The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation

Introductory

“ With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, And with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”—Rom. x. το.

WHEREVER there is true belief in the heart, there will also be the outward expression of that belief, both in word and deed. Hence it is that we find very early traces of short summaries of Christian belief or Creeds... Then in course of time were accepted the three Creeds, which, our Church says, “ought thoroughly to be received and believed” (Art. 111). Until the Reformation the three Creeds were the only authoritative statements of doctrine. In the Church of Rome there was no written authority of doctrine, other than the Creeds, until the decrees of the Council of Trent (1564). The decrees of Councils may, from time to time, have added to received doctrines, ¢g., Transubstantiation was defined at the fourth Lateran Council (1215), but the process by which conflicting beliefs contended until one prevailed went constantly on until the Council of Trent.

The sixteenth century was marked by a general upheaval and unsettlement in religious matters, a state of things owing partly to the revival of learning, which had caused men to contrast the Church of the New Testament with medizval Rome and to think for themselves, and partly due to ecclesiastical abuses. At this erisis, especially in those countries where a breach with Rome had taken place, a definition of doctrine became necessary. It had to be made clear how far the Church was at one with the

1 See notes on Article VIII. A

Church of the past, how it differed from the Church of Rome on the one hand, and from other Reformed bodies on the other hand. Thus at the period of the Reformation we find the various parts of Christendom putting forth more or less complete con- sessions of faith.’

Speaking quite generally, there is this broad distinction between our English Articles and the formularies of foreign Protestant or Reformed bodies. The latter exhibit a more uniform body of doctrine than the Articles of the English Church, a result to which several causes contributed. In the first place the Continental Reformers, though at the outset with more or less unwillingness, severed their connection with the Church of the past, and, ignoring Ecclesiastical traditions, worked out a theology de novo from the Bible, guided by their own private Judgment. The aim of the English Reformers, on the other hand, was simply the reformation of abuses: the Catholic creed was assumed and the Primitive Church taken as a pattern. Medieval errors were purged away, but the organic identity of the Church before and after the Reformation was taken for granted, and in this country no break occurred either in the Episcopal succession or in the Liturgy. Another reason why the Continental Confessions of the sixteenth century contain a more systematic theology than our Articles may be traced in the remarkable fact that they owe so much more to individuals of commanding personality. The greater names and stronger characters in England, such as Wolsey, Fisher, More, Gardiner, were on the conservative side in religion, and our Articles, being the outcome of the operation of various and even conflicting influences, are not found to elaborate a logically complete theory of God’s dealings with men. On the Continent it was far otherwise. The Reformation there owed everything to dominant individuals with special central theories of their own. Thus Lutheranism is a system gathered round the doctrine of justifying faith, and Calvinism is a system turning on election and reprobation, other doctrines being subordinated to, or influenced by, these central theories.

One sometimes hears the Articles spoken of as “ containing a whole body of divinity.” From what has been already said it will be seen that this is scarcely the case. What the Church of England does claim is that they are a fair Scriptural account

1 See Appendix I.

of the leading doctrines of Christianity, set out in a way specially suited to the needs of the time when they were composed, together with a condemnation of prevalent errors, both of the Roman Church and of Protestants. Many subjects are unnoticed in them,’ but as far as the Articles go, they are the legal definition of the doctrines of our Church, though it is to the Prayer-Book, together with the Articles, that English Churchmen look for the genuine expression of their Church’s faith.

It is often stated that the XX XIX. Articles are a sort of compromise, drawn up with the view of reconciling contending parties ; but surely the great object of the compilers was to set forth the true doctrine of the Church of England. The theory that the Articles are designedly ambiguous derives no support from the Articles themselves, and directly contradicts the avowed

purpose of the compilers as expressed in the title. It is also τῶ

abundantly clear that Cranmer, who had the chief hand in the composition of our Articles, altogether disapproved of such a dangerous and unprincipled line of conduct; ¢f. the Archbishop’s letter to John a Lasco (dated London, July 4, 1548), in which he says: “ We are desirous of setting forth in our churches the true doctrine of God, and have no wish to adapt it to all tastes and to trifle with ambiguities, but, laying aside all carnal and prudential motives, to transmit to posterity a true and explicit form of doctrine agreeable to the rule of the sacred writings.” ”

The clergy are required at their ordination to subscribe the Articles, in accordance with Canon XXXVI.

“No person shall hereafter be received into the ministry, nor, either by institution or collation, admitted to any Ecclesiastival living, nor suffered to preach, to catechize, or to be a Lecturer, or Reader of Divinity, in either University, or in any Cathedral, or Collegiate Church, City, or Market-town, Parish Church, Chapel, or in any other place within this realm, except he be licensed,

either by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop of the diocese where he is to be placed, under their hands and seals, or by one of the two Universities under their seal likewise; and except he shall first make and subscribe the following declaration, which, for the avoiding of all ambiguities, he shall subscribe in this order and form of words, setting down both his Christian and surname, viz. :—

I, A. B., do solemnly make the following declaration: I assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; I believe the doctrine of the [united] Church of England [and Ireland] as therein set forth, to be agreeable to the Word of God; and in public prayer and administtation of the Sacraments, I will use the form in the said book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority.”

In former years subscription to the Articles was also required | from all who graduated at the Universities.

A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES, ἄο., ISSUED FORMATION |

1533. IN repudiating the Papal Supremacy it was maintained (25 Hen. viii. ec, 21) :—

“That the King and Parliament did not intend by it to decline or vary from the congregation of Christ’s Church in anything concerning the very articles of the Catholic Faith of Christendom, and in any other things declared by

_ Scripture and the Word of God necessary for salvation.”

1536. THe Ten ARTICLES.

Negotiations had been going on in 1535 between England and the Germans who had accepted the Augsburg Confession. Attempts were made to induce Henry VIII. to throw in his lot with the German Protestant Princes. The X. Articles were in reality a declaration as to how far England was at the time prepared to go with the German Protestants, viz., a very little way indeed, and the negotiations failed for the time. The most important advances in a Reforming direction in these Articles were :

(i.) The rejection of the Papal Supremacy and the

substitution of the Royal Supremacy for it.

(ii.) The prominence given to the authority of Holy”

Scripture. The rule of faith is the Bible, the - Three Creeds, the first Four Councils, and the traditions of the fathers consistent with the Bible. (iii.) Three (not seven) Sacraments are treated οὗ;

Baptism, Penance, and the Sacrament of the ~ Altar.

On the practical side, images, honour paid to saints, prayers offered to saints, rites and ceremonies, and practices connected with the doctrine of purgatory, are retained, but guarded from abuse. On comparing the Ten Articles with the Augsburg Confession, we notice that in the latter philosophical doctrines, such as Original Sin and Justitication, occupy a much more prominent place. Concerning practice, the Augsburg Confession goes very much farther in a _ reforming direction than these English Articles: it prescribes the cup for the laity, admits the marriage of priests, condemns vows, and exalts the communion aspect of the Holy Eucharist at the expense of its sacrificial aspect.

1537. THE INSTITUTION OF A CHRISTIAN MAN.

(Sometimes called ΤῊΝ Bisnops’ Book, because at was the outcome of the deliberations of a committee of bishops and divines appointed to draw up a book of religwus instruction.)

This is based to a great extent upon the Ten Articles, and is divided into four parts :—

1. An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed.

2. The Seven Sacraments.

3. The Ten Commandments.

4. The Lord’s Prayer and Ave Maria, with Articles

on Justification and Purgatory.

The prominence given to faith in this book may be accounted an advance in a Reforming direction, but this was balanced by a return to the Seven Sacraments.

1538. Negotiations with the Lutheran school of Reformers were at this time renewed, German deputies being sent over to this country to consult with English divines ; the result of their deliberations was

THe THIRTEEN ARTICLES, based upon the Ten Articles of 1536 and the Augsburg Confession. These Articles were not published, but have been found amongst Cranmer’s papers; they never had any authority in the Church, but they are important because

(1.) They afford evidence of the desire for united

action on the part of the Reformers.-_

+ ee ee «tone

A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES :

(2.) They show how far the Church in this country was at the time prepared to accept the Augsburg Confession.

(3.) The opinions of Cranmer were modified by his discussions with the German deputies.

(4.) They are the medium through which the language of the Augsburg Confession passed into the XLII. Articles, and thence to the XXXIX. Articles.

The Augsburg Confession had allowed the cup to the laity and the marriage of clergy, and had condemned vows and private masses. ‘The English Church had not gone so far as this, and no agreement could be arrived at upon these points. When the German deputies expressed their opinion pretty freely about the Church in this country for withholding the cup from the laity, enforcing the celibacy of the clergy, ἄο,, some defence was thought necessary. The King and Bishop Tonstal drew up. a reply to the Germans, but the most effectual reply was,

1539. THE Srx ARTICLE Law. This marks the final failure of the attempts saree " Henry’s reign to Lutheranise the English Church ; briefly reaffirms Transubstantiation, Communion in one Kind, Celibacy of the Clergy, the“ Obligation of Vows, the use of private masses, and of auricular confession,

1543. NECESSARY DOCTRINE FOR ANY CHRISTIAN MAN.

(The work of a committee of bishops, approved by the King and by Convocation, and published by Royal authority, hence it 1s commonly called Toe Kine’s Book.)

This is based on the Bishops’ Book, but contains additional Articles on Free-Will and Good Works: τ ῖ also appends a general statement on the nature of Sacraments, and adds a preface on Faith. The King’s Book was now the authoritative standard of doctrine of the Church of England, and remained so until the XLII. Articles were issued ; it superseded the X. Articles, which up to this time had been in force.

It is commonly stated that the King’s Book marks a retrograde step in the Reformation. It is true that

some Roman doctrines are affirmed more strongly than in the Bishops’ Book, yet the general spirit of the two books is the same. ‘The doctrines of the nature of the Church, the Royal Supremacy, and the Rule of Faith are laid down with equal fulness, and in the same sense in both books.. “he King’s Book contains unreformed doctrine more rigidly than the Bishops’ Book on the following important points :—

(wa) Communion in one kind.

(b) Enforcement of celibacy of the clergy.

(c) In treating of Penance, the necessity of absolution

by a priest is more strongly affirmed.

(d) The use of Scripture is restricted in the Preface

to those of gentle birth.

Both books condemn the theory of good works which had been encouraged by Roman abuses.’

In the reign of Henry VIII. no real reformation in doctrine had been attempted. The formularies above mentioned were mainly protests against Protestantism, and were so understood on the Continent. The religion of England during the latter part of the reign was Roman Catholicism with the King put in the place of the Pope.* Up to the close of the reign the Refer- mation had proceeded on English lines, and the interference of foreign Protestants had been rather resented.

1549. Tur First Prayer-Book or Epwarp VI. may be said to embody the ripe result of the English Reformation properly so called. During the short reign of Edward VI. foreign divines were eagerly welcomed, and the most illustrious of them put into high positions; thus Bucer was made Divinity Professor at Cambridge, Peter Martyr holding the corresponding post at Oxford. The Prayer-

? For a detailed comparison of the two books see Appendix II. * Compare the following allusions in Original Letters :— John Butler and others to Conrad Pellican and others, dated London, March 8, [...] pass on then to the state of this our kingdom, which is as follows ; the ceremonies are still tolerated, but explanations of them are added.” Hooper to Bullinger, from Strasburg, January 27 [1546 ?]— “Accept, my dear master, in a very few words, the news from England. As far as true religion is concerned, idolatry is nowhere in greater vigour. Our king has destroyed the pope, but not popery. . . . The’ impious mass,

Book of 1549 was too conservative for such men as these, and the alterations made in the Book of 1552 were due to their influence.

1552. ΤῊΝ Seconp PrayeR-Book or Epwarp VI. may thus be said to mark the extreme point reached in the attempt to conciliate foreign Reformers.

The Council of Trent had now been sitting for some time and defining the doctrines of Rome in opposition to those of the. Reformers. Those who had broken with Rome consequently felt more strongly than ever the need of defining their position, and of presenting, if possible, a combined front against their common adversary. Cranmer especially seems to have cherished the idea of drawing the Continental Protestants and Reformed together, and uniting them with the English Church in the acceptance of a common con’‘es- sion of faith.” It was with this object in view that the Archbishop invited the co-operation of so many foreigners. Bucer, Peter Martyr, Fagius, Dryander, John a Lasco, Calvin, and Bullinger were all solicited

the most shameful celibacy of the clergy, the invocation of saints, auricular

confession, superstitious abstinence from meats, and purgatory, were never

before held by the people in greater esteem than at the present moment.” Dryander to Bullinger, from Cambridge, June 5, 1549—

‘*Meanwhile this reformation must not be counted lightly of; in this kingdom especially, where there existed heretofore, in the public formularies of doctrine, true popery without the name.”

Beza to Bullinger, from Geneva, September 3, 1566, referring to the state of religion in England, says—

“The Papacy was never abolished in that country, righ rather transferred to the sovereign.’

Withers to the Elector Palatine—

“Under the auspices of Henry, the eighth of that name, England drove away the Reman Antichrist from all her borders, but yet in such a manner as that his authority seemed, not so much suppressed, as transferred to the king. The mass and other relics of Popish filthiness retained their former place and estimation.”

“ He set forth a form of public prayer written in English, which, however,

- searcely differed in any respect from the Latin, except that all the most glaring errors were abolished. The administration of the Sacraments altogether savours of Lutheranism.”

