pears most fully developed, and expressed in its most perfect symbolical form in what is called the Symbolum quicunque (commonly, but erroneously called the Creed of St. Athanasius.) It originated in the school of Augustine, and is ascribed by some to Vigilius Tapsensis, by others to Vincentius Lerinensis, and by some again to others.(1) By the repetition of positive and negative propositions, the mysterious doctrine is presented to the understanding in so hieroglyphical a form, as to make man feel his own weakness. The consequence was, that all further endeavours of human ingenuity to solve its apparent contradictions by philosophical arguments, must dash against this bulwark of faith, on which salvation was made to depend, as the waves against an impregnable rock.(2)

(1) According to the old account, Athanasius drew up the creed in question at the Synod of Rome in the year 341. This, however, appears improbable, first, because it exists only in the Latin language; secondly. from the absence of the term consubstantialis (bos); and, thirdly, from the more fully developed doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit (the procession from the Father and the Son.) It was not generally adopted until the seventh century, when it was classed together as an Ecumenical symbol with the Apostles' and the Nicene Creed. Paschasius Quesnel (dissert. xiv. in Leonis M. Opp. p. 386, ss.) first pronounced it as his opinion that it was composed by Vigilius, bishop of Tapsus in Africa, who lived towards the close of the fifth century. Muratori (Anecd. lat. T. ii. p. 212-217), ascribed its authorship to Venantius Fortunatus (a Gallican bishop in the sixth century), and Waterland to Hilary of Arles (who lived about the middle of the fifth century.)

(2) SYMBOLUM ATHANASIANUM:

1. Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus habet, ut teneat catholicam fidem. 2. Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in æternum peribit. 3. Fides autem catholica hæc est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. 4. Neque confundentes personas,

U

neque substantiam separantes. 5. Alia enim est persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti. 6. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, æqualis gloria, æqualis majestas. 7. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis et Spir. S. 8. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spir. S. 9. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus S. 10. Eternus Pater, æternus Filius, æternus et Spir. S. 11. Et tamen non tres æterni, sed unus æternus. 12. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus et unus immensus. 13. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens et Spiritus S. 14. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. 15. Ita deus Pater, deus Filius, deus et Spir. S. 16. Et tamen non tres dii sunt, sed unus est Deus. 17. Ita dominus Pater, dominus Filius, dominus et Spir. S. 18. Et tamen non tres domini, sed unus dominus. 19. Quia sicut sigillatim unamquamque personam et Deum et dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur, ita tres Deos aut dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. 20. Pater a nullo est factus, nec creatus, nec genitus. 21. Filius a Patre solo est, non factus, non creatus, sed genitus. 22. Spir. S. a Patre et Filio non creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. 23. Unus ergo Pater, nec tres patres; unus Filius, non tres filii; unus Spiritus S., non tres spiritus sancti. 24. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil majus aut minus, sed totæ tres personæ coæternæ sibi sunt et coæquales. 25. Ita ut per omnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. 26. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. (Opp. Athanasii, T. iii. p. 719.- Walch, Bibl. Symb. vet. p. 136, ss., it is also contained in the collections of the symbolical books published by Tittman, Hase, and others.")

• While salvation thus appears to be made dependent on the most refined philosophical definitions, it is pleasing to hear other men, such as Gregory of Nazianzum (see Ullmann, p. 159,170. Neander, Chrysost. ii. 19.) raising their voices during this period, who did not attach such unqualified value to the mere orthodoxy of the understanding, and who were fully convinced of the limits of human knowledge and the insufficiency of such dogmatic definitions, Greg. Orat. xxxi. 33, p. 577. Ullmann, p. 336, comp., however, p. 334, 35. Rufinus also says, expos. p. 18: Quomodo autem Deus pater genuerit filium, nole discutias, nec te curiosius ingeras in profundi hujus arcanum (al. profundo hujus arcani,) ne forte dum inaccessæ lucis fulgorem pertinacius perscrutaris, exiguum ipsum, qui mortalibus divino munere con

b. CHRISTOLOGY.

§ 98.

THE TRUE HUMANITY OF CHRIST.

Traces of Docetism.-Arianism.

It was no less difficult to determine the relation of the Divine to the human nature of Christ than to define the relation which exists between the three persons of the Trinity and the One God. For the more decidedly the church asserted the Divinity of the Son of God, the more the doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos had to be guarded against erroneous notions either concerning the true Divinity, or respecting the true humanity of Christ. In opposition to Docetism, the doctrine of the human nature of Christ had indeed been so firmly established, that no one was likely to deny that he possessed a human body, though Hilary, who was orthodox in all other points, bordered upon Docetism, by maintaining that the body of Jesus could not undergo any real sufferings.(1) But two other questions arose, which were beset with still greater difficulties. In the first place, it was asked, whether a human soul formed a necessary part of the humanity of Christ;—and if so (as the orthodox maintained in opposition to the Arians), (2) it was still doubtful whether this soul was to be understood only as the animal soul, or as both the animal soul and the rational spirit of man (in distinction from the Spirit of God.)

