one Subfta?^ce and one God, fo every 
 divine Perfedion, and every fubflantial Attribute, belonging to 
 any one Perfon, is common to all 5 and there is nothing peculiar 
 to any one but the divine Relations : To the Father, Paternity 
 and whatever it implies or carries with it j to the Son, Filiation 5 
 to the Holy-Ghoft, Proceffion. In This Account, Eternity, Im- 
 menfity. Omnipotence, and the like, being fubflantial Attributes, 
 ar> common to all the Three Perfons 5 who have therefore one 
 Eternity J one Immenfity, one Omnipotence ^ and fo on, as one Sub- 
 fiance and one Godhead: Thus ^tcc Greeks and Latins agreed both 
 in DoBrine, and Exprejjion. But the Latins^ building hereupon. 
 
 a There are txoo pritjted Greek Copies, which rend cit^af.iBlx,-;^.®-' , SrephensV firfi printed 
 
 man, ity^srps?. The Saxon. French, and old Englifli Verfions exaBly foilojo the Latin originsil. 
 b Immenltis Pater: non mole, fed poreftate omnia concludente. Vel immenfus, id cll, 
 incomprehenfibilis. Abaclard. m Syrnb. Athanaf. p. 368. 
 
 S thought 
 
138 // COMMENTARY on 
 
 tiiought it very allowable to go a little fluthcr, (which the 
 Greeks did notj and to cxprefs the fame Thing by laying, of 
 the Three Pcrfons, that They are o;/e Eternal, one Immcnje, C7:c 
 Omnipotent^ one Holy, one Uncreated, (5cc. And This was the 
 current Language at the making, and before the making of 
 this Cixed. The Armns were the Ible Occaflon of introducing 
 Both Kinds of Expreflion, which mufl: therefore be interpreted 
 accordingly. Tn^o Things were deAgn'd by them : One, to ob- 
 viate the Arhvn Tenet, that the Three Perlbns were differing in 
 kindy and in degree, as being oi unequal Pcrfcdlions; the other 
 to obviate the Arian Charge, or Calumny, upon the Church as 
 making Three Gods. In regard to the former, when the Catho- 
 licks Ipeak of one Vhinity, they intend equal l^iviniry, not Di- 
 vinities differing in kind, or degree : And in regard to the lat- 
 ter, They further mean undivided and infeparahle Divinity, not 
 Many Divinities. The true meaning then, and the full mean- 
 ing of the Exprcffions of the Creed will be very clear and 
 obvious. The Three Perfons arc equal in Duration, and un- 
 divided too 5 one Eternity, (one, bccaufe undivided, and infc- 
 parable) is common to all, and therefore They are not Three 
 Eternals, but o'ne Eternal. 
 
 The oldeft Writers who have ufed this way of Expreflion, 
 are, fo far as I have obferved, Amhrofe, Faujlinus, and Aujlin: 
 And their meaning in it is very plain and certain from the 
 Places themfelves where They make ufe of it. Eulgentius, who 
 came not long after them, fometimcs falls into the lame man- 
 ner of Expreflion " 5 but fparingly, as if He either did not fully 
 attend to it, or had' fome fcruplc about it : for his general 
 way is to fay, not three eternal Gods, hut one eternal God^^ in- 
 
 a Relativa nomina Trinitatem factunt, ejfentialii vcro ndlo irodo triplicantur. Dcus 
 Parcr, Dcus Filiiis, Dcus Spiritus fanftus. Bonus Pater, bonus Filiiis, lionus Spiritus 
 fanftus. Pius Pater, plus Filius, pius Spiritus fandlus. Juftus Pater, juftus Filius.juftus 
 & Spiritus fjirftus. Omnipotens Pater, omnipotcns Filius, omnipotens ?c Spiritus fan- 
 flrus. Et tamcn non dicimus ncc Tres Deos, ncc Trei banos, nee Tres pios, ncc Tres jtifioj, 
 nee Tret o7nnifoter.tfs, icd unum Dcum, bonum, pium, juflum, omnipotentem, Patrcm 
 ik Fili'.im Sc Spiritum fanftun. Fulgent, dc Trin. c- i. p. ^;;o. 
 
 b ^ternus eft line iiiitio Pater, xrerncs eft fine initio Fiiius, fctcrnus eft Hue initio Spi- 
 ritus fandtus: ncc tamcn ires Dii astcrni fed unus aeternus Vetu. Fulgent, ad Fcrrard. 
 
 . - . flead 
 
the ATHAKASIAK CREED. lyj 
 
 dead of the other in the Creed 5 and fo in the like Cafes. 
 Which indeed is a very infipid and dull way ot Exprellmg it 
 and if applied to every Article in the Athm^im Creed, would 
 make it a very flat compofition in comparifon to what it is. 
 It is true that all at length refolves into This, that the Three 
 Perfons are not Three Gods, but o-aeGod: This is the Ground and 
 Foundation, and the other is the Superftrudure. But then it 
 is a fine and elegant, as well as a folid Supeuftrudure; improv- 
 ino- the Thought, and carrying on a Train of new and diiimdt 
 Proportions, and not meerly a jejune and faplefs Repetition 
 
 of the fame Thing. 
 
 \z. As dfo there are not Three Jncomprehenfibles, nor Three Un- 
 created-, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehenjihle\ ^ 
 
 Not Three Incomprehenfibles, 6-c. as not differing either ill 
 kind or de>?ree of Incomprehenfibility, nor yet divided m thole 
 Perfedions- But one Incomprehenfible, and one Uncreated, 
 one as to the kind and degree of thofe Attributes, or Perfeftionsi 
 and one in mmher too, as much as Union, and Injepar ability 
 infinitely dole and perfed, can be conceived to make, or do 
 
 really make one. ,1 ■ 1 ^ 
 
 ^\. So likewife the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, ana 
 
 the Holy-Ghoft Almighty. ^ 
 
 Equally Almighty every one, without any Dijjerence, or in- 
 equality in Kind, or Degree. 
 
 1 A,. And yet They are not Three Almighties, but one Almighty, 
 One Omnipotence, or Almightinefs is common to all Threes 
 One in kind as being of e(iual extent, and equally reaching over 
 all ; and one alio in nm^ber, becaufe of the inleparable Uimit 
 among the Three, in the inward Perfedion, and outward Exer^ 
 cife, or Operation. 
 
 Immenfus eft Pater, fed immenfus eft Filius, & immenfus eft & Spititui iaac.ui . 
 tamen tres D/V immenfi, fed unus Tizm immenius. Tuhent. ibid. P- i-.;- 
 
 Omnipotens eft Paten fed omaipctens eft Filius, omn;porens eft ^P""'^^V <f Snirin,c 
 tamen tres D« omnipotentes, fed unus D«/i omnipotens eft Pater, & Hl.us, i5C ^pintiu 
 
 fandius. Yidgent, ibid. ■ ,. ,r ; r u 'mo-'- 
 
 a Here again, one m^v P^^^ive what Copy our Tranjlators followed, namely, Bry.io^- 
 Greek Copy. ^11 the other Copies, Greek and Latin, place the words in a different order 
 Not three uncreated, nor three incomprehenfib'.es, but one uncrer.ted ^c. Ofy, ^^''^f' 
 brofian Latin Copy reads, not three uncreated, nor three incomprehenfibles {itnmenje) btit 
 cne incomprehenfible (immenfe) and one uncreated. 
 
 S 2 ^ ' 
 
140 A COMMENTARY on 
 
 i-^. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy-Ghofl is God. 
 
 The whole Three Peiibns equally divifie, and enjoying every 
 Perfeclion belongmg to the Godhead. 
 
 I 6. And yet They are not Three Gods, hut one God. 
 
 Becaufe the Godhead, or Divinity whieh belongs to one, be- 
 longs to all : The fame in kind becaufe of the Equality, and 
 the lame in number becaufe infeparably one. 
 
 17. So likeivife the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy- 
 Ghofi Lord. 
 
 Ha\'ing the fame right of Dominion, and of equal Dominion ; 
 and equally exercifing it, when, and where They pleafe. 
 
 18. And yet not Three Lords, but one Lord. 
 
 Becaufe one Dominion is common to all Three, jointly pof- 
 feflinii;, and jointly exercifing every Branch of it j undividedly, 
 and infeparably bearing fupreme Rule over all. 
 
 19. For, like as we are compelled by the Chrijlian Verity to acknow- 
 ledge every ? erf on by Him f elf to be God and Lord: So are vje forbidden 
 by the Catholick lieligioti to fay, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. 
 
 That is to fay. The whole Foundation of what hath been 
 before taught, refts upon This, that the fame Chriftian Verity, or 
 Truth, laid down in Scripture, obliges us to acknowledge every 
 Perfon diftindly confider'd to be God and Lord; and at the 
 fame Time to rejed the* Notion of Three Gods or Three Lords : 
 which being fo, all that has been here taught, mufl: ofCourfebe 
 admitted as true, right, and juft. And now, having confider'd 
 the Equality, and U'nion of the Three Sacred Perfons, it may 
 next be proper to confider xh<dx.Diflincfion, as it is fet forth to 
 us in Scripture by the feveral perfonal Charaders belonging to 
 the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghofl. 
 
 20. The Father is made of none, neither created 7tor begotten. 
 Were I at liberty to make conjectural Emendations, I wou'd 
 
 here read, Vater a nullo efi : ncque faftus, ?iec <5cc. The Father is 
 of none : neither made, 7ior created, &c. And thus the next Ar- 
 ticle i^he ion is of the Father 2i\onc) wou'd better anfwer, and'thc 
 whole w^ould be more elegant. But having met with no Copy' to 
 
 a Lazarus Baifius'j Cofy, in Gcnebrard, rea<ls -Tntr^e tf:f ihy'oc, i<n. But then it intirely 
 ajr^its Tfl<)}r9$, whUh, as is pl.im from what follows in tht Crted, ought not to be omitted. 
 
 ** ' countc- 
 
the ATUANASIAN CREED. 141 
 
 countenance fuch a Corredlion ; I muft not pretend to it, left 
 it fhould appear like correding the Amhor. However, the Scn(e 
 is very plain, and obvious. All the Three Negatives here predi- 
 cated of the Father amount to This one. That He is abfblute- 
 ly of None: This is his peculiar Property, his diftinguilhing Cha- 
 rader, to be firji in order, and the Head of every thing 5 to 
 whom even the ^c;? and Holy-Ghoftare refer'd, but diverflyand 
 in different manner. 
 
 2 1 . The Son is of the Father alone 5 not made, nor created, but 
 begotten. 
 
 The Son is here faid to be of the Father alone, in contradi- 
 ftindion to the Holy-Ghoft, to be named after, who is not of 
 the Father alone, but oiEoth, The Greeks that ftruck out the words, 
 and of the Son, below, and left the word alone here, were not 
 aware of it. This Condud of Theirs betray 'd a Shortnefs of 
 Thought, and at the fame Time ferved to Ihow that the Lor- 
 tins had not been Interpolators of the Creed, but that the Creeks 
 had been Omailers. It muft however be own'd, that the Greeks 
 who drew up that Form which Biihop Vflser printed from 
 Junius, were wife enough to obferve how this Matter ftood j 
 and therefore ftruck out the word alone here, as well as and 
 of the Son below. 
 
 22. The Holy-Ghoft is of the Father^ and of the Son-, neither 
 made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceedings 
 
 The peculiar and diftinguilhing Charader of the Holy-Ghoft 
 is to -proceed, and to proceed both from Father and Son. Indeed, 
 the Son and Holy-Ghoft are Both of the Father, but in a dift'e- 
 re^jt manner, to us inex|)licablc 5 one by the way of Genera- 
 tion, the other by Vroceffion, tho' the word Proceffion, in a lax 
 Senfe, has been fomctimes applied to Either. However, to 
 proceed from the Father and the Son, or, as the Greeks will need- 
 lefsly cavil, from the Father h"^ the Son-, That is pccuhar to the 
 Holy-Ghoft, The Greeks and Latins have had many, and tedious 
 
 Bad the Cofiy run thus, utt' ihvo^ t^ . ste //^w jtojjjti^, iin x^Tiiig gcc. // would have 
 Hnfmr'd my meaning. Indeed, the firfl Greek Copy in Lubhcs Councils, and third m Mont- 
 faucon, run in fuch a ix>ay as I fupfofe : But thm I take them to have been patch' d up from 
 feveral diftma Copies, at the pleasure of the Editor, or Editen : Md mm of the Latin 
 Copies wli ivarram fmh a Reading. 
 
 Difputes 
 
141 A COMMENTARY on 
 
 Difputcs about the Vrocejjioji. One Thing is oblGi'vablc, that 
 tho' the Antie-fits^ appearj to by Both Patties, have often faid 
 that the Holy-Gholl proceeds from the i^athcTy without men- 
 tioning the Son, yet They never laid that He proceeded from the 
 Father alone j fo that tlie modern Greeks have certainly innovated 
 in 1 hat Article, in Exprejjion at leall, if not in real Senfc and 
 Meaning. As to the LMins, They have This to plead, that 
 none of the Antients ever condemn'd their Doctrine 5 that Ma,ny 
 of them have exprcfsly aflerted it 5 that the Oriental Churches 
 thcmfclves rather condemn their taking upon them to add any 
 thing to a Creed form'd in a general Council^ than the Boclr'me 
 it felf i that thofe Greek Churches that charge their Dodrine as 
 Herefy, yet are forced to admit much the fame Thing, only 
 in different Words 5 and that Scripture it Iclf is plain that the 
 Holy-Ghoft proceeds at leaft hj the Son, if not from Him 5 
 which yet amounts to the fame Thing. 
 
 I fhould here oblervc, that lomc time before the compiling 
 of This Creed, the ufual Catholick way of Ipcaking of the 
 Holy-Ghoft, was to fay, that He was nee genitus, nee ingenitus, 
 neither beqotten nor tmbegotten, while This Creed by barely deny- 
 ing Him to be begotten, feems to leave Room to think that He 
 is unbcrrotten. This railed a Scruple in the Minds of Some, here 
 in jE^^^/^W, concerning that part of the Creed, above 700 years 
 aa;o ; as we learn from Abbo Vloriacenfis of That Time. For 
 GrefTorys Synodic ca admitted here, as well as this Creed, had the 
 very ExprclTion concerning the Holy-Ghoft, nee ingenitus, nee 
 ^enitus. It might have been eafy to end the Difpute, only by 
 diftinguiihing upon the equivocal meaning of the word ingeni- 
 tus. It had been taken from the Greek, kyivy^rvii which ftgnihcd 
 not barely unbegotten, but abfolutely underiwd: in This Senfc 
 the Holy-Ghoft could not be faid to be ingenitus. But if it 
 barely means 7iot begotten, it may be applied to Him, as it is 
 in tiie Creed. The whole Diiliculty then arofe only from the 
 Scantinefs of the Latin Tongue, in not aftording a fmgle word 
 which Ihould fully exprefs the Greek, kyiw^ro^, unoriginate. In- 
 oeiiitus mii^ht tolerably do it ^ but the word was more com- 
 monly taken in a narrower Conftrudion. Feter Abelard has 
 ^^ hit 
 
the ATHANASIAN CREED, 145 
 
 hit off the whole Difficulty very clearly j whofe Words there- 
 fore I have thrown into the Margin \ 
 
 2^. So there is one Father, not Three F zithers; one Son, not Three- 
 Sons 5 one Holy-Ghofi, not Three Holj-Ghojis. 
 
 Whether This Paragraph be borrowed from St. Auftin, or 
 from an elder Writer under the Name of JgnMms, \ know 
 not. The Foundation of it was laid in i Cor. 8. 6. one God the 
 Father, and one Lord JefusChrift-, to which it was ufual to add, 
 after reciting it, and one Holy-Ghoft, to compleat the whole 
 number of the divine Perfons. The intent and purport of the 
 words, in This Creed, is to fet forth the Diftincfion of the 
 Three Perfons, and their feveral Offices, and Characters: That 
 there is one Father, and that He alone is umriginate, is Firft 
 Perfon, is Head, &c. and neither t\\c Son nor Holy-Ghofi 
 have any fhare in thcfe Titles, or Characters, to make Three 
 TJmriginates, Three Heads, &c. That there is one Son, and He 
 alone begotten, and afterwards incarnate, &c. which Chara£lers 
 and 0-ffices belong not to the other Two, but are dipnoi, and 
 appropriate to one. And there is one Holy-Ghofi , who^Q Chara&er 
 is to proceed, and whofe Office is to fan^ify, which Charader 
 and Office are not to be alcribed, in the fame Senfc, to the 
 other Two ; for That would be confounding the perional Cha- 
 raders and Offices, and making Three Holy-Ghofi s, inftead of 
 
 one. 
 
 24. And in This Trinity, none is afore or after other-, none 
 is greater or lefs than another ; h'M the whole Three Perfons are 
 coeternal together, and coequal. 
 
 ■^he Compiler of the Cv^ed now returns to the Equality and 
 Unity of the Perfons 5 that He may at length fum up and throw 
 into a ihort Compafs what He had faid upon the Trinity, before 
 He ihould pafs on to the other great Article, The Incarnation. 
 
 a Solum itaqiie Patrem ingen'itum dicimus, hoc eft, a feipfo non ab alio: unde Atigu- 
 Jl'iHUs adveiius Feliciannm AriaiKimj Patrem ingenttum clico,quia non pocsjjit ab altera. • 
 
 Aliud itaque dicere ell Patrem ingenitum, aliud non genitum f piritus vero landus 
 
 jpfe quoquc eH non genii i-.! ■- Nee taincn ideo eft inger.itus, cum ipfe ab alio ht, 
 
 tam a Patre Icilicet quam a Filio procedens. Solus itaque Pater tngenitits d\cnur, ficiit- 
 folus Filius genitur. Spiritus vero frmdus ncc genitus eft, nee ifigenilm, fed, ut didlum eft, 
 non genifHi. ^iaeUrii. introd. ad Thcolog. 1. s. ?■ ySj. 
 
 When-. 
 
