words, He descended into Hell, or may instead of them use the words, He went into the place of departed spirits, which are considered as words of the same meaning in the Creed." And so the rubric stood till the last revision (1892), when the permission to omit without the substitution of the alternative words was removed.*

5. In the phrase "He rose again (resurrexit) from the dead" there is no general agreement among the old English versions in the insertion of the word "again"; several have the word, and several have not. It is doubtless an attempt to give the force of re in composition, suggesting a restoration to an original condition. And it is difficult to conceive the perversity of mind that could suppose that the occurrence of the word suggests that our Lord had risen from the dead on a previous occasion. Yet the American revision in the last century struck out the word, and it has not been restored. The Americans, however, can cite in their support several English Primers, including that of 1538.

6. "From the dead" (a mortuis), as one would fancy, is a very obvious rendering; yet it was not at once arrived at. "From death" is the common form of the early versions. "From death" we find to be the common form in the dogmatic documents and books of devotion of the reign of Henry VIII. Cranmer himself, in a version of which he says,

The rubric now runs : "Any churches may, instead of the words, He descended into hell, use the words, He went into the place of departed spirits, which are considered as words of the same meaning in the Creed."

"This Credo I have translated as nigh as I can conveniently, word for word, according to the Latin," wrote "from death." The Prayer Book of 1549, though it directs the Creed to be said "in English" at Matins, omits to print its text. In the Prayer Book of 1552 we reach "from the dead."

7. An error for which there is no excuse is the rendering, "the resurrection of the body" (carnis resurrectionem). It appears at least as early as the Necessary doctrine and erudition for any Christian man; set forth by the King's Majesty of England (1543). The Creed, as there given, was followed with only very slight variation in the Prayer Book of 1549, as part of the Catechism; and thence it passed into the text of Morning Prayer in the Prayer Book of 1552. We learn, on the authority of St. Jerome, that certain followers of Origen admitted the resurrection of the body, but denied the resurrection of the flesh. § Rufinus, indeed, remarks that whether we use "flesh" (caro), as in the language of the Creed (secundum communem fidem), or "body" (corpus), as the Apostle Paul expresses it, we must believe as the Apostle has defined.

That no doctrinal significance can be connected with this change from the customary language of the

* In 1538, or perhaps 1542. See Remains and Letters (P.S.), p. 83. + Pearson (Exposition, art. xi.) observes, “Though we have translated it in our English Creed, the resurrection of the body, yet neither the Greek nor Latin ever delivered this Article in those terms, but in these, the resurrection of the flesh."

This work may be found in Formularies of Faith put forth by authority during the reign of Henry VIII., edited by Dr. Lloyd. § Epist. 84, ad Pammach. et Ocean. de erroribus Origenis.

earlier English versions of the Creed is apparent from the fact that in the Creed, as it appears in an interrogative form in the Office for Public Baptism in the Prayer Book of 1549, we find "resurrection of the flesh," and that in 1552 the same form is directed to be used in the Visitation of the Sick. In both places the same words are retained in our present Prayer Book. There are disadvantages in such a variation in the form of the Creed; and, considered as a translation of the Latin, "resurrection of the flesh" should in all places be restored.

8. Another question which we have positive evidence for stating was before the minds of the Reformers, or, at all events, of Cranmer, is the question whether in the words, "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints," etc., the force of the preposition "in" is extended to "the holy Catholick Church" and the following terms. Do we "believe in" the Church, and the Communion of Saints, and the Forgiveness of sins, or do we only believe that there is a holy Catholick Church, and that there is the Communion of Saints, etc.?

It was chiefly the great authority of St. Augustine that led the Theologians of the West to conceive that the words "to believe in" were properly applicable only to God, the Trinity in Unity, and consequently to each of the three Persons. * The question was a topic of discussion among the great medieval schoolmen; and the current opinion of the day is found

*The question is discussed with his customary learning by Pearson in his Exposition of the Creed.

expressed in the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man (1543) set forth by the King's authority, and commonly known as "The King's Book," where we read, "In this Creed the said manner of speaking, I believe in, is used only in the three articles which concern the three Persons in Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."* Again, Cranmer, in his own translation of the Creed, already referred to,† gives the following: "I believe in the Holy Ghost: And that there is an holy Catholic Church: . . . And that there shall be resurrection of the body," etc. +

It is happy, I think, that eventually the Reformers gave us the Creed in its present English form, for it is highly questionable whether the distinction of the Latin Fathers and schoolmen is not wholly illusory.S

The points that have been here presented (and others could be added) may show us-what we are very liable to forget-that even the rendering of so familiar a formula as the Apostles' Creed was not all plain sailing, and that there were several difficulties, more or less considerable, to be encountered and dealt with.

* Formularies of Faith but forth by authority in the reign of Henry VIII., p. 229.

† p. 101.

Compare (p. 89, note) the old Irish "

esse catholicam ecclesiam."

§ Rufinus, in his commentary on the Apostles' Creed, is very emphatic: "Non dixit in sanctam ecclesiam, nec in remissionem peccatorum," etc. But we must remember that his Creed was, "Et in Spiritu Sancto; sanctam ecclesiam," etc.

CHAPTER IX.

THE NICENE CREED, AS DEALT WITH IN OUR ENGLISH VERSION.

IN

N dealing with the Apostles' Creed our Reformers accepted the text of the old Latin service-books of England, and tried to give a translation into suitable English. In the case, however, of the "Mass Creed," as it was called-that is, the Western form of the Niceno - Constantinopolitan Symbol recited at Mass-there is reason to believe that they were not content to accept the text as it was to be found in the Sarum and other English missals.

I. An indication pointing this way will be found in the omission of the word "holy" from the clause "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." This omission has been by some attributed to inadvertence a supposition in itself highly improbable in the case of those who were dealing with so venerable a formula of the Faith. But the omission can be accounted for if we suppose that the Reformers had been keeping themselves abreast of the well-known theological writings of their time. I have elsewhere* discussed this question at length; and it must suffice

* Church Quarterly Review (July, 1879), in the article entitled “The Anglican Version of the Nicene Creed."