2 Cranmer thus writes to Mélancthon, from London, February to, 1549 :—

“Tam aware that you have often desired that wise and godly men should take counsel together, and, having compared their opinions, send forth under the sanction of their authority some work that should embrace the chief

to aid in the settlement of disputed questions. Melanc- thon was also invited to help, but seems to have treated the idea as impracticable. It was doubtless from the hope of the various Reformed bodies eventually coming to an agreement that the publication of the Articles | was so long deferred, but at length there appeared

1553. THE Forty-Two ARTICLES.!

The Articles of 1538 were taken as the basis of these Articles, but the opinions of Cranmer were undergoing a change ;” he had, at this time, passed from his Lutheran to his Zwinglian phase, and accordingly we find that in 1553 the Augsburg Confession has receded very much into the background. Only six Articles were adopted from it, either wholly or in part, viz., I, 11. ΙΧ. X1X., XXV., XXXI.; and, what is more remarkable, distinctively Lutheran language was rejected, especially in the Articles on Justification and on the Sacraments. It is a wery difficult question to decide whether these Articles really had any authority in the Church. ‘The title runs thus :—

subjects of ecclesiastical doctrine, and transmit the truth uncorrupted to posterity. This object we are anxiously endeavouring to accomplish to the - utmost of our power.”’—Original Letters, vol. 1. pp. 21, 22. See also the Archbishop’s letter to Bullinger, dated Lambeth, March 20, 1552 :—

“1 considered it better, forasmuch as our adversaries are now holding their councils at Trent to confirm their errors, to recommend his Majesty to grant his assistance, that in England, or elsewhere, there might be convoked a synod of the most learned and excellent persons in which provision might be made for the purity of ecclesiastical doctrine, and especially for an agreement upon the sacramentarian controversy. . . . We must not therefore suffer ourselves to be wanting to the Church of God in a matter of such importance. I have written upon the subject to Masters Philip [{.6., Melancthon) and Calvin ; and I pray you to devise the means by which this synod may be assembled with the greatest convenience, either in England or elsewhere.” —Original Letters, vol. i. p. 23.

1 The XXXIX. Articles were little more than a revision of these. The points of difference will be noted later on.

2 Extracts from contemporary letters showing the change in Cranmer’s opinions are given in Appendix ITI. <

The natural inference from the wording of the title would be that the Articles had been submitted to Convocation. There is evidence, however, which tends to show that they were never presented at all. Cranmer himself admitted that the title was added without his permission, and meant nothing more than that Convocation was sitting at the time’ The Archbishop himself seems to have had the chief hand in the compilation of the Articles.” Finally, they were published by the “ King’s Majesty’s commandment,” June 155 3,° and all beneficed clergy were ordered to sign them on pain of deprivation. King Edward, however, died in July of the same year, and all through Queen Mary’s reign the Articles were in abeyance.

1559. THE ELEVEN ARTICLES. After the accession of Elizabeth it was intended to revise the XLII. Articles, but meanwhile Arch-

1 Cranmer’s reply to Weston’s question runs thus—

“T was ignorant of the setting to of that title, and as soon as I had knowledge thereof I did not like it; therefore when I complained thereof to the Council, it was answered thus by them, that the book was so entitled because it was set forth in the time of Convocation.”—Cranmer’s Works, IV.

pp. 64-65.

Cf. the words of Archdeacon Philpot i in Convocation, Oct. 1553. In defence of the Catechism which had appeared under the same sanction as the Articles, he said—

“This house had granted the authority to make ecclesiastical laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the King’s Majesty ; and whatsoever laws they, or the most part of them, did set forth, according to the statute in that behalf provided, it might be well said to be done in the Synod of London, although such as be of this house have had no notice thereof before the promulgation ; and in this point he thought the setting forth thereof nothing to have slandered the house.”—Britton, Horae Sacramentales, pp. 9-10.

2 In 1551 the Archbishop received an order from the King and Privy Council to frame a book of Articles of Religion for preserving and maintaining peace and unity of doctrine in the Church. ‘‘ In obedience hereunto he drew up a set which were delivered to certain other bishops to be inspected and subscribed,” &c. (Strype’s Cranmer, p. 272). In May 1552 the Privy Council sent for these Articles. The Archbishop forwarded them on September roth to Sir John Cheke. About the beginning of October they were, by the King’s order, communicated to other divines, and on November 23rd the Council once more sent them to Cranmer for final revision, the Archbishop returning them the following day. The Articles were thus privately prepared, and were not the result of any public discussion in Convocation.

5. There was, prefixed to the Articles ‘‘ A shorte catechisme or playne instruction contaynynge the summe of Christian learning set fourth by the King’s Majestie’s authorities, for all schoolmaisters to teache.” This was composed by Poinet, Bishop of Winchester.

bishop Parker drew up XI. Articles for circulation amongst the clergy. The meaning and force of such formularies is well illustrated by these Articles. They make the barest reference to the fundamentals of the Faith, merely affirming the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and referring to the Creeds, but they define the position of the Church of England upon points debated at the time. They lay down—

(a) The authority of Scripture.

(6) The rights of National Churches, their power to decree ceremonies, ὅσο.

(c) The rights of the State; the Royal, as against the Papal, Supremacy.

(4) Points of divergence from Rome. Certain practices, such as the use of images, relics, &c., and private masses, are condemned, and the right of the laity to partake of the cup is affirmed, but it is noteworthy that there is no condemnation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

This is the most comprehensive of all the series of English Articles. Points debated amongst the Reformers are omitted, and even those who wished to hold Roman doctrine on the Sacraments might subscribe to these Articles, provided only they would accept the Royal Supremacy. The most prominent feature of this formulary is the assertion of the freedom from Papal interference of the National Church, which desires to embrace within itself the whole nation.

A few words should be said about

THE Book oF ComMMoN PRAYER, published in this same year, because it throws light upon the state of religious opinion in England at the time. It was the wish of the Queen, Parker, and Cecil to restore the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI., but this was: soon found to be impossible, owing to the number and influence of the returned Marian exiles, whose wish it was to remodel the English Church after the pattern of Geneva. The most that could be done was to revive the second Prayer-Book of Edward; which was

of a much more strongly Reforming type than the first. Two very significant changes were however made, much to the annoyance of the returned refugees and their party."

(1.) In the Communion Office the words of administration from the first Book were prefixed to the words of administration as contained in the second Book. So long as the words of the second Book only were used, it might be maintained that that part of the service favoured Calvinistic and anti-sacramental doctrine; but the addition of the words from the first Book was understood at the time, and was doubtless intended, to imply a recognition of the Real Presence.

(2.) The “ Ornaments Rubric” was inserted, which restored such vestments of the clergy and furniture of the Church ‘as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” What may be called the “ Puritanism ” of the Prayer-Book of 1552 was thus altogether neutralised.

1562-3. Convocation met in January of this year. XLII. Articles were presented. These were the XLII. Articles of 1553, which had been revised by Archbishop Parker,

aided principally by Cox (Bishop of Ely) and Guest (Bishop of Rochester). Four of the XLII. Articles had been struck out, viz. :—

(1.) On Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

(2.) On Grace.

(3.) On the Moral Law [but part of this was in- ᾿ corporated with Art. VII. ].

1 Their opinion is well illustrated by a letter of George Withers to the Elector Palatine—

‘*The high Parliament of the whole realm was assembled, popery again cast out, and the second form of Prayers, which Edward left behind him at his death, was restored to the Church. But the ceremonies which, as was above stated, were retained in the Church at the first reformation of Edward, are restored under the same name. ... In what way the Sacraments are disfigured by human inventions will easily appear from the public form of prayer, the royal injunctions, and the admonitions, or (as they call them) the advertisements of the Bishops... . What must we say when most of them (i.¢., the English clergy) are popish priests, consecrated to perform mass?” —Zurich Letters, vol. ii, pp. 161-163.

(4.) Against the Millenarians.

Four Articles had been added, viz. :—

(1.) On the Holy Ghost.

(2.) On Good Works.

(3:) On the non-participation of the wicked in the Holy Communion.

(4.) On Communion in both kinds.

No less than seventeen Articles had been more or less modified. The Upper House of Convocation omitted three more Articles which condemned opinions no longer of much importance in the controversies of the time: these were :—

Art. XX XIX. “ The resurrection of the dead is not yet brought to pass.”

Art. XL. “ The souls of them that depart this life do neither die with the bodies nor sleep idly.”

Art. XLII. “ All men, shall not be saved at length.”

A few verbal changes were also made by Convocation.

Thus the number of the Articles was reduced to XX XIX. :

In the Latin Articles sanctioned by the Queen two umportant changes were made :—

—(1.) A clause was added at the beginning of Art. XX. on the authority of the Church, “Habet ecclesia ritus statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis auctoritatem.”

(2.) Article XXIX., on the non-participation of the wicked, was struck out.

The Articles, thus reduced to the number of XXXVIII. by the omission of Article XXIX., were published in 1563 as agreed upon “by the Arch- bishoppes and Bishoppes of both prouinces and the whole cleargie, in the Conuocation holden at London in the yere of our Lord God MDLXII . . . for the auoiding of the diuersities of opinions, and for the stablishyng of consent touching true religion.” They do not seem, however, to have. met with general acceptance between 1563 and 1571. In the last- named year they were re-issued both ih Latin and

A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES | 15

1571. English, with the addition of the Article struck out by the Queen in 1563, and thus, forming XXXIX. in number, were subscribed by both Houses of Convocation. Subscription was enforced by Act of Parliament, being required from all clergy, and from all taking degrees at the Universities.’

In this same year the REFORMATIO LEGUM was brought into Parliament. The “ Submission of Clergy” had provided that no new canons could be put forth by the clergy without the Royal sanction. The old Canon Law remained in force, but it was agreed that it should be revised by a Commission. Three times

‘in Henry’s reign a statute was passed for the appointment of the commissioners,” but it is not clear that any revision took place. By 3 & 4 Edward VI. 11, the king was empowered to appoint thirty-two persons “to compile such ecclesiastical laws as should be thought convenient.” The Commission was appointed in October 1551, but in the next year the time allowed by the Act expired, and the work had not been completed. In the Parliament which met in 1571 an attempt was made to revive the “ Refer- matio Legum,” but the attempt failed, and after this date the book disappears from Church history. As matters now stand, the Canons of the Church universal are binding in this country when they have been accepted by English synods, and are not contrary to the statute law of the land. The “Reformatio Legum” has thus no authority whatever, but its statements, especially in the section “ De Heeresibus,” illustrate the Articles, as they often throw light upon the controversies of the time. 7

1 The second section of the ‘‘ Act for ministers of the Church to be of sound Religion” (13 Eliz. 6. 12) contains the following passage :—

“ΤΕ any person ecclesiastical, or which shall have any ecclesiastical living, shall advisedly maintain or affirm any doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said Thirty-Nine Articles, and being convicted before the Bishop of the diocese, or the Ordinary, or before the Queen’s Commissioner in causes ecclesiastical, shall persist therein, or not revoke his error, or, after such revocation, affirm such untrue doctrine, such maintaining, or affirming, or persisting, shall be just cause to deprive such person of his ecclesiastical functions, and it shall be lawful for the Bishop of the diocese, or Ordinary, or such Commissioner, to deprive such person.”

2 25 Hen. VIII. 19; 27 Hen. VIII. 15; and 35 Hen, VIII. τό,

τό P THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

1595. ΤῊΝ LAMBETH ARTICLES. ie The wide prevalence of Calvinistic theology in England during Elizabeth’s reign is indicated by the controversy at Cambridge between Whitaker, Regius Professor, and Baro, Margaret Professor, of Divinity, the latter of whom was compelled to resign for teaching that “Christ died sufficiently for all,” and for maintaining that this was the doctrine of the English Articles. To this controversy the compilation of the “Lambeth Articles” is ultimately traceable. Archbishop Whitgift, desiring to settle matters, called to his aid certain bishops and divines, and at Lambeth a paper of Articles was drawn up and agreed upon. These Articles are nine in number, and assert in most uncompromising form the main points of the Calvinistic Theology. They never had any authority whatever. At 1604 the Hampton Court Conference the Puritans petitioned that the “Lambeth Articles” might be added to the Thirty-nine, but the request was refused.’ The history of these Articles suggests two important reflections :— (1.) The Calvinistic party could not have been by any means satisfied that the XX XIX. Articles were Calvinistic in sense, otherwise they would scarcely have thought it necessary to add a

statement of Calvinistic doctrine to them.” (2.) When an express statement of Calvinistic doctrines was offered for the acceptance of the English Church, it was deliberately refused. Such doctrines therefore form no part

of the theology of our Church.

1604. The fifth of the Canons of this date lays down that,

‘‘ Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that any of the nine- and-thirty Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and

1 They were, however, incorporated with the Irish Articles of 1615. See Appendix VI.

Bishops of both provinces, and the whole clergy, in the convocation holden at London, in the year of our Lord God one thousand five hundred and sixty-two, for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion, are in any part superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but only by the Archbishop, after his repentance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”

1628, His Masesty’s DECLARATION was prefixed to the XXXIX. Articles. Its immediate cause seems to have been the strong censure of Arminianism uttered by the House of Commons, and it was put forth with a view of settling or smoothing the raging controversy between Arminians and Calvinists. It enjoins that the Articles be taken “an the literal and grammatical sense,” and points to Convocation as the proper body for settling disputed points of doctrine or discipline. The “ Declaration” was drawn up by Laud, but not submitted to Convocation, so that it had not the sanction of the Church, but was put forth solely on the King’s authority.