144 ^ COMMENTART on 
 
 When it is faid, ?ione is afore or after others we are not to un- 
 derftand it of Ordcr-^ for the Father is Firft^ the Son Secotid^ and 
 the Holy-Ghoil T^md in Order. Neither arc we to undeiftaud 
 it of office J for the Father is jupren-ie in Oiftce, while the Son 
 and Holy-Ghoft condefcend to inferior Offices. But we are to 
 underfland it, as the Creed it felf explains it, of Duration^ and 
 of Dignity 5 in which refpecl, none is afore or after, none greater 
 or lejs, but the whole Three Perjom coeternal, and coequal. 
 
 2^. So that in all Things, as is afore jaid, the Unity in Trinity y 
 a'nd the Trinity iji Unity is to be -ivor^npped. 
 
 In all Things, {per omnia,) as is afore faid. One of the Greek 
 Copies tacks thefe words to the former Article, making them 
 run thus 5 coequal in all Things, as afore faid. Another Greek 
 Copy reads them thus, coequal in all Things: fo that in all 
 Thmgs, as is now faid, &c. Both interpret the all Things of 
 the Coequality in all Things. And indeed Venantius Fortuna- 
 tus in his Comment, long before, feems to have underflood, 
 per omnia, in the lame way, to fignify that the Son is what 
 the Father is, in all effential, or fubfantial Perfections. And 
 it is favoured both by what goes before and after : For from 
 fpeaking of the Coeternity and Coequality, the Author proceeds 
 to fay, fo that in all Things, as aforelaid, the Unity in Trinity, 
 a?id the Trinity i'n Unity ts to be ivor^np'd-, namely, on account of 
 their perfect Coeternity, and Coequality: to w^hich He fubjoins, 
 He therefore that -ivill he faved, 6<.c. Wherefore I inchnc to 
 the moderate Opinion of Thofe who think that the Author 
 here does not lay the ftrefs upon every little nicety of Ex- 
 plication before given, but upon the main Dodrine, of a Coe- 
 qual and Coeternal Trinity ^ 
 
 a Le Quien'i tngenuouu and hand [cm RcfleBion, upon the ConduH of Tope Gregory the 
 IXth's Legates, may deferve a recital here. 
 
 QuanH]uam oon pofTiim quin in:Tcnufc fatcar Nuncios Apoflolicos confultius fafturos 
 fuifle, fi ab ojufmodi Scntcntia pronimtianda fibi tcmperafl'ent; ^ui credit Spiritum San^ 
 cittm nen procedcre ex Filio, in via perditionis ejl: Tunc qiiirps Tempoiis Ecclcfia Catho- 
 lica in nulla Synodo Gcncrali hoc dc Capitc judicium dcfiniiorium tulerat. Panopl. contr. 
 Schifm. Grxcor. p. 360. 
 
 Wickliff'i Comment on this Paragraph, put into modern Engiifli, will not appear contem- 
 ptible: It is thus: 
 
 " And Jh -ae conclude here, as it is before faid, that there is both an Unity <>/ Godhead. 
 
 , z6. He 
 
the ATHANASIAK CREED. 145 
 
 26. He therefore that -will be favedj mufl thus think of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 Thus, asconfifting ofThreePerfons, fof/^^r;^/^/ and^<?(?^/^^/, and 
 all one God-^ diflincl enough to be Three ^ united enough to be One 5 
 diftind without Divilion, united without Confufion. 
 
 27. Furthermore^ it is necejpiry to everlafing Salvation, that He 
 alfo believe rightly * the Incarnation of our Lord Jefus Chrifi. 
 
 Much depends upon our having true and juft Sentiments of 
 x\\z Incarnation, in which the whole Oeconomy of our Salva- 
 tion is nearly concern'd. To corrupt and deprave This Doctrine, 
 is to defeat and fruftrate, in a great meafure, the Gofpel of 
 Chrift which bringeth Salvation : Wherefore it is of great Mo- 
 ment, of everlafting Concernment to us, not to be guilty of 
 doing it our felves, nor to take part with Thofe that do. 
 
 28. Tor, the right Faith ts, that we believe and confefs, that 
 our Lord Jefus Chrift, the Son of God, is God and Man. 
 
 There have been Hereticks who would not allow that our 
 Saviour Chrift was Man, but in fuch a Senfc as a Shadow, or 
 aPidure of a Man, may be called a Man: And there have been 
 others who would not allow that Chrift is God, but in fuch a 
 Senfe as any Creature whatever might be called, or may be 
 made a God. But all good Chriftians have ever abhorr'd thofe 
 vile Tenets, and conformably to Scripture, rightly and juftly 
 interpreted, have believed and confefs'd that Chrift is both 
 really God, and really Man, one God-man. 
 
 29. God^ of the Stibflance of the Father begotten before the 
 Worlds 5 and Man, of the Subflance of his Mother, born in the World. 
 V We are forced to bcvthus particular, and exprellive, in the 
 
 wording of this Article, becaufe of the many Wiles, Equivo- 
 cations, and Diiguifes of Thofe, who endeavor to corrupt the 
 Faith. The Arians make of Chrift a created Go^, and call Him 
 God on account only of his Ojfce, and not of his Nature, or 
 
 and a Trinity o/Perfonsi ««</ that the Trinity in This Unity is to be worfh'pp'd ahve 
 " all other things: ^nd whol'oevcr will be faved mufl: th.is thi^k ot the Trii.ityj if not 
 *' thus expliciiely (or in every puriicular) yet thus in the general, or im[>l:citely. 
 
 a '0^(Z<; vi^iurvi. So Bryling'j Greek Copy. The Latin Copies have, Fideliter credat. Some 
 Greek Copies read m-^Ji, or i^i^cCuc, iho' Two, befides Bryling'i, have alfo if%i. 
 
 T unchange- 
 
J4<2? ^ COMMENT ART on 
 
 unchangeable Siibftancc. For this rcafon, wc arc obliged to 
 be particular in exprclling his Suljla-ace, as being not fra>il^ 
 mutable, ferifmng, as the Subflancc of Creatures is, but eternal 
 and unchangeable, and all one with the P.ither's. On the other 
 Hand, the ApoUinarium and other Hereticks have pretended, either 
 that Chrilt liad no Human Body at all, or that He brought it 
 M irh Him from Heaven, and took it not of the Virgin-Mo- 
 ther : We are therefore forced to be particular in this Profef- 
 fion, that He was Man of the Suhfimce of his Mother : which, tho* 
 it be not taught in exprefs words, yet is very plainly the Scnic 
 and Meaning of Holy Scripture on this Article j and was ne- 
 ver queftion'd till, conceited Men came to pervert the true 
 Doftrinc of Sacred Writ, by fallc Gloffes and Comments of 
 their own. 
 
 3 o. Perfect God^ and per feci Man of a, reafouahle Sotd, and Hu- 
 man Fiefh fubjifting. 
 
 Here again, the Perverfenefs of Hereticks has made it necef- 
 fary to guard the Faith by ftrong and exprelTive Words that 
 cannot eafily be eluded. Chrift is perfeci Cod, not fucii a Tioml- 
 ?i(i>l imperfed God as Ariaits, and Phot'mians pretend. He is 
 moreover perfeci Aian, which it is nccellary to infill: upon 
 againrt the Apolli-nartans, who pretended that He had a Human 
 Body only without any R'ationaL Soul ; imagining the Logos to 
 have fupplied the Place of the rational, or reajonahle Soul : 
 whereas in reality He had both a Soul and Body, as all Men have, 
 and was therefore perfeci Aiait. 
 
 3 1. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead 't and Inferior 
 to the Father, as touching his Manhood. 
 
 Which needs no Comment. 
 
 32. who altho He be God and Man, yet He is. not Two, but one 
 chrift. 
 
 This is faid, to guard againO: Calumny and Mif-conftruLlion. 
 For, bccaul'(; the Church allertcd Tvo Natures in Chrill, where- 
 by He is both perfeci God, and perfect A4an, the Apollinarians, 
 having an Hypothelis of their own to fcrvc, pretended that 
 This was making 'Tvo chrift s, ;{ Divine chrift, as to one Nature, 
 and a Huri^an chrift in the other : Which was a vain Thought, 
 
 fuice 
 
the ATHAKASIAN CREED. 147 
 
 fince Both the Natures join'd in the one God-m;in^ make ftiil 
 but one Chrift, both God and Man. 
 
 33. O^ie, not by Con'verf.cn of the Codhe^.d into Flefh, but by 
 taking of the Manhood into Cod. 
 
 The Apollinarian way of making one chrifi by confounding 
 the two Natures in one, and by fubjcding the Godhead to 
 change, is here condemn'd. There is no need of running thefe 
 injudicious, and abfurd Lengths, for folving the Difficulty how 
 the two Natures make o/ie Chrijl : He did not change his divine 
 Nature, or convert it into Flefhy tiio' He be faid to have been 
 made F/efh 5 He took Flefh upon Him, He alllimed human Na- 
 ture, took Man into an Union with God, and thus was He 
 One chrifi. 
 
 34. One altogether^ not by Confufion of Subflance, but by Unity 
 of Perfon. 
 
 We are thus forc'd to diftinguilh, with the utmoft Nicety 
 and Accuracy, to obviate the Cavils, and Pretences of Hereticks. 
 Chrift then is one altogether, intirely one, tho' his two Natures 
 remain diflinB. He is not one by cmfounding, or mingling two 
 Natures or Subftances, into one Nature or Subftancej (as the 
 Apollinarians pretended) but by uniting them Both in one Perfon 5 
 one I, one He, one Chrift, as Scripture every where reprefents. 
 
 3 5 . For, as the reafonable Soul and Flefo is one Man j fo Cod 
 and Man is one ChriJl. 
 
 That is to fay, There are two very diftind, and different 
 Subftances in Man, a Body and a Soul; one material, the other 
 immaterial, one mortal, the other immortal -■> and Both thefe 
 ^ubftances, neverthelefs,^make up but one Man. Not by con- 
 founding or mingling thofe two different Subftances f for they are 
 intirely diflin6i, and differenty and will ever remain fo) but by 
 uniting them in one Perfon. Even fo, may the Two dif inct 
 Natures Divine and Human in Chrift, make one Perfon-, And 
 This is really and truly the Cafe in Fad. 
 
 3 6. who fujfered for our Sahation, defended into Hell, rofe 
 again the third day from the Bead, 
 
 The Author having finifh'd his Explication of the great Ar- 
 ticle of God incarnate , now goes on to other Parts of the 
 
 T 2 Creed, 
 
148 A COMMENTARY on 
 
 Creed, fuch as were commonly infcrtcd in the Creeds before. 
 The Article of The Dejcmt into Hell had not indeed, at This 
 Time, come into the ifow/j;^, other wi lb called the ^/>o/?iW Creed : 
 But it had been infcrted in the Creed of Ac^uilem, and had been 
 all along the (landing Dodrine of the Church. I fhall leave ir, 
 as our Church has left it, without any particular Interpretation^ 
 referring the Reader to Thofe who have commented on the 
 Apofiles Creed, and particularly to the much admired Author 
 of The H'tfiory of it, who hath exhaufted the Subject. 
 
 37. He ajcended into Hedven, He fitteth on the right Hand of 
 the Father J Cod Almighty, from whence He /ball come to jud^e the 
 ^luick a,nd the Bead. 
 
 Thefe are all fo many Articles of the Roman Creed, and 
 probably taken from it : excepting only, that the words, Cod 
 Almighty J appear not in the moft antient Manufcripts ; and, very 
 probably, were not originally in This Creed, any more than in 
 the antient Roman. 
 
 38. At -ivhofe Coming, all Men Jhall rife again -with their Bodies, 
 and fhall give account for their own Works. 
 
 Here are Two very expreflive Phrafes, All Men, All that ha\'e 
 died, or fhall die, to obviate the falfe Opinion of a partial Re- 
 furreclion ; and with their Bodies to obviate the Notion of thofe, 
 who either thought that the Soul only fhould continue for ever, 
 while the Body Ihould be left to perilli, or that the Refur- 
 reciion-Body Ihould be quite of another Matter, Form, or Kind, 
 than what our Bodies are here. I have hinted in my Lati?i 
 Notes above, that fome Words are wanting in the Ambrofian 
 Manufcript5 and I may here obferve farther, that in the words 
 of the Creed, as they commonly run, there is not all the Ac- 
 curacy that might have been : For All Men Ihall not rife, but 
 only All that die. However, it fcems that about that Time, 
 cliere was fome Variety of Sentiments in refped: of That Arti- 
 cle, as we may learn from Gmnadius * 5 which was owing to 
 
 a Omnium f^ominum crit Rerurreftio: Si omnium crir, ergo omncs moriuntur, 
 ut mors ab Ada.m ducta omnibus fihis ejus dominetur, & nuncat iliud privilegium in 
 Domino, quod dc eo fpccialirur dicitur: Kon ditbii San^nm tunm luiere Cpnuptiontm., 
 u -.. . — Hanc rationem raaxim3 patrum turba tradcntc furcepiraus. Vcrum quia funt & 
 
 . the 
 
the ATHANASIAN CREED. 14^ 
 
 the different Reading of i. Cor. 15. 51. f^oni wlience, pro- 
 bably, arolc fome Variation in the Copies of this Creed. See 
 Pearjbfi on the Apojiles, Creed. Artie. 7. 
 
 39. And They that have done Good ^ all go into Life everlajl-- 
 ing, and They that have done Evil into everUfling Tire. 
 
 This is the expreis Dodrine of Scripture, and appears almoft 
 in the fame Words, Joh.s-^^- MMt.z<>,.\6. to fay nothing 
 of many other Texts to the fame Effed. Yet This Article, or 
 rather thefe two Articles had not gain'd Admittance into the 
 Apofiles Creed fo early as the IVth Century, the latter of 'em 
 not at 4II. But, I fuppoie, the Opinion faid to have been flatted 
 by Origenj that wicked Men and even Devils, after a certain. 
 Revolution, Ihould have their Releafe and Reftoration, might 
 make it the more neceilary, or convenient at leaft, to infert 
 thefe Articles in the Creeds, and to exprefs the Punifhment of 
 the damn'd by the words eternal Tire: For the Origenifisy at 
 That Time, denied both the Eternity of the Tire, and alfo its 
 Reality, as appears from Orofius in St. Aujlin^. 
 
 40. This is the Catholick Taithj which except a Alan believe 
 faithfully^ J He cannot be faved. 
 
 This is to be underftood, like all other fuch general Pro^ 
 politions, with proper Referves, and qualifying Conftrudions, 
 As for Inftance, if after laying down a Syftem of Chriftian 
 Morality, it be faid, This is the chriflian PraBice, which excep 
 a Man faithfully ohferve and follow. He cannot be faved, it 
 would be no more than right, and juft thus to fay : But no 
 
 Aliitseque Catholic! & eruditi viri, qui credunt, anima in Corpore manente, miitandos ad 
 incorruptionem 8c immortalitatem Eos' qui in Adventii Domini njtvt inveniendi funt, 8c 
 Hoc eis reputari pro refurrecJione ex mortuis, quod niortalitatem immutatione deponant, 
 non morte; quolibet quis adquiefcat modo, non eft Hsreticus, niii ex contentione Hxis- ■ 
 ticus fiat. Sufficit enim in Ecclefiae Lege, Carnis Refurredlionem credere futuram dc - 
 morte. Gennad. Ecclef. Dogm. c. 7. 
 
 a Ignem fane aeternum, quo peccatores puniantur, neque efle Ignem xtrum, ne]ue <«• 
 ternum prsdicaverunt , dicentes diftum efle ignem proprias Confcientix punitionem, <• 
 ternum autem, juxta etymologiam Grsecam, non efle perpetHum, 8cc. Epift. O^ofiiad Aaguft; 
 inter ^ug. op. Tom, 8. p. 607. 
 
 b n«s»? THTivryf. So Brylin:;'^ Copy, vh'ich our Tranjlators followed. 
 
 The Latin Copies huve, fideliter, firmiterque crediderit. And the other Greek. Copta., 
 
150 ihe Reafovahleyicfs of Retainhig 
 
 one could be fuppofed hereby to cxcIiiJc any fuch merciful 
 Abatements, or Allowances, as fhall be made for Men's par- 
 ticular Circumdanccs, Wcakne'ics, Frailties, Ignorance, Inabi- 
 lity, or the Like J or for x\\zx. fmcere Inteniion:', and honefi 
 defires of knowing, and doing the whole will of God; accom- 
 panied with a generd Repentance of their Stns^ and a firm Re- 
 liance upon God's Mercy, through the fole Merits of Chrift 
 jefus. There can be no doubt, however, but that Men are 
 accountable for their Fmth, as well as for their Vr;i6lic: : And 
 efpecially if They take upon them to inftrud and dired 
 others, trufting to their own Strength and Parts, againft the 
 united Judgment and Verdid of -whole churches aatient and 
 modern. 
 
 CHAP. X(. 
 
 The Church of England vindicated, both as to the Re^ 
 ceivingy and Retaining the Athanafian Creed. 
 
 THERE would be no Occafion for this Chapter, had not 
 a late Author' of Name and Charader, out of his a- 
 bundant Zeal to promote Ari^nifm , taken upon Him to 
 difparage this excellent Form of Faith ; nay and to apply, 
 with fome earneftnefs, to The Governors of our Church, to get 
 it laid afide. He thinks, it m(iy -well deferve the mofi ferious 
 and deliberate Confident ion of the Governors of the Church, whe- 
 ther it would not be more advantaiious to the true interef of the 
 Chrifli(m Religion, to retain o?ily thofe more indifputable Forms ""y 
 that is, to have This wholly taken away, or at Icafl: not impofed 
 in our Articles, or Liturgy. Then He fubjoins his Reajons: 
 Which becaufe They may be prefumed to be the clofeft, and 
 ftrongcll: that can be offered on That Side, and becaufe They 
 have hitherto flood without any particular Confutation on one 
 Hand, or Retradation on the other, 1 (hall here take upon me 
 to anfwer them, as briefly as may be. 
 
 a CUxk^i Scrip. Dolir, Edit. ift. p. 446, 447. 
 
 . I. The 
 
the ArHAHASIAK CREED. iji 
 
 Objection. I. 
 
