Creed, and collecting all the clauses we have the Creed as follows:

"Credo in Deo Patre Omnipotente, invisibili et impassibili. Et in Christo Jesu, unico Filio ejus, Domino nostro, Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Mariâ Virgine; Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus, descendit ad inferna; Tertiâ die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad cœlos; Sedet ad dextram Patris; inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos. Et in Spiritu Sancto, sanctam Ecclesiam, Remissionem peccatorum, hujus carnis resurrectionem."

Rufinus expressly states that the Creed he expounds is the baptismal symbol in the Church of Aquileia. What the Roman form of the Apostles' Creed was can also be ascertained, but not directly. It is done in this way. Rufinus is careful to note, as he goes along, how the symbol he is expounding differs from the one in use at Rome. In the first article, for instance, the Roman Creed, he says, has nothing after "omnipotente," and it omits the article "descendit ad inferna." Thus the Roman form can be discovered through the Aquileian, and with some further assistance from the writings of Pope Leo the Great (440 —461) the Roman form has been arrived at,-as, for instance, by Pamelius, who gives it in textual shape, with "considerable probability," as Heurtley, who prints it from Pamelius, considers (De F. et S. 39). While, however, we may feel every confidence that that constructive Creed of the Roman Church is an exact representative of the original as to each article, can we feel an equal assurance that we have the ipsissima verba? Rufinus's Aquileian Creed ran

The

"Credo in Deo," with the ablative all through. Roman might have been "Credo in Deum," with the accusative all through, without Rufinus deeming it necessary to mark that minor difference. Here Leo's writings aid us. His quotations of the Creed in addresses to his own people show that it ran in the accusative construction, and it is in this form that Pamelius and Heurtley give it.

Looking now at the substance rather than the form of the Roman Creed so constructed, we notice the closest resemblance between it and the Greek text of Marcellus, which omits the very points that Rufinus says the Roman Creed omits. The natural inference is that the Creed professed by Marcellus was in fact the Roman Creed in a Greek dress. It is true that there are two discrepancies: Marcellus leaves out Пlarépa, and the Roman omits "vitam æternam ; but these discrepancies are not significant, and may be due to accident,-insufficient, therefore, to invalidate the inference. It was natural that Marcellus, being anxious to vindicate his orthodoxy before the Roman Church, should profess his faith in the terms of the Roman Creed. Marcellus's Creed, too, it will be observed, uses the accusative construction, and that further supports the inference.

The earliest textual occurrence of the Apostles' Creed in the precise form, verbatim, of the Sarum Use from which our present English Creed is translated, is in the De Singulis Libris Canonicis of Pirminius, who in 758 died bishop of Meltis, somewhere in Central Europe (P. L. lxxxix. 1034). In relating the apocryphal story of the twelve apostles

at Jerusalem meeting to construct a Creed before separating for their several missions, he cites the article supposed to have been contributed by each, using no doubt the text he found current in his own day. This text, which is all that concerns us here, is as follows:

"Credo in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem, Creatorem cœli et terræ. Et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum. Qui susceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; Descendit ad inferna; Tertiâ die surrexit a mortuis; Ascendit ad coelos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris Omnipotentis; Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam; Sanctorum communionem ; Remissionem peccatorum ; Carnis Resurrectionem ; Vitam Eternam."

§ 70. The Apostles' Creed, its Structure.-Each of the Sacred Persons of the Trinity is separately treated of, the Second with the greatest fulness, the Third with the least.

Five other articles of belief then follow. Two of these, viz. the Holy Catholic Church and the Communion of Saints, both closely connected with the work of the Holy Ghost, define the fellowship which faith in the Holy Trinity has founded, and of which we are, and desire to remain, members.

The last three articles express what we believe in, and hope for ourselves as members of that fellowship, viz. Forgiveness and a Resurrection to eternal life.

§ 71. The Apostles' Creed, Notes. Πιστεύω εἰς Ocóv, Credo in Deum, occurs in the Roman Creed, in that of Pirminius, and of all the later Western Church. In the Aquileian it was "Credo in Deo." In sense there is probably no substantial difference between them.

In all versions of the Apostles' Creed the construction TOTEúw eis, credo in, is limited to the Divine Persons. Before other words, as ecclesiam, remissionem, resurrectionem, the preposition is dropped. Pearson discusses the question whether there is any special significance in this change of construction; whether the preposition carries with it, as St. Augustine thought, an implication of love, hope, affiance, in addition to the bare act of faith. He comes to the conclusion that, whether it is TOTEUw eis and credo in, or whether wτew and credo be followed immediately by an accusative, and whether that accusative be Θεόν or ἐκκλησίαν, the sense is the same. belief in the existence of the object is all that is asserted. Nor will Pearson allow that the Creed suffers any detriment from such a decision, since the belief that God is is the foundation of all that follows (Creed, pp. 28-31, 624, n., ed. Camb. 1859). It is to be noted that "Catholic" is absent from the earlier forms of the Apostles' Creed; as to which point more will be said under Nicene Creed, § 73 (i).

A

The Holy Church. Rufinus explains sanctam as indicating that the Church acknowledges a right faith and a triune God, and is in that respect "( without spot," very unlike the Churches gathered by Marcion,

Valentinus, Ebion, Manichæus, Arius, and other heretics, whose doctrines were inconsistent with the foundations of the Christian faith. He also contrasts the holy Church with the schismatic assemblies of the Donatists.

§ 72. The Nicene Creed, its History.—In 325, twelve years after the cessation of the great persecution under Diocletian, the first general council of the Church met at Nicæa, in Bithynia, under the Emperor Constantine, to settle that great controversy which had arisen in the Christian body, whether the Son of God, in Whose name the Church had endured such protracted and unparalleled sufferings, was a limited and created being, as Arius said, or very God. A Creed was adopted asserting the latter, and it was the one we now profess as the Nicene Creed, except that it went no further than the clause "I believe in the Holy Ghost."

The council and Creed of Nicea did not finish the controversy. The Emperor Constantine (ob. 337) was inclined to allow Arius a footing in the Church. His son, the Emperor Constantius (ob. 361), was a pronounced Arian; and still more so was the Emperor Valens (364-378). During those reigns the Nicene doctrine maintained a tremendous struggle for existence, and was at times in extreme peril. Athanasius, its great champion, died in 373. But by that time the controversy had extended to the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost, which were denied by Macedonius, a deposed patriarch of Constantinople. All the orthodox East now looked