1635. The XXXIX. Articles adopted by the Convocation of the Church of Ireland.

1804. The Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church accepted the XX XIX. Articles.

1865. In this year there was passed “ An Act to amend the law as to the declarations and subscriptions to be made, and oaths to be taken, by the clergy” (28 and 29 Vict. ο. 112). This Act provides that a clergyman, on being instituted to a living, shall, on the first Sunday that he officiates there, “publicly and openly in the presence of his congregation read the whole Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and immediately after reading them, make the declaration of assent to them.”

{Tl

Article I

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Unus est vivus et verus Deus, aeternus, tncorporeus, impartibilis, impassibilis; z¢mmensae potentiae, sapientiae, ac bonitatis ; Creator et Conservator omnium tum visi - bilium, tum invisibilium. Et in unitate hujus divinae naturae, tres sunt Personae, ejusdem essentiae, potentiae, ac aeternitatis, Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

Largely borrowed from the Augsburg Confession, Part I.,

Art. I., through the medium of the XIII. Articles.

The words

printed in italics are common to all three formularies.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

The: Article of course excludes Arian and Sabellian heretics. Its immediate object doubtless was to condemn the Anabaptists, and kindred spirits, who had revived these heresies at the period

of the Reformation, many of them having renounced all belief in the Holy Trinity!

! That even those Articles which affirm the fundamental doctrines of the faith were called forth by the needs of the time is abundantly proved by con-

temporary documents; see, e.g., letter written by Ridley to Bradford shortly betore his death (Works, p. 367, ed. Parker Society) :—

“Whereas you write of the outrageous rule that Satan, our ghostly enemy, beareth abroad in the world, whereby he stirreth, and raiseth so pestilent Ὁ and heinous heresies, as some to deny the blessed Trinity, some the Divinity

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1) THE Berne or Gop. “There is but one living and true God.” Belief in the existence of God is the very foundation of all religion (Heb. xi. 6). His existence does not admit of demonstration, yet is a matter of reasonable certainty, being testified to by

(a) The phenomena of nature (Job xii. 7-10; Rom. i. 20). The argument for the existence of God from natural

(ii.)

phenomena falls under two heads :—

The argument from causation. The succession of causes which we observe in nature must have derived its origin from some First Cause. In the words of Herbert Spencer, “The assumption of the existence of a first cause of the universe is a necessity of thought.” é

) The argument from adaptation. The order and usefulness of the world, and all things therein, point to a wise and mighty Will behind it (Acts xiv. 17). So John Stuart Mill, in his work “On Theism,” confesses, “I think it must be allowed that, in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in nature afford a large balance of probability in favour of creation by intelligence.”

(b) The moral sense of mankind (Rom. 11. 15). Should we not see in the obligatory influence of con-

science, the sense of right and wrong, and of responsibility, the image, and therefore the proof, of the Divine Mind ?

Thus we follow alike the strongest presumption of our reason, and the best intuition of the soul, when we believe that God is. The existence of God is confirmed, and His character more clearly manifested to us by Revelation. It was the work of Christ to declare to us the Father’ (S. John 1. 183 ef. xvii. 6).

of our Saviour Christ, some the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, some the baptism of infants, some original sin, and to be infected with the errors of the Pelagians, and to re-baptize those that have been baptized with Christ’s baptism already ; alas, Sir, this doth declare this time and these days to be wicked indeed.”

1 This declarative aspect of Christ’s work is especially Papen in the Gospel according to §. John.

Being Himself “the Image of the invisible God” (Col. i. 15), He showed the Father by exhibiting in Himself the moral image of God. Those who saw Him saw the Father (S. John xii. 45 ; xiv. 9). Those who hearkened to Him heard the words of the Father (S. John vii. 16; viii. 28; xiv. 24). The whole of His perfect life was a manifestation of the Father, with Whom He is one (S. John x. 30), and from Whom He came forth (S. John xvi. 28), His mission being attested by (a) fulfilment of prophecies (S. John v. 46), and by (Ὁ) miracles (8S. John v. 36; XV. 24). God is :— one (Deut. vi. 4; Isa. xliv. 8; S. Mark xii. 29; 1 Cor. Vili. 4). living, ὁ.6. self-existent, having life in Himself (Exod. iii. 14; Jer. x. 10; S. John v. 26; 1 Thess. 1. 9). true (ἀληθινός, 1 Thess. i.9; S. John xvii. 3)—the meaning of the Greek word is ‘genuine, denoting that which truly and completely is that which it professes to be. The sense is therefore that there is One only who perfectly fulfils the conception we form of what God should be.

_ (2) THe ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. “Everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.” The Divine attributes given in the Article may be classified as follows :—

(a) Positive attributes, such as impute to God the possession

of certain qualities. everlasting (Deut. xxxii. 40; Ps. cil. 27; Rev. 1. 8). This follows upon recognition of God as the ‘ First Cause,’ which must exist of Itself, and therefore must

always exist. of infinite power (S. Matt. xix. 26; but see 2 Tim. ii. 13; Heb. vi. 18). Thus ‘Almighty’* is a title often applied to God in Holy Scripture. When we say “God can do everything,” we of course exclude those things which are in themselves impossible ; ¢.g., that a thing should exist and not exist at the same moment. aw ON, παντοκράτωρ, Lat. ‘omnipotens,’ (i.e. strietly, “‘ having power over all things”), D

We likewise except those things which contradict the perfection of God. He is of infinite power, but He cannot sin. Sin is, in fact, a mark of weakness, not of power.

of infinite wisdom (Ps. exlvii. 5 ; Rom. xi. 33). By wisdom we mean knowledge of things together with skill to apply that knowledge.

of infinite goodness (Lev. xi. 45; S. Luke xviii. 19; S. James i. 17). He is perfectly good in Himself, and the Author and Giver of all good.

(b) Negative attributes, such as deny to God the possession

of certain qualities.

without body (incorporeus), 7.¢., immaterial, spiritual (Ὁ. John iv. 24; v. 373; of. 5. Luke xxiv. 39).

without parts (impartibilis), 1.6., incapable of division. There can be nothing of the nature of conflict or change with God (Ps. cii. 26, 27).

without passions (impassibilis), .6., incapable of suffering. Whatever suffers does 80. from some agent stronger than itself; this therefore follows from the infinite power of God."

(3) Gop’s RELATION TO THE UNIVERSE. “The Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.” The relation of God to the universe is twofold. He is— (a) Maker. The universe is not eternal, or self-originated, neither is it an involuntary development of the Divine Nature, but it is dependent for its existence upon the Will of God, having been called into being at a definite point of time by Him (Gen. 1. 1; Acts iv. 24; Col. 1. 16; Rev. iv. 11). Pantheism therefore, which confounds God with the universe, is not a true account of things. (b) Preserver. Having created the world, God did not leave it to go on of itself, but He is omnipresent, ' It should be noted that the English rendering of the last two attributes suggests a different sense :— ‘without parts ’—z.e., face, hands, eyes, ἕο. ‘without passions.’ (See Num, xxiii. 19; Acts xiv. 15; S. James v. 17.) The organs and feelings of man are indeed often attributed to the Deity in

Holy Scripture (e.g., Prov. xv. 3; Exod. xx. 5), but this is done ὼ a figure of speech, in accommodation to human understanding.

immanent, guiding, controlling, and directing (S. John v. 17). We speak sometimes of the universe as governed by natural laws. Scientific research may discover certain general laws according to which the course of nature is ordered. Such laws are but the expression of the Divine will (Col.i.17; Acts xvii. 28). Deism therefore, which separates the universe from God, so far as its present operations are concerned, is not a true account of things.

(4) THE DocTRINE oF THE Hoy TRINITY.

‘‘And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

Person—an individual moral agent. Substance (essentia)—the nature or essence whereof one or more persons subsist.

“ Trimty” is the word used by the Church to express shortly the Revelation of the Being of God contained in the New Testament, that blessed Revelation which makes the New Testament what it is, viz, a new Covenant of God with man, through Jesus Christ the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit the Sanctifier. Whilst the doctrine is not philosophically developed in the books of the New Testament, it is involved in the very substance of its teaching; e¢g., the formula of Baptism given by our Lord Himself (ὃ. Matt. xxviii. 19) clearly implies in the Godhead, (a) Distinction of Persons, (Ὁ) Equality of Persons, and (6) Unity of Persons, for it is said εἰς τὸ ὄνομα in the singular. God then is “Three in One,” we must not “confound the Persons” * (S. John xiv. 16); yet He is “One in Three,” we must not “divide the Substance” * (8. Matt. xxviii. 19; ¢f. S. John x. 30)

This doctrine is opposed to— (a) Tritheism or Polytheism of any kind. “ We are forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say there be three Gods.” ἢ (Ὁ) Sabellianism, according to which God, Who is one person, reveals Himself at one time in the character of the Father, at another in that of the Son, at another in that

1 Athanasian Creed. 2 In the latter passage notice the neuter ἕν, implying ‘one essence,’ not ‘one person.’

of the Holy Spirit. But thus the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be personations rather than persons.

(c) Arianism, and kindred doctrines such as Unitarianism, Socinianism, &c., according to which the Father alone is God in the full and proper sense of the term.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is no mere abstract doctrine, or dark speculation without practical value, but as it is fundamental to theology, so also it is to practical piety, having an intimate bearing upon the Christian life. We are baptized into the Name of the Holy Trinity, and it is our blessed privilege to rejoice in the knowledge of the Father's love (1 5. John iv. 19), and to experience the power of the Son, through His death and resurrection, to cleanse us from sin and keep us in newness of life (Phil. iii. 10), a power which we share through the presence of the Holy Spirit with us, Who brings us ever into closer union with the living Christ (2 Cor. xiii, 14).

Article II

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one Substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say the Godhead and Mauhood, were joined together in one Person, never’ to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man; Who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and _ buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

Filius, qui est verbum Patris, ab aeterno a Patre genitus, verus et aeternus Deus, ac Patri con- substantialis im wero Beatae Vir- yints, ex illius substantia, naturam humanam assumpsit, ita ut duae naturae, divina et humana, integre atque perfecte, 7 unitate personae, fuerint imseparaliliter conjunctae, ex quibus est Unus Christus, verus Deus, et verus Homo, qui vere passus est, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, ut Patrem nobis re- conciliaret, essetque hostia, non tantum pro culpa originis, verum etiam pro omnibus actualibus homi- num peccatis,

§ 1.— SOURCE.

Mainly from the Augsburg Confession, Part I., Art. IIT.; through

the medium of the XIII. Articles.

The clause in thick type was

added in 1563 from the Wurtemburg Confession, Art. 1].

§ 2.—OBJECT.

The doctrinal excesses of the Anabaptists made it necessary for the Church, at the time of the Reformation, to reaffirm the

Catholic doctrine of our Lord’s Incarnation.

The prevalence of

heresies on this central doctrine of the Christian faith is clear

from the following evidence :—

By Stat. 32 Hen. VIII. ο. 49 κα 11, those were ἀμυδρὰ

from the king’s pardon who held “that Christ took. no bodily substance of our blessed lady.”

Hooper, writing to Bullinger from London, June 25, 1549, says :—

“The Anabaptists flock to the place (7.e., of public lecture), and give me much trouble with their opinions respecting the Incarnation of the Lord ; for they deny altogether that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh.”—Original Letters, vol. i. p. 65.

Martin Micronius, in a letter to Bullinger, dated London, May 20, 1550, writes :—

“And indeed it is a matter of the first importance that the Word of God should be preached here in German, to guard against the heresies which are introduced by our countrymen. There are Arians, Marcionists, Libertines, Damists, and the like monstrosities, in great numbers. Α few days since, namely, on the 2nd of May, a certain woman was burnt alive for denying the Incarnation of Christ.” 1—Original Letters, vol. ii. p. 560.

Micronius, writing again to Bullinger from London, August 14, P55 1; Says :-— ‘

“We have not only to contend with the Papists, who are almost everywhere ashamed of their errors, but much more with the Sectaries and Epicureans, and pseudo-evangelicals. In addition to the ancient errors respecting paedo-baptism, the Incarnation of Christ, the authority of the magistrate, the lawfulness of an oath,

_ the property and community of goods, and the like, new ones are rising up every day, with which we have to contend. ‘The chief opponents, however, of Christ’s Divinity are the Arians, who are now beginning to shake our Churches with greater violence than ever, as they deny the conception of Christ by the Virgin.”— Original Letters, vol. 11. p. 574.

Richard Hilles writes to Bullinger from London, March 8,

1571 :— “But I grieve very much that the pestiferous sect of Arians is

budding forth again in many other places besides Switzerland.” — Zurich Letters, vol. 11. p. 182.

See also Ridley’s letter to Bradford, quoted above, pp. 23, 24, and compare ‘ Reformatio Legum, De Haeresibus, cap. 5 :—

“Circa duplicem Christi naturam perniciosus est et varius error : ex quibus alii sunt ex Arianorum secta, Christum ita ponentes

1 The woman referred to is Joan Bucher, sometimes called Joan of Kent.

hominem ut Deum negent. Alii eum sie Deum judicant ut hominem non agnoscant, et de corpore nugantur de ccelo divinitus -assumpto, et in virginis uterum lapso, quod tanquam in transitu per Mariam quasi per canalem aut fistulam praeterfluxit.”