 The firft is, that This Creed is confejjed not to be Athana- 
 fiusV, hut the Compofition of fi>n uncertain ohfcure Author,, written in 
 one of the d^kefi and mofl ignorant Ages of the Church ; having 
 never appear' d till about the Tear Soo, nor been received in the 
 church till jo very late as about the Tear looo. 
 
 Answ. As to the falfe Fa^s contain'd in This Article, I need 
 only refer to the preceding Sheets. As to the Creed being 
 none oi Athanafiuss, which is certainly true, it is to be con- 
 fider'd, that our Church receives it not upon the Authority of 
 its Compiler, nor determines any thing about its Age, or Au- 
 thor : But We receive it becaufe the Truth of the Doctrines 
 contained in it, may be proved by mofl certmn warrants of Holy- 
 Scripture j as is exprefsly faid in our Vlllth Article. I may add,, 
 that the early and general Reception of this Creed by Greeks 
 and Latins, by all the Weflern Churches, not only before, but 
 fince the Reformation^ muft needs give it a much greater Autho- 
 rity and Weight than the fmgle Name of Athajtafius could do, 
 were it ever fo juftly to be let to it. Athanafius has left fome 
 Creeds and Confeilions, undoubtedly his, which yet never 
 have obtain'd the Efteem and Reputation that This hath done : 
 Becaufe none of them are really of the fame intrinfick Value, 
 nor capable of doing the like Service in the Chriftian Church- 
 es. The ufe of it is, to be a {landing Fence and Prefer- 
 vative againft the wiles and equivocations of mod kinds of 
 Hereticks. This was well underftood by Luther, when He 
 calh:d it, A Bulwark to thh Apoflles Creed ; "" much to the fame 
 purpofe with what has been above cited from Ludclphus SaxoJ° 
 And it was this and the like Confiderations that have all along 
 
 a Athanafii fcilicet Symbohm eft paulo prolixius, & ad confutandos ^rhnos Hsreticos, 
 
 aliquantouberius declarar, & illuftrat Articulum alterum de Dlvinitare Chnfti }efu ^ =■ 
 
 cftque Hoc vel'JtPropugnaculuip primi illius ^f^ojiolict Syrnboli. Luther, dc Trib. Symbo!, 
 Oper. Tom. Vll. p. i 58. 
 
 b Thus alo Alexander of Hales, i (o ysars before Ludclphus. 
 
 Caufa muitiplicationis 5)'w^o/^r»w fuit triplex; Injiruciio Fule'i.veritatis explanntio, error'ty, 
 
 txchifio.4 Rrroris cxci'ufio, propter Hserefes multiplices pulliilantes; caufa fiiit Sym' 
 
 boll Athm.%fit,(^\iO'i cautnur in Pr ma. ^lexmd. Ahnf. Part. 3. Q. 69.1Me.1-.br. 2. p-. 5"4I- 
 johan. Januenfis i» /.^jj Catlic'.icon; {A>i. ii'o6) under Syn\ho\nn-i,f'^y! (he fume Thing. 
 
 made. 
 
I j 1 The Reafonahlenefs of Reta'mwg 
 
 made it to be of fuch high Elkcm among all the Reformed 
 churches, from the Days of their great Leader. 
 
 Object. II. 
 
 The fccond reafon afllgn'd for laying this Form afidc, is, that it 
 is fo ivorded-, as that many of the common People cannot hut he 
 too apt to widerftand it irt a Senfe farvouring either Sabellianifm, 
 or Tritheilm. 
 
 A N s w. This Objection is not particularly level'd againft This 
 Creed, but againft all Creeds containing the Dodrineof a Coeter- 
 nal Trinity irt Unity : It is therefore an Objedion rather againft the 
 Taith of the Church, (which thofe Gentlemen endeavor conftant- 
 ly to run down, under the notion of SahelUanijm, or Tritheifm) 
 than againft This particular Form of Exprelling it. 
 
 I may further add, that the Common-People will be in no danger 
 of running cither into SaheUiamfm, or Tritheifm, if They at- 
 tend to the Creed it felf ('which fully obviates and confutes Both 
 thofe Herefies^ inftead of liftening to Thofe who firft induftri- 
 oufly labour to deceive them into a falfe Conftrudion of the 
 Creed, and then complain of the Common- People's being too apt 
 to mif undcrftand it. This is not ingenuous, nor upright deal- 
 ing with the Common People. 
 
 Object. III. 
 
 A Third reafon is, that there are in This Creed many Phrafes, 
 
 ■which may feem to give Unbelievers a needle fs Advantage 
 
 of oh Reeling aq^ainfl Religion •, a'nd among Believers themfelves, can- 
 not hut to the Vulgar have too much the appearance of Contra- 
 diciions : And fometimes ( efpecially the Damnatory Claufes) have 
 given offence to the pioufefl and mofl learned Men , infomuch as 
 to have been the principal Reafo-n of Mr. Chillingworth'i refufing 
 to fuhfcrihe the 3 9 Articles. 
 
 A NSW.* As to Unhelievers, :indthch OhjecJionSy the Church has 
 been always able, and willing to anfwer them ; forry at the fame 
 time to find, that Any, who call thcmfelvcs c/;r//?//i/;ii fhouldjoin 
 with the Unhel/evers'm the fame trifling Objcclions, thereby giving 
 the Unbelievers a very ncedlefs Advantage, and the moft perni- 
 cious 
 
the ATHANASIAK CREED, 155 
 
 cious Encouragement. As to vulgar Believers, they fufpect no 
 Contraai^ionSy till Some, who think themtelves above the Vt^lgm^ 
 labour to create fuch a Sulpicion in Them. Leave the Vdgw 
 to their better Guides, and their true Orthodox Paftors, with- 
 out endeavouring to corrupt or feduce them ; and then all will 
 be fafe, and eafy. 
 
 As to Mr. Chillingworth, He had for a while, 'tis owned, fomc 
 Scruples upon Him, about the Fourth Conimandment as appertain- 
 ing to Chrijlians, and about the Damnatory Claufcs in the Athana- 
 fian Creed ; and therefore refufed to fuhfcribe for a Time. This 
 was in the year 1635. But within Three years after, upon more 
 mature Confideration, He happily got over his Difficulties, and 
 fubfcribedj July the 20th, in the year 1638 ; as ftands upon re- 
 cord in the office of SaruMj where He was inftituted Chancellor 
 of the Church. * 
 
 Object. IV. 
 
 A Fourth reafon offered, not for laying a/ide this Creed, 
 I fuppofe, but for the Governors taking it into confideration, 
 is, that the Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer declares that par- 
 ticular Forms of Divine-Worfhip, and Rites and Ceremonies appointed 
 to be ufed therein, being Things in their oivn Nature indifferent and 
 alterable J may, upon the various exigency of Times and OccaJionSy 
 be changed or alter'd. 
 
 Answ. No doubt but the Church may, if it be thought proper 
 or expedient, throw out all the Creeds out of her daily Service, 
 or Articles, and retain one^ only in the Office of Baptifm , as 
 formerly. But, I fuppofe, the Aufliors of the Preface to the 
 Book of Common-Prayer, had no thought of excluding any of the 
 three Creeds among their alterable Forms of worlhip, or Rites 
 and Ceremonies : Nor will the revival of Arianifm be ever look'd 
 upon as one of thofe Exigencies of Times that iliall make it expedient 
 
 a Ego Gulielraus Chillingworth.Clericus.in Artibus Magifter, ad Cancellariatum Ecc'ie- 
 • fi3e Cathedralis Beatse iMaris Sarnm, una cum Pribenda de Brinworth, alias Bricklef- 
 worth, in Comitatu Northampton Petriburgenfis Dicecefeos in eadem Ecclefia fundata, 
 & eidcm Cancdiariatui annexa, admittendus & inftituendus, omnibus hifce Articulis, 8c 
 fingulis in eifdem contentis volens & ex animo fubrcribo,& confenfum meuai cifdem prs- 
 bcp, vicefimo die Julii. 1638. GulielmHs Chillingvcrth, 
 
 V to 
 
15 4 'The Reafonahlenefs of Retaining 
 
 to part with our Creeds 5 but, a rcafon rather for retaining them 
 the more firmly, or even for taking them in again, had any of 
 them ever been unhappily thrown out. 
 
 Object. V. 
 
 A furher reafon pleaded, is, that Scripture alone is fujficient -^ 
 that the Vrirnitive Chunh was very cautious about multiplying Creeds \ 
 that the Council of Ephefus for bad ^ under the penalty of an Anor- 
 thema, any other Creed after That of hlicc to be propofed^ or received 
 in the church. 
 
 A N s w. The whole deilgn and end of Creeds is to prefervc the 
 Ride ofFaithj as contain'd in the holy Scriptures^ and not in the 
 falfe gloflcs, and corrupt Inventions of Men. And when En- 
 deavors are ufed to poifon thofe Fountains of Truth, by ill Com- 
 mentSj and forc'd Conftrudions •■, Prefervatives muft be thought 
 on to keep the Fountain pure^ and the Faith found and whole. 
 
 As to the Vrirnitive Churches, their conftant way was to in- 
 large their Creeds in proportion to the Growth of Herefies j that 
 fo every Corruption ariiing to the Faith of Chriji.^ might ha\'e an 
 immediate Remedy : without which prudent and wife Caution, 
 The Faith would have been loll, in a little Time, through the 
 Wiles and Artifices of fubtle, intriguing Men. 
 
 The Council of Ephefus made no order againft new Creeds, that 
 is, Creeds flill more and more inlarged, if there Ihould be occa- 
 sion, but againft a new Faith {eTi^v tA^v) a Faith dtferent from 
 and repugnant to that of Nice, fuch as was offer'd by the Ne- 
 fiorians in That Council. This is the literal conftrudion, and 
 real intended \\\z'\\\\\\^i^ of That Decree of the Fphefine Council:* 
 Tho' had They intended it againft the receiving any other Form 
 but the Nicene j all that follows from it is, that They thought 
 no more neceft'ary at 77:7^/ Time^ or that Defitiitions in Councils 
 (as in the* Council of Chalcedon afterwards ) or Condemnation of 
 Heretical Tenets might fufiice , leaving the Baptifmal Creed 
 (all Creeds were fuch at That Tmic) juft as was before. How- 
 
 a W^.'ittfhiin. de ^Itimura (i.e. Le ^lien) Panopliam coQtra Schifra. Gric p. ajo, 
 I'iS. In Diflcrtat. DaiTjafcen, p. I4> qc. ■ 
 
 •" ever 
 
the ATUAUASIAN CREED. 155 
 
 ever, the Pradice of the Church afterwards, in multiplying Creeds 
 as need required, at the fame Time that They acknowledg'd the 
 Ephefine Council, fhows fully how they underftood it. Nay the 
 conltant Reception of the Conjlmttimpolit^n Creed (which is 
 the Nicene interpolated, and yet was never underftood to be ex- 
 cluded by the Ephefme Canonj fhews plainly the Senfe of the 
 Synod in That matter. It is to be noted, that the Ephefme 
 Council, by Nicene Creed, meant the Nicene ftridly fo called,* 
 and which had already been interpolated by the Cmfiantimpolitan 
 Council. 
 
 Object. VI, 
 
 Another Plea offer'd, is, that in the year 1689, many, 
 wife and good Prelates of our own ( commiilion'd to revievj 
 and correSi our Liturgy) unanimoujly agreed, that the ufe of the A- 
 thanafian Creed foould no longer be impofed. 
 
 A N s w. There may be reafon to queftion the Truth of this 
 Report. There are two Accounts which I have feen of This 
 matter; one of Dr. Nichols, the other of Dr. CaUmy which He 
 received of a Friend. Dr. Nichols s Account runs thus. " Atha- 
 " nafuss Creed being difliked by many, becaufe of the Dam- 
 ** natory Claufes, it was left to the Minijlers choice , either to 
 " ufe it, or to change it for the Apoflles Creed.^ Dr. Calamys 
 Account is thus : " About the Athanafmn Creed, They came 
 " at laft to this Conclufion : That left the wholly rejeding it 
 " fhould by unreafonable Perfons be imputed to them as Soci- 
 " nianifm, a Kubrick ihall be made, fetting forth, or declaring 
 *' 4lie Curfes denounced tlierein not to be rcftrain'd to every par- 
 " ticular Article, but intended againft Thofe that deny the fub- 
 " ftance of the Chriftiaii Religion in general. «= Now, from 
 thefe Two Accounts compared, it may be reafonableto believe 
 that thofe wife and good Prelates had once drawn up a Scheme 
 to be debated and canvafs'd, in which Scheme it was propofed 
 
 a Vid. Le Stuien: ibid. p. 250. & Differt. Damefcen, p. 18, 
 b Nicholfti Apparat, ad Defenf. Eccl. Angl. p. 9;-. 
 c Calamy'i Life 0/ Baxter. Vol. i. /). 45-5'. 
 
 V 2 to 
 
1^6 Tide ReafonalJenefs of 'Retaining 
 
 to leave every yl//;^//?^r at liberty with rcfped to the Athnneifian 
 Creed : But, upon more mature confideration, They cp.me at Ufl 
 to this conclufiouj to im'pofc the Creed as before, and to qua- 
 lify the Teeming Harlhnefs of the Damr/.itory Claufes by a foft- 
 ning Kubrick. They were therefore, at length unanimoufly agreed 
 flill to retain, and impofe This Creed ; quite contrary to the Ob- 
 jefiors Report. And indeed it muft have appear'd very Allo- 
 niihing in the eyes of all the Reformed Churches, Lutheran and 
 Calvinifi (who have the greateft Veneration for This Creed) to 
 have feen it wholly rejected by the Englifl) Clergy, when there 
 had been no precedent before of any one Church in Chriilcndom 
 that had done the like. All that ever received it, have conftantly 
 retain'd it and ftill retain it. It is further to be confidered, that what 
 Thole very worthy Prelates at that time intended, fprung from a 
 juft and becoming Tendernefs to the DiJJe',7ters, becaufe of their 
 lon2; Scruples againft the Damnatory Claufes. But there is not the 
 fame reafon at This Day : The wifer and more moderate Part 
 of the Diffenting Miniflers^ feem very well reconciled to the 
 'Damnatory Claufes, modejHy expounded j as Dr. Wallis particular- 
 ly has expounded them , jujlly and truly, as well as modefily. 
 And I am confident, the foberer Dijfenters would not, at this 
 Time, wi(h to fee fo excellent, and fo ufeful a Form of Faith 
 laid afide, only to fervc the Interefts of our new Arians. How- 
 ever, fincc the Damnatory Claufes were the main difficulty, a better 
 way might have been contriv'd than was then thought on ; name- 
 ly, to have preferved the whole Creed except thofe Claufes, which 
 are fcparablc from it. But the beft of all, as I humbly conceive, 
 is what has prevailed, and ftill obtains, to let it ftand as before ; 
 fince the Damnatory Claufes have been often and fufficiently 
 
 a Thti Creed by whtmfoever framed, hath been long received in the church, and hck'd on 
 MS agreeable to the Scriptures, and an excellent Explication of the chrtflan Fa:th. Conftanti- 
 noplc, Rome, and the Reformed Churches have owned it our pious and excellent 
 
 Mr. Baxter, in> his Method ofTheol. p. I 23, Speaks thus of it: •' />j award, the damnato- 
 " ry Sentences excepted, or modeflly expounded (fuch a modeft Explication of the Damna- 
 " tory Clau/cs fee in Dr. VVallts ^c.) I embrace the Creed commonly called AthanafiusV, at 
 " the bejl explication of the Trinity. And in Vol. II. of his works p. ij?. fays He, I un- 
 " feignedly account the DoHrine of the Trinity, the fum and kernel of the Chrijlian Religion, 
 " as exprefi'd in our Laptifm, and Athanafius'j Cre,:d, the bejl Explication of lit I ever rt^d. 
 Doflrioe Si the Trinity ftatcd &c. by fomt Loudon Miniftcrs. p. 61, 63. 
 
 vindi- 
 
the ATBANASIAN CREED. 157 
 
 vindicated by tlie reformed Churches abroad, * as well as by our 
 own here. 
 
 Object. VII. 
 
 It is pleaded farther, moflly in the words ofBilhop T^j//(9A',that 
 the Apofiles Creed is the Rule of Faith ^ that This only is necejf^ry 
 to Bdptilrn^ that what was once fujficient to bring Men to Heaven, 
 mujl be fo now j that there is no occafion for being fo minute 
 and particular in the matter of Creeds ; with more to the 
 like purpofe. 
 
 A N s \v. I . Dr. Taylor goes upon a falte fuppofition that the 
 Creed called the ApojHes was compiled by the Apoftles. 
 
 2. He has another 7^//^ prefumption, appearing all the way 
 in his reafonings on this Head, that the Apoftles Creed has been 
 always the /^?i^^ that it is now : whereas learned Men know that 
 it was not brought to its prefent Form till about the year 600, 
 is nothing elfe but the Baptifmal Creed of one particular Church, 
 the Church of Rome^ and deiignedly ^ort for the eafe of thofe 
 who were to repeat it at Baptifm. Now, when we are told 
 of the Apoftles Creed containing all that is necejjary to Salvation, 
 and no more than is necejfary ; we would gladly know whether 
 it be meant of the old fhort Roman Creed^ or of the prefent one 
 confiderably larger : And if They intend the old one, why Ap- 
 plication is not made to our Governors to lay the new one afide, 
 or to curtail, and reduce it to its primitive fizej by leaving out 
 
 a Tentzelius, n Lutheran, h "ver^ /mart upon this Head, againft the Arminians, for their 
 t^jeBing to the Damnatory Sentences. 
 
 Verum injuftc, atque impudenter accufant initium Symboli, quod pridem vindicarunt no- 
 ftrates Theologi: Dannhatoerus in Sty\o v'lnd'xce ^- 2O0. Huljemannus de Auxiliis Gratis 
 p. »i8' Kromciycrus in Theologia pofitivo polemica. p. 98, ^c^. & in Scrutinio Religionum 
 p. 205". aliique pafTim. Tentz^el. p. iio. To thefe which Tentzelius has mentioned, I may 
 Mdd David Pareus {a Calviniji) in his comment upon this Creed, puhlijli'd at the end of Ur- 
 finus*/ Catechifm. A, D. 16 54. ty Philip Pareus. 
 
 b The old Roman {or ApoftlesJ Creed was no more than This, as may be [sen inBifho^ 
 Ulher, de Symhol. p, 6. and 9. 
 
