subject, no information would have been derived from the Greek liturgies, as they ordinarily appeared both in MS. and in printed copies. The Creed, as used liturgically, would probably be indicated only by the first word πιστεύω. It is in this form, for instance, it appears in the Roman edition of the Liturgies of SS. Chrysostom and Basil, and of the Presanctified, which was published in 1526;' just as we find it in the common copies of the Euchologion to this day.

If we are right then in believing that evidence of the character indicated above was all that was before the English Reformers in 1548, we can feel little doubt that if any examination were instituted, the omission of the word 'holy' from the English Creed was not due to the carelessness of a printer or a copyist.

But, further, if the omission had been merely an unintentional error, we say with considerable confidence that it would have been supplied in 1552. We find that the Creed, as it appeared in the first Prayer-Book, was not accepted for the second Prayer-Book without consideration. The clause 'Whose kingdom shall have no end' is wanting in the Creed of 1549. It is introduced into the Creed of 1552. The form then was not sent to the press to be merely reprinted, it was corrected first. And it seems to us in a high degree improbable that the unintentional omission of an equivalent to 'sanctam' could have escaped notice during the many months intervening between the publication of the first and the publication of the second Prayer-Book.

It should here be noticed that the omission from the Prayer-Book of 1549 of the clause 'Whose kingdom shall have no end' (like that of the word 'holy') has, perhaps, been too readily ascribed to a clerical error or misprint.2 May it not have been contended by some of the revisers, if any question had arisen on the genuineness of this clause, that the text of the Nicene Creed proper should be taken as the authority for disputed parts before the so-called Constantinopolitan additions? For this earlier part of the Creed they could turn not only to Latin versions, but also to the Greek of Robert Stephens' Ecclesiastica Historiæ (1544), and everywhere the clause in question would be found wanting. This clause, 'Whose kingdom shall have no end,' is the only one of those several particulars in which the earlier part of the text of the Constantinopolitan Creed differs from the text of the Nicene that can be properly called a distinct 1 We have not seen the Roman edition of 1520. 2 See Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, p. 280.

article of the Faith. The other variations are of the nature of explanatory amplifications. The one article proper that is wanting from the Nicene Creed is wanting from the English as it appeared in 1549. If the omission originated in committee in some such manner as here suggested, it must have been felt before the issue of the second Prayer-Book that such a treatment of the text of the Creed was indefensible. A more consistent course was adopted; the Constantinopolitan Creed, in its Western form, was taken as the basis of the entire translation; the clause, 'Whose kingdom, &c.,' reappears; but the text was not taken direct from the Missal; the acts of the Councils were consulted, and the evidence then before them would have been overwhelming in determining the omission of the word 'holy' as an epithet of the Church.

The truth of the conjecture, here offered with hesitation, as to the cause of the omission of the clause, 'Whose king'dom,' &c., is in no sense necessary for the establishment of the point at which this article aims. Let the omission of the clause, 'Whose kingdom,' &c., from the Prayer-Book of 1549 be considered a mere printer's error, yet it was corrected in 1552. If the omission of the word 'holy' was also a printer's error, why was not it also corrected at the same time? Was this very sacred part of the service so carelessly regarded when other portions of the book testify to the fact that considerable attention was bestowed upon minute particulars? Indeed, whatever may be thought of the doctrinal bias or liturgical propriety of many of the changes made in the second book, there are indications enough to show that the whole attention of the revisers was not engrossed by the sacramentarian and ritual controversies of the day.'

Mr. Scudamore, in support of his view that the omission of the word 'holy' was 'in all probability an error of the transcribers or the printers,' notices that printers' errors were numerous 'in all the editions of the first Prayer-Book,' and

1 The following examples may be cited: (1) In the proper Preface for Ascension Day (1549) we read, 'Who after His most glorious resurrection manifestly appeared to all His disciples,' the last word, for an obvious reason, was changed to Apostles in 1552. (2) In the Benedicite, Speak good of the Lord, praise Him and set Him up for ever' (1549), became throughout Bless ye the Lord, praise Him and magnify Him for ever.' (3) In the Benedictus, hath lifted up a horn of salvation to us' (1549), appeared in 1552 in the less figurative but more intelligible form, raised up a mighty salvation for us. (4) In the Baptismal Service, 'knowledge of Thy grace and faith in Thee: increase and confirm this faith' (1549), became 'increase this knowledge and confirm this faith,' &c.

refers to Dr. Cardwell's notes to the second edition of his Two Books of Common Prayer, &c. (p. xlv.). But Dr. Cardwell expressly observes that the 'extraordinary misprints' of the edition of March 1549 were corrected in the (London) edition of the month of May. Indeed, from this it may be seen that the revision of 1552 was not the first opportunity afforded for the correction of this omission if it were only an error of the press. But Mr. Scudamore, of course, does not find his theory satisfactory in accounting for the continued omission of the word, and acknowledges that 'it is singular that it was not restored in any of the later revisions.'