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1) THE NATURE OF THE SON OF GoD.

“The, Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from _ everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father.’

the Word (S. John 1. 1. The significance of the title as applied to the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity is that as a word declares thought, so does the Son reveal the Father (8. John i. 18); as-a man makes known his will by word of mouth, so God reveals His will by His Son (Heb. i. 1).

begotten expresses here not an event, but a relationship which has subsisted from everlasting. He is “begotten” or else He would not be “Son,” but “from everlasting” or else He would not be God (Col. i. 15; Heb. i. 5-12).

very and eternal God. Christ is not metaphorically but properly and truly called God (Kom. ix. 5;* S. John i. 18;” v. 26; 1 S. John v. 20).

of one substance with the Father (Patri consubstantialis). These words correspond to the well-known clause of the Nicene Creed, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί. “Of one essence” would be a better representation of the meaning in English (ὃ. John x. 30; v. 26).

(2) THe DocrRiNE OF THE INCARNATION,

“Took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Viryin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man.”

Took man’s nature (Phil. 11. 6-8). An important statement. The Divine Nature did not become human, neither did the Son of God take a man’s nature, but man's nature, 1.6. human nature, assuming the same

' The doxology in this passage is doubtless rightly taken as referring to Christ.

* Note that the reading of this passage according to NBCL is ὁ μονογενὴς θεός.

nature which is in all other men, assuming it in its first original element before it had come to have any personal subsistence (Heb. ii. 16).

in the womb of the Blessed Virgin (S. Matt. i. 20; S. Luke i. 30-35; Gal. iv. 4). The Divine Nature did not descend upon the man Jesus at some period of his earthly life, as Nestorians taught, but He Who was born of Mary was really God, so that the Blessed Virgin may be called θεοτόκος Cf. the Apology of Aristides,’ ὃ II., “God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew Virgin took and clad Himself with. flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God.”

The followers of Cerinthus and the Ebionites are thus excluded, who held that Jesus Christ had no existence before His Mother.

so that two whole and perfect natures ... were joined together in one person, never to be divided.

There were four great heresies on this subject in early times,

(w) Arians denied the Divinity of Christ.

(0) Apollinarians tampered with His Manhood.

(c) Nestorians divided the Divinity and the Manhood, making Christ two Persons,

(ὦ) Eutychians confounded the two natures, so as to make from them one composite nature, neither human nor Divine.

The Church defended the faith at four General Councils.

(a) At Niceea, A.D. 325, affirming that Christ is truly (ἀληθῶς) God.

(Ὁ) At Constantinople, 4.D. 381, affirming that He is perfectly (τελέως) man.

(ὁ) At Ephesus, A.D. 431, declaring that the two natures are indivisibly (ἀδιαιρέτως) united.

(d) At Chalcedon, A.D. 451, laying down that at the same time He is distinctly (ἀσυγχύτως) God and man.

See Rev. i. 5, 6, 17, 18; Acts xx. 28.

1 The title was authoritatively adopted at the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, Nestorius having raised an objection to it. It is the common title of the Blessed Virgin in the Eastern Church at the present day.

* An Apology for Christianity presented to the Emperor Antoninus Pius by Aristides, an Athenian philosopher. It was written between 120 and 140 A.D.,

and recovered in a Syriac Version at the Convent of S, Katherine, Sinai, by Mr. Rendel Harris, in 1889.

ARTICLE II : 33

We have seen that the two natures are joined together in Christ, but not confused: He has two natures, each of which still remains entire, but is one Person, of the whole of which Person that is sometimes predicated which is proper only to one of the natures; see, ¢g., Acts xx. 28. This manner of expression is called “communicatio idiomatum” (i.e, sharing of properties). By this it is not meant that there is ever any mutual participation of both natures, but always a co-operation and association of the two.

The words ‘“‘never to be divided” are important. The humanity was not laid aside at the Ascension.

(3.) THE DoctRINE oF THE ATONEMENT.

“Who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.”

truly suffered. Thus are excluded all forms of the Docetic heresy, which teach that the Son of God became man in appearance only, and that His humanity, His sufferings, &c., were therefore unreal.

to reconcile . . . to be a sacrifice.

When treating of the change brought about in the relation of man to God by the death of Christ, the following words are used in the New Testament :—

(a) καταλλάσσειν and cognate words.

Man was in a state of enmity against God (Eph. ii. 3), but Christ reconciles the two (Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18-20; Eph. ii.:16; Col. i. 20). We should notice that while the Article speaks of God being reconciled to us by the death of Christ,” on the other hand in the passages of Scripture

1 This is called the “ hypostatic union,” a technical term of theology ἜΝ the joining of the two natures in one ὑπόστασις. - 2 The expression of the Article “ ut Patrem nobis reconciliaret” is taken, as stated above, from the Augsburg Confession ; the same manner of presenting

the truth is also found in the SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, Art. XI. :— “Ὁ Porro passione et morte sua, omnibusque adeo quae a suo in carne adventu

See also the HOMILY OF REPENTANCE, First Part, p. 564 :---

“We have need of a Mediator for to bring and reconcile us unto Him, who for our sins is angry with us, The same is Jesus Christ ; who, being true and natural God, equal and of one substance with the Father, did at the time appointed take upon Him our frail nature, in the blessed Virgin’s womb, and that of her undefiled substance ; that so He might be a Mediator betwixt God and us, and pacify His wrath. a

wy +e a Pere es a ah 2h My a Bayes

referred to the enmity is represented as on man’s side, and man is spoken of as reconciled to God. Though the expression is not used, nevertheless, in the New Testament, God is thought of as being reconciled to man; we read of an ὀργὴ θεοῦ (Rom. i. 18; Eph. ii. 3, v. 6), which must not be considered merely as an anthropomorphic mode of expression, but as representing something real in the nature and disposition of God towards man in his natural state.

(b) ἀπολύτρωσις, λύτρον, and cognate words.

These give the idea of deliverance as from slavery (S. Matt. xx. 28; Rom. ili. 24; 1 Cor. 1 30; Eph.i, 7; Col. 1 14). Man was in a condition of slavery to sin (Rom. vii. 14; of. ὃ. John viii. 34), but Christ paid the ransom (1 Tim. 11, 6) and redeemed him (1 Cor. vi 20, Vil. 23; Acts xx. 28).

(c) ἱλαστήριον, ἱλασμός,

These words have in the New Testament the sense of “expiation” which takes place by means of sacrifice or offering (Rom. iii. 25; 1 S. John ii, 2)."

(d) προσφορά, θυσία.

See Eph. v. 2, where these words are used of Christ’s

death, signifying its virtue as a propitiatory sacrifice.

The Article, within Holy Scripture, strongly insists on Christ’s Death as an atoning sacrifice; thus our Church discards any merely exemplary view of the Death of Christ, as also the theory which sees in it only an impressive moral exhibition.

for original guilt. See notes on Art. IX.

for all actual sins of men.

The omission of the word “all” in some modern copies is entirely without authority. The wording is important because strongly anti-Calvinistic,? Calvinism teaching that Christ did not die for all sins, but for those of the elect only. That the Calvinistic party considered the word ‘‘all” hostile to their doctrine is proved by the fact that

1 ἱχαστήριον in LXX. generally represents the Hebrew n7B3, the Cover of the Ark, the Merey-Seat (cf. Heb. ix. 5).

2 The English Chureh emphatically asserts the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice “for the sins of the whole world.” (Cf Art. XXXI., where see notes. ) Ns

in the text as revised by the Westminster divines it is wanting.’ Original guilt and actual sins are both mentioned in the Article in order to emphasise the truth that the effect of the Atonement wrought by Christ’s Death is utterly to abolish all sin.

1 See Appendix IV. ; and ¢f. WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, xi. 4 :—

“God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect ; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins.”

Article III

As Christ died for us and was

Quemadmodum Christus pro

buried, so also it is to be believed | nobis mortuus est et sepultus, ita

that He went down into Hell.

est etiam credendus ad inferos de- scendisse.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

This Article was composed by the English Reformers.

It was

a good deal longer as it stood in’ the XLII. Articles, being con-

tinued as follows :—

For the bodie lay in the sepulchre, untill the Resurrection: but his Ghoste departing from him, was with the ghostes that were in prison, or in Helle, and didde preache to the same, as the place of S. Peter dooeth testifie.

Nam corpus usque ad _ resurrec- tionem in sepulchro jacuit, Spiritus ab illo emissus, cum spiritibus qui in carcere sive in inferno de- tinebantur, fuit, illisque praedi- cavit, quemadmodum testatur Petri locus.

This paragraph was omitted in 1563.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

The doctrine of our Lord’s descent into Hell seems to have been much agitated in this country. Micronius, writing to Bullinger from London, May 20, 1550, says :—

“They are disputing about the descent of Christ into Hell.”— Original Letters, vol. 11. p. 561.

The violence of the controversy on this subject, and especially concerning the bearing of the text of S. Peter referred to on the doctrine, was most likely the cause of Convocation dropping the latter part of the Article in 1563. Alley, Bishop of Exeter,

drew up papers for this Convocation, in which he thus alludes to the subject :—

“First for matters of Scripture, namely, for this place which is written in the Epistle of S. Peter, that Christ went down into hell and preached to the souls that were in prison. There have been in my diocese great invectives between the preachers one against

the [...] 3—EHXPOSITION.

The use of the word hell in the Article, as in the Apostles’ Creed, is εἴ little unfortunate, because it is often used to signify the place of torment. Here it is used inthe sense of the Greek aos, or the Hebrew DiNy, meaning the place of departed spirits. The purport of the Article, therefore, is that our Lord was true man as well in death as in life; that His Body lay in the grave, and His Spirit went to the place of departed spirits (¢f. S. Luke XXlll. 43).

For Scripture testimony see the following passages :—

(a) Acts ii. 25-31, where S. Peter quotes the words of the Psalmist, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption” (Ps. XVi. 10), and applies them to the Resurrection of our Lord,

ῳ “Whose soul was not left in hell.” This argument implies

_ that the soul of Christ had been in hell.

(Ὁ) 158. Peter 111. 18,19. This famous passage represents the soul of Christ as acting, after the death of the body, among the souls who were in the place of departed spirits, those especially being mentioned who were disobedient at the time of the flood. Christ is said to have preached (ἐκήρυξεν) to these. The word is one generally used in the Gospels of the work of Christ in proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom, preaching repentance (eg., 8. Matt. iv. 17,23). If we so understand the passage our interpretation is confirmed by a comparison with 1 S. Peter iv. 6—all are to be on the same footing at the Judgment; therefore all, dead as well as living, have the offer of the salvation of Christ.”

2 Of course, when thus interpreted, the passage does not support the idea that those who have had the offer of Christ’s salvation in this life, and refused it, will have another chance after death. Inadequate explanations of S. Peter’s — meaning are—(a) that given by Bishop Pearson, viz., that the Spirit of Christ

We have seen that the disputes as to the meaning of the passage in S. Peter caused the reference to it in the Article to be struck out. Our Church, however, has expressed her view of its meaning by appointing the passage to be read as the Epistle on Easter Even. ᾿

preached by the mouth of Noah to the ante-Diluvians; (6) that the proclamation spoken of was one of condemnation.

Article IV

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again His body, with fiesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith He ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until He return to judge all men at the last day.

Christus vere a mortuis resur- rexit, suumque corpus cum carne, ossibus, omnibusque δα integri- tatem humanae naturae pertinenti- bus, recepit, cum quibus in coelum ascendit, ibique residet, quoad extremo die ad judicandos homines reversurus sit.

§ 1— SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers, 1552-3.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

This Article is supplementary to the Second and Third, affirming the true and proper Manhood of our risen and ascended Lord, and: thus excluding the theories of certain sectaries of the Reformation period who inclined to the Docetic heresy; e¢.g.,Caspar Schwenkfeld, a Silesian nobleman (1528), contended that the flesh of Christ had never been the flesh of a created being, and -is now, since the Ascension, so deified as to retain no semblance of humanity. .

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1.) THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. Christ did truly rise again from death. See S. Matt. xxviii, 6; Acts x. 40, 41; 1 Cor. xv. I—20. and took again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature. See S. Luke xxiv. 39, 40; S. John xx. 27. The Lord’s Body after the Resurrection was the identical Body in which He suffered, but in some measure spiritualised (S. John xx. 19-27). }

The Resurrection is represented as God the Father’s testimony to the claim of Jesus. He had been condemned by the Sanhedrin because of His claim to be the Son of God (S. Matt. xxvi. 63—66). The Resurrection was the Divine vindication of this claim (Rom. i 4; Acts xi. 33). The chief work of the Apostles was to bear witness to its literal truth as an historical fact (Acts 1. 22; il. 323 iv. 33); thus it occupies the central position in Apostolic preaching (Acts 1]. 32; x. 40; ΧΙ]. 30; xvii. 18), and is set forth as the very basis of our Religion (1 Cor. xv. 14-17). It must be admitted on all hands that Christianity would never have become the Religion it is without belief in the Resurrection of Christ.. We put a vital question, therefore, when we ask, “Is the belief in the Resurrection well grounded?” (a) It is sometimes urged that the age was a superstitious, a credulous one; that the Apostles would readily imagine that they saw their Master, and would believe that He had risen. But the Evangelists seem to take special pains to make it clear that the followers of Christ were by no means prepared for His Resurrection, nor were they at first even willing to believe it; on the other hand, it was quite a difficult matter to convince them of its truth. (See S. Matt. xxvill. 17; S. Mark xvi. 11, 13, 14; S. Luke xxiv. II, 41; and note especially the case of S. Thomas, 8. John xx, 24-29). Further, it 1s scarcely credible that the five hundred brethren who saw the risen Lord at once (1 Cor. xv. 6) could have been the victims of illusion.