 «' I believe in God the Father Almighty : And in fefus Chrijl his only Son our Lord; who 
 «' was born of the Holy-Ghoft and the Virgin Mjiry ; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, 
 •» rofe again the third day from the dead, afcended into Heaven, fitteth at the right Hand of the 
 •' lather, from whence He pall come to judge the ^tick and Dead, And in jhe HolyChoJli 
 ♦ ' the Holy Church, the Kemijfion of Sim,' The refnrrciiion of the Body, Amen, 
 
 the 
 
1 J 8 The Reafonahlenefs of Retaining 
 
 the Relief, or Profcflion of'God's being Creator of Heaven and 
 Earthy and of Clirift's being dead, and of his Defcent into Helly 
 and of the Church being C7^//75//V/', an J of the commA.iion of Saint s, 
 and Life everLilling, as unneccilary Articles of Faith. For why 
 may not That fuffice noiv^ which was once fufficient ? or how can 
 any thing be necefary at This Day, that was not fo from the 
 Beginning? 
 
 3, To fet this whole matter right, it ought to be confider- 
 ed, that Creeds were never intended to contain, as it were, a 
 certain Quantity of Faiths as neceflary to bring Men to Heaven, 
 and no more than is necellary. Were This the Cafe, All 
 Creeds ought precifely to have confifted of an ec^ual number 
 of Articles, and the fame individual Articles : Whereas there are 
 no two Creeds any whereto be found which anfwer tofuch exad- 
 nefs. A plain Argument that the Church, in forming of Creeds, 
 early and late, went upon no fuch view, but upon quite a- 
 nother principle. The Defign of all was, to keep up as ftridly 
 as poilible the whole Compares, or Fahrick of the Chriftian Faith 
 as it ftands in Scripture : And if any Fart came to be attack'd, They 
 were then to bend all their Cares to fuccour and relieve That 
 Part, in order ftill to fecure the Whole. Some few of the main 
 Stamina, or chief Lines, were taken care of from the firft, and 
 made up the firft Creeds : particularly, the Doctrine of the Trini' 
 ty briefly hinted , and fcarce any thing more , becaufe the 
 Form of Baptifm led to it. As to other Articles, or larger Ex- 
 plications o'i This, They came in occaflonally, according as This 
 or That part of the Chriftian Faith feem'd moft to be endanger'd, 
 and to require prefent E^elief. And as This varied in feveral 
 Countries , or Churches (fome being more difturbed than others, 
 and fome with one kind of Herefy, others with another) fo 
 the Creeds likewife varied 5 fome infilling particularly upon This 
 Article, others upon That, as need required, and all ftill en- 
 deavouring to keep up and maintain one whole and intire 
 Syftem of the Chrillian Faith, according to the true and full 
 meaning of lacred Writ. There is nothing more in it than the 
 very nature and circumllance of the Thing neceflarily leads to. 
 I may illuHirate the cafe a little farther by an cafy parallel be- 
 tween 
 
the ATBAN ASIAN CREED. ,55, 
 
 tween matters of Faith, and matters of Practice, The fum of 
 Chriftian Pradice is contaiii'd in Two brief Rules, To love Gody 
 and to love one's Neighbour-, which comprehend all. No one 
 needs more than This 5 nor indeed can there be any thing more. 
 But then a perverfe Man may poflibly underftand by God, not 
 the true God, the God of Jews and Chriflians, but fome other 
 of his own devifing, or fuch as has been received by Pagans, or 
 Hereticks : And He may underftand by Neighbour one of his own 
 Country only, or Tribe, or Se^, or Family, WqW then, to ob- 
 viate any fuch method of undermining Chrijiian Practice, it will 
 be neceflary to be a little more particular than barely to lay 
 down in brief To love God, and ones Neighbour. We muft add, 
 The true God, the God of Jews and Chriftians, That very God 
 and none elfe : And as to Neighbour, we muft infift upon it, that 
 it means, not This or That Seci, Tribe, Party, &c. but all Man- 
 kind. And now our Rule of Pra^ice begins to extend and in- 
 large it felf beyond its primitive Simplicity ; but not without 
 reafon. To proceed a little farther 5 Miftakes, and perverfe Sen- 
 timents may arife in the interpreting the word Love, fo as there- 
 by to evacuate and fruftrate the Primary, and Fundamental Rule : 
 To corred and remove which, it may be neceflary ft ill farther 
 to inlarge the Rule of Practice, and to branch it out into many 
 other particulars -, which to mention would be needlefs. Now 
 if fuch a method as This will of courfe be neceflary to pre- 
 ferve the EJfentials of Practice', let it not be thought ftrange 
 vf the like has been made ufe of to preferve the EJfentials of 
 Faith. There is the fame Reafon, and the like Occaflon for Both :- 
 And if due care be taken in Both, to make all the Branches . 
 hang naturally upon the Primary and Fundamental Rules, and 
 to adopt no foreign ones, as belonging thereunto when they re- - 
 ally do not 5 then there is nothing in this whole Affair- but 
 a juft and prudent Care about what moft of all deferves it, and 
 fuch as will be indifpenfably required in every faithful Mini- 
 fter, or Steward of the Myfteries of God. To return to our 
 point in Hand : As more and more of the facred Truths, in • 
 procefs of Time, came to be oppofcd, or brought in Queftion 5 
 fo Creeds have been inlargcd in proportion 5 and a^ explicite 
 
 Pro- 
 
i^o Tfje Beafonahknefs of Retaining 
 
 Profcflion of more and more Articles required of cv^ery Candidate 
 -for Baptifm. And becaufe This was not fecurity fufficient, fmcc 
 many migiit forget, or not know, or not attend to wiiat They had 
 profcfs'd in their BaptUm (by Themfelvcs or by their Sureties ) 
 it was found highly expedient, and neceilary to inl'ert one or 
 more Creeds in the (landing, and daily Offices of the Church; 
 to remind people of That Faith which They had folemnly in- 
 gaged to maintain, and to guard the unwary againll the wily 
 Attempts of Hereticks to pervert Them. This is the plain and 
 true Account of Creeals, and of their ufe in the Chriftian Churches. 
 And therefore, if any Man would talk Senfc againfl: the ufeo^ 
 This, or That Creed in any Churchy He ought to ihow, either 
 that it contains fuch Truths as no Man ever did, or in all pro- 
 bability never will oppofe j (which will be a good Argument 
 to prove the Creed Juperjiuous) or that it contains Articles which 
 are ?iot true, or arc at beft doubtful ; which will be a good Ar- 
 gument to prove fuch a Creed hurtful. Now, as to the Athn- 
 nnfian Form, it will hardly be thought fuperflmusy fo long as 
 there arc any ArianSy Photmiam, Sabelliam-, Mdcedoma'tis^ Apol- 
 lin^rians, Nefioridns, or Eutjch'mns in this part of the World: 
 And as to its being hurtful^ That may then be proved when 
 it can be fhown that any of thofe foremention'd Herejies were 
 no Herefies, or have not been juftly condemn'd. 
 
 If it be pleaded, that the Vulgar, knowing little of any of thofe 
 Herejies, will therefore know as little of what the Of^^means ; 
 and fo to Them it- may be at lead dry and infipid, if not 
 wholly ufelefs: To This I anfwer ; that there are no kinds of 
 Hereticks but hope to make the Vulgar underftand their Tenets 
 refpctftively, and to draw them afide from the received Faith 
 of the Church : And therefore it behoves the Paftors of the 
 Church to- have a J}a>ndi7ig Form, to guard the People againft any 
 fuch Attempts. The /W(^;fr will underftand, in the general, and 
 as far as is ordinarily to Them nccedhry, the main Dodrines of a 
 Tri'/iity in unity, and of God iiicarrmte : And as to particular 
 Explications, whenever they havcoccafion to look farther, they 
 will find the true ones laid down in this Creed ; wl,iich will 
 be ufeful to prevent their being impofed -upon at any time 
 
 with 
 
th ATUAKASIAN CREED. itJi 
 
 with filfe ones. If They never have occafion to go farther 
 than generals, there is no Hurt done to Them by ahumlmt 
 Caution : If they have, here's a Diredion ready for them to 
 prevent Miftakes. It is not pretended tiiat all arc capable of 
 feeing through every nicety, or of perceiving the full Intent and 
 Aim of every part of This Form, and what it alludes to. Bur, 
 as many as are capable of being fet wrong in any one Brancli, 
 (by the fubtlety of SeducersJ are as capable of being kept right- 
 by This Rule given them : And They will as eafily underftand 
 one fide of the Queftion, as they will the other. The Chri- 
 ftian Churches throughout the World, ever fince the Multipli- 
 cation of HerefieSj have thought it neceflary to guard their 
 people by fome fuch Forms as thefe in Handing ufe amongft 
 them. The Orie?itd Churches, which receive not this Creed 
 into their Conftant Offices, yet more than fupply the want of 
 it, either by other the like Creeds,* or by their folemn ftated Pray- 
 ers in their Liturgies, wherein they cxprefs their FMth as fully, 
 and particularly ('or more fo^) as This Creed does : And They 
 are not fo much afraid of puz-ling and perplexing the Vulgar by 
 doing it, as They are of betraying, and expojing them to the 
 Attempts of Seducers, Ihould they not do it. For which reafon 
 alfo They frequently dired their Prayers to God the Son, as 
 well as to God the Father j being in That cafe more folicitous 
 than the L^tin Churches have been, becaufe They have been 
 oftner difturbed by Arians, and other Impugners of Chrift's Di- 
 ^inity.<^ v 
 
 Upon the whole, I look upon it as exceeding ufeful, and even 
 necejfary, for every Church to have fome fuch Form as This, or 
 fomething equivalent, open and common to all its Members; 
 that none may be led aftray for want of proper Caution, and 
 previous Inftrudion in what fo nearly concerns the whole Stru- 
 
 a See the Creed of the Armenians in Sn P. Ricaut. p. 411. Sec. 
 
 b See Ludolphus fl//?i?r. JEtkiopA. 5. c- f. and Renaudot'^ Orient. Liturg. pafllm. 
 
 c Nam cum omnes Orationes Latini Cunonis, ex vetuftiffima Traditione, ad Deum P<i- 
 /rew dirigantur; in Oriente plures ad Filium: Nempe, quia magis confliclata eft Arinno- 
 tum, 8c aliorum qui ejus Divinitatem impugnabant, contentionibus OrientaliSiquzm Qui- 
 dentalis Ecclefia. Renaitdot. de Oriental. Liturg. Vol. 1. p. 162- 
 
 X dure 
 
i6z The Reafonahlenefs of Retaining 
 
 (flure' and Fabrick of the Chriflian Faith. * As to This particu 
 Jar Form, it has lb long; prevailed, and has fo well aniwcr'd 
 the life intended, that, all Things confider'd, there can be no 
 fufficient realbn for changing ^ny part of it, much Ids for /^j/;^^ 
 the whole ^Jide. There are feveral other Creeds, very ijood ones, 
 ( xho fomcwhat larger) which, had They been made choice 
 of for common ufe, might polTibly have done as well. The 
 Creeds I mean (of which there is a great number) drawn 
 up after the Council of Chalccdon, and purpolely contriv'd to 
 obviate all the Herefies that ever had infelted the Chriilian 
 Church. But, Thofe that dillike This Creed, would much more 
 diflikc the other j as being ftill more particular^ and explicite 
 in regard to the Neflori^in, Eutychian^ and Monothelite Herefies, 
 and equally full and clear for the Dodrine of the Trinity. 
 
 To conclude ; fo long as there fhall be any Men left to op- 
 pofe the Doctrines which This Creed contains , fo long will it 
 be expedient J and even necejjary to continue the Ufe of it, in 
 order to preferve the reft : And, I fuppofe, when we have none 
 remaining to find fault with the Doctrines, there will be none 
 to objed againft the Ufe of the Creed, or fo much as to wiHi 
 to have it laid afide. 
 
 a To this purfofe (peaks Johannes Pappus, In the name of the Lutheran Churches, cons' 
 ment'ing on the Augsburg ConfeJJion» 
 
 Semper in Ecclefia fcriptorurn quorundam publicorum ufus fuit, quibus Doftrinx DI- 
 vinirus rcvelatae de certis Capitibus Summa comprehenderetur, & contra Haerericos, aliof- 
 que AJverfarios defenderetur. Talia fcripta, licet perbrcvia, funt SymboU ilia totius Ec- 
 clefiXi omnium Hcminum confenfu recepta, Apoflolicum, NicAnum, Athnnafianum. Jonn. 
 I'app. Comm. in ConfcfT. Augurt:. fol. i. 
 
 I take This upon the Credit o/Nic. Serarius, who quotes the fujfage from Pappus. Ser»f. 
 ia Sytiib. Atbanaf. p. 9, Tom. x. 
 
 ^i 
 
i<j5 
 
 An ATTENT>IX to Chapter the Third, which 
 treats of Antient Comments. 
 
 1 intimated above, p. 34, that FortunMuis Comment upon 57 o 
 the Athanaffin Creed, tho' before pubUIli'd, might dcferve 
 a fecond publication, and be made much more corred than it 
 appears in Muratoriuss 2d Tome of Anecdom : This gave me 
 the iirft Thought of fubjoinmg an Appendix to the foregoing 
 Sheets. But having withal received fome farther informations 
 relating to other Comments upon the fame Creed, lam willing 
 to impart them alfo to the Reader, at the fame Time. 
 
 The next intire Comment, after FortunatusSj is Brum'Sy as 1051 
 may be feen in the Table of Comments, p. 45. I have in 
 Pages 36th, and 37th, numbred up feveral manufcript Copies 
 of Brum's Comment : The doing of which will, I conceive, 
 be of This ufe, at lead, to the Publick, that the feveral Ma- 
 nufcripts hitherto concealed under general Titles, as anony- 
 mous Pieces, may be better known hereafter, and refcrr'd to 
 their proper Author. For which reafon alfo I think it worth 
 the mentioning, that fome other Copies of the fame Com- 
 ment may be added to the former, being in feveral Libraries 
 as here fpecified. 
 
 1. There is one in the Library of St. John Bapt'tjFs Colle^^c, 
 Oxonj N. 1874 of the OA;/or^ Catalogue, mark'dG. 42. Title, 
 Comment fbrius in Symbolimi Athanajii. By the be2;innin"^ and con- 
 cluding Words of That Commentary (a Tranfcript of which 
 Ijas been fent me by a \worthy Member of That Society) I am 
 well allured that it is Bruno s Comment. 
 
 2. In the Bodleian. Catal. N. 994. Laud. E. 71. Athmafii Sym- 
 holiim cum Glojjk. This alfo, as I am certified by a Learned 
 Gentleman who examin'd it, is Brum's Comment. The Title, 
 Fides Sm6ii Athanafd Epifcopi, 
 
 3. In ^^/io/ College. Catal. N. 210. mark'd B. 9. Athanafii 
 Symholum cum Comment ario-. Another Copy of Bruno's Com- 
 ment. 
 
 X 2 4. In 
 
1^4 A P P E K D E X. 
 
 4. Ill Merto'fi College (Catal. N. 675 208. j S',mholum 
 
 Ath,%a(ijii cum Glojfa, This alfo is Bruno's Comaicnt, and may 
 be rcckon'd amoiiii; the more antient Copies of it. 
 
 There are, very probably, Ibveral other Copies of Bnmo\ Com- 
 ment in our Libraries here in England ( as I judge from the 
 Oxford Catalogue) under the like general Titles with thofe a- 
 bove 5 or perhaps among the Pfa,ltcria glofjata. But I con- 
 tente my felf at prcfent with Thofe already mention'd ; not 
 having Leifure or Opportunity to make further hiquiries. 
 2220 As to the other Comments below Bruno s^ I have nothing 
 farther to add till I come to Alexander Neckh.%m\. I mention a 
 Comment of his in the 3 9th Page above. I refcrr'd to a ma- 
 nufcript Copy of it in the Bodleian. E. 7. 8. Oxon. Catal. N. 
 2339. There is Another Copy of the fame Comment, in the 
 Bodleian alio. E. 6. 11. N. 2330. The Title of the Comment 
 is Expofitio Fidel Catholics a Afagljiro Alexandra edlcia. This 
 Copy is thought to be about 50 years later than the former. 
 It may be of ufe to note down the firft words ^ of the Coryi- 
 me}2t, that if there be any other anonymous Copies of the fame, 
 it may be known, by comparing, to what Author they be- 
 long. I Ihould take notice that E. 7. 8. makes about 10 Leaves 
 in Follo^ with double Columns in each page. E. 6. 11 makes 
 4 Leaves in fUlo, with three Columns in every page, and in a 
 linaller Hand than the other. From hence fome judgment may 
 be made of the Size, or Length of the Comment : The Cha- 
 racler in Both is fmall, and full of Abbreviations; fo that one 
 may imagine the Comment to be a pretty large one. 
 ^330 I fnall next take notice of Another Comment, a printed One, 
 which before cfcapcd me. It is of the famous Alexander Hales, 
 in his Third Part of his Summa^ under Qiixlh 69. After treat- 
 ing on the Apoftles and Nlcene Creeds, He comes to the Atha- 
 najianj upon which He raifes feveral Queftions and Doubts, as 
 He goes through it, and anfwers them all- along in the Scho- 
 lalUck way,, referring fometimcs to the elder Writers, and par- 
 ticularly to St. yltijlln, to whom He attributes Gennadiuss Trea- 
 
 a Hxc eft enim Viifloria cjux viacit mundum, Fides noftra. Signantcr dicit vuU, ic 
 ?ion dicit c^uicu/ique /alvut erit.. 
 
 tifc 
 
APPENDIX. ,<jj 
 
 tife (le Ecclefiajlicis DogmMibtis, according to the Error of That 
 Time 5 But I proceed. 
 
