recitation was enjoined by ancient Canons upon the clergy, as might be abundantly shown. This very same title is given to it in Paris, 3848 B, in which the Autun Canon also appears in the Herovall Collection.

Now the fact of the Athanasian Creed being the subject of canonical injunction in the seventh century, is clearly a similar and co-ordinate proof of its antiquity with that, already noticed, of its being the subject of expository comments at that period. The former fact, as the latter, proves not only that it was in existence in that century, but that it must have been extant some time before. New and obscure and unauthoritative documents are not made the subjects of Canons, any more than of Commentaries.

And according to the Ballerini, we have a still more ancient instance of a canonical injunction respecting the Quicunque in an "Epistola Canonica," which is contained in a collection of Canons, found in two Roman MSS., and assigned by those learned canonists to the early part of the sixth century.1

(d.) The last class of documents supplying evidence of the antiquity of the Athanasian Creed, and referred to on the present occasion, consists of sermons delivered at the "Traditio Symboli" to the candidates for baptism, which incorporate and adapt its terminology.

That the Trèves fragment, preserved in Paris, 3836, is a portion of a document of this class,-that

1 'Athanasian Creed: Examination of Recent Theories respecting its Date and Origin,' by G. D. W. OMMANNEY, pp. 312, 313.

it was constructed upon the basis of the Quicunque, the phraseology of which it incorporates and adapts, and consequently that the reverse was not the case, as alleged by Professors Swainson and Lumby-itself forming the foundation upon which the latter part of the Creed was built, the germ out of which it was developed, this, I believe, has been proved to demonstration, in the comparison in detail instituted by me between the two documents. If the proof is not clear, the failure, I am sure, is not owing to the weakness of my case, but of its exponent. This view of the Trèves fragment supplies a new and cogent proof of the antiquity of the Creed. For if the Creed was not drawn from the fragment, or rather the sermon of which it was a portion, then the Creed must be the older of the two documents. And inasmuch as the manuscript containing the fragment certainly belongs to the eighth century, and is generally set down to the early part of it, from this alone it would follow that the Creed must have been extant before that century. But this would be an incomplete statement of the argument. Whatever was the original which the scribe of Paris, 3836—the Colbertine MS., as it is sometimes strangely calledfound at Trèves, whether the whole sermon, or merely that portion of which he has preserved for us a copy, the sermon must have been composed some time previously, certainly not after the seventh century, possibly before it; but, whatever was the date of its composition, clearly the Creed, the language of which was so familiar to its author that he adapts it for

1

his exposition of the doctrine of the Incarnation, must have had a pre-existence of some duration. Waterland, who-erroneously, as I cannot help thinking-regards the Trèves fragment as a copy of the Creed, or rather a portion of it, argues, from its omission of the clause "as the reasonable soul," etc., that "the manuscript "-that, namely, found at Trèves-" was written while the Eutychian controversy was at its height, about the end of the fifth century or beginning of the sixth," on the ground. that the illustration of that clause was avoided by Catholics after the rise of Eutychianism, on account of the abuse made of it by the Monophysites. Clearly this argument can prove nothing in regard to the date of the particular MS. found at Trèves; but if it possesses any validity, it does apply in regard to the date of the sermon, of which that MS. included a copy in whole or in part. And if the sermon was composed at the beginning of the sixth century or the end of the fifth, then the Creed could not be supposed to have been drawn up later than the early half of the latter century. I would not insist upon this as more than a probable argument. Upon the whole, what we learn from the Trèves fragment, in regard to the date of the Athanasian Creed, is that it was certainly extant in the early part of the seventh century, and must, therefore, have been drawn up before its commencement, and that it was probably extant at the beginning of the sixth or the end of

1 'History of the Athanasian Creed,' p. 72. Oxford edition,

the fifth century, and was drawn up not later than the first half of the latter.

The two other ancient sermons which have been referred to as containing terminology drawn from the Quicunque, are a sermon printed in the appendix to the fifth volume of St. Augustine, and attributed by the Benedictine editors to Cæsarius, Bishop of Arles; and another which is found in the Paris MSS., 3848 B and 2123. If the former is rightly attributed to Cæsarius, who died in 543, it may be dated about A.D. 530 or A.D. 540. The latter is evidently earlier, as it presents an earlier type of the Apostles' Creed, and must belong to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. The expository portion of these sermons may be seen in Appendix, Note G. The connection between them and the Quicunque is not so obvious as that between the Trèves fragment and the Creed, the correspondence in phraseology being less full and extensive; still, it is impossible to avoid the impression that they have both borrowed from the Creed in the same manner, as they both contain expressions which are peculiar to it, and the resemblance is more than can be accounted for by their using, in common with it, the language of Catholic theology. Here again, then, we find an evidence that the Creed was extant at the end of the fifth century.

Taking into consideration all this various and multiplied evidence from manuscripts, ancient Commentaries, Canons, and sermons, the conclusion appears inevitable that the Athanasian Creed was

composed in the first half of the fifth century, not later. When we come to treat of its authorship, some reason will be shown for believing that it was not drawn up earlier.

And almost all this evidence of the antiquity of the Athanasian Creed is new, the fruit of inquiries prosecuted in the last few years, and first set in motion by the controversy on the subject, which agitated the Church of England more especially in the years 1871 and 1872. Most of it was unknown to Waterland. Of the five ancient Commentaries which we have noticed, that scholar was acquainted with that of Fortunatus alone, and with two only of the manuscripts containing it. With respect to the Autun Canon, he expresses himself doubtfully; but since his time its position in the Angers and Herovall Collections has been clearly ascertained, particularly in the recent work of Professor Maassen on Canon Law,' and the evidence of its antiquity and authenticity has been thus considerably strengthened. The Vatican MS. Pal. 574, and the Paris MSS. numbered 3848 B, 1451, and 13,159, were entirely unknown to him. We are indebted to Dr. Swainson for first drawing attention to the three last-named manuscripts, especially as he has thereby furnished additional weapons for the destruction of his own theory. The recent assaults upon the Creed have thus served to strengthen its position, by eliciting an enlarged knowledge of its history, and more abundant evidence of its antiquity. The endeavours to prove it to be a work of the ninth century have signally failed.