to their present perfection in a course of years, or centuries of years, and not completed till about the year 600, this Creed was made and perfected at once, and is more ancient, if considered as an entire form, than either of the other; having received its full perfection while the others wanted theirs. No considerable additions or defalcations have been made to it (it has needed none) since its first compiling, till of late years, and in the Greek Church only; which yet are so far from correcting or amending the form, that they have rendered it so much the less perfect: and the only way of restoring it to its perfection, is to restore it to what it was at the first. But I pass on.

CHAPTER VII.

Of the time when, and place where, the Creed was composed.

can

HAVING observed when and where this Creed hath been received, we may now ascend higher, and consider when and where it was made. Our inquiries here will be in some measure dark and conjectural; strong probabilities will, perhaps, be as much as we reach to which made it the more necessary for me to begin, as I have, at the lower end, where things are more plain and clear, in hopes to borrow some light to conduct our searches into what remains still dark and obscure. Whatever we have to advance in this chapter must rest upon two things:-1. Upon external testimony from ancient citations, manuscripts, comments, versions, and the like, such as have been previously laid down. 2. Upon the internal characters of the Creed.

1. To begin with the external evidence: Our ancient testimonies, above recited, carry up the antiquity of the Creed as high as the year 670, if the first of them be admitted for genuine; as it reasonably

may, notwithstanding some objections. Our manuscripts, now extant, will bring us no higher than 700; but such as have been known to be extant may reach up to 660, or even 600. This must be thought very considerable to as many as know how great a rarity a manuscript of eleven hundred, or of a thousand years' date, is; and how few books, or tracts, there are that can boast of manuscripts of such antiquity. The injuries of time, of dust, and of moths, and, above all, the ravages of war, and destructions of fire, have robbed us of the ancient monuments, and left us but very thin remains; that a manuscript of the fourth century is a very great rarity, of the fifth there are very few, and even of the sixth not many. So that our want of manuscripts beyond the sixth, or seventh, century is no argument against the antiquity of the Creed, however certain an argument may be drawn from those we have, so far as they reach. But, beyond all this, we have a comment of the sixth century, of the year 570, or thereabout; and this certain and unquestionable which may supersede all our disputes about the ancient testimonies, or manuscripts, of more doubtful authority. Here then we stand upon the foot of external evidence: the Creed was, about the year 570, considerable enough to be commented upon, like the Lord's Prayer and Apostles' Creed, and together with them. Here is certain evidence for the time specified; and presumptive for much greater antiquity. For, who can imagine that this Creed, or indeed any Creed, should grow into such repute of a sudden, and not rather in a course of years, and a long tract of time? Should we allow 100, or 150 years for it, though it would be conjecture only, yet it would not be unreasonable, or improbable conjecture. But we will let this matter rest here, and proceed to our other marks of direction.

2. The internal characters of the Creed. The Creed contains two principal doctrines; one of the Trinity, and the other of the Incarnation. Possibly

from the manner wherein these doctrines are there laid down, or from the words whereby they are expressed, we may be able to fix the true date of the Creed, or very nearly at least; certain, however, thus far, that it must be somewhere above 570.

From the doctrine of the Incarnation, as expressed in this Creed, we may be confident that it is not earlier than the rise of the Apollinarian heresy, which appeared first about the year 360, and grew to a head about 370, or a little later. This Creed is so minute and particular against those heretics (without naming them, as it is not the way of the Creed to name any), obviating every cavil, and precluding every evasion, or subterfuge, that one cannot suppose it to have been written before the depths of that heresy were perfectly seen into, and the whole secrets of the party disclosed: which we have no reason to think could be before the year 370, if so soon. This consideration alone is to me a sufficient confutation of those who pretend, that Athanasius made this Creed either during his banishment at Trêves, which ended in the year 338, or during his stay at Rome, in the year 343; or that he presented it to Pope Julius, or Pope Liberius, who were both dead before the year 367.