 I took notice above (^ p. 39) of a LMif^ Comment afcribed i34^ 
 to Richard Hampole . I intimated (p.44jrome Doubts Iliad concern- 
 hig the Author of That Comment j having reafon to believe 
 that the three Copies mentioned by Tentzelius are nothing elfe 
 but fo many Copies of that very Comment which partes under 
 the name of Hampole: And yet one of 'em is judged to be above. 
 500 years older* than 1686, which is 150 years before Ha?n- 
 poles Days. It is poillble that Jodchim FellcmSy the Compiler 
 of the Catalogue of the Leipfick Library, might miftake in judg- 
 ing of the Age of the Manufcript : But it appears much more 
 probable that the Editors of That Comment were miftaken in 
 afcribing it to Hampole. However That be, I would here ob- 
 ferve, that there is in Ma,gd(ilen College, in Oxford, a Com- 
 ment intituled Expofitio in Sjmboltim Athandfianum per Jami^ 
 
 enfem (N. Catal. 2256.- ■ 115 j which is no other than 
 
 This very Comment that partes in the Prints under the name 
 of Fdch. Hampole, The Catalogue's afcribing it to Jfinuenfisy was 
 owing, I fuppofe, to an occafional PaflTage, in that Manu- 
 fcript, relating to the Athanafmn Creed, cited from Joham- 
 ?ie$ Januenfiss Catholicon, or Didionary , under the word 
 Symboltim. The Comment however, I fay, is the fame with 
 that which partes for Hampole's, as may plainly appear from the 
 Beginning of it, which I have tranfcrib'd into the margin j '^ only 
 filling up an OmiJJion in it, occafion'd, as is very common, by 
 
 a Tentzelius fer'itei thus. 
 
 C^portune ad manus meas pervenft Refponfio Ampl. Tellerl, qua ntionem Codicis la- 
 tini Lipfienfis in Prsfatione a me citati prolixius expofuit. Ait cnim, membranaceura 
 iftum Codicem ante CCCCC annos & ultra, eleganter fcriptum videri; additas etiam eflc 
 non interlineares tantum notas, fed & marginales utrinque; in dextro videlicet & finijlro 
 paginarum latere: Rniricam autem Symboli noftri ita fe habere j Tides ^naftafii Paps. In 
 dtxtro primae paginse haec Icgt verba : iiic ratio Fidei Catholia traditur in veterii/us Cods- 
 cibns, &: reliqua, quae antea ex IVIS Bibliothecas Ducalis attuii. Unde patet, eafdem plane 
 Gloflas in utroque Codice reperirij prssfertira quum in Sinijiro alterius margine, haec 
 etiam verba legi referat Fillerus: Htc beatus ^nafiafi:is hberum arbitrtHtn pofuit See. 
 Tentzel. p, U)-. 
 
 b Haec ratio Fidei Catholicae traditur etiam in veteribus Codicibus a Beato ^tham/io , 
 Mexandrino confcripta. Et puto, quod idcirco tarn piano 8c brevi Sermone tradita fir, 
 lit omnibiis Catkolicis, & minus eruditis, Tutamcn Defenfionis prseftaret adverfus illam 
 
 the. ~^ 
 
t66 APPENDIX, 
 
 the repetition of tiic fame word. Thtic may be a f'ood ufc 
 made of That Manufcript in Alagd^len College, for correcting 
 the printed Copy, which is very faulty, both in ivords, and 
 order. The Comment ought to begin as it begins in That 
 Manufcript J and not with the word;). Hie hcntus Ath^nafius^ as 
 in the Prints. The Editors did not undcrf and , or did 
 not confider, the nature and compofition of 7 hat Comment. 
 The Author, whoever He was, had made Two Columns, 
 one on each hand, with the Athmiafian Creed in the middle. 
 On the Left-handy which is the firft place. He fet Bruno'sQavn- 
 ment, and on the Right-h.ind, in the other Column, He car- 
 ried down another Comment, either of his own, or borrowed. 
 The firfl Note on the Right-hand was plainly defign'd for an 
 introdudion to the reft, and therefore ought to be fet firft; 
 tho* the Editors, confidering only the pofition of the Notes, 
 began from the Left-hand^ with the firft words of Brum's Com- 
 ment. The Oxford Copy obferves the true natural Order, 
 and may very probably be of good ufe all the way through, 
 for the better digefting and methodizing that Comment, or 
 Comments, being in reality Two Comments mix'd and blend- 
 ed together. 
 
 I ftiould obferve of the Oxford Copy, that after the Com- 
 ment there is in the fapie Hand, This Note : H.u confcriptafunt 
 a quodam antique Libro. Poftibly, This may be of ibme ufe 
 for the determining whether that Comment be really HampoU'sy 
 or no. For, if the Manufcript be not much later than 141 5 
 (it muft be fo late, fince it fixes That very Date to Dr. Uller- 
 (Ions Expofition of the Six Pfahns) it may be probably argued 
 that any thing of Hampoles^ who flourifhed but about 80 years 
 before, would not have been called antiquus Liber, an antient 
 Book. But This 1 leave to farther inquiries, not infifting upon 
 it, fince the Argument is but probable at the beft ; and 1 do not 
 know but the Manufcript may be feveral years later than 141 5> 
 
 Tempcftatem [^quam contrarius vcntus, hoc eft, Diabolus, excitavit per ^rrium; quam 
 Tempeftatem] qui fugerc dcilJcrar, hinc Fidci unitatcm (al. verit^tern) intcgram & invi- 
 olabilcm tcnear. Ira cniin incipit ipfuni opufculum, diccns, ^Mcun^ue vult falvut &c. 
 Hie beatus Atkana/ius liberum arbitrium pofuit. (^c. 
 
 tho' 
 
 ) 
 
APPENDIX. 16 J 
 
 tho* hardly later than the middle of that Century. XJllerfion is 
 undoubtedly the lateft Author in That Colledion. Vetrus Flo- 
 riljienjisy or /'/d)r^^V;?//V(otherwile called Petrus de Rarentds) wrote 
 in 1 3 74 : ^ Jmuienfis^ Gorrhmn, Lyra^ and Hampole are all older 
 than He: The laft therefore is Utlerfton, who was probably ftill 
 living when that Manufcript was written. But enough of This. 
 
 There remains one Comment more to be Ipokcn to, and 1380 
 That is the Comment which I have afcribed to Wickliff^ above 
 p. 39. r before took notice oi three manufcript Copies of it: 
 To which 1 would now add a Fourth, which is in the Bodleian 
 (N. 66 8. Laud. C. 16. J under the general Title of^ Glofs upon 
 ^icmzque vtdt. I have nothing further to obferve concerning 
 it but This, that whereas I had before a Sufpicion that This 
 Comment might be Hampole's, being annex'd fomctimes to 
 Hampole's EnglKh Comment (iry on the Pfdlms and Hymns, I am 
 now the lefs inclinable to fulped it, having feen, in Sidney Col- 
 lege in Cambridge, a very old Copy of Hampole's Commentary, 
 which runs through the Pfdms, and all the common Hymns 
 and CanticleSj but has not this Comment on the Creed in it 5 
 tho' the Manufcript appears to be very whole and intire, and 
 no Leaves, or Leaf cut out. This confirms me the more in 
 my firft Thought, that the Comment is really Wickliff^s. 
 
 I have a few things to add about FortunMuss Comment, 
 which is to fhut up the Appendix, and for the fake of which chief- 
 ly the Appendix hath been added. 
 
 I have made frequent ufe of it in the preceding Sheets : And 
 now my defign, in reprinting it, is to let the Reader fee what 
 th^ Comment is which \ fo frequently refer to ; that To He - 
 may judge for Himfelf whether it really be what I fuppofc, 
 and I think, with good reafon, A Comment of the 6th Cen- 
 tury, and juftly afcribed to Fortunatus. I have endeavour'd to 
 make it as corred as poflible, by fuch Helps as I could any where 
 procure j which are as follow. 
 
 I. The printed Copy of it, publifh'd by Muratorim from a 
 Manufcript of the Amhrofmn Library, about 600 years old. 
 
 a See Oudin. Tom, 3. p. \x\%. 
 
 % > A, 
 
i6S APPENDIX, 
 
 2. A manufcript Copy from Oxford, fonnd among Francifcui 
 Junius' sMSS J which appears, by the C/7/jr^:7^r, to be above 700 
 years old, or near 800. As it is older than Muratorius\, To is it 
 alfo more faithful ; and tho' it has a great many Faults both in 
 the Orthography, and Synteix, owmg either to the Ignorance of 
 the Age, or of the Co^ift, yet it does not appear to have been 
 interpolated, hke the other, or to have been induftrioully al- 
 tered in any part. 
 
 3 Befides thofe Two Copies of the intirc Comment, I have 
 had fome Afllftance from fuch Parcels of it as are to be met 
 with in Writers that have borrowed from it. Bruno's Com- 
 ment furnifhes us with fome parts which He had taken in- 
 to his own. But there is, among the Suppofititious Works 
 afcribed to St Aujlin, a Treatife intituled Sermo de Symbolo,* 
 which has feveral fcatter'd Fragments of this very Comment in 
 it. The whole Treatife is a Farrago, or Collection from feveral 
 other Writers ; as Ruffinus, dejarius. Pope Gregory i . and Ivo 
 Carnotetifis. By the lall mentioned , one may be allured that 
 The Collection is not older than the Clofe of the Xlth Centu- 
 ry j it may be later. It will be ferviceable however, fo far as it goes, 
 for rertoring the true readings where our Copies arc corrupt 5 
 which is the ufc I make of it. 
 
 In my 3 4th Page, above, I threw in a Remark about Pareuss 
 quoting a part of Fortunatuss Comment under the name of Eu- 
 phronius Presbyter, which I wonder'd at. I fhould obferve to the 
 Reader, that thofe words of Pareus are not in the older Edi- 
 tion of his Comment A. D. 1627, but in the later one of 
 1634. and was probably not thought on by David Pareus the 
 Father, but added by Philip Parens the Son. But I am ftill at a 
 lofs to know whence He had it, and who is meant by Euphro- 
 nius Presbyter. Fortunatus had fome intimacy with Euphronius, 
 Bifhop of 'TourSy of that Time. Whether his name appearing 
 among the manuicript Copies of Fortunatuss pieces might occa- 
 fion fuch a Miftake, I know not. I may obferve that Bruno's 
 Comment has the very fame paflage in it, only under a difFe- 
 
 a Atigiijiin. Oper. Tom. 6. in Appendicc. p. 178. Ed. Bencd. 
 
 rent 
 
 ? 
 
APPENDIX. 10'^ 
 
 rent Order of the words : But neither will this help m to ac- 
 count for its being cited under the name of Euphromns Presbyter, 
 which has no fimilitude with the name of Brum, who was Bi- 
 fhop of Wurtzhurg. But to return to our Comment. 
 
 This Comment of Forturmttis^y if of no other ufe, will at 
 lead be valuable for its Age, and as bearing Teftimony to the 
 Antiqmtyj and early Reception of the Creed. We have no o- 
 ther Comment upon That Creed till near 300 years after, in 
 the Time of Hincmdr: And his is rather a Paraphrafe than a 
 Comment ; and not upon the intire Creed, nor digefted into 
 any juft and regular order, but only fcatter'd Hints, here and 
 there, upon fome parts of the Creed as He had occalion to 
 cite Them. Now I am mentioning Hincm^r, I may cite one 
 paflage from Him upon a part of the Creed, which may Teem 
 to want explication as much as any, and which I have fpent 
 fome Thoughts upon in Page 144. The words are^ very ap- 
 poiite to the purpofe, and the more valuable asihowing how 
 that part of the Creed was underftoodfo long agoe as 900 years 
 upwardsj or nearly. 
 
 Nothing now remains but to lay before the learned Reader 
 Fortunatus's Comment in its native Language, and therewith 
 to clofe up our Inquiries concerning the Athmafim Creed. 
 
 The Various Le5iionSy all that are properly fuch, are carefully 
 noted at the Bottom of the Page 5 that fo the Reader may judge 
 whether the Text be what it fhould be, or corred it, if it ap- 
 pears otherwife. But I Ihould hint, that there are feveral little 
 Variations in the av/^r^yManufcript, which I take no notice of, 
 as not being properly Various Legions. 
 
 I. ^MciSx's&zizm^rzXy Orthographical: As a permutation of Let- 
 ters 5 ufing d for t, in capud and reliquid, for caput and reliquit ; e for 
 iy in Trea for Tria j and / for e, in calit for calet, and the like : 
 for u in fervoUs, p for b in optenit for obtinet j v confonant 
 
 a F.t in hac Trinitate nihil eft prius, nihil pofterius; nihil majus, aut minus j fed totJC 
 tres perfonas coaeternae fibi funt 8c cosqualcs: ita ut per omnia & unitas Deiratis in Tri- 
 nitate Perfonarum, 8c Trinitas Perfonarum in unitate Deitatis veneranda eft. H'mcm. de 
 non Trin. Deit. Tom. !. p. ^40. 
 
 Y for K 
 
,70 APPENDIX. 
 
 for b, ill edarrnvh for ena^rmhit ; the' fuch as this lad: is might be 
 noted among Various LeclionSj in cafes more difputablc. 
 
 To This Head may be referred fome antique, and now ob- 
 folcte Spelliniz.s: inmenjus ioi immenfus^inmortdiisio^ immortalis, 
 tnlefus for ilhtfiis^ conlocdvit for colloc^vit, dbtojcittir for dignojci- 
 tur, and the like. 
 
 2. Act ive Terminations oiNcxhsyioiPiiJJive \ ^s fi?iire io^ finiri^ 
 cogitare for cogitari ; tho' thefe may be referr'd to the former 
 Head, being only changing the letter / for the letter e. Bomifiat- 
 for domirmtur I take notice of among the Various Leciio?is. 
 
 3 . Faults in the Formatiofi' of Verbs ; As abfiuUret for tolle- 
 rct, "jivendos for vivc/ites -■, to which may be added mor-Jit^ for 
 mormrdit, having been long out of ufe. 
 
 4. Manifefi Faults in Concord : As humani CarntSy for humm- 
 Tjar, eodem CaptivitAtCj for ecidem. But where there can be any 
 doubt of the Conftrudion, I mark fuch among the Various Le- 
 £iions, leaving the Reader to judge of them. 
 
 Thefc and other the like Niceties are generally neglecled in 
 Editions of Authors; it being both needlefs, and endlefs to 
 note them. But I was willing to hint fomething of them in 
 this place, becaufe They may be of ufe to Scholars for the 
 making a judgment of the value of a Manufcript ; and fome- 
 times of the Tmic^ or Vlace ; as alfo of the manner how a Copy- 
 was taken, whether by the Ear or by the Eye^ from word 
 of Mouth, or meerly from a Writing laid before the Copift. 
 Befides that if we can diftinguifh in the prefent Cafe, as per- 
 haps a good Critick may, the Particularities of the Author from 
 tliofe of his Tranfcribers ; They may poflibly afford fome ad- 
 ditional Argument for the afcertaining the Author of the. 
 Comment. 
 
 Expo- 
 
ATTEN'DIX. 171 
 
 ExpofitioFlDEI CATHOLIC2S Scriptaannc 
 
 *^ circiter 5-70. 
 
 FORTUNATr. 
 
 QuicuNQjUE vu/t falviis effe ,^ ante omnia opus efl 
 ut teneat Cathollcam Fidem : ^am niji quifque in^ 
 tegram, inviolatamque fervaverh, abjque dubio in aternum 
 peribit ^ 
 
 Fides dicitur Credulitas, five Credentia.'^ \_Primo ergo omnmm Fides ne- 
 cejjaria efi^ Jicut ^foflolica docet attUoritas diccns', fine Fide impodibile eft 
 placere Deo. Conjiat enim mmimm ad vtram pervenire pojfe BeAtitudinemy 
 nifi Deo flaceati ^ Deo nemimm p'accre p"jf€-> ^'ifi per Fidem. fides Kam^ 
 que efl Bomrum omnium Fundament urn, Fidts hamdnd faint ts iniUHm, Sine 
 hac nemo ad Filiorum Dei potefl Cof'fjrtium pervenire i quia Jine ipfa nee in 
 hoc fectdo quifquam Juflificationis conjequitur Grattam , nee in fnturo vitam 
 pojjidebit tternam. Et Ji quis heic non ambui'Vcrit per fidem, non perveniet 
 ad Speciem beatam Domini mftri Jeju Chrifli'^ ~\ Carholica unive'ia'is di- 
 citur, id eft, refta, quam Ecclefia univir'a^ tenere debet. Ecclefiss dici- 
 tur Congregatio ChrifHanorum, five conventu* Pcpulo. um. \_Non emm^ 
 fcut Conventimla H^reticorum-, in aliquibus Regionum partibm <:oar£iaturf fed 
 per totam terrarum Orbem diLitata diffunditHr ^. ] 
 
 a Ita fc habet TituUis in Codice Muratonl. Aliter in Oxonienfi. viz. "Expofitio in Tide 
 CctthoUca: pro in lulem Catholkam, ex corrupta loquendi ratione apud Scriptores Gratis 
 mediae. 
 
 b Ejfe fJvus. Cod. Murat. 
 
 c Pofterior hic Symboli Claufula , incipiens a ^uam nifi, non habetur in Cod. 
 OxdTiienfi. 
 
 d Ita Cod. Oxon, prima ha:c pericope deeft in Murator. Conf. Tirun. in Symb. 
 
 e. Q.u£e uncinulis includuntur, non comparent in MS Oxonienfi. Nee enim Fortunati 
 videntur efle, itd Alcuini potius; apud Quern eadera fere verbatim leguntur. ( De F d. 
 Trin. 1. I. c t, p. jey-) Alcuinus vero maximam partem mutuatus eft a Fulgcutio. 
 ( de Fid. ad Petrum. Piolog. p. 500. ed. Parif. ) Sed varia Exemplaria varie Senreiitiam 
 claudunt. Fulgentius Icgit, non perveniet ad fpectem; nee quicquam ultra. Alcuinus, non 
 perveniet ad fpectem beat& vificnis Domini nojlri fefn Chriftt. Ab utrifque ab»t Le(5lio 
 Muratorii. 
 
 f Univerfa Ecclefia. Cod. Mur- & Brunonis. 
 
 g Cod. Muratorii habet quippe, poft Ecclefia: quam voculam, utpote ineptam, faltera 
 otiofam, expunximus, Fide Cod. Oxonienfis. Conf. Brunon. in hoc loco. 
 
 h Uncis hie inclufa non habentur in Codice oxonienfi. Verba nimirum funt, non 
 Tortunati, fed Ijidori Hi/pal: Orig. 1. 8. c. i. Alio proinde Charaftere imprimenda cu- 
 ravimus. 
 
