version of the Psalms, going along with that commentary, is not the same with that of Wickliff's Bible: I have compared them. The commentary, and version too, are reasonably judged to be Hampole's. I find, by a note left in a blank page at the beginning (signed F. Russell), that there is a copy of this commentary in the Royal library (E. 15. 12.), but imperfect; the prologue the very same, and expressly ascribed to Richard of Hampole; from whence it may be justly suspected that the comment upon the Athanasian Creed, at the end, appearing in part (for two leaves are cut out), is Hampole's, as well as the rest. There is, in Bennet library, in Cambridge, another manuscript copy of the same commentary (Marked 11. Catal. p. 69.), with the comment upon the Creed entire. The prologue I found to be the same as in the other, as also the comment on the first Psalm; by which I judge of the rest 10. The comment on the Canticles, at the end, is likewise the same; only the Canticles are not all placed in the same order. At the bottom of the second leaf of the commentary there is left this note, by an unknown hand: Author hujus Libri, Richardus, Heremita de Hampole. Now, if this commentary really be Hampole's, of which I can scarce make any question, it will appear highly probable that the comment on the Creed is his too. 2. What favours the suspicion is, that here the comment is annexed to other comments in like form with itself, and not to mere versions, as in the manuscript of St. John's library. Nay, further, this comment on the Creed, as it appears in St. John's copy, has the several parts of the Creed in Latin, and in red letter, prefixed to the respective version and comment; just as we find, in Hampole, the several parts of each Psalm exhibited first in Latin, and in red letter; which circumstance is of some weight. 3. Add to this, that there are some expressions in the

10 Qy. Whether there be not one or two more copies of the same, in the Bodleian? See the Bodleian manuscripts, in the General Catalogue, N. 2438. 3085.

comment on the Creed very like to those which are familiar with the author of that Commentary on the Psalms. Such as these: "it is seid comunly, that ther ben," &c. "Clerkis sein" thus, and thus; so that, from similitude of style, an argument may be drawn in favour of Hampole, as well as for Wickliff. These considerations suffer me not to be positive on the other side. The comment may be Hampole's, or it may be Wickliff's, which latter opinion I the rather incline to for the reasons before given, appearing to me something more forcible than the other. And I may farther observe, that there is in Sidney College, in Cambridge, a very old copy of Hampole's Commentary, which runs through the Psalms, and all the ordinary Hymns and Canticles, but has no comment upon the Athanasian Creed annexed, though the MS. appears very whole and entire. This makes me less inclinable to suspect the comment upon the Creed being Hampole's; it is more probably Wickliff's, as I before said. However it be, the comment may be useful; and if it should prove Hampole's, it must be set forty years higher than I have here placed it. The distance of thirty or forty years makes no great alteration in any language; so that, merely from the language, especially in so small a tract, we can draw no consequence to the author; excepting such peculiarities as may have been rather proper to this or that man, than to this or that time.

(1478.) To the comments before mentioned I may add one more, a Latin one, printed, as I suppose, about the year 1478, though it carries not its date with it. The author is Peter d'Osma, called in Latin Petrus de Osoma1, or Petrus Oxomensis, or Uxomensis. The Comment makes about seventy pages in quarto, and is drawn up in the scholastic way, with good judgment and accuracy, considering the age it

1 Commentaria Magistri Petri de Osoma in Symbolum Quicunque vult, &c. finiunt feliciter. Impressaque Parisiis per Magistrum Udulricum, cognomento Gering.

was written in. The book was lent me by Mr. Pownall of Lincoln, a gentleman of known abilities, and particularly curious in searching out and preserving any rare and uncommon pieces, printed or manuscript. I do not find that this Comment has been at all taken notice of in any of our Bibliothêques, or in any of the catalogues of the books printed before 1500. Even those that give account of the author, yet seem to have known nothing of the printing of this piece. Probably there were but very few copies, and most of them soon destroyed upon the author's falling under censure in the year 1479. The author, if I judge right, was the same Peter Osma who was Professor of Divinity in Salamanca, and adorned the chair with great reputation for many years. He began to be famous about the year 1444, and at length fell under the censure of a provincial synod held under Alphonsus Carrillus, archbishop of Toledo, in the year 14792. He was condemned for some positions advanced in a book which he had written upon the subject of Confession. The positions, nine in number, are such as every Protestant professes at this day, being levelled only at the corruptions of Popery in doctrine and discipline; but the good man was forced to submit and abjure, and to profess an implicit belief in whatsoever was held for faith by the then Pope Sixtus IV. Such, in short, is the account of our author, one of the most learned and valuable men of his time, by confession even of his enemies. At what particular time he composed his Comment on the Athanasian Creed I cannot say, only that it was between 1444 and 1479. I have placed it according to the time it was printed, as nearly as I am able to judge of it.

These are all the ancient comments upon the Athanasian Creed that I have hitherto met with, or heard of, excepting only such as have no certain author, or none mentioned.

2 Nicol. Antonii Bibliotheca Hispana vetus.-Tom. ii.

p. 203.

3 See the Positions and Censure in Carranza.-Summ. Concil.

p. 880, &c.

Muratorius informs us of two comments without names, which are in manuscript, in the Ambrosian Library, near 600 years old. One of them bears for its title, "Expositio Fidei Catholicæ;" the other has no title. By the age of the manuscripts (if Muratorius judges rightly thereof) one may be assured that they are distinct and different from any of the comments below Abelard; and that they are neither of them the same with Bruno's, or Fortunatus's, may reasonably be concluded, because Muratorius was well acquainted with both, and would easily have discovered it. Whether either of them may prove to be Abelard's, which has for its title "Expositio Fidei," and may suit well with the age of the manuscripts, I know not. Muratorius, while he makes mention of Bruno, and Hildegardis, whose comments he had seen, says nothing of Abelard's; so that possibly one of his manuscript comments may prove the same with that. But if neither of them be the same with Abelard's, nor with each other, they must be allowed to pass for two distinct comments, whose authors are not yet known.

Nothing now remains but to close this chapter with a table, as I have the former, representing in one view a summary of what is contained in it.

CHAPTER IV.

Latin Manuscripts of the Athanasian Creed.

I CONFINE myself in this chapter to the Latin manuscripts, since the Creed was undoubtedly written originally in Latin; and therefore the manuscripts in any other languages will be more properly treated of in another chapter, among the versions. None of the learned at this day make any question but that the Creed was originally a Latin composure. This they pretend to be certain of, and unanimously agree in, however doubtfully they may speak of other things, or however they may differ in their opinions about the age or author. Even those, many of them, who have ascribed the Creed to Athanasius, have yet been obliged by plain and irresistible evidence to acknowledge, with the legates of Pope Gregory IX., that it was originally Latin. The style and phraseology of the Creed; its early reception among the Latins, while unknown to the Greeks; the antiquity and number of the Latin manuscripts, and their agreement (for the most part) with each other, compared with the lateness, scarceness, and disagreement of the Greek copies, all concur to demonstrate that this Creed was originally a Latin composure, rather than a Greek one; and as to any other language besides these two, none is pretended.

I proceed then to recount the Latin manuscripts as high as we can find any extant, or as have been known to have been extant; and as low as may be necessary, or useful to our main design.

(A.D. 600.) The oldest we have heard of is one mentioned by Bishop Usher, which he had seen in the Cotton Library, and which he judged to come up to the age of Gregory the Great. This manuscript

Latino-gallicum illud Psalterium in Bibliotheca Cottoniana vidimus: sicut et alia Latina duo, longe majoris antiquitatis; in quibus,