Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 6.djvu/596

Rh 5G2 CREEDS IV. The history of the &quot; Athanasian &quot; Creed, or tho &quot; Symbolum Quicunque,&quot; as it is often called, opens up a more doubtful inquiry than that of either of the preceding creeds. The evidence before us is of an entirely different character. &quot; Here/ as it is said by a recent writer on the subject (Lumby, in his Hist, of the Creeds, p. 186), &quot; is neither the synodical authority of the former, nor the gradual growth of the latter ; but when the composition appears for the first time as a document of authority, it is cited in its completeness, and as the work of the father whose name it has since for the most part borne, although it was not brought to light for many centuries after his death.&quot; In one opinion all investigators are now agreed, that the so-called &quot; Athanasian &quot; Creed is not the production of the famous father of the 4th century whose name it bears. The conclusive reasons against this supposition may be stated as follows : (1) There is no trace of such a creed in any of the older MSS. of the works of Athanasius; (2) Athanasius himself (Ep. ad Antioch, i. 2.), in consis tency with the prevailing church sentiment of his time, expressly disclaims as superfluous the use of any creed except the Nicene j (3) the original language of the &quot; Athanasian &quot; symbol is clearly Latin and not Greek ; (4) the symbol was entirely unknown to the Greek Church up to the year 1000; and (5) there is no evidence of its exist ence even in the Latin Church before the end of the 8th or the commencement of the 9th century. This last and all-important fact has been completely established by recent investigations. Dr Swainson particu larly, in his elaborate volume on the Creeds (1875), has exhausted all the historical evidence on the subject, and, while not venturing to assign the creed to a definite author, has proved in the most conclusive manner that the existence of the creed cannct be traced before the age of Charlemagne, and that its origin is almost certainly to be ascribed to the demand then existing for a more detailed exposition of the faith than was to be found in the Apostles Creed. Nor does he hesitate to ascribe its origin to a deliberate purpose of imposture similar to that which led in the same age to the forgery of the famous &quot;false Decretals,&quot; and tho equally famous &quot; Donation of Constantine. &quot; He expresses himself as follows : &quot; We have four or five independent lines of witnesses agreeing in bringing forward the Quicunque into notice within five and twenty years before or after the death of Charlemagne : i. the testimony of quotation ; ii. testimony of canons ; iii. testimony o f literary collections of creeds or rules of faith ; iv. testimony of psalters ; v. testimony of versions .... That the production of this work under the name of Athanasius was an intentional and deliberate attempt to deceive, no reasonable person can question. It was analogous to tho production of the forged Decretals. And it is doubtless to the skill with which the imposture was wrought out that we owe the difficulty that has been felt in discovering the author&quot; (Swainson, pp. 380-381). Other writers, such as the Rev. E. S. Ffoulkes (On the Athanasian Creed), and Mr Luniby, whose compact and interesting volume on The History of the Creeds has been already quoted, come virtually to the same conclusion as to the date of the Athanasian symbol. Mr Ffoulkes has formed, indeed, a peculiar theory as to its authorship by Paulinus, bishop of Aquileia, in the end of the 8th century, a conclusion which is repudiated by Dr Swainson. They agree, however, that there is no evidence of its existence before this time. It may be useful to give a brief summary of the reasons for this con clusion. And first a distinction must be made. What these writers, of course, mean is that there is no satisfactory evidence of the existence of the Athanasian symbol as constituting a distinct creed before the time to which they refer its origin. Many of the dogmatic expressions or formula of the creed by themselves must be admitted to have been in existence long before. The expressions were, in &quot;fact, current in the schools of the Western Church, mor3 or less from the time of Augustine, to whose famous treatise De Trinitate, not a few of them have been specially attributed. This is the real explanation of the supposed traces of the Athanasian symbol in these earlier times. Language, similar to that which it ultimately embodied, had been accumulating for centuries as the natural result of the study of Augustine and the increasing pressure of Arian modes of thought from many quarters. This process of theological definition had been advanced by such men as Hilary, bishop of Aries (429), Vincentius of Lerins (434), and Vigilius of Thapsus (500), to whom severally the authorship of the Quicunque has been ascribed. Tho ascription rests in each case on certain plausibilities arising, among other things, out of a common stratum of dogmatic phraseology. But such phraseology had really become a common property of the church of that time, and is to bo found in the confessions of synods and collections of sermons and books of devotion from the 5th century down wards. Nothing definite as to the authorship of the Quicunque can be rested on such resemblances, or even oa the use of tho name of Athanasius. The fact remains that during all this time, and long afterwards, there is no evidence of such a creed being in existence or having any authority. The first traces of such a creed are reached in the 8th century. Then in distinct quarters there come before us the two parts of the creed now in use. The first part, clown to the end of the 26th clause, which specially deals with the doctrine of the Trinity, seems then to have existed by itself under the general title of &quot; Fides Sanctio Trinitatis,&quot; and &quot; Fides Catholica Sanctse Trinitatis.&quot; The second part, which treats of the incarnation of our Lord, is in a similar manner found by itself in a MS. known as the Colbertine MS., which cannot be placed earlier than 730. But the two parts are not as yet found in combina tion, nor as claiming any distinctive symbolic authority. They seem rather put forward as expositions or explana tions of the original Nicene doctrine than as new creeds having any authority by themselves. The two documents not only exist apart, but they are evidently regarded by those who use them as separately independent and com plete. That there was no authoritative &quot; Athanasian Creed, such as we now have, even at the end of the 8th century, is held to be clearly proved by what occurred at the several councils of the church, which were held both in the East and the West at this time. In 787 there was held once more at Nicsea what is reckoned by the Church of Rome the seventh oecumenical council. At this council there were recited three several confessions amplifying in several details what is known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. These amplified confessions, attributed to different bishops, all indicate the prevailing need that was felt for some more detailed exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity ; but the fact, not only that the &quot; Athauasian &quot; symbol does not make its appearance amongst them, but that, when the synod at last comes to recite its own belief, it does so in a form quite distinct from the &quot; Athanasian/ and finally falls back upon the old Creed of Constantinople, to which it refuses to make any addition, plainly serves to show that this symbol or exposition could not even have been known to the Eastern. Church at this time, and still less have acquired any authority. But the Councils of Frankfort (794) and of Friuli (796) are still more decisive. For here in the West and in the