 Y z Vt 
 
172. J T T E N T> 1 X. 
 
 \)l nnmn T)eum m Trhiitate, & Trmitatem in unitate 
 Teneremur : Jit cieJamus, &- colamus, &: confitean-iur [Trinitatem inpcrfo. 
 '.isy XJnitMcm in fuhflam'tn. Hanc quojue Trinitatem pirjonarutn, at que Hmtattm 
 u,itHr<£ Piophcta HA.s rcvclatam jil/t non tAcmt^ cuo-i fe duit ^ir.ij.him vi' 
 (lijfe clamant la^ Srndiis, Sandu^, Sanftus, Dorainus Deus habaotli. Zbi 
 prorfus in co cjmd dicitw tiriio Sanc^us, ptrjonar^im Trinitatem ; in eo vcro 
 quod jemel dmryms Dominus Dcus Sabaoth, divmd nature cornojcimtti nni- 
 tdttm ^ .] 
 
 Neqiie couftindentes perfonas : Ut Sabellius eirat, qui IpfLim 
 dicit efle Patrem in Perlona cjucm & Filiunn, ififum bi Sp ritum Sanctum. 
 Non eigo conrurdcntes Perfonas, quia ties omnino petT nae funti'. Hit 
 enim giqners, gcnitu , & '^ procedcn?. Gignem eft Pater, qui gcnuit Fi- 
 lium; Fiiius e(l genittts, quem genuit Pater; Spiritus Sandus efl proce* 
 dens, quia a Patre & F^lio pioccdit. Pater & Fiiius coseterni (ibi funr 
 & ccsequales; & coopcnnorts, ficut fcriptum efl:: verbo Domini C<tli fir- 
 man ^ funty id eft, a Filio Dei creati, Spiritu ^ oris ejusy omnis virtus eo- 
 rum. Ubi fub fingulari numero, Spiritus ^ ejus dicit §, [unitatcm fub- 
 ftanrias dcitatis oftendit;ubi fub plu'-.ili numero, omnis virtus eorum dicit^,J 
 Trinitatem pcrfonarum apertc demonftrat, quia tres unum /unt, ^ ur.um 
 tres. 
 
 Neqiie fubjlantiam fepar antes : Ut Anus garrit, qui ficut tres 
 perfonas efle dicit, lie & tres fubftantias efle mentitur". Filium dicit 
 minorcm quam Partem, & creatiiram efle; Spiritum fanftum adhuc 
 minorem quam Filium , & Patri & Filio eum eflt Adminiftratorcm 
 
 a Qux uncis comprehcnfa hie iegere c(l, non coniparent in Codice Oxonieafi. Verba 
 fuiic AlcHtni (de Trin. 1. i.e. 3. p. 7C9. ) in quo eadem plane, fimilique online inve- 
 nias. Sunt porro eadem, uno vocabulo dcmpto, apud Tidgentium (de Fid. ad Pctrum. 
 p. SOX.) ordine ctiam tantum non codem. Verba autcm ilia introduftoriai {v'\z Tri- 
 nitatem in perfonis , ttnitatem in fnbjlantia) non leguntur in Fiilgentio, ncc quidem in 
 Alcnino. Interpolator ipfe, uti videtur, ex proprio ilia penu dcprompta prxmiiit cxtc- 
 ris, Connexionis forte aliqualis confervands; gratia. 
 
 b Tres Pcrfonae omnino funt. Murat. 
 
 c Deed (^ in Cod. Oxon. 
 
 d Formati Cod. Oxon. Vid. Symb. D/tw/j/; di£ium (ap\id Hieronym- Tom. $. p. izi ) 
 •jndc hjec Nojler, mutatis mutandis, deiunipdflc videtur. 
 
 e Spiritus. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 f Leg. Spiritu. utcrque vero codex habet Spiritus. 
 
 g Dicitur. Cod. Murat. 
 
 h Lacunam xuMuratorio manifcftam (quippc cum defint ea verba unci? indufa) ex Co- 
 dire Qxonienfi fupplcvimus. Scilicet, vox dicit proxime recurrcns Librarii oculos (uti fitj 
 fefellit. 
 
 i Ita clare Cod. Oxon. Aliter Muratorins ex vitiofo codice ; ijft/.i trts pn/onas ejfe dicit, 
 u (^ tres fuhjlantias ejfe mentiiur, Scnfus impcditus, aut nullus. 
 
 a adfe- 
 
ATTENT>IX. 173 
 
 a adfcrit. Non ergo SHhftmtiam fiparantes, quia tots tres Perfonae in Sub- 
 ftantia Deirans ^ unum lunt. 
 
 ^lla eft enim Terfona Tatr'ts : Quia Pater ingenitus efl-, eo 
 G'lod a nullo eft geniru^. Alia perfbna Filii^qnh Filius a Patrc fob 
 eft cgenitus. Alia Sj^iritus Jm6fi, quia a Patre & Filio Spiritus fan- 
 ftub*^procedcns eft. 
 
 Sed T^atris & Filii & Spiritus fanEii una eft T^ivinitas : 
 Id ert, Dcitas. Aiqualts Gloria : id eft, Claritas. Co£ternaMajeftas: 
 Majeftas gloria eft, Claritas, five Poteftas.* 
 
 G)uaUs Tater , talis Filius, talis & Spiritus fanUus. 
 y el^' '" Dcitatc,& Omnipotentia. 
 
 Xncreatus Tater, increatus Filius, increatus ^ Spiritus 
 Jan^us. Id eft, a nuUo creatus f. 
 
 Immenfus Tater, imnenfus Filius, immenfus & Spiritus 
 fanBus Non eft menfurabijis in fua natura, quia inlocalis eft, 6 incir» 
 cumfcriptus, ubique totus, ubique praefens, ubique potens. 
 
 jEteriiUs^ater^ aternus Filius, aternus & Spiritus fandius. 
 Id eft, non tres jeterni, fed in tribus perfonis unus Deus seternus, qui fine 
 initio, & fine fine aeternus permanet. 
 
 Similiter omnipotens F*ater, omnipotens Filius, omnipo- 
 tens & Spiritus fandius. Omnipotens dicitur, eo quod omnia po- 
 teft, & omnium obtinet poteftatem^^. Ergo, fi omnia poteft, quid eft quod 
 non poteft? Hoc non poteft, quod Omnipotent! non competit pofle 'c 
 Falli non poteft [quia Veritas eftj infirmari non poteft,] quia Sanitas 
 
 a Et Patn's & Filii eum Adminiftratorem effe adferit. Cod. Murat. Conf. BruKon. 
 
 h Divinitatis. Cod, Oxon. 
 
 c A patre eft Colo. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 ^ Defunt Spiritus fanSiui in Cod^lvlurat. quae tamen retinuimus, turn VidtCod OxO' 
 vienfis, turn quia in antecedent ibus Pater, & 'Filius bis ponuntur, ficut & hie Up. fanSiusr. 
 
 e Cod. oxonienfis. legit Claritaiis, five Poteftas. 
 
 f Cod, Oxonienfis legit creati. 
 
 g Muratorii exemplar inferturn habet et , quod delendum efTe cenfui, cum abfit a 
 codice Oxon. 8c otiofum videatur. 
 
 h FortuTjatus, in fua Expofit. Symb. Apoflolici, hsc hibetj Omnipotens viro dicitur, ec 
 quod omnia fojjit, ^ omnium .ohtitiet Totentatum. cd. Bafil. obtineat pctejintew. ed. Lugdr 
 Praeluferat KuffintiSy in Symbolum. 
 
 i S. Bri.no, hunc opinor locum prx ocuh's Inbens, his verbis utitur: Frgo, fi 
 omnia potefi , quid eft quod non poteft'. Hoc non poteft, quod non convtnit ommpotent; 
 pa/fe. Brun, ia Symb. Athanaf, 
 
 eft. 
 
 A 
 
,74 AT T E NT> I X. 
 
 e(l »; mori non poteft, quia immortalis vita eft; finiri non poteft, quia 
 infinitus & perennis eft. 
 
 Itay T>eus 'Pater, T>eus Fil'ius, "Dcus & Spiri*us fauciiis. 
 [ Dcus nomen etl Poceflaris, non Propnetaii^.] Fropnum iiouien eft 
 Vix.n^Puur\ & proprium nomen eft <^ Filii />//«;, &: propr um nomen eft 
 Spiritus fanfti Spiritas jantius, 
 
 Ita, 'Dominus 'Pater, 'Dominus F'dius, T>ominus (^ Spi- 
 ritus fandfus. Dominus dicitur, eo quod dcmineiur creature cun- 
 d:aj, vel quod creatuia omnis dominatui ejus deferviat*^. 
 
 ^iia ficiit fingillatim (id eft, fi.uc d.ftindirr. e) nnamquam- 
 que Terjnnam ^ ^Deum ^ T)ominum confiteri Lhrifti- 
 ana ueritate compellimur. Quia fi me interrogaveris quid firs 
 Parer, ego relpmdebo; Deus, & Dominu<:. Similiter, fi me interrogave- 
 ris ^ quid fit ' Filius ego dicam; Deus, & Dominus. Et fi dicis ^^ quid 
 eft Spiritus fandusf Ego dico^j Deus, & Dominus. Et in his tribus 
 Perfonis, non tres Deos, nee tres Domino';, fed in ™his tribus, ficut jam 
 fupra didum eft, " unum Dcum, & unum Dominum confiteor. 
 
 IJnus ergo 'Pater, fion tres T^atres : Id eft, quia « Pater Tem- 
 per Pater, nee allquando Filius. ^nus Flius, llOtl tres Filii : Id eft, quia 
 Fjlius fcmper Filius, ncc aliquando Pater. IJnus Spiritus fati6f US ^ non 
 
 a Miiratorins fcntentiam mancnm, vitiatamquc exhibet: TM non poteft, quia Sancitu 
 eft; omifTis intermediis. Scilicet, vocabulum proxime repetitum defcribentis oculum de« 
 liillt; Et ne nullus indc ciiceretur fenfus, pro 'Stmitai i'ubftitutuni eft Sanctus. H^c porro 
 fibimet adoptavit S. Bruno, pauculis mutatis , vel interjeilis, ad hunc moduni: FalU 
 r.on pott ft, (juia Veritas & Sapientia' eft; sgrotari ant infirmari non poteft, quia Hanitai efi } 
 mori non poteft, quia immortalis eft; finiri ncn poteft quia infinitus ^ perennis eft. 
 
 h Dcefl: hxcClaiifula in CoJice Murator: Sed confer Syinbolum Damafi diftum, quod 
 Gregorii Boetici creditur, apud Auguft, Tom. 5. p. 3S7. Append, item apud Hieronym. 
 Tom. f. p. I XI. 
 
 c Dccft eft. Murator. ccnf. Br«w. 
 
 d Ita Codex Muratcrii: paulo alirer Cod. Oxonienfis; mens eadem. Dominus dicitur eo 
 quod ovinia Dominat, ^ omnium eft Dominus Dominatcr Dominat, pro Deminatur, & cum 
 Accufativo, ex vitiita iiiferiorrs xvi Latinitatc, vel ex Srribae imperitia. 
 
 e DfttnHum. O.\on. diftinile. Miirat. f Deeft c^. Cod. Murator. 
 
 g ^uut eft. Murator. Eandem fcntentiam cxprefTit S. £r;<»^, his verbis i ^uia/i me in- 
 terrogaveris quid eft Pater, ego refpondeo ; Deus, ^ Dominus. 
 
 h F.t fi mc rogaveris. Cod. Oxon- 
 
 i Eft. Murator. Locum fic exhibet S. Bruno; Similiter, fi interrogaveris quid eft Filius, 
 ego duo, Deus ^ Dominus, 
 
 k Dicas. Murator. 
 
 1 Dicam. Murator. Apud Brunonem fic legitur; Et fi dicis, quid eft Spiritus fanStus? 
 Ego refpondeo; Deus, (^ Dommus. m Deeft tn. Oxon. 
 
 n Supra dixi. Cod. Oxon. Sed Brunonis Icdlio Mur%icrii Icdiionem confirmat. 
 
 o Codfx Oxon pro quia habct qui, in hoc loco, & in duobus proxime fcquentibus. 
 Utfuralibet eiegcris, eodcra fere res redit. 
 
 tres 
 
A T T E N "D I X. 17s 
 
 tresSpiritus fanBi: Id eft, quia Spfritus fandlus Temper eft ^Spiritu 
 (anctus, necaliquandoFilius, aut P.ner. H^c t^i proprietas Peifonarum. 
 
 Et In hac Trmitate nihil pnus, ant pfterius. Quia H- 
 cut nunquam Filius fine Patr.^ fie nunquam fuit Pater fine Filio, ^\z & 
 nunquam fuit Pater & Filius fine Spiricu Sanao^. Co3Etcrna ergo Tri- 
 nitas, ^ infepar^bilis unitas ^^^'\^ initio & fine finec. 
 
 Nihil majllS, ant minus. ^qualituem Perfonarum dicit, quia' 
 <^Trmit3S «qualis eft, & una ^ Deltas, Apoftolo docente f^, & dicente: 
 Ftr eny qfi<eja^ajmt, irttelle^a conjpicinmur ; & per Creaturam Creator in- 
 teliigitur, :ecundum has comparationes, & alias quamplures. Sol, Candor, &: 
 Calor, & tria font vocabula, & tria unumS. Quod candet, hoc calec^' 
 & quod caLt, hoc candet: Tria haec vocabula res una efte dignofcitur^. 
 lea » Pater & Filius & Spiritus fanctus, tres Perfona?, in Deitare Subftan- 
 tiae ^ unum funt; & individua unitas rede creditur. Item de rerrenis? 
 vena, Fons, Fluvius, tria funt ^ vocabula, & rria unum "^ in fua natura. 
 Ita trium Perfonarum, Patris & Filii ^ Spiritus fandti, Subftantia & 
 Deltas unum eft " . 
 
 EJi ergo Fides reEia, nt credamus & confiteamuVy quia 
 ^om'tnus nofter Jefus Chriftus °. Jefus hebrafce, latine Salvator 
 dicitur. [Chriftus grsece, latine undus vocatur. Jefus ergo diciturPj 
 
 a In Cod. Oxon. deeft eft. 
 
 b Paulo aliter huncce locum expreflit au£tor Sermonise inter ^Augufiini opera fAppendi 
 Tom. 6- p. z8i.} ^0ia ficut nunquam pater fine Filio, nee Filius fine Patre^ fie ^ nun- 
 quam fuit pater, ^ Filius fine Spiritu SanBo. Sed nihil mutandum contra Fidem Exem- 
 plarium. 
 
 c In Appendice praediAa, fie legitur : Coiterna ergo eft SanBa Trinitas 8cc. 
 
 d San<Sa Triniras. Append. 
 
 e Una eft Deitas. Append, una Deitatis. oxon. male. 
 
 f In Cod. oxonienfi. defunt ilia doeente et. Sed Append* he&ionem Mur at or it tuetur,a^© 
 tamen verborum ordinei dicente, atque docente. 
 
 g Ita Muratorius cum Appendice praedidt. Aliter MS oxon. viz. tria funt nomingh f^rfs- 
 tma. quae eodem recidunt. 
 
 h In Appendice fie fe habent j trin hue 'vocabula res una cognofcitur. 
 
 iy£t pofi ita Oxon. \. 
 
 k Phrafis duriufcula; Deitate SubftantiA, ^ro'Divinitate Subftantii, fi tamen ita res ha* 
 beat. At locus hie corruptus eft fortafle, licet eandem leitionem Codex uterque prxferatc 
 Appendix oniittit iWuA Subftantia. Delendum forfan eft Subftanti*, vel legendum, in Deita- 
 tis Subftantia, aut firaile quid. Subftantia, & Deitas conjundlim leguntur paulo infra*' 
 quodquidem intuens, nollem Subftantia hoc loco expungerej at corrigendum ccnfeo. 
 
 1 Appendix legit h^c, non funt. Oxon. tria itemque funt. 
 
 m Oxonienfis, res una. Append, cum Muratorio, unum^ 
 
 n Ita Murat. & Append. Oxonienfis legit, Subftantia, Deitas una eft. 
 
 o Oxonienfis adjicit, Dei Filius ^ Homo eft. ineptc hoc loco, quod ex fequcntibus-' 
 patebit. 
 
 p Muratorii Codex omittit verba ilia intermedia, uncis inclufa. Scilicet, illud dUithr proo 
 Kime repetitum Amanuenfi hie itcrum fraudi fuit. 
 
 A 
 
I'jd 
 
 .") 
 
 ATTEWDIX, 
 
 eo quod falvat Populura; Cliriftuj, eo quod Spiritu fanSo divinitus fit* 
 delibutus, ficut in ipli $ Chrilti ^ Pcrfona LfaiAi ait; S^iritHs Dommi fw 
 per mcy tropter cjuod umxU ^/Cy &c. Ita & PialmilU de Chr.lto D amino 
 dicit, ^ ti'ixit te Deusy Deus trntSt oleo Utitia prz Conjortthus tnii. 
 
 i)ei FtL'tui , IDeus ^ariter ^ homo ejl. Fmu a Felicitate 
 Pareiitum dicicur: Homo ab Immo dicnuri id eR, de humo ^ fa- 
 ftus ell. 
 