(6) It is said, again, that Christ, after His Resurrection, appeared only to friends (Acts x. 41), and that this makes ‘us suspect collusion. But the testimony of the enemies of Christ to the Resurrection should not be overlooked (8. Matt. xxviii. 11-15); neither should we forget that on one memorable occasion Christ did appear to an enemy, viz., to Saul the persecutor (Acts ix. 3 δέ seqg., xxii. 143 1 Cor.

1 Thus Strauss admits that ‘‘Christianity in the form in which Paul, in which all the Apostles understood it, as is presupposed in the Confessions of all Christian Churches, falls with the resurrection of Jesus.” (See Oosterzee, “Christian Dogmatics,” p. 565). Again, the Rev. C. J. H. Fletcher of Oxford, in a sermon the main purpose of which seems to be to proclaim the “failure” of the historical evidence of the Resurrection, has the following passage :— “Would the disciples have rallied from the shock of their Master’s unexpected death without a supernatural reassertion of His life? Could they have been transformed into enthusiastic death-defying Apostles unless they had believed they had seen their risen [...] Taking Away of the Veil,” p. 15).

xv. 8), and the fact that when He did appear to an enemy, that enemy became a friend, an Apostle, a martyr, is surely strong testimony to the fact of the Resurrection.

(ὁ) There are yet other theories which see the real and profound cause of faith in Christ’s corporeal Resurrection in the ineffaceable impression which His religious grandeur had left on the minds of His faithful followers,’ and which hold that the story of the Resurrection is a parable of the immortality of the influence of Christ, and typical of the spiritual death and resurrection of humanity.” But any such substitution of the abiding influence of the life of Christ, or the onward progress of mankind, for the literal fact that ‘“ Christ did truly rise from death,” would render many undisputed facts of history unaccountable,’ and reduce Christianity itself to the impossible position of an effect without a cause. The evidence, indeed, is such that a great scholar, himself born and brought up in the Jewish Religion, was constrained to say, “The Resurrection may be unhesi- _ tatingly pronounced the best-established fact in history.” *

(2.) THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST. wherewith He ascended into Heaven. We have three accounts of the Ascension in the New

Testament: 8. Mark xvi. 19; 8. Luke xxiv. 50, 51; Acts i. 9; cf. also 1 S. Peter iii, 22. ὃ. Stephen, when arraigned before the Council, saw our Lord in Heaven at the right hand of the Father (Acts vii. 56).

and there sitteth (Ps. cx. 1). The word conveys two ideas—

(a) That of dwelling, abiding, in glory at the right hand of God (Heb. x. 12, “for ever sat down”).

(ὁ) That of reigning, sitting enthroned, sharing the Father’s royal power (Eph, i. 20—22).

1 Réville, “ History of the Dogma of the Deity of Jesus Christ,” Chap. ii.

2 Strauss, at the conclusion of his “Leben Jesu” (first edition), writes :— - “Humanity it is that dies, and rises again, and ascends to Heaven. .. . Through faith in this Christ, specially in His death and resurrection, man is justified before God.”

3 ¢.g., The startling rise and spread of the Christian Church, the institution and observance of the Lord’s Day (Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 10), and the acceptance and observance of the Holy Eucharist. If that rite be only a reminder of the utter disappointment of the first disciples, how shall we explain its unceasing celebration from the earliest times? How shall we account for the manner in which it has so completely superseded the ancient sacrificial system? (See Maclear’s ‘‘ Evidential Value of the Holy Eucharist.”)

= Ve oer ς VR See

We must not suppose that inaction is implied in the word “sitteth.” A glance at those passages where we have accounts of appearances of Christ after His Ascension will prevent misunderstanding on this point. In Acts vii. 55, 56, we read that S. Stephen “looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Again, the Lord appeared to 8. John in Patmos, walking in the midst of the golden candlesticks (Rev. ii 1). Of. also 5. Mark xvi. 20, where it is said that after the Ascension the Apostles “went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them.”

It is in the Revelation of 8S. John and in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the activity of the Ascended Christ is especially brought before us. In his exile for the testimony of Jesus Christ, S. John sees a vision of the Lord in glory (Rev. 1. 13—20), and the very object of His appearing is, that He may send messages to the Churches of Asia. He knows the circumstances of each Church (Rev. 11. 2, 9, 13, &c.), watches over it, and over individual members of it (11. 13); He warns, encourages, and directs. In the same book He is seen in Heaven as the Lamb that was slain, before the throne of God He bears the marks of His wounds, pleading His Sacrifice (v. 6, 9, 12, ὅθ). Cf. tom. Vili. 34, Where Christ is referred to as interceding for us at the right hand of God. But it is in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the thought of Christ exercising His High Priestly Office in Heaven is most dwelt upon (see Heb, vil. 24-28; ix. 24—26).”

(3.) THe RETURN OF CHRIST. until He return (Acts iii. 21; Heb. ix. 28).

Our Lord Himself spoke of His return to earth in glory (S. Matt. xxiv. 30; 8. John xiv. 3). At His Ascension the attendant angels gave a promise to the wondering disciples that He should return (Acts i. 11); accordingly we find the Apostolic writers continually looking forward to His coming again (Phil. i. 6, 10; 1 Thess. ili, 13, iv. 16; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Tim. vi. 14), which is generally regarded as close at hand (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iv. 17); but the exact time of the second Advent is

1 It may be noted in this connection that the dress in which the Lord appears to S. John (Rev. i. 13) is that of a priest engaged in active service.

uncertain, so that it will come unexpectedly upon those who are not constantly watching (1 Thess. v. 2, 3; 2 S. Peter iii. 10; Rev. iii. 3; ef our Lord’s words in S. Matt. xxiv. 36—44, xxv. 13; S. Luke xii. 35-40).

(4.) THe Last JUDGMENT. to judge all men at the last day. Judgment is the issue of Christ’s second coming (S. Matt. xvi. 27; 2 Tim. iv. 1). Three points are clearly brought out in Holy Scripture in this connection :—

(a) Christ Himself is to be the Judge (S. John v. 22, 27; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 16). |

(6) All men are to be judged (Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. v. το; Heb. ix. 27; 1 S. Peter iv. 5), both quick and dead.

(ὁ) The works done in the body form the ground of judgment (5. Matt. xvi. 27; Rom. ii. 5, 6; Rev. xx. 12, xxii. 12).

It should be noted that in this last clause of the Article there is implied the truth of a resurrection and a future state for man.

Article V

§ 1.— SOURCE.

This was one of the new Articles added in 1563. It is found, word for word, in the third Article of the Wurtemburg Confession, from which it was no doubt derived.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

This Article seems to have been added to make the dogmatic statements of the Church against the Arians more complete.’ Considerable danger, we know, threatened the Church from this quarter in the earlier years of Elizabeth’s reign. See, ¢.g.,a letter of Archbishop Parker in which he says, “ They say that the realm is full of Anabaptists, Arians, Libertines, Free-will men, &c., against whom only 1 thought ministers should have needed to fight in unity of doctrine” (Parker's Correspondence, p. 61).

§ 3.—_HXPOSITION.

(1.) THE TWoFOLD PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son. The title “ Holy Spirit” is used by our Lord Himself of “the Comforter” Whom the Father would send (S. John xiv. 26), and is also found twice in the New Testament in the mouth of an angel from heaven (S. Matt. i. 20; S. Luke i. 35), in each instance with reference to the Incarnation.

1 That at the Reformation period some denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost

appears from Ridley’s letter, quoted pp. 23, 24. «

That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is clear

from the words of our Lord in S. John xiv. 16, xv. 26, and

elsewhere. For the Procession from the Son we may refer

to 5. John xvi. 7; Acts xvi. 7; Rom. viii. 9; Phil.i. 19;

1S. Peter i 11; see also 8. John xx. 22, where the Holy Spirit is bestowed by the Son upon the Apostles.

The Creed of the Council of Nicza (A.D. 325) simply said, “TI believe in the Holy Ghost.” The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) added the words, “the Lord and the Life-giver, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the prophets.” The Western Church has further added the famous Filioque clause, which is traceable as far back as the Council of Toledo (A.D. 589), but did not win general acceptance in the Latin - Church until the middle of the ninth century, when, during the Pontificate of Nicholas I., it was adopted at Rome. The controversy upon this ended, in the eleventh century, in the schism between East and West, not yet healed. While we hold that the word Filioqgue expresses a Scriptural truth, at the same time we are bound to admit that its insertion in the Nicene Creed, without Gicumenical authority, is on no ground justifiable.

(2.) Tae Divinity oF THE Hoty Spirit. The Holy Ghost . . . is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

The true and proper Divinity of the Holy Spirit is indicated by the fact that Divine homage is rendered to Him in the formula of Baptism (S. Matt. xxviii. 19) and in §. Paul’s Benediction in 2 Cor. xiii. 14. There are not wanting,.moreover, passages in Holy Scripture which directly testify to His Godhead; see especially 1 Cor. iii 16, 17; Acts v. 3, 4.

1 In this passage the correct reading is Td Πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ ; so Revised Version following the oldest extant MSS., SABCDE.; and Vulgate, “Spiritus Jesu.”

? With regard to the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox Confession of the Greek Church speaks thus, διδάσκει (scil. ἐκκλησία) πῶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ μόνου τοῦ πατρός ws πηγῆς Kal ἀρχῆς τῆς θεότητος.

Article VI

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose εὐ ΠΟΥ was never any doubt in the Church.

Scriptura Sacra continet omnia quae ad salutem sunt necessaria, ita ut quicquid in ea nec legitur, neque inde probari potest, non sit a quoquam exigendum, ut tanquam articulus fidei credatur, aut ad salu- tis necessitatem requiri putetur. Sacrae Scripturae nomine eos Cano- nicos libros Veteris et Novi Tes- tamenti intelligimus, de quorum auctoritate in Ecclesia nunquam dubitatum est.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis.

Exodus.

Leviticus.

Numbers.

Deuteronomy.

Joshua.

Judges.

Ruth.

The First Book of Samuel. The Second Book of Samuel. The First Book of Kings. The Second Book of Kings.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following :—

The First Book of Chronicles. The Second Book of Chronicles The First Book of Esdras. The Second Book of Esdras. The Book of Esther.

The Book of Job.

The Psalms.

The Proverbs.

Ecclesiastes, or Preacher. Cantica, or Songs of Solomon. Four Prophets the greater. Twelve Prophets the less.

Alios autem libros (ut ait Hieronymus) legit quidem Ecclesia ad exempla vitae et formandos mores, illos tamen ad dogmata confirmanda non adhibet: ut sunt :—

The Third Book of Esdras. Baruch the Prophet.

The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Song of the Three Children. The Book of Tobias. The Story of Susanna.

The Book of Judith. Of Bel and the Dragon.

The rest of the Book of Esther. The Prayer of Manasses.

The Book of Wisdom. The First Book of Maccabees. Jesus the Son of Sirach. The Second Book of Maccabees.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

As it stood in the XLII. Articles of 1553 this Article commenced as follows :—

‘“‘Holie Scripture conteineth all things necessary to Salvation : So that whatsoever is neither read therein, nor may be proved thereby, although it be sometime receiued of the faithful, as godlie, and profitable for an ordre and comelinesse: yeat no manne ought to bee constreigned to believe it, as an article of faith, or repute it requisite to the necessitie of Saluation.” .

The wording was altered to its present form in 1563, and at the same time the clause in thick type was added from the Article “ De Sacra Scriptura” in the Wurtemburg Confession.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

(a) This Article enunciates the great principle which underlay the Reformation,’ the sufficiency of Holy Scripture as

* With the statement of our Article we may compare the following :—

TETRAPOLITAN CONFESSION, Cap. I., De Materia Concionum :

containing all things necessary to salvation. Our Church thus repudiates scholastic errors on the subject of the “unwritten Word.” *

(6) The Article also condemns the sectaries of the period who disparaged the authority of the Bible, as compared with the immediate inspiration of which they conceived themselves to be the channel.”

It is worthy of remark that the Helvetic Confessions and the Westminster Confession’ put an Article on the Holy Scriptures in the first place, beginning by laying down the authority upon which they relied in their departure from the historic Church. The XXXIX. Articles follow the order of the ancient Creeds in opening with a declaration of faith in God. This latter is the logical order; we first say, “ I believe in God,” before we acknowledge Holy Scripture as the Word of God.

tatem complecti, et in illa abunde ea omnia doceri, quaecunque ab hominibus credi necesse est, ut salutem consequantur.”

SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, Art. I. :

“Et in hac Scriptura sancta habet universalis Christi ecclesia plenissime exposita quaecunque pertinent, cum ad salvificam fidem, tum ad vitam Deo placentem, recte informandam. Quo nomine distincte a Deo praeceptum est, ne ei aliquid vel addatur vel detrahatur.”