The acts of Councils, then, had they been consulted by the Edwardine divines in the only form that we know to have been then available, would certainly have testified in favour of the omission of the word 'holy;' but it may be objected, the same authority would have testified in favour of the omission of the word filioque. Now we have not pretended that there was a determination on the part of the Reformers to make all considerations bow before those of textual criticism. The English Reformers, from whatever cause, threw in their lot on the subject of the Double Procession entirely with the rest of Western Christendom. Indeed, in one instance, the new Prayer-Book emphasised the faith of the revisers in a manner not found in the unreformed servicebooks. As appearing abruptly in a devotional formula, we may not admire the dogmatic addition to the third invocation of the Litany, 'O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son;' but its introduction sufficiently marks the importance attached to the doctrine by the English Reformers. And they knew that when first the Constantinopolitan Creed was synodically adopted in the West, the filioque formed a part of it. The Creed of the Council of Toledo (A.D. 589) contained the filioque: it did not contain sanctam as an epithet of ecclesiam. In both these particulars the English Church followed the most ancient form in which the Creed was known to that great division of the Church Catholic to which she was historically allied.2

1 It may be worth noting here that an error of the press (of the common kind known as 'printers' corrections'), 'God of Gods' for 'God of God,' occurring in the Creed in one of the editions of 1552, is not found in two other editions of the same year. Compare The Two Liturgies, &c. (Parker Society), p. 268, with Cardwell's Two Books of Common Prayer, p. 272.

2 We do not lay stress on these points, but it is, perhaps, worth observing that in one or two other particulars in which the Creed of the Reformed Prayer-Book differs from that of the Missal, a likeness

It does not come within the scope of the present article (though we may return to the subject on another occasion) to discuss whether we in the nineteenth century, with the additional evidence now at our disposal, should be able to confirm the decision of the Edwardine Reformers. We are content if we have succeeded in maintaining that the form in which the Anglican Communion expresses its faith in the 'One Catholic and Apostolic Church' did not originate in the negligence of a copyist or the inattention of a printer, but was in truth the result of an inquiry into ancient sources upon the part of the revisers. The revisers themselves, indeed, could not be acquitted of culpable negligence had they allowed to stand uncorrected an omission of this kind originating in an error. It is something if we have helped to establish that the Creed of the English Church in her most solemn service was not in any part constructed haphazard by negligent clerks or stupid compositors.

ART. V.-DIEPPE.

Histoire des Anciennes Villes de France. Première série. Haute-Normandie, Dieppe. Par M. L. VITET. Two vols. (Paris, 1835.)

AMONGST the thousands of our fellow-countrymen who passed last year through Dieppe on their way to the Universal Exhibition at Paris, perhaps only a small proportion was acquainted with the chronicles of the picturesque French port at which they landed. Yet very few towns in France have so deeply interesting or so diversified a history, and probably still fewer have enjoyed the advantage of so competent an historian. M. Vitet, whose work has now become very scarce, brought singular qualifications to his task. tinguished alike as an authority in archæology and literature, in architecture and art, he was appointed by Guizot Inspector General of Historic Monuments, an office specially created

Dis

to the Toletan Creed is observable. Thus (1) we say, 'I believe in the Holy Ghost;' the Missal does not repeat Credo; but the Toletan Creed reads Credimus et in Spiritum Sanctum. (2) Where we read, 'the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, the Sarum Missal reads 'filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum, &c., but the Toletan, 'filium Dei unigenitum ex Patre natum!

for him, and he eventually obtained the highest literary distinction by his election to the French Academy. Besides a trilogy of historic dramas, which portray the stirring incidents of the League and the events which culminated in the murders of Henry III. and the Duke of Guise with admirable perspicacity, M. Vitet designed a history of the ancient towns of France, of which only the volumes before us appeared in print before their author's attention was diverted to literary and artistic criticism. The annals of Dieppe, although the town itself is not rich in monumental remains, had been embalmed in two ancient manuscripts, the Chroniques of Asseline, and the Mémoires of Guibert, each of which has been lately published by careful and learned editors. Aided by such material resources, M. Vitet has produced a perfect model of what a local history should be. Full of matter, vivid in treatment, and ample without being prolix-we realise without effort the scenes described with the graphic clearness of a transparent style, and are borne on with unflagging interest from the earliest to the most recent times.

The singular shape in which the fortunes of Dieppe have been cast seem spontaneously to suggest their treatment in a series of episodes. It has been sarcastically remarked that in France camps of Cæsar are as plentiful as blackberries in England; but throughout the whole country only the Druidical remains at Carnac and the Pagan wall of Sainte Odille can compare in grandeur or importance with the Camp de César or Cité de Limes, to which the visitor at Dieppe is brought by an hour's walk along the eastern cliff and through the rising and pleasant marine village of Puys. So vast a space is enclosed by a lofty and level rampart, flanked by a double ditch, as to fill the spectator with astonishment and to prompt the question, for what purpose could so vast a work have been designed? The conformation of the camp itself, the discovery of many iron rings, such as Cæsar tells us formed the current money of the Gauls, the unearthing of animal bones mingled with human remains in the tumuli and the excavation of Gallo-Belgic 'tuguria,' on the spot, prove that the fortifications are of earlier date than the Roman occupation of Gaul, and that the place is one of the ' oppida to which the nomad tribes of Gaul retreated when assailed by the Germans. The visitor thus enlightened looks with no little interest on the earliest existing memorial of a struggle

1 The existing enclosure comprises about 124 acres, and before it was encroached on by the sea is believed to have been at least onethird larger.