15. _The Catholick Church_. (3rd Council of Constantinople 680--6th General Council.) No! You would destroy the truth of His humanity. It is obvious that we are here returning to some part of the earlier errors, and that everything possible {123} had been suggested, and settled. Even orthodox people, who incline to hold that Christ's human knowledge was divinely acquired, or His human temptations divinely resisted, are but repeating the errors of old days. Thus the Controversies, however disfigured by excess of language and temper, &c. are the meditations of the Church on the Nature of Her Lord and Her God. Some of them are perhaps too much of the disposition of S. Thomas, who must push his hands against the scars of the Lord's Body; but the Lord has ever been patient towards the devout and warm-hearted men, who share with S. Thomas, not only his doubt, but that devotion which destroys intrusive impertinence. The following interesting argument as to the date of this "Creed" is worthy of study. The Athanasian Creed appears on the scene at the close of these loud meditations. It is unconscious of the theory that Eutyches started, because it uses phrases which he might have perverted, e.g. One, not by conversion &c. As the reasonable soul &c. Thus its date is given by internal evidence as previous to 451. The same sort of argument may apply to Nestorius, who was condemned 431. But this is more doubtful. It insists on "one Son, not three Sons"--but says nothing of "one Son, not two Sons" which was the Nestorian error. {124} These two points may be summarised. _Monophysites_ (condemned 451 at Ephesus) insisted on _One Nature_, to defend One Person: opposing _Nestorians_ (condemned 431 at Chalcedon), who insisted on _Two Natures_ almost, if not quite, to the assertion of _Two Persons_. [Transcriber's note: refer to Footnote 1 on page 176 referring to an error in the above two paragraphs.] The date is limited in lateness by the above. It must have been before the middle of 400-500, i.e. before the complete development of the controversy condemned in 451. And it could not be earlier than 416, because it plainly condemns Apollinarians, who denied a human Soul to Christ, and said the Godhead was in place of a human soul (360-373): and because several of S. Augustine's expressions appear in it, whose books on the Trinity appeared about 416, and later. Moreover the 'Filioque[1]' appears in it, and S. Augustine was the first to give this prominence. Thus the date is fixed between 420 and 440. And it is Latin, in the construction of its Sentences, not Greek; and Gallic, in its first reception, and chief, earliest, and most numerous, MSS and commentaries. The Roman Church did not adopt it till 930, though Charlemagne presented it to the Pope in 722. Thus Waterland dates it in France between 420 and 431. Within those dates the authors possible are, not Athanasius, for he died about 373, but