1 Contrast the decree of the COUNCIL OF TRENT, Session IV. (April 1546) :

““Synodus . .. perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ex ipsius Christi ore ab Apos- tolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt; orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nec non traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tun ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et continua successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietate affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur.”

‘See also the ORTHODOX CONFESSION of the Greek Church, p. 18:

Φανερὸν πῶς τὰ ἄρθρα τῆς πίστεως ἔχουσι τὸ κῦρος Kai τὴν δοκιμασίαν, μέρος ἀπὸ τὴν ἁγίαν γραφήν, μέρος ἀπὸ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν παράδοσιν. . .. Ἤγουν δύο λογίων εἶναι τὰ δόγματα. “Adda παραδίδει ἡ γραφή, τὰ ὁποῖα περιέχονται εἰς τὰ θεολογικὰ βιβλία τῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς, καὶ ἄλλα εἶναι δόγματα παραδιδομένα ἐκ στόματος ἀπὸ τοὺς ἀποστόλους, καὶ τοῦτα ἑρμηνεύθησαν ἀπὸ τὰς συνόδους καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους πατέρας, καὶ εἰς τὰ δύο τοῦτα ἡ πίστις εἶναι τεθεμελιωμένη.

2 Cf. CALVIN’S INSTITUTES, I. ix. 1 :

‘‘Emerserunt nam nuper vertiginosi quidam, qui Spiritus magisterium factuosissime obtendentes, lectionem omnem ipsi respuunt, et eorum irrident simplicitatem qui emortuam et occidentem, ut ipsi vocant, literam adhuc con- sectantur.”

3 So also the Irish Articles of 1615. See Appendix VI, “

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1.) ΤῊΝ Rote or Farra—HOoLy ScRIPTuRE.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

Thus does our Church unmistakably lay down the principle that Holy Scripture contains, explicitly or implicitly, all things necessary relating both to faith and practice, beyond which God requires nothing from us (2 Tim. iii. 15-17). We may compare the words of S. Cyprian, “Unde est ista traditio? Utrumne de dominica et evangelica auctoritate descendens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens? Ka enim facienda esse quae scripta sunt” (Ep. lxxiv. p. 223, ed. Goldhorn). :

We should notice how, in accordance with what is here laid

down, Scripture is constantly referred to as the basis of doctrine in the Articles themselves; see Articles VIII, I1X., XIV., XV., XVII., XVIIL, XX, XXI,, ΧΧΙΡ XXIV., XXV., XXVIII,

(2.) WHAT IS TO BE RECKONED AS SCRIPTURE, AND UPON WHAT GROUND IS IT SO RECKONED ?

In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

According to the first clause of our Article, the Church’s teaching must be founded on, or provable by, Holy Scripture ; in the second clause, now under consideration (which was borrowed, as we have already seen, from the Wurtem- burg Confession), it is asserted that what constitutes Holy Scripture is determined by the general consent of the Church. The Gospel teaching was at first oral (S. Luke i. 4), and the deposit of sound doctrine was transmitted by word of mouth in the earliest times (2 Tim. 1. 13; 1 Tim. 1. 10, 11; Tit. i. 9), but the consent of the Christian community as a whole soon singled out certain writings of Apostles and Apostolic men as embodying in permanent form the great truths of the Gospel for the use of the

whole Church, These books, which were thus stamped as authoritative, constitute the New Testament Canon, and are spoken of as the “Canonical Books.” The word “Canon” properly signifies a rule or standard ; hence “ Canonical” as applied to the books of Scripture means authorised by the general consent of the Church as a standard of Divine Truth.

When it is said in the Article “of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church,” we must of course understand “the Church Universal,” because in some parts of the Church there was for a time a doubt concerning some of the books we account Canonical, ¢.g., the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of SS. James and Jude, 2 and 3 S. John, and 2 S. Peter, as well as the Revelation.

In referring to the consent of the Church as determining the Canon of Scripture, the Church of England altogether parts company with those bodies which were influenced by the teaching of Zwingli, Calvin, and their school, and with which, in the reign of Edward, she had been so closely associated. The insertion of the clause from the Wurtemburg Confession is one of the many indications of a desire on the part of the authorities of the English Church in the early years of Elizabeth to return to a more Catholic position.

Contrast with our Article the following extracts from formularies of the Swiss School :—

Catvin, Institutss, I. vii. 1:

7101α., 1. Vi, 5:

Frencu Conression, Art. IV. : :

“Hos libros agnoscimus esse Canonicos, id est, ut fidei nostrae normam οὖ regulam habemus, idque non tantum ex communi Ecclesiae, consensu, sed etiam multo magis ex testimonio et intrinseca Spiritus sancti persuasione: quo suggerente docemur, illos ab aliis libris ecclesiasticis discernere.”

1 «e., Self-authenticated.

ARTICLE Vt si

Scorcx# Conresston, Art. XIX.: “ Asserimus itaque quod qui dicunt Scripturas non aliam habere auctoritatem; sed eam quam ab Ecclesia accepit, sunt in Deum blasphemi, et verae Ecclesiae injuriam faciunt.”

Beterc Conresston, Art. V. :

“‘Hosce libros solos recipimus tanquam sacros et Canonicos, quibus fides nostra inniti, confirmari, et stabiliri possit. Et credimus absque ulla dubitatione ea omnia, quae in illis con- tinentur, idque non tam quod Ecclesia illos pro Canonicis recipiat et comprobet, quam quod Spiritus Sanctus nostris conscientiis

. testetur illos a Deo emanasse: et eo maxime quod ipsi etiam per se sacram hance suam auctoritatem et sanctitatem testentur atque comprobent.”

Sreconp Hetvetic Conression, Art. I. :

“Credimus et confitemur Scripturas canonicas sanctorum pro- phetarum et apostolorum utriusque Testamenti, ipsum verum esse verbum Dei; et auctoritatem sufficientem ex semetipsis non ex | hominibus habere. Nam Deus ipse loquutus est patribus, pro- phetis et Apostolis, et loquitur adhuc nobis per Scripturas sanctas.”

The Westminster Divines, in their revision of the Article, omitted altogether the clause referring to the general consent of the Church,’ and gave expression to their own views in the

Westminster Conression, Art. L ὃ iv. :

“The authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (Who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God.”

(3.) ESTIMATION oF THE APOCRYPHA.”

_ And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine.

The Apocryphal Books (commonly so called) are not classed with the Canonical Books, because they do not stand the test laid down, viz., acceptance by the general consent of the Church. At the same time it is distinctly affirmed that these books have a value of their own. The Council

1 See Appendix IV. 2 The precise signification of the title Apocrypha is uncertain. The Greek word literally means ‘‘hidden.” The books in question may have been so

called (a) on account of the obscurity of their origin, or (6) because they were — relegated by the Church to comparative obscurity.

δ THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

of Trent in a decree of the Fourth Session (April 1546) places Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Old Testament Canon. The Apocryphal Books were not formally included in the Canon of Scripture by the Eastern Church until 1692. The value set upon the Apocrypha by the English Church may be gathered from the following facts :—

(a) The Benedicite from the Apocrypha is appointed as a Canticle for use at Morning Prayer.

(0) Lessons are appointed from the Apocrypha at Morning and Evening Prayer. See the Prayer Book Calendar, October 27—November 18, Holy Innocents Day, and the feasts of S. Luke and All Saints.

(c) Two of the Offertory Sentences in the Communion Service are taken from the Book of Tobit.

(α) In the Homilies the Apocrypha is very often quoted, and is even spoken of as the Word of God, 6.7. :—

“And Almighty God by the Wise man saith, That man which sweareth much shall be full of sin, and the scourge of God shall not depart from his house.’’—KEKcclus. xxi. 11.

(Against Swearing, p. 75.)

‘The invention of them was the beginning of spiritual fornication, as the Word of God testifieth, Sap. xiv.’—Wisdom xiv. 12.

(Against peril of Idolatry, p. 258.)

“The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost also teach in sundry places of the Scripture, saying, Mercifulness and almsgiving purgeth from all sins,” &¢.—Tobit iv. το.

(Of Almsdeeds, p. 414.)

“Let us learn also here (Wisdom vi. 1-3) by the infallible and

undeceivable Word of God.” (Of Obedience, p. 111.) Other examples may be seen on pp. 103, 119, 189, ed. SPO.

The passage of S. Jerome to which reference is made in the Article occurs in the Preface to the Books of Solomon :—

“Sicut ergo Judith et Tobiae, et Machabzeorum legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit; sic et haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctori- tatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam.”

σι ey ἜΝΙ

Article VII

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, Who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man.

Wherefore they are not to be

heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. _ Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth : yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral. —

Testamentum Vetus Novo con- trarium non est, quandoquidem tam in veteri quam in novo, per Christum, qui unicus est Mediator Dei et hominum, Deus et homo, aeterna vita humano generi est proposita.

Quare male sentiunt, qui veteres tantum in promissiones temporarias sperasse confingunt.

Quanquam lex a Deo data per Mosen, quoad Ceremonias et Ritus, Christianos non astringat, neque civilia ejus praecepta in aliqua republica necessario recipi debeant: nihilominus tamen ab obedientia mandatorum, quae moralia vocantur, nullus (quantum- vis Christianus) est solutus.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

We owe the form of this Article to the English Reformers. The latter part, printed in thick type in the Latin Version, was added in 1563, being taken from the 19th of the XLII. Articles

of 1553.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

The Article is directed against Anabaptist opinions concerning the Old Testament, which were rife at the Reformation period. See “ Reformatio Legum,” De Haeresibus, ο. 4 :—

alleget, illud pro abrogato jam et obsoleto penitus habent, omnia quae in illo posita sunt ad prisea majorum nostrorum tempora referentes. Itaque nihil eorum ad nos statuunt pervenire debere.”

Some (e¢.g., Servetus and his followers) denied the vital connection of Judaism with Christianity,’ and maintained that the Old Testament saints had no hope of life beyond the present. Cf. Calvin, “ Institutes,” II. x. 1 :—

“Quinetiam quod utilissimum alioqui futurum erat, necessarium nobis fecerunt prodigiosus nebulo Servetus ac furiosi nonnulli ex Anabaptistarum secta, qui non aliter de Israelitico populo sentiunt quam de aliquo porcorum grege, utpote quem nugantur a Domino in hac terra saginatum, citra spem ullam ccelestis immortalitatis.”

The latter part of the Article excludes the Antinomianism prevalent amongst the sectaries of the time, as is shown by the words which followed when the latter half of our present Article stood as a separate Article :—

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) THE UNITY AND VITAL CONNECTION OF THE OLD AND NEW

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ.

Our Lord Himself declared that He came, not to destroy, but to fulfil the Law (S. Matt. v. 17, 18); the Old Testament does not, therefore, stand to the New in the relation of an opposed dispensation, but in that of a preparation. The Law pointed forward and led up to Christ and His Dispensation (Gal. 1. 24; Acts x. 43; Rom. 111. 21), its ordinances, sacrifices, &c., deriving their spiritual efficacy

1 Tt will be remembered that the Old Testament was set in opposition to the New by the Gnostic heretics, of the second century, being ascribed to a being inferior, or even hostile, to the Supreme Deity. The Old Testament was thus regarded, ¢.g., by Saturninus, Basilides, and Marcion, and by such sects as the Cainites and Ophites.

from the Sacrifice of Christ, His death redeeming the transgressions of those who lived under the Old Dispensation (Heb. ix. I-15; x. I-14). The prophets spoke beforehand of His Kingdom, His Work and Sufferings (S. Luke xxiv. 27, 44; 8. John v. 39, 46; Acts xviii. 28, XXVi. 22, xxviii. 23), and the promises given through the inspired writers of the Old Testament have reference not merely to temporal welfare, but spiritual and eternal blessings are promised to men, and in both Old and New - Testament alike are connected with the work of the Messiah (per Christum); see, ¢.g., Job xix. 25-27; Ps. xvi, 8-11;

_ Isa. xxvi. 19.

We might exhibit the unity of the Old and New Testament

under two main heads :—

(a) Unity of doctrine runs through both. Both proceed from the One God (Heb. i. 1, 2); both tell of His Unity and Personality, His government of the world, His holiness, His choice of certain to be in a special relation with Himself.

(b) Testimony to Christ. Both tell of Him, the Old Testament being typical in character, its rites, ordinances, and even its history, pointing onward to Him, It is in the Epistle to the Hebrews especially that this aspect of the Old Testament is enlarged upon.

Who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man.

Moses is called a mediator (Gal. iii. 19), as being the agent through whom the Law was given to the tribes of Israel. He represented the people to God, and was divinely commissioned as a servant (Heb. iii. 5) to represent God to the people. The Incarnate Son of God, being perfect man, is qualified to represent human nature in its perfection before God, and at the same time, being very God, to represent God to man in an infinitely higher and fuller manner than it was possible for the servant to do. Thus, in Christ, God and the human race are brought together in a wonderful and transcendent way, and by virtue of union with Him mankind is brought into such near relation with God as would not be possible without His mediating work. He has wrought the Atonement which none other could

effect, and is therefore the only Mediator between God and Man.

56 ‘THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Wherefore they are not to be heard which ceign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.

That holy men of old understood the spiritual and eternal significance of the promises made to them under the Old Dispensation is distinctly asserted by our Lord Himself (S. John viii. 56) and by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. xi. 10, 14, 26).