 I^eus ejl ^ ex fubjlantta Tatr'ts ante facula genitus. 
 Id clt, Dcus de Dco, lumen dc luminc, (plendor dc fplendore, loitisdc 
 tortij villus de v.rcur^-, vita dc vica, dtt^niras de aternitate: Per om- 
 nia, idem ^ quod pac^r in divini lujftaiuia hoc eft & 8 Fihus. DwUS e- 
 nim '' Pater Deum Fliuin gcnuit, non voluncate, neque necefTitate, fed 
 natura. Ncc quaeratur qaomodo gcnuit Filium ' , quod & Angcli ne- 
 kiunt, Prophetis eft incognitum : unde ^ eximius Propheta Efaias dicit ; 
 qenerationem ejHS qais enarrabit ? Ac Ci diccret, ^ Angelorum niiUus, Pro- 
 phetarum nemo"^. Nee inenarrabilis, & inaellimabilis Deus" a lervulis fuis 
 difcuticndus eft, fed tideliter credendu^, ° & pariter dil:gendus. 
 
 Et homo P ex fubftant'ia matris, in faculo natus. Pei 
 Filius, Verbum Patns, s Caio faflum. ' Non quod Divinitas mutaftet 
 deitatem, ied adfumpfit humanitatem. Hoc eft, Verbum Caro fa(5lum eft, 
 ex utero Virginis veiam humanam carnem traxit. Et de utero virginali verus 
 Homo, ficut & verus Deus, eft in faeculo narus, falva virginitatis gratia; 
 * quia mater, quae genuit,Virgo j^nte partum,& Virgo poftpartum permanfit '. 
 
 a Divinitus fit defunt in Cod. Oxoii. 
 
 b Deed Chrifii. Marator. 
 
 c Oxonienlis bretriter, Item in'Pfalmo, ttnxit &c. Notandum porro, quod quaedam habet 
 Fortttnatus nofter, in Commentario Ibo in Symbol. Apoftol hilce jam proxime defcriptis 
 perquam fimilia Confer etiam Kti^^n. in Symbol, inter Oper- Hteronym. (Tom. 5. p. iji.) 
 
 d De Humo Terra. Murator. 
 
 € Non habetur eji in Murat. 
 
 f Pro idem, id eft, Marator. 
 
 Dccft et Cod. Oxon. His quoque gemina fere habes in Ex^fit. in Symbol Apojiolicum. 
 h Deeft en'im Cod. Oxon. confer. Symb. Damafi di£tum. 
 
 i ^omodo gemtus fit, quod Angelt— Oxon. At Muratorii lediioni aftipulatur Appendix 
 ad Auguftin. (Tom. 6. p. 279.) & Forttinatus ipfe, Expof. m Symb. Apoftol. 
 k Undc O" ifdcm. Cod. Murat. conf. F<?r;/<w/»;. in Symb. Apoftolicum 
 
 1 Muratorius lubct dixiffet. 
 
 m Angelorum nemo, Vrophetarum ntdlus. Cod. Oxon. n Dcefl Dcus. Oxon. 
 
 o Confer. Eortunat. in Symb. Apoftol. & -4/>/ie»</. apud Auguft. p. xy^. & Ku^n. Symb. 
 
 p Homo eft. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 q Dei Filtus, verbum Caro. Murat. Dei Filius verba Patris Caro. Cod Oxon. Ex utnfque 
 veram, opinor, ledionem rcftituimus. 
 
 r Et non. Cod. Murator. cxpunximus illud e^ Fide Codicis Oxon. 
 
 s falva virginitatis gratia, dellmt in Cod. Oxonienfi. 
 
 t Ita Cod, Oxon. Muratorius, quia muter ginuit, (^ virgo manfh ante fartum, (^ fofi 
 partim^ ^^ 
 
A'PTEKT>IX, 177 
 
 In faculo. Id efl, in iflp fexto miliario, in quo nunc fumus, [/?- 
 cuU enim generatiombus conflmt, & inde fecula, quod fequamm; abemtibm 
 emm dtis, alia fnccedunt ^ .] " Deus &: h',mo Chriftus Jefus, unxis 
 «' Dei Filius & ipfe Virginis Filius. Quia dam Deitas in utero Vir- 
 <^ ginis humanitatera adfumpfit, & cum ea per Portam Virginis in- 
 « tegrarr, &: illaefam, nafcendo mundum ingicflu'? eft virginis Filius ; & 
 «' Hominem (leg. Homo) quern adlumHt, id (leg, id^m) eft Dei Fili- 
 «« um (leg. Filius) ficut jam Tnpra diximus; -5: Deicas & Humaniras in 
 " Chrifto, & Dei Patris pariter & Virginis Matris Filius. 
 
 Terfehus 'Deus, perfctius Homo. Id eft, verus Deus, & ve- 
 rus Homo. ^£ a: anima ratlonali : & non ut A^oiUnarh^ HaEreticus dixit 
 primum, quafi Deitas pro anima fuiflet in Carne Chrifts ; poftea, cum per 
 evangelicam aufloritatem fuiflet ^ convit'tus, dixit: Habnit c^mdem ammam 
 am vivificavit corpusy fed non rationalem. ^ E contrario, dicit qui Catho- 
 lice fentiti ex anima rationali dr humana carne fuhfijlem ^ : id eft, plenus 
 homo, atque perfe(5lus. 
 
 jEqualis Tatri fecundum T>ivinitatem ; minor Tatre fe- 
 cundum humanitatem. Id eft, fecundum formam fervi quam adfu- 
 mere dignatus eft. 
 
 ^i licet ^T)etis Jit ^ homot non duo tamen, fed tinus eft 
 Chriftus. Id eft, dux fubftantiae in Chrifto, Deltas & Humanitas, non 
 duas perfonsE, fed una eft perfona ^ . 
 
 ^nus autem, non converfione divinitatis in Carnem^^, fed 
 adfumftione Humanitatis in Deum'^. Id eft: non quod Diviniras, 
 
 a Non comparent in Codice Oxonienfi. Verba funt Jfidor'u Qv.g, \. j-, c. 38. 
 QusB fequuntur proxime, Beus ^ Homo &c. ufque ad Mutns 'Filtus , defunt omnia in 
 Codice Muratorii: ex Oxonienfi folo defcripta dedimus. Videntur mihi Vortunati re vera 
 efle, fed Librarii culpa (ut alia multa) mirum in modum vitiata; quae quidem ex Ccnje. 
 Hunt aliquatenus corrigere volui, ut Syntaxis falrem fibi ccnftet, donee cerriora, & meliora 
 ex Codicibus(ri forte fuperfint aliqui) eruantur. CseteruvotUt Fortunato nodro hxc afcribam, 
 illud fuadet maxime, quod in Expofitione fua in Symholum Apojlolicum gemina fere habet 
 ae ?ortii virginis, eiidemque ibi nonnullis Phrafibus utitur quibus & hie ufus eft. Confer 
 Symbolum Ruffini, a Quo folenne eft Nojlro Cquippe qui & ipfe Aquileix olim Dodlrina 
 Chriftiana initiatus fuerat ) turn verba, turn fententia; mutuari. 
 
 b Deeft hsc Claufula in CoJ, Oxon. ob vocabulum repetitum. 
 
 c Taulinaris Cod. Oxon. Le6tio nata ex Sermone fimplici & plebeio. 
 
 d Fuit. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 c Et e contrario ifie dicit. Murat. deleviraus ilia et, atque ifie, quse fententiam turbant, 
 fide Codicis Oxonienfis. 
 
 f Subftfiit. Cod. Oxon. g certe, loco r» licet. CoJ. Oxoa. 
 
 h Eft Perfona defunt in Cod. Oxon. 
 
 i Cod. Oxonienfis habet Carne, & Dee: errore, uti credo, pervetufto, multifque 8c an- 
 tiquiffimis exemplaribus communi. Quod fi verbis in Commentario imnediatefequentibus 
 (ex Muratorii leftione) fteterimus, Fortttnatut ipfe nobis Auftor erit , ut 5c Deum, &c 
 Carnem, pro genuina leftione habeamus. 
 
 Z quOE 
 
,7g A T "P E N ^ I X. 
 
 quae immutabilis eft, fit converfa in Carncm * i fed .ideo unus, eo quod 
 Humaniiarem adfumfit,capit''efrc quod ncn ^ crat, &:non amifit quoderat; 
 cccpit efle Homo '^ quod antca non fuerat, non amifit Dcitatem qua in- 
 commutab;lis in xtcrnum perm-inet "=. 
 
 IJnus cmn'ino, non confnfione fnbPantlaifedunitate T^erfona, 
 Id eft ; Divinitas incmmu'abilis ^ cum Hominc, quern adfumere digna- 
 ta S eft, (icut (cript'jm eft; verbum tmim^ Domine, in sternum permanet. 
 Id eft, Divinitas cum Huma-nitate ; ut dixiirus duas fubftantifis unain 
 pcrfonam '^ eftc in Clinfto : ut ficut ante adfumptioncm [carnis, sterna 
 fuit Trinitas, ira poft adfumptionera ' ] humanae naturje, vera maneat 
 Trinitasj ne propter adfumprionem humanns Carnis dicatur effe quater- 
 nitas, quod abht a Fidel ium cordibus, vtl fcnlibus,dici, aut cogiran, cum, 
 ita ^ ut fupradi>5lum eft, & Unitas inTiinitate, & Trinitas in Uniiate 
 veneranda fit. 
 
 Nam ficut Jln'ima rattonalis, ^ Caro unus eft Homo ; it a 
 ^eus, ^ Homo unus eft Chriftus. EtfiDeus', Dei Filius, no- 
 ftiam lutcam & mortalem carnem, noftrae Rcdemptionis conditio- 
 nem ■" adfumpferit, fe tamcn nullatenus " inquinavit, neque naturam 
 Deitatis mutavir. Quia i\ So), aut Ignis aliquid immundum tetigc- 
 rit, quod tangit purgat, & fe nullatenus coinquinat : ita Dcitas Sarcinam 
 quoque ° noftrae Humanitatis adfumfit, fe ncquaquam coinquinavit, fed 
 
 a "Siui immutabilis ^ inconxeictihilii ejl, Caro j fed &c. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 b l/icipit. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 c Occft r.on. Cod. Marat, m^le. 
 ■ d Deed Homo in Cod- Oxon. pcrpenm. ircm, inciptt, pro cxpit. 
 
 e Mura'orius legit, qujn iwcotnmut^tits in sterniun permanet: Cod. Oxorvienfis. qu4 
 imrriHtabilis in itsrnum permanfit. Et utrifque tertiam ledionem confecimus ; quae, c- 
 pinor, ceteris 8c vcrxuftior eft, & apu'or. 
 
 f ImjTintabtlii. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 q iiignatus. Cod. Oxon, 
 
 h eetfonam pcrperam otntttit Cod. Oxonienfis. 
 
 i Delunr in Codice Oxquicnli : pricermina kilicet fcftiuantis Librarii incuria, ob vo- 
 CCTi iteratam. 
 
 k ?xo cum Hi, habet Cod. Oxon. nifi ita. 
 
 i Murator. Cod. omittic Deus. 
 
 rn Cod. Oy.o.n\cnih, K.^ftriRedeinptionis Conditionis adfumpfit . Ncfcio an melius Muratorios -, 
 acfiram iute.vn, (^ mortalem Camem nr.Jlrji Conditionii adfumferit. Scd Icvi muratione, reftc 
 in cdunt on-.nia. Cotiditio, aped Scriptorcs quinti Sc fexti Ssculi, eft fervile onu;;, opufvc. 
 
 n Cod. Oxon. lc"it fe uulUtenus. Murator: Sed tamen fe nulUttnus. Nofter Tero in 
 Exbofit. in Symb. Apofiol. in llmili cnufi, h.ic utitur I^hrali, fe tamen non inquinat* 
 
 o Oxonienfis habct, Dsjtai farcinatffjue nojlre. /lum-viitatti adfump/it,, fe nequaquam 8cc, 
 Muratorius hoc rtio lo ; Deitas farciaam, quam ex nojlra HumAntati adlumpjlt, ncquaquam 
 coinquinavit. Lcftio trigida prorfus, £c incpta. fuvat hue tonfcrre qua: Fortunatus nofter 
 a<l Symb. ApolK in c.indcm fentcntiam brevirer di(5tavic. 
 
 " Quod vero Deus MajcftitiJ dc MariA in Carnc natus eft, non eft fordidatus nafccndo 
 " dc viii^inc, qui non twic pollutu.s homijicm condens de pulvcrc. Denique fol, aut Igflij, 
 "> fi lutum inf£Jciat, quod tetigcrit pu.rgat, & fc taaica non inquioat. conf. Rw^». Symb. 
 
 p. 13^. , noftram 
 
iieflraffi h^Uta*n carnis, ^ qUahi adfumpficpurgavit, & a maculis,& for- 
 dibus peccatorum, ac vitiorum expiavit : (icut Efaias aitj ;>^ mfirmttates 
 hoflras accepit, ^ iegrotat.c.us pmavit. Ad hoc fecundum humanita- 
 tern natuseft, ut infirmitates noftras acciperet, & sgrotanones portaret : 
 fi6n quod ipfe infirmitates, vel aegrotationes in fe babcrct, quia Salus 
 fiiutidi feft ; fed ut eis a nobis toll-ret, dum fn^ facrae pafiionis Gratia, 
 &: Sacramento b, Chirographo aderitbto , Redemptionem pariter &Sa!u" 
 tern aftimariim nobis condonaret 
 
 ^«i /afus eft pro falute noftta. Id eH, fecundum id quod 
 patr^otliit: quod feft, fecundum humanam naiurarfij nam fecundum Di- 
 rinitat€rti, Dei Pilius impaflibilis eft. 
 
 . ^efcendit ad Inferos''. Ut ^ Protoplaftum Adam s &•' Patriar- 
 chas, & Prophetas, & omnes juRos, qui pro Originali peccato ibideoi 
 dednebsmtfr, libei'atet; & de ^ vinculis ipfius s peccati abfolutos, de ca- 
 dem caprivitate^ & ^ infernali ' loco, fuo fanguine redemptos, ad fuper^- 
 nam patriam* & ad perpetu^e vitge gaudia revocaret. Rerqui, *^ qui fupra 
 Originale peccatum i principaliacrimina nicommiferunt, ut adferit Scnptu- 
 fa, in paenali Tartaro remanferunt: ficut in perfona Chrifti didum eft per 
 Prophetim; Ero mors ma, O Mors; id eft, morte fua Chriftus humani 
 oeneris inimicam Mortem interfecit, & vitam dedit. Era morfus turn, mfern'e, 
 Partim " momordit infernum, pro Parte eorum quosliberavit : Partem re- 
 liquit, pro Parte eorum qui pro principalibus criminibus in Tormenftis 
 remanferunt. 
 
 Surrexit a mortuis primogenitus mortuorura: Et alibi Apo- 
 
 ftolus dicit \ Ipfe primogenitus ex mnltis fratribus. Id eft, primus a mor- 
 tuis refurrexit. Et multa corpora ° San^ornm dormientium mm eofurrexermtt 
 
 a NoflrA nutuYA Carnem. Murat. u r r r^ 
 
 b Murafofius legit; dum fu& facrt paJJIonis Gratiam, & Sacratmnta: nullo leniu. Ox- 
 
 oienfis, dum fui [»cr& pajjionis gratis (pro gratia) ac Sacramento. 
 
 c M inferna. Cod. Oxon. quod 8c inter variantes Symboli Ledliones fupra notatum o- 
 
 portuit. Q.. annon vetuftiflima hscc fuerit kaio in Symbolo Athanafiano, ficut in Apo-. 
 
 iSplice ? \^ ^ 
 
 d ^i, loco r5 ut. Cod. Oxon. At Sermo de Symbolo, in Append, ad Augujl. (Tom. 
 6, p. 2^1.) legit, cum Muratorio, ut. 
 
 e Adam frofoplajlum. Append. 
 
 f tt ut de. Append. 
 
 g Ipfius dcefl: Append. 
 
 h Deeft et Cod. Oxoii. 
 
 i Inferni. Append. 
 
 k Muratorius habet vera, .pod Relicjui. Oxon. non agnofcit, nee Append. 
 
 1 Ita legitur in Appendice. Oxonienfis, ///fr^ Originale peccato: Muratorius, 
 fitpra Originali peccato. 
 
 m Principalem culpam. Append. 
 
 n Muratorius, & Oxonienlis, in utroque loco, Partem: Appendix, in utroque, Partim. 
 Media mihi Icdio maxime arridet. 
 
 o Deeft corpora in Cod. Oxon, 
 
 Z 2 ficut 
 
38o j^TTENDlX. 
 
 ficut evangclica auifloritas >dicit: Sed ipje^ qui Caput efly prtus, deiade qtu 
 *> Membra funt conttnuo. 
 
 Poflea afcendit ad Calos : ficut Pfalmifla ait; afcendit <^ in ahum, 
 captiva?n dtixit captivitaiem, id ert", humanam naturam, quae prius Tub 
 pcccato venundatafuit, & captivataj camque redemptam captivam '^ duxit 
 in cxlcftem altitudinen) ,• ik. ad cfleftis Patriae'-" Regnum fcmpiternum, 
 ubi antea non fucrat, earn ^ collocavir, in gloriam fempitcrnam. 
 
 Sedet ad dexter am l^atr'is : Id efl: , Profperitatem paternani, 
 & in s CO Honr.rc, quod ^ Deus eft. 
 
 Inde veuturus '^ judicare vivos ^ morttios. Vivos dicit cos 
 q-uos tunc advenrus Dominicus in corpore viventcs invencrit; [& mor- 
 tuos, jJHi ante fcpultos. Et aliter dicit^,] \iw os jujios, & monuos pec- 
 catores. 1 
 
 j^d cujus adventum omnes homines refurgere habent cum 
 corporibus fnis\ & reddituri funt de faBts fropri'is ratio- 
 nem : Et qui bona egertmt, ibunt in vitam aternam ; qui 
 vera mala, in ignem aterniim. Hac eft Fides Catholica,quam 
 ttiji qtiifqne fideliter , firmiterque crediderit , falviis effe 
 non ^oterit. 
 
 a In ev angelica Autiurit ate. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 b ^u& immbra. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 c afctndms. Murator. 
 
 d Conf. Tradlatum Anonynii apud Hitronym. Tom. f. p. 1 30. 8c apud Attguflin, 
 Tom. 8. p. 69. ylppend. 
 
 e Cdejlem Patriam. Cod. Oxen., 
 
 i Et pro earn. Mjrator. 
 
 g in dccft. Cod. Oxon. 
 
 h Malic m n;ip, C\ per Codices liccret; fed & quo J, advcrbialitcr hie pofitum pro quia, 
 fenfum non incoromo ium prae fe fcrre videtur. 
 
 i vcnturus e/l. Murator. 
 
 k Quantum hie uncis includitur, omittit Codex Oxonienfis. Delufus efl fortcan Libra- 
 riu5 per binas literulas ic bis pofitas: Vel, fimili errorc dcceptus, integram lineam pnetc- 
 ricrit, dum in proximc f.quentem oculos conjecerat. 
 
 1 Oper33 prcrium cd pauca hie fubjicere, quae Nojier habet in expofitione fua 
 in S-jmb. Apoflolicum. " judicaturus vivos, 8c tnortucs. Aliqui dicunt vivos, juftosj mor- 
 " tuos vcro injuftos; aut certe, vivos, quos in corpore invenerit advenru5 Dominicus, 
 •' 5c mortuos, jam fcpultos. Nos ramcn intcll'gimus vivos & mcjrtuos, hoc cfl animas 
 ■ & corpora' pariter juJicanda. Confer. Ruffin. Symb. p. 140. & Method, apud Fh$t, 
 <iod. 234, p. 931. 
 
 . ^ 
 
A N 
 
 Of authors. 
 
 isr 
 
 INDEX 
 
 c. 
 
 ABBo, or Albo ('Floriacenfis) 2j. iB. 141. 
 Abelard. 38. 137- »43' 
 >Vdalbertus 12> 
 Adrian I. (Pope) f2. 83. 
 ^neas ParinenHs f. it. 
 Agobardus 10. 
 Alcuinus 171. lyz. 
 Alexander (of Halesj 16, i/i. 164. 
 Arexander ( Natalis) iz. 47. 82. 120. 
 Allatius (Leoj 6. 25. 97. 
 Alftedius 81, 
 
 Ambrofe CSt-^ 75-. 1O2. 109, llo. 129, 130. 
 Amerbachius. 66. 
 Anaftafius I. (Pope) li- 123. 
 Anaftafius II. (Pope) loy. 
 Anaftafius (Antioch.) 57. 
 Anfcharius 10. 83. 84. 
 Anthelmius lo. 49- i'S- 1 17 
 Aquinas 27. 88. ii8- 
 Athanafius (Alex.) lol. 
 Athanafius (of Sptre) 7. 
 Auguftinus (Stus) if. fg. 102. 
 112. iif. — 119. 126. — 133 
 Avitus Viennenfis. 79. 1 if. 
 Autun (Council of ^ if. 78. 114. 
 
 168. 
 
 118. 
 
 104.. I06. 
 . 164', 168. 
 
 U!. 
 
 B. 
 
 V. 
 
 Bi) I FFius (Lazarus) jt. 74 JS. 
 Baldenfal (William) 28. 
 Baluxius 18. 
 Baronius 7, lo. 8ii 91. 
 Beleth 2f. 
 
 Berno (Augienfis) 62. 
 Beveridge 9. 
 Bingham iz. 18. 
 
 Bona (Card.) 6. 28. f 7. 60. 80. 86. 87. 90. 
 Bruno (Bp. ot Wurtzb.) 34, 163. 173. 
 Brunfwick (Abbot) 24. 
 Bryling (Nicol.) 73. 7f. 
 
 CAB ASSUTIUS. 9> 18. 
 Caffarius (of Aries) 115. 
 Calamy (Dr.) iff. 
 Caleca (Manuel) 28. 70* 90. 
 Calvifius 81. 
 Cantilupe (Walter^ 26, 
 Caflian (John) 113. 
 Cave (Dr.) 8. 12. 
 Cazanovius 92. 
 ChalccdoQ (Council) lof. 
 Charles the Great. 52. 78. 8ji 84> 8f. 
 Chillingworth if 3. 
 Clarke (Dr.j 12. ifo. 
 Claudianus Mamertus |05. 
 Cochleus (Joh.) 36. 
 Le Coint p. 18. 
 
 CombeBs 28. 29. 60. 9I. 103.124. 
 Comber (Dr.) 8- 47. 
 Covel (Dr.) 7. 
 Cyparifliota (Johannes) 29. 74; 
 
 D. 
 
 Danhawerus 157. 
 Dionyfius (MikiT^j^. 
 Dodwell 80. 
 Dupin 9. 18. 
 Durants (William) 27. 
 
 E. 
 
 EPIPH ANIUS IOl> 109, 
 Euphronius Presbyter. 34* l6t; 
 Eufebius (Verceil) 28. 74. 
 Exeter (Council of) 27. 
 
 F. 
 
 FABRicius 6. 11. 18. 2f. 7f. 77= 
 Fauftinus lot. 127. 12S. 
 
 Felckman f8. 72. 76. 
 
 Fellero* 
 
I 82 
 
 Fellerus (Joachim) i6f. 
 Flavian ( Cple) lof. 1 13. 
 Fortunatus ( Venanc) ii. 32. 1 14, 1 1 f. 165. 
 
 171. Sec. Pref. p. 1. 
 Frankfort [ Council of) 19. 83. 
 Fulgcntius lof. ijS'iJ? '7'' '7»- 
 
 GA vANTUs CBarthol.) Si. 
 Gaudentius (Brix.) 15. 
 Genebrard 73. 7f, 76. Sp- 95- 
 Gennadius Maflil. 118. 131, 133. 149. 164. 
 Gentilly CCouncil of) 69- 
 Gorrham i67> 
 Grabe(Dr.) 36. f 1. 
 Gregory I. (Popej 46. 168. 
 Gregoiy IX. (Pope) 5. 26.46. 
 Gregory Nazianz. if. 101. 106. lie. 1 26. 
 Gregory NyfTen. 109. 
 Gregory of Tours. 3 f' 60. 
 Gualdo Corbeienf. 24. 
 GundHng (Wolfg ) 8. 71. 74. 76. 91. 
 
 H. 
 
 HAM POLE (Rich.) 39. 42. 44* i6$- 167* 
 Harduin 15. 18. 21. x6, 27. 109. 113. 
 Harris (Dr.) 92. 93. 
 Hatto (Balil) 20. 83. 90. 
 Heidcggerus 8. 
 Helvicus 82. 
 Hermantius (Godfr.) 18. 
 Hickes (Dr.) 48. 69- 85. 07. 
 Hilary (of Aries) 117. 1 ip* 
 Hilary (Poiaiers) 5-8. 110. 
 Hildcgarde 38. 
 
 Hincmar "5. 16. 20. 31'. 66. 1 14. itf^. 
 Hody (Dr.) fg. 60, 61, 6i. 88. 
 Honoratus (of Aries) 1 1 9. 
 Honoratus (of Marfeilies) 118. 
 Honorius (Aurun) 24. 
 Hormifdas (Pope) 105. 
 Hulfemannus 157. 
 Hydruntinus (Nic) if. 70, 71. 96. 
 
 I: 
 
 JANUENSis (Johin*:) ifi. 16$. 167. 
 Jerom (St.) 60. 109. 11 1. 
 Ignatius 13. 13 3- 
 John (of Antioch) ii2, 1 13. 
 John:. II. (Pope) lof. 
 iQdorus Hifp. p. ijL.iJ'* »77- 
 
 An index of AUTHORS. 
 
 ulianus (Cardin.) 168. 
 M.VO Carnotenlis 168- 
 Juftinian (Emp;) lof. 
 
 { 
 
 K 
 
 ROM AY "RUS 157. 
 
 L. 
 
 LAB BE CPhil) 7. 18, 
 Lambecius. 52.67. 84. 130 
 Le Lande ( Peter) iS. 
 
 Laogbaine (Dr.) 40 p 
 
 Leo. I. (Pope) 7, 10^, 1O8, II3- 
 Leo 111. (Pope) 20. 88. 
 Leodegarius 1$. 17. 
 Leporius 1 12. 1 16. 
 Lepufculus (Sebaftian) 76. 
 Livius (Poet) 217. 
 
 Le Long 35-, 36. 40. j-6, 5-9. 6x. 6f. 67. 
 Ludolphus (Job) 91. 98, 161. 
 Ludolphus Saxo. 28.151. 
 Lupus (Troyes) 35-. 
 Luther ij-i, 
 Lyra 167. 
 
 M. 
 
 MA BILLON. 60. 62. 80. 82. 
 Martianay 59, 60. 
 Metrophanes Critopulus. 96. 
 Montfaucon 10.18. 24. 37-47. J"©, f. fi» H* 
 
 f6. 5-8. 67. 69. 73, 74- 82. 107. 11$. 
 Muratorius 11, 16, 18. 3i..4j. 47. fo. 82. 91. 
 J15. 167. 171 f^C. 
 
 N. 
 
 NEANDEU (Mich.) 75. 
 Neckham (Alex.) 39. 164. 
 Neflclius 71, 72. 77. 
 Nichols Iff. 
 Nithardus 66. 
 
 O. 
 
 OLIVET mount (Monks of) 20. 8/. 88. 
 Orolius 149. 
 Otfridus 67. 8j. 
 Otho (Fridug ; 24. 27. 
 
 Oudin (Cafim) 8. 13. 17. 18, 21. 39. 40. 82. 
 iiy. 167. 
 
 P. 
 
An index of AUTHORS. 
 
 i^s 
 
 p. 
 
 PAG I. 10. 18. f6. 78, 
 Papebrochius. 16. 
 Pappus (Joh^nJ 162. 
 Parous ('David) 34. ij-;, i68- 
 Pareus (Philip; 168. 
 Paululus (RobJ if. 
 Peaifon (Bp) 7. 149. 
 Pclagius I. fPope) 105. 
 
 Pelagius (Monk; 1 1 1 , 1 1 2. 1 17. I 30, i ? 1 . 1 35 . 
 Petavius f. IQ7. 108, 109. 
 Petrus de Harentals 167. 
 Planiides (Max.) 71. 
 Fiufiadenus 29. 
 
 a 
 
 QUESNEL (Pafchaf.J 7. iS. '^6, SV 1^- ^2. 
 107. 108. 118, 119, lao. 
 Le Quien 11. 10. 47. 79. 88. 107, io8« «o9. 
 1 1 J. 14*. i;4., 1J5. 
 
 R. 
 
 RAT HER I us (Veronaj 20. Sf. 
 Ratram (Corb.; 5. 21. Pref. 
 Regino 18, 
 Rcmbertus. 22. 84. 
 Renaudor. 91. 93. 161. 
 Ricaut ('Sr Paulj 98. \6i. 
 Riculphius (Bp. Soifl.) 22. 
 Ruelins (Johan.Lud.) Pref. p. 4^ 
 Ruffinus 132.168. 176. O'C* 
 
 SA NDIUS. 7. 
 Serarius (Nic.) 76. 162. 
 Simon (of Tournay) 38. 
 Sirni8!>dus «7, i8. 20, 21. 114, iicV 
 
 Smith (Dr.) 49. ^i. ;•/. <)\\ 
 
 Spondanus. 91. 
 Stephens (H.) 75. 
 Srrabus CWalaf.) 60. 
 Suicer (Cafp.) 98. 
 
 T. 
 
 TAYLOR ('Bp) 6. IJ'7, 
 Tent^elius 6.9. i8i2i. 24.. 37. 43. 47-. fS. 
 67. 76,77. 93. 157, 165-. 
 Thecaras ( Monachus) 96- 
 Theodulphus 8. 19. 2x. 
 Tillemont lO. 18. 4.7.49.82.. 
 Toledo III. Counei! 80. 
 Toledo IV. Council 80. 81. 
 Trevifa CJoh.) 4.0. 
 Turribius loj-. 
 
 V. 
 
 ViGiLius Tapfenfis 7, 8. 107. 
 Vincentius Lirin. 10. 104. io(5. lij. 117. 
 119. 126, 127. 131. 
 Ullerfton 1 67. 
 
 Voffius (Gerard) 4. 19. $8. 9I1 9i» 
 Ufher 5. 36. 46. 48. <56. 74. 76. 77. 93. 9^. 
 157^ 
 
 W. 
 
 WALL (Dr.) Ill, 111. 
 Wanley 36.48. ^4. f$. 67. 89* 
 Wharton 40, 41. 54. 66. 67. 
 Wickliflf 27. 30. 40. 144. 
 Willehad 83. 
 Wotton (Dr.) ^4. 68. 
 
 JL^X ALO 
 
 z. 
 
 w.% Ki CEuftrat. Johanoid) 8. 72,. 
 
 An. 
 
is+ 
 
 An index of MSS. 
 
 AMJRCsiAN. I. Athanafian Creed, ^o, 64, 
 86, viO. Crc. 
 
 A M B R o s I A N. 1. Anonymous Comments on 
 the Creed. 43, 45'. 
 
 Ambrosian. 3. Fortunatus's Comment. 11, 
 32, 4)-- 167. 
 
 B A I F F I u s. Greek Copy of the Creed 72, 76. 
 
 Baliol:Oxon. Bruno's Comment 163. 
 
 Basi l. Bruno's a»il Hampoles Comment. 37, 
 43,44, i6j-. 
 
 B E N E T • C a M B R . ^N. X.) AthaoafiaD Creed. 5 3, 
 8v 127, 131. 
 
 Benet. (N. O. V.) Athanafian Creed. 5-4, 60. 
 
 Benet. (K. lo.) Athanafian Creed. 5-5. 
 
 'Benet. (i — 1.) Wickliri's Coinmenr. 41. 
 
 Benet. (N. XV.) Gregory's Pfalter. 47. 
 
 Bodleian. (Junius. 25. j Fortunatus's Com- 
 ment. 33> • 68. 
 
 B o D L E I a N. (L A u D. H. 6 t.^Bruuo's Comment. 
 
 B D L e 1 A K.(L A u D. E. 7 I .) Bruno's Comment. 
 
 163- 
 Bodleian. fG. 39) Athanafian Creed. $6. 
 Bodleian. (E. 6. 11.; Ncckham's Comment. 
 
 164. 
 Bodleian. fE. 7. 8.) Ncckham's Comment. 
 
 39. '^4- 
 
 Bodleian. (Laud. C. 1 6. j Wickliff's Com- 
 ment. 167. 
 
 Br YLiNC.GreekCopy of the Creed. 73, 75-, 
 139. 
 
 C. C. C. C Vicl. Benet. 
 
 CAMBRincE. Athanafian Creed, j-f, 89, 
 
 C Assi N !. NSi s. Athanafian Creed. f6. 
 
 Colbert, i. Athanaiian Creed.' 49, yi, 107. 
 I 3 1 . &c. 
 
 Colbert. 1. Athanafian Creed. 5-3. 
 
 CoNSTANTiKoroLiTAN. Grcck Copy of 
 the Creed. 73, 76. 
 
 Cotton, i. Athanafian Creed in Atheljlatt's 
 Pfalter. j-i, 60, 117, 231. 
 
 Cotton, i- (Vit'ell. E. 18 ) Athanafian Creed. 
 
 Cotton. 3. (Vefp. A.) Athanafian Creed. 47.^5. 
 Cotton. 4.(Nero. C. 4.)Gallican Vcrlion. 67. 
 D 1 o N Y s I A N. Greek Copy. See Butjfini, 
 •Emanuel Cambr. Wicklifi's Bible. 40. 
 
 pELCKMAif. Greek Copy of I he Creed. 71. 
 1 R I ARs M I N o K s. LatinoGah'caa Creed. f6, 
 Ger.mans (St.) Athanafian Creed, ^z, ii6. 
 German de Prez Bruno's Comment. 37. 
 Goth A. Bruno's with Hampolc's Coinmcut. 
 
 37. 43. 44 l6f. 
 Harley. I. Aihinafian Creed, ff. 
 Ha RLE Y. i. Athanaiian Creed, yd. 
 H A u L E Y. 3. Bruno's Comment. 37. 
 H I L A R 1 A N . Athanafian Creed, f 8- 
 James's (St.) Athanafian Creed. 5-4, 89. 127. 
 James's 2- (St. J Ath.mafian Creed, j-fi. 
 )oHNs's(St.y Cambr, Wickl.ff's Comment. 39. 
 John's (St.) Oxon. Bruno's Comment. 163. 
 Lambeth. Athanafian Creed. f\, 60, 6S. 
 Leii-sick. Bruno's with H<jw/)o/e. 37> 43i 44> 
 
 i6f. 
 Magdalen. C a m b r. WickhfF's Ncw-Tc- 
 
 fiament. 41. 
 Magdalen. Oxon. Hampole's Comment. 
 
 165. 
 Merton. Oxon. Bruno's Comment. 164. 
 Norfolk. Athanafian Creed, j-y. 
 Norfolk. Englifia Gofpels. 40. 
 Palatine. Greek Copy of the Creed. 72; 
 Patrick Young. Greek Copy of the Creed. 
 
 74' 9^- 
 Regius Paris, i. Athanafian Creed, jj, 
 Regius P a r 1 s. 2. Greek Copy of the Creed. 
 
 7?- 
 
 S A r u M. Sa.von Verfion of the Creed. 6S. 
 
 Sidney. C a m b r. Hampole's Comment on 
 the Pfaln-.s, Englifli. 167. 
 
 TiiUANus. Athinafian Creed. <)7. 
 
 TnEvEs. Athinafian Creed. 49, 107, 1 31. 
 
 Tr IN I T Y-CoLL. C A MBR. Bruno's Comment. 
 36, 62. 
 
 Trin I T Y-CoL L. C AM H R. Wickliff's Com- 
 ment. 41. 
 
 Vienna, i. Athanafian Creed. $■1,83,84,86. 
 
 Vienna. 2. Greek Cieed. 71. 
 
 Vienna. 3. Greek Creed. 7 1. 
 
 Vienna. 4. German Verfion. 67, 8j. 
 
 Usher. ». Athanafian Creed. 46. 
 
 Usher, j. Book of Hymns. 74. 
 
 Wurtxburg. Bruno's Comment. 36. 
 
 York. Bruno's Comment. 37. 
 
 FINIS, 
 
J 
 
y 
 
■^:M ■ 
 
 •Mmmm 
 
 *^'t