between this and the earlier Commentaries. Twice the Bouhier Commentary seems to have been borrowed from, St. Augustine being in each case the original source, viz., in the commencement of the note on the 13th verse: "Omnipotens dicitur," etc., and the close of that on the 21st, commencing, "Nam cum sit," etc. Twice the Paris Commentary appears to have been made use of in the same way, viz., in part of the note on the first verse: "Dicitur fides eo quod fit," etc., and the close of that on the fifth : Persona dicta est," etc.; and the Troyes Commentary once in the note on the 28th verse-from "Ex utero" to "creaturam."

That the Commentary or series of notes found in the Canonici MS., mentioned previously, and that of Hampole, were drawn from this Commentary, of which we have a copy in Addit. MS. No. 18,043, and not from Bruno, is, I think, clear, because they both omit the passages from Fortunatus, which he inserted, and both contain the passage commencing, "De Patre si quis," which he removed, substituting the last of them in its place.

OTHER COMMENTARIES.

In the Royal MS. 8, B. xiv. in the British Museum, there is a Commentary on the Athanasian Creed, cast in the form of question and answer, which has, to the best of my knowledge, escaped notice hitherto. The two volumes thus numbered contain a large collection of different manuscripts and portions of manuscripts. The Commentary commences on f. 28. of the second

66

volume. The twelfth century is assigned by the printed catalogue as the date when it was written. Mr. Thompson, the learned Keeper of the MSS., thinks that it was written about A.D. 1200, and in England. The name of the author is not given; the initial Rubric is now illegible, but it appears to have been copied in the margin by a later hand: "Incipiunt interrogaciones et responsiones de fide catholica super symbolum beati Athanasii Alexandrinæ urbis episcopi." It commences, "Quomodo diffinitur fides secundum intellectum ? Fides est credulitas illarum rerum que non videntur aut fides est etiam confessio sancte trinitatis." The following is curious, as showing the belief of the age in regard to the authorship of the Quicunque :-" Int. Quis composuit hanc fidem? R. Beatus Athanasius Alexandrine urbis episcopus. Int. Ubi eam composuit? R. In Niceno concilio urbis Bithinie. Int. Quo tempore eam composuit? R. Eo tempore, quando conflictum habuit cum Arrio. Int. Quare eam composuit? R. Ut distrueret errorem hereticorum, sed maxime propter Arrianum." The following seems to be founded on Fortunatus's Commentary or the 'Damasi Symbolum :'-" Deus nomen est potestatis non proprietatis. Proprium nomen est Patris Pater, quia solus est Pater; et proprium nomen est Filii Filius, quia solus Filius a solo Patre; et proprium nomen nomen et Spiritus Sancti, quia solus ab utroque proceedit." We find the readings. in carnem and in Deum: "Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. Quia non est conversa divinitas in carnem,

66

sed humanitas assumpta est in divinitatem. Ista, id est humanitas, est aucta; illa, id est divinitas, non est minorata." The conclusion is as follows:-" Et, si ita unusquisque non crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. Explicit explanatio fidei quicunque vult."

I have met with the Commentary commencing, "Apud Aristotelem argumentum est racio rei dubie faciens fidem. Sed apud Christum argumentum est fides faciens racionem;" that of Simon Tornacensis, Professor of Theology at Paris, at the commencement of the thirteenth century-in two manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, marked Latin, No. 18,068, and 13,576. Both of these are assigned by the catalogue to the thirteenth century: the former belonged originally to the Cluniac Priory of St. Martin des Champs, at Paris, as appears by the coat of arms on the cover, bearing the motto, "Ordinis Cluniacensis Sancti Martini a campis;" the latter was formerly the property of the Abbey of St. Germain des Près, also situated at Paris-a fact indicated by the note on the first page: "Si Germani a pratis." Evidently the Royal manuscript mentioned by Oudin,1 as containing a copy of this Commentary, and described by him as "Codex Reg. 3903," cannot be identified with either of these MSS., inasmuch as neither of them belonged in his time to the Royal Library. The other manuscripts of it noted by Oudin were, at the time when he wrote, in the Library of St. Victor, at Bruges, and at Villers, in Brabant. There is

1 'De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis,' tom. iii. pp. 26-33. Lipsiæ,

1

nothing in the catalogue to indicate that the Commentary of Simon Tornacensis is among the contents of either of these manuscripts at Paris, noticed by me the description given being in the one case, "Exposition du Symbole de S. Athanase;" in the other, "Glose sur le Symbole de S. Athanase." But if our neighbours' catalogues are not perfect, our own are not infallible. The British Museum Royal MS. 9, E. xii., contains some works of Simon Tornacensis, and Casley's printed catalogue mentions as one of them, "In Symbolum Athanasii Tractatus." My endeavours, however, to find it there were fruitless; nor could I find any Commentary on the Athanasian Creed, but I found one on the Nicene.

Waterland notices two MSS. in the Bodleian Library of a contemporary Commentary on the Quicunque by an Englishman, Alexander Neckam; but he has omitted to mention the copy of the same exposition in the Harleian Collection, which, since his time, has been transferred to the British Museum Library. The number of the MS. is Harleian, 3133; it is assigned to the thirteenth century. The exposition is followed by the colophon: "Explicit fides catholica Athanasii episcopi exposita a Magistro Alexandro de Sancto Albano."

The Bodleian MS., Laud, 493, is particularly deserving of attention, as the occasion of the remarkable mistake into which Waterland was led by the carelessness of some informant. This MS., he says, contains a copy of the Athanasian Creed, "which has for its title, "Anastasii Expositio Symboli Aposto

G

lorum." 1 And it is partly on the ground of this title being thus applied to the Creed that he attributes the authorship to Hilary of Arles. The fact is that this MS. does not contain a continuous copy of the Athanasian Creed; but it does contain inter alia comments upon the three Creeds. On f. 70 there is the Rubric, "Expositio Symboli Apostolorum." This exposition continues to f. 74 v., where we have "Symbolum sanctorum patrum; the commencement of the exposition of the Nicene Creed. Then on f. 75 v. the exposition of the Athanasian Creed is introduced by the Rubric, "Hic tractatus de symbolo Sancti Anastasii." It commences, "Determinato de symbolo in duabus distinctionibus precedentibus, restat expositio Symboli Anastasii. Divisa est in tres partes prohemium tractatum epylogum." After the comment on the two first verses, we have, Sequitur tractatus, Fides autem catholica," etc. After the words, "qui vero mala in eternum ignem," comes," Sequitur epylogum, Hæc est fides catholica," etc. At the end is the Rubric, "Explicit expositio Symboli Anastasii." I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. W. D. Macray for the information that, in the exposition of the Apostles' Creed, reasons are given why that was said "demisse," and the other Creeds "alte," also why "Symbolum Anastasii" was said at Prime, viz., because the Faith affords "primam illuminationem," and because in the morning we should assume our arms to fight with the devil

66

1 'Critical History of the Athanasian Creed,' ch. iv. p. 81. Oxford edition.