Our Church thus insists on the great value of the Old Testament Scriptures (cf. Rom. xv. 4), and especially shows her sense of their value by appointing Lessons from the Old Testament to be read daily at Morning and Evening Prayer, side by side with the New Testament. But it must not be inferred from this that the two are exactly on a level. Christ is τέλος νόμου (Rom. x. 4)3 1.6.----

(a) To Christ the Law pointed forward, so that there is a

vital connection between the Law and the Gospel.

(6) With Christ the Law ended, so that the Law and the Gospel are not on the same level for Christians (Rom. v1. 14).

(2.) THE FORCE WHICH THE PRECEPTS OF THE Mosaic LAW

The precepts of the Law are treated in the Article under three heads; it is stated that—

(a) Ceremonial Laws do not bind Christian men.

(b) Civil precepts ought not of necessity to be received in any commonwealth.

See Jer. xxxi, 31, 32; Acts xv. 10, 11; Gal. y 1; Col. ii. 16, 17; Heb. vii. 12.

But with regard to (0) Moral Commandments, it is laid down that no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral. (See especially S. Matt. v. 17-20.)

The question may here be asked, How then are we to explain those passages of 8. Paul which speak of the Moral Law as the occasion of sin, and represent the Christian as free from wn? Cy. ROM, τι 207 1V, 155 Vv. 203 vu 7=13.

1 Cf. WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, Art. XIX. § v. :

“The morai law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof: and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, Who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the Gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.” bs

ba ΨΩ

wees,

ARTICLE VII | 57

The Apostle represents the Law as— (i.) Intensifying the sense of sin (Rom. vii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56).

God’s holiness is therein set forth clearly (τ. Lev. xi. 45). He is righteous, loves righteousness, and demands it from man (Lev., ibid.). Thus the Law is νόμος τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι (Eph. ii. 15); it said to man, [...] shalt not” .. . but this only made him contrast the requirements of God with his own shortcomings, and brought his sin into relief.

(ii.) Bringing man into condemnation.

The very prohibitions of the Law excited opposition between the flesh and the spirit (Rom. vii. 7-11); the inward man approved the Law, the conscience recognising the justice of its demands (Rom. vii. 22), but the flesh could not act up to it, and man, finding himself powerless to perform that which he knew to be good, stood condemned (Rom. vii. 18-23). The Law itself gave no help by which the spirit might overcome the flesh, and hence it is called “the ministration of condemnation” (2 Cor. iii. 9), “the ministration of death” (2 Cor. 111. 7), and “ the letter that killeth” (2 Cor. iii. 6; Rom. vii. 9-11); the result was a sense of misery, and of the impossibility of fulfilling the Law (Rom. vii. 21-24).

What man needed, therefore, was pardon for the past (Acts xxvi. 18), and for the future not merely moral teaching, but power to enable him to carry out such teaching in his life. Christ has satisfied the need (Rom. vii. 23—25), bringing to man a new power—Divine grace (Rom. vi. 14)— and delivering him from his condition of helplessness under the Old Dispensation; thus it is that 8. Paul speaks of Christ as having redeemed us from being under the Law (Gal. iv. 4, 5), and of Christians who are led by the Spirit as being under the Law no longer (Gal. v. 18).

At the same time the Apostle emphatically repudiates

- Antinomianism (Rom. vi. 15). In one sense the Law is re-established (Rom. iii. 31), no longer, however, as an external command, but as an indwelling principle. Christian obedience is not like that of a slave, but is the obedience of a son who delights to do his father’s will (Rom. viii. 14-16), and, being thus a matter of grace, completely fulfils the ideal of righteousness of which the Law was

| H

the expression (Rom. viii. 1-4). Not merely, therefore, does the outward obedience of a Christian fulfil the bare letter of the Law, but the thoughts and intents of his heart are, through the indwelling Spirit, brought into harmony with the will of God, Who gave the Law.

Thus the Law of Christ is not merely a ratification of the Moral Law, but goes far beyond it. (See especially 5, Matt. v. 20-48.) Luther developed 8S. Paul’s teaching into Antinomianism; ég.,in his Commentary on Galatians he maintains that the Ten Commandments have no right to accuse or alarm the conscience wherein Christ reigns. Even the more cautious Melanchthon, too, seems to have held that the Law may not condemn the Christian although it is not fulfilled by him. Our Article is directly opposed to such dangerous teaching, and simply reaffirms the teaching of the Schoolmen, and, as we have seen, of Scripture on the subject.

Article VIII

The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants

Symbola tria, Nicenum, Atha- nasii, eb quod vulgo Apostolorum appellatur, omnino recipienda sunt etcredenda. Nam firmissimis Scrip- turarum testimoniis probari pos- sunt.

of Holy Scripture.

§ 1. SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers, 1552-3. We may compare the first of the X. Articles of 1536, which declares that the fundamentals of religion are—

*‘Comprehended in the whole body and canon of the Bible, and also in the three Creeds or Symbols; whereof one was made by the Apostles, and is the common creed which every man useth : the second was made by the holy council of Nice, and is said daily in the Mass; and the third was made by Athanasius, and is comprehended in the Psalm ‘ Quicunque vult.’”

§ 2.—OBJECT.

To assert the Catholic character of the English Reformation the three ancient Creeds of Catholic Christendom are retained without addition or alteration. By thus accepting the three Creeds, all those heresies, whether of ancient or of modern

oe growth, are condemned which assail the cardinal truths of the

Christian Religion. The order in which the Creeds are named in the Article is not without significance. The Nicene Creed appropriately stands first as being the most ancient, and also

the most universally used.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) THE THREE CREEDS ARE TO BE RECEIVED.

The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’, ought thoroughly to be received and believed.

From the very earliest times those who were baptized were required to make public profession of their faith. The early addition to the New Testament text in Acts viii. 37° affords an example of a formula of this kind :—

Εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος “Ke πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας ἔξεστιν." ᾿Αποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, “ ΠΙστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν."

Traces of early Creeds are also discernible in the follow-

ing passages of the Epistles :—

I Cor. viii. 6--ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, € εξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἷς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, δι οὗ τὰ πάντα. καὶ ἡμεῖς ov αὐτοῦ.

1 Cor. xv. 3-5—IIapédoxa γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, κατὰ τὰς γραφάς: καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται us ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ, κατὰ τὰς γραφάς.

rt Tim. iii. “ὦ OT ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν eure ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ. ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξη.

The recently recovered Apology of Aristides (second century) contains a passage which reads like a quotation from a Christian Creed of that period, or at any rate

‘indicates that the ee was familiar with some form of Creed :—

“The Christians then reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, Who is named the Son of God Most High, and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews: and He had twelve disciples, in order

1 The passage is not found in the MSS. SABC, and was probably inserted from an early form of baptismal profession.

2 This is the reading of NAC, and is adopted in the Revised Version. Other MSS. give Θεὸς. «

a aS gl

that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was pierced by the Jews: and He died and was buried: and they say that after three days He rose and ascended into heaven.”’

References to statements of doctrine as being in use in Apostolic times may be seen in such passages as I ‘Tim. iv. 6, vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 13 (ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων).

The earliest name given to the form of profession of Christian faith was σύμβολον "---ἴ,6.; a sign or watchword by which believers were distinguished from those who did not accept Christianity. Such forms were at first no doubt very simple; but with the spread of the Church, the Christianising of Greek thought, and the rise of false teachers, came the necessity for precise and detailed statements of the Faith; hence our Creeds in their present form.

The Nicene Creed. ~

The Council of Nicea was summoned in 325 A.D. by the Emperor Constantine, with the view of allaying the dissensions in the Church to which the heresy of Arius had given rise. Eusebius of Caesarea presented to the Council the Confession of Faith which had been in use for very many years in the churches of Palestine :—

Lliorevouev εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν

Kai eis ἕνα Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός, Ζωὴν ἐκ Ζωῆς, Yiov μονογενῆ, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως. πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον, δ οὗ

δ νος “eae καὶ εγένετο τὰ TAVTA.

Tov διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα, καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον, καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. ιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς ἕν [Πνεῦμα “Αγιον.

This Creed, however, seemed to the Council not to speak decidedly enough on the very point in dispute; certain clauses were therefore added by the assembled bishops,” under the guidance of Athanasius, in order to affirm in

1 See the Latin Version of the Article. 2 The bishops present at the Council of Nica numbered three hundred and eighteen in all, besides their attendant clergy.

unmistakable language that the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity is true God, of one essence with the Father. These clauses were :—

ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ LLarpos.

ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ.

ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί.

At the same time an anathema was appended which ran as follows :—

Tous δὲ λέγοντας, Ἣν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἣν, ovK ἣν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, ἢ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἣ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν, ἢ τρεπτὸν, 7) ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ Tov Θεοῦ ἐκκλησία.

The Council of Constantinople (A.D, 381), at which one hundred and fifty bishops were present, added clauses treating of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, in view of the false teaching of Macedonius. The concluding clauses were also adopted at the same time, while the anathema was omitted, and a few unimportant changes were made in the wording of the earlier part of the Creed. As supposed to have been put forth by the Council of Constantinople the Creed ran thus :—

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν

οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν ae πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον, ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν Yiov τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ. τὸν ἐκ τοῦ ΠΠὰτρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, Φῶς ἐκ Φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.

Tov δι ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ ΠΠνεύματος ᾿Αγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου. καὶ ἐνανθρωπησάντᾳ.

Σ ταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ταφέντα' Καὶ ἀναστάντα TH τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς: Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς" οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.

Καὶ εἰς τὸ Π]νεῦμα τὸ Αγιον, τὸ Κύριον, καὶ τὸ

a TO ἐκ TOU Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν [ατρὶ καὶ Yio συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν δ, sit προφητῶν. Εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ᾿Ἐκκλησίαν. ᾿Ομολογοῦμεν ἕν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. ΗΠ ροσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν. Kai ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.

The form of the Nicene Creed in use in the Western Church differs from the above in that it has two additional clauses, both traceable as far back as the third Council of Toledo, A.D. 589 :—

(a) Dewm de Deo after γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων. The words added, however, do not express any truth not before contained in the Creed, being covered by the clause, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ.

(ὁ) Filioque, giving expression to the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit, and never πέτα ρθῆ by the Eastern Church.

(See notes on Art. V. p. 45).

The Athanasian Creed.

In the rubric in the Prayer Book enjoining its use this Creed is entitled a “Confession of our Christian Faith, commonly called the Creed of Saint Athanasius.” The authorship is thus not directly ascribed to him, and although we meet with the ascription of its composition to Athanasius as early as the sixth century, there is every reason for concluding that it was not composed by him, -but was called Athanasian rather because it contains and enforces the great truths which that Father spent his life in defending. Internal evidence points to the period between 420 and 450 A.D. as the time of the composition of this Creed.

(a) Its form and style indicate that the Creed was originally drawn up by a Latin writer, and that it originated, not in the Eastern, but in the Western Church. ‘The facts that the earliest traces of its public use are found in the Gallican Church, and that the oldest MSS. have been found in France, support this conclusion.

(Ὁ) The phraseology is evidently borrowed in several places from the writings of S. Augustine of Hippo. In view of.

ὦ Ἃ Oe OP ee ee + ee aoe } iy x ie

64 THE THIRTY-N INE: ARTICLES.

this it would be difficult to suppose that the int: was composed much before 420 A.D,

(ὁ) On the other hand, although the language of the Creed excludes Eutychianism,' there is no express or distinct condemnation of that heresy; we may fairly argue, therefore, that it was drawn up before the Eutychian heresy came to a head and was condemned at the Council of Chaleedon (451 A.D.), since otherwise we should expect the doctrine of the two distinct Natures in Christ to be more distinctly stated.

To the question, “ Who wrote this Creed?” no certain answer

can be given, but scholars have associated it with the names of the following writers of note in the Western Church :—

It should be noted that the Athanasian Creed is very different, as well in its origin as in its character, from the other two Creeds which are named with it in the Article. It did not grow out of the form of profession made by Christian converts at Baptism, nor was it drawn up by any Council; and, as the title given to it in some MSS. indicates,® it partakes more of the nature of a Hymn or Psalm, than of a Creed in the proper sense of the word. It does not simply lay down the outlines of the Christian Faith, but it is rather the outpouring of a devout and thoughtful soul, pondering, and with loving faith dwelling and enlarging upon, the deep mysteries of the Triune Being of God, and of the Incarnation.

The Apostles’ Creed.

In its present form this Creed is not traceable further back than about the middle of the eighth century, when we meet with it in the writings of Pirminius,* who gives it as the form used in the Baptismal Service. Though it

1 See v. 34 :— *Unus omnino, non confusione Substantiae.” 2 Cf, €.9-) Ve 33:— ‘*Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in carnem Sed adsumptione Humanitatis in Deum.”

8 «Hymnus S. Athanasii de Trinitate.” 4 Very little is known of Pirminius, but he is said to have laboured as a missionary in Germany, ᾿

does not appear till about 750 A.D. in the precise form with which we are familiar, the Creed is in reality the product of a much earlier age, having grown up in the Western Church within the first four centuries. ‘We meet with the substance of it in the writings of Irenzus and of Tertullian.

