ll of Christ was subservient to the Divine Will, so as always
to move in unison with it.

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