I must add, that Epiphanius marks the very time when the Creeds first began to be enlarged, in opposition to the Apollinarian heresy; namely, the tenth year of Valentinian and Valens, and the sixth of Gratian (it should be seventh), which falls in with A. D. 373, the very last year of Athanasius's life, according to those that place his death the latest; some say, he died a year or two sooner. If, therefore, he made this Creed at all, it must be about that time. And, indeed, were there no stronger objections against the antiquity of the Creed, or against its being made by Athanasius, than the common objection about the supposed condemnation of the Nestorian and Eutychian

Epiphan. Ancorat. cap. cxxi. p. 123.

heresies; I should scarce think it at all improbable that Athanasius should be the author, admitting that he lived to the year 373. For Epiphanius's larger Creed, made about that time, appears to me as full and express against both those heresies, as the Athanasian can be supposed to be, and in some respects more so: and yet neither of those heresies were then in being, nor for many years after. But there are many other reasons which convince me that the Athanasian Creed must be placed lower than this time. I take Epiphanius's larger Creed to have been the first that enlarged the article of the Incarnation, in opposition chiefly to the Apollinarians: and that Creed being drawn up, as Epiphanius expressly testifies, by the joint advice of all the orthodox bishops, and the whole Catholic Church, became a kind of rule, or model for most of the Creeds that came after; among which I reckon the Athanasian.

For, from the doctrine of the Trinity, as particularly and minutely drawn out in that Creed, it is to me very plain, that it must be some years later than the Creed of Epiphanius; which will evidently appear to any man who will but be at the pains to compare the two Creeds together.

One very observable particular is the manner of expressing the Unity by a singular adjective: "Unus æternus, unus immensus," &c., " One eternal, one incomprehensible," &c., and the condemning the expression of "Tres æterni, Tres immensi," &c. The Greeks never laid down any such rule of expression, never observed or followed it, but have sometimes run counter to it'; meaning, indeed, the very same thing, but not so expressing it. As to the Latins, we shall find none of them (at least, I have not observed any) coming into that way of expression before Ambrose

9 Тpiwv ȧπεiρwv äπeipov ovμøvtav.-Nazianz. in Bapt. Orat. 40, p. 668. 1 Ergo sanctus Pater, sanctus Filius, sanctus et Spiritus Sanctus: sed non tres Sancti, quia unus est Deus sanctus, unus est Dominus.

1

2

and Faustinus (in the years 381 and 384), who are the first that use it, and that but once, or very sparingly; not repeating and inculcating it, like the Athanasian Creed, nor leaving it destitute of explication. But St. Austin, afterwards, in his books of the Trinity, in the fifth especially, enlarges in justification of this rule of expression, and is full and copious upon it. His proofs, illustrations, example, and authority, gave new strength and credit to this rule, which might then pass current, and become fit to appear, without farther explication, in a Creed. For this reason, principally, I incline to think that this Creed was not made before St. Austin's books of the Trinity were public (which was not till 416), or not before 420, or thereabout, to allow some time for his works to be read, considered, approved, and to gain a general esteem. If it be said, that St. Austin might as well copy from this Creed, as the Creed from him; I say, No; for the reason is different. Creeds and other the

like formularies, which are to be put into every one's hands, and spread round about, ought not to contain any thing till it has been maturely weighed, long considered, and fully explained, as well as proved, and generally acknowledged by the Churches of Christ. It is, therefore, much more reasonable to believe that St. Austin's writings should go first, and a general approbation of them in that particular; and then the Creed might conveniently follow, the way being now opened for it.

I may observe the like of another article of the

Una est etenim vera Sanctitas, sicut una est vera Divinitas, una illa vera Sanctitas naturalis.-Ambros. de Sp. S. lib. iii. cap. xvi. p. 688. 2 Sed ne duos omnipotentes intelligas, præcavendum est: licet enim et Fater sit omnipotens, et Filius, tamen unus est omnipotens, sicut et unus est Deus: quia Patris et Filii eadem Omnipotentia est, sicut et eadem Deitas, &c. Ostenditur Unitas Divinitatis in Patre et Filio, sicut et Omnipotentiæ, et quicquid omnino Divinæ Substantiæ est; hoc solo differens a Patre Filius, quod ille Pater est, et Hic Filius.-Faustin. de Trinit. cap. iii. p. 123, 124.

3 Combefis, speaking to this point, seemed inclinable to suppose that St. Austin had borrowed from the Creed; but, correcting himself

G