The Creed given by Irenzus’ (A.D. 180) as expressing the faith of the Church in Germany, Spain, the Celtic nations, the East, Libya, Egypt, and in “the central parts of the earth,” runs as follows :—

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Ilatépa παντοκράτορα, τὸν

πεποιηκότα τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ τὰς θαλάσσας, ‘ U be ? - καὶ πάντα TA ἐν QAUTOLS.

Kai εἰς ἕνα Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, τὸν Yiov τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν σαρκωθέντα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτηρίας"

Kai εἰς Πνεῦμα “Ayiov, τὸ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν κεκηρυχὸς τὰς οἰκονομίας, καὶ τὰς ἐλεύσεις,

Kat τὴν ἐκ Παρθένου γέννησιν, καὶ τὸ πάθος, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ τὴν ἔνσαρκον εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, τοῦ ἸΚυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐν τῇ δόξη τοῦ Τ]ατρὸς παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ TO ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἀναστῆσαι πᾶσαν σάρκα πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος.

Tertullian, in his treatise “ De Virginibus Velandis,” gives the following Articles of Christian belief :—

“In unicum Deum Omnipotentem, Mundi conditorem ; Et Filium Ejus, Jesum Christum, natum ex Virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resus- citatum a mortuis, receptum in ccelis, sedentem nunc ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mor- tuos per carnis etiam resurrectionem.”

S. Augustine, in his treatises “ De Fide et Symbolo” and ‘Sermo ad Catechumenos,” has preserved the Baptismal Creed as used in his day (the close of the fourth century). In the “De Fide et Symbolo” it is thus given :—

“Credimus in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem.

“Et in Jesum Christum, Filium Dei Patris unigenitum, Dominum nostrum, qui natus est per Spiritum Sanctum ex Virgine Maria. Sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est, et sepultus. Tertio die resurrexit a mortuis; in

1 Adv. Haer. III, iii. § 4.

66 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES»

colum ascendit; sedet ad dexteram Patris, inde ven- turus et judicaturus vivos et mortuos.

“Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum: sanctam Ecclesiam utique catholicam ; remissionem peccatorum, et carnis resurrectionem.”

The Creed given in the “Sermo ad Catechumenos ” differs little from the above. Besides a few minor variations, the clause on the Passion is rather fuller :—

From the Commentary of Rufinus, a presbyter of Aquileia, we gather two forms of the Creed as used about the end of the fourth century in the Churches of Aquileia and

tome respectively. It is in the Aquileian Creed as given by Rufinus that we first meet with the clause “ Descendit ad inferna.”

About the middle of thé sixth century we have a rather fuller form of the Creed which appears in sermons ascribed to Eusebius Gallicanus. The most important variations from the earlier forms given above are :

(i.) The addition of the words “ conceptus est” :

“Conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto.”

(11.) The expansion of the clause on the Ascension:

“Sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris Omnipotentis.”

(iii.) The addition of the article, “ Sanctorum communionem.”

From the foregoing sketch it appears that the Apostles’ Creed has reached its present form by a gradual process, but that its main substance is traceable to the Baptismal profession of very early times. While it is post-Apostolic as regards its present form, In its contents it is truly Apostolic, summarising as it does for the use of the faithful the doctrines taught by the Apostles. We do not, therefore, inappropriately name it the Apostles’, or the Apostolic, Creed. Historically there may be another reason for the application of the name. The gradual expansion of the Creed is to be traced in the Western Church, and in this part of the Church it has always been most frequently used. Rome was from an early period the leading see of the West, and often spoken of as the Apostolic See, being the only Church of Western Christendom which was considered to have been founded by an

Apostle. It would thus naturally come about that the Creed most frequently used by it should be entitled the Apostolic, or the Apostles’, Creed.

(2.) THE GROUND OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE THREE CREEDS, For they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. | | This clause is added to show that, in enjoining the three Creeds upon her members to be “thoroughly received and

Article IX

believed” by them, our Church is acting in accordance with the principle already laid down in Article VI., that nothing is to be required “that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith” save what is read in Holy Scripture or “may be proved thereby ” (see notes on Art. VI). The Church provides for the continual recitation of the Creeds :— The Nicene Creed in the Communion Service. The Athanasian Creed on certain stated Festivals and Holy Days. The Apostles’ Creed in daily Morning and Evening Prayer. This last is also used as the Baptismal Profession of Faith, and is given in the “Order for the Visitation of the Sick” as the rule of faith by which the sick person should prove himself whether he believe as a Christian man should.

Ih pen en Rate a lea oa Gs

e OF ORIGINAL OR BIRTH SIN.

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit, and therefore in every person born into this world, it de- serveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek Φρόνημα σαρκὸς (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. - And although there is no condemnation for them that believe, and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust, hath of itself the nature of sin.

Peccatum originis non est (ut fabulantur Pelagiani) in imitatione Adami situm, sed est vitium et depravatio naturae cujuslibet hominis ex Adamo naturaliter propagati, qua fit ut ab originali justitia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua natura propendeat, et caro semper adversus spiritum concupiscat: unde in unoquoque nascentium, iram Dei, atque damnationem meretur. Manet etiam in renatis haec naturae depra- vatio; qua fit, ut affectus carnis, Graece Φρόνημα σαρκὺς, (quod alii sapientiam, alii sensum, alii affec- tum, alii studium, carnis interpre- tantur) legi Dei non _ subjiciatur. Et quanquam renatis et credentibus nulla propter Christum est con- demnatio, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concupiscentiam fatetur Apostolus.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

This Article is based to a certain extent upon the second Article of the first part of the Augsburg Confession (“ De Peccato Originis ”), through the medium of the XIII. Articles, but none of the clauses are taken verbatim from that formulary. The expression “originalis justitia,” which occurs in our Article, and

pi .

in the XIII. Articles, is not found in the Augsburg Confession. The Pelagians are mentioned by name in all three formularies, and their tenets rejected.

§ 2.— OBJECT.

The Article is expressly intended to exclude Pelagianism, which had been. revived at the time of the Reformation by the -Anabaptists.'_ In the Article as it stood in 1553 the Anabaptists were also referred to by name, “ ut fabulantur Pelagiani, et hodie Anabaptistae repetunt.”

§ 3.— EX POSITION.

A Short Account of Pelagianism.

Pelagius” himself was a monk of British origin. The lax conduct of professing Christians at Rome, who excused their shortcomings upon the ground of the infirmity of human nature, is said to have been the immediate cause of his error; he assured them that, if they would, they could live perfect lives, and was led to the opposite extreme of attributing too much to unaided human nature. A Council held at Carthage (a.D. 412) condemned Ceelestius, a friend and follower of Pelagius, who had been spreading his opinions in the North African Church. The Pelagian tenets condemned by this Council were seven in number :—

(i.) That Adam was created mortal, and would have died even

if he had not sinned.

(ii.) The sin of Adam injured himself only, and not the human

race.

(111.) That the Law had the same effect as the Gospel in sending

men té the Kingdom of Heaven.

(iv.) That even before Christ’s coming there had been sinless

men.

(v.) That infants when born are in the same state as Adam

before his transgression.

(vi.) That all mankind does not die in Adam, or rise in Christ.

(vii.) That unbaptized infants would have eternal life,

A brief consideration will show us that these seven propositions

are logically connected. Pelagius began by arguing somewhat in this way: ‘We cannot imagine that God would be so foolish as to create man to keep a. Law, which yet by the very constitution of his nature he cannot keep; we must therefore conclude that man can keep God’s commandments if he will.’ Notice here that the Fall, with its consequences, by which man lost his original power of keeping God’s commandments, is entirely overlooked ; we are, according to Pelagius, at birth in the same state in which Adam was before he fell. If we admit this, it follows of course that Adam’s transgression hurt only himself and not the human race. But here a difficulty arises: death has passed upon all men, even upon unconscious infants—does not this fact indicate that all partake in sin? Pelagius solved the difficulty by denying the connection of death with sin: ‘“‘ Adam was created mortal, and would have died even if he had not sinned.”

This position has now been reached:—Adam need not have sinned; we at birth are all of us in the same condition that Adam was in before the Fall; therefore no man need sin. Pelagius went further, and affirmed that hé could mention many who never had sinned. Now comes the important question, “ [ἢ virtue of what power were such men sinless?” Pelagius said, by the exercise of their own free-will under the guidance of God’s Moral Law ; 1.6.,ὄ in order to attain perfection man needs simply to be told what to do, and he will do it; he needs no power to enable him to act up to that which his conscience approves. If Moral Teaching thus suffices for man’s need, it follows that the Gospel is in reality no advance upon the Law, but both “have the same effect in sending men to the Kingdom of Heaven.”

In consequence of the conclusions already arrived at, Pelagius was obliged to take the text, ‘‘ As in Adam all die,” in an unreal sense; he explained it as meaning, not that all die in Adam, but that all those who do die, die in Adam; in other words, all men do not sin, but if a man happen to sin, he is following the example of Adam.

Holding these opinions, Pelagius was of course obliged to give up the doctrine of the Church with regard to Baptism. If infants at birth are sinless, there can be no need of Regeneration. The custom of baptizing infants was, however, retained by him, as a ceremony of dedication to God.

The root of the evil in Pelagius’ system is his totally inadequate conception of the nature of sin. With him “sin” is

only a name for an act, which, once committed, is over and done with, and leaves no effect behind; so that human nature, whether in the individual or in the race, is uninfluenced by past sins, and is in the same condition as at the creation of Adam. Universal human experience, however, gives the lie to such theorising. We know that it is by repeated acts that habits take shape, and that character is formed. The power to be righteous did, indeed, belong to our nature as originally constituted, but Pelagius was wrong in supposing that no act of man can remove that power, and in confining the need of a special grace over and above natural endowment to some only of mankind.’ We will now consider the Article in detail; it defines—

(1.) THe Nature oF ORIGINAL SIN.

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature. (See Rom. v. 12-- 10.)

When we speak of Original Sin we do not mean merely that Adam first set the example of sinning, an example which most men follow (Peccatum originis non est in imita- tione Adami situm)—this was the theory of Pelagius; but we understand by it a vitium et depravatio naturae. ‘The nature of the race as a whole is faulty and corrupted, owing to the sin of the progenitor.

_ Of. what is said in the RErormatio Lecum, ‘ De Haere- sibus,’ Cap. 7:

“Tn labe peccati ex ortu nostro contracta, quam vitium originis appellamus, primum quidem Pelagianorum, deinde etiam Anabap- tistarum nobis vitandus et submovendus est error, quorum in eo consensus contra veritatem sacrarum Scripturarum est, quod pec- catum originis in Adamo solo haeserit, et non ad posteros transierit, nec ullam afferat naturae nostrae perversitatem, nisi quod ex Adami delicto propositum sit peccandi noxium exemplum, quod homines ad eandem pravitatem invitat imitandam et usurpandam.”

The BeLe@ic Conression (Art. XV.) gives this definition :—

“ Est autem peccatum originis corruptio totius naturae, et vitium haereditarium, quo et ipsi infantes in matris utero polluti sunt.”

A Calvinist would describe an Sin as the “ imputation” of Adam’s guilt. Cf. WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, VI. iii.

“They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed.” ~

In their revision of the ninth Article the Westminster divines inserted a clause in the definition of Original Sin :—

“Together with his first sin imputed, it is the fault and corruption of the nature,” &c.?

(2.) THE EXTENT oF ORIGINAL SIN. of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; (Ps. li. 5.)

Thus our Church emphatically excludes Pelagianism, and affirms that Adam’s sin affected not himself only, but the whole human race.

Cf. CoUNCIL OF TRENT, Session V. :

“Si quis Adae praevaricationem sibi soli et non ejus propagini asserit nocuisse, et acceptam a deo sanctitatem ct justitiam, quam perdidit, sibi soli et non nobis etiam eum perdidisse, aut inqui- natum illum per inobedientiae peccatum mortem et poenas corporis tantum in omne genus humanum transfudisse, non autem et pec- catum, quod mors est animae: anathema sit.”

A Socinian would include Jesus Christ among men born in sin; but our Lord is expressly excluded by the wording of the Article, since He was “supernaturally engendered ”

(S. Luke i. 34, 35).

1 It should be remembered, however, that Calvin himself did not teach this. Cf. INSTITUTES, IL. 1. 8: “ Atque ideo infantes quoque ipsi, dum suam secum damnationem afferant, non alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio sunt obstricti.”

He thus defines Original Sin :

‘‘ Videtur ergo peccatum originale, haereditaria naturae nostrae pravitas et corruptio in omnes animae partes diffusa, quae primum facit reos irae Dei, tum etiam opera in nobis profert, quae Scriptura vocat opera carnis.”

2 The text of the Article as revised is given in full in Appendix IV.

(3.) THE RESULT OF ORIGINAL SIN.

whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; _

The consequence of the Fall is here represented as twofold :-— | |

(a) A Privation, the loss of that life of intimate communion with God which man had before the Fall, with a wide departure from original righteousness * (Rom. vii. 18).

(b) A Depravation, the introduction of an element of discord within man himself, the inclination of his nature to evil, so that the lower within him strives against the higher (Gen. vill, 21; Gal. v. 17).

The Saxon Conression, like the English Article, sets forth the twofold result of the Fall :—

(a) “ Carentia originalis justitiae.” (ὁ) Depravatio “quae lapsum secuta est.” (Art. 11.)

While Pelagianism denies that there is any result at all, so far as the human race as a whole is concerned, Calvinism, on the