1) Hilary wishes to preserve the most intimate union between

cessus est, perdas aspectum. Aut si putas in hoc omni indagationis genere nitendum, prius tibi propone quæ nostra sunt: quæ si consequenter valueris expedire, tunc a terrestribus ad cœlestia et a visibilibus ad invisibilia properato.

the Divine and human natures of Christ, so that it may be said: totus hominis Filius est Dei Filius, and vice versa; for the same reason he says concerning the Godman, de trin. x. 23: Habens ad patiendum quidem corpus et passus est, sed non habuit naturam ad dolendum. (He compares it to an arrow which passes through the water without wounding it.)-Comment. in Ps. cxxxviii. 3: Suscepit ergo infirmitates, quia homo nascitur; et putatur dolere, quia patitur: caret vero doloribus ipse, quia Deus est, (the usage of the Latin word pati allowed such a distinction to be made.)-De trin. xi. 48: In forma Dei manens servi formam assumsit, non demutatus, sed se ipsum exinaniens et intra se latens et intra suam ipse vacuefactus potestatem; dum se usque ad formam temperat habitus humani, ne potentem immensamque naturam assumptæ humanitatis non ferret infirmitas, sed in tantum se virtus inconscripta moderaretur, in quantum oporteret eam usque ad patientiam connexi sibi corporis obedire. He opposes the purely docetic interpretation of the Impassibilitas, de synodis 49: Pati potuit, et passibile esse non potuit quia passibilitas naturæ infirmis significatio est, passio autem est eorum, quæ sunt illata perpessio. He makes a distinction between passionis materia et passibilitatis infirmitas. Hilary, however, ascribes a human soul to Christ, but he received neither that soul, nor his body from Mary; on the contrary, he owes his origin to himself: comp. Dorner, p. 1040, ss.

(2) Athan. contra Apollin. ii. 3: "Ageros de água μóvŋv пgòs åñonguφὴν τῆς θεότητος ὁμολογεῖ, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔσωθεν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνθρώπου, τουτέστι τῆς ψυχῆς, τὸν Λόγον ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ λέγει γεγονέναι, τὴν τοῦ πάθους νόησιν καὶ τὴν ἐξ ᾅδου ἀνάστασιν τῇ θεότητι προσάγειν τολμῶν. Comp. Epiph. Hær. 69. 19. and other passages quoted by Münscher von Cölln, p. 268. This notion was very prominently brought forward by the Arians, Eudoxius and Eunomius; respecting the former see Cave, Historia Script. eccles. i. p. 219; concerning the latter, comp. Mansi, Conc. T. iii. p. 648. Another party of the Arians, however, rejected the notion that the Logos had been changed into the soul of Christ, and supposed a human soul along with the Logos. Comp. Dorner, ii. 2, p. 1038. But even some orthodox theologians of this period used indefinite language on this point previous to the rise of the Apollinarian controversy. Comp. Münscher von Cölln, p. 269. Dorner, 1. c. p. 1071, ss.

§ 99.

THE DOCTRINE OF APOLLINARIS.

Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, who, generally speaking, enjoyed a high reputation among orthodox theologians, imagined that that higher life of reason which elevates man above the rest of creation, could be of no use to him, in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily, or rather, that its place was wholly supplied by the Logos.(1) His intention seems to have been not so much to detract from the dignity of Christ, as to honour him. He was opposed by Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa, to whose exertions it must be attributed, that the catholic church adopted the doctrine, that Christ possessed a perfect human nature consisting of a body, and of a rational soul, together with his Divine nature.(2) The council of Constantinople (A. D. 381.) condemned Apollinarianism as heretical.

(1) Apollinaris was led by his philosophical turn of mind to suppose, that he might establish his argument with mathematical precision (γεωμετρικαῖς ἀποδείξεσι καὶ ἀνάγκαις.) of the writings in which he explained his views, only fragments are extant in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, and Leontius Byzantinus (who lived about the year 590); they were the following: περί σαρκώσεως λογίδιον (ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας ἐνσαρκώσεως)—τὸ κατὰ κεφάλαιον βιβλίον—πεξὶ ἀναστάσεως—περὶ πίστεως λογίδιον—and some letters (in Gallandii Bibl. PP. T. xii. p. 706, ss. Angelo Mai Class. auct. T. ix. p. 495, ss.) Apollinaris objected to the union of the Logos with a rational soul, that the human being thus united to the Logos, must either preserve his own free will, in which case there would be no true union of the Divine and the human, or that the human soul had lost its proper liberty by becoming united to the Logos, either of which would be absurd. "He chiefly opposed the gió, or the liberty of choice in christology."-Dorner, 1. c. p. 987. In his opinion Christ is not only avgwmos ivos, but the incarnate God. According to the threefold division of man, Apollinaris was willing to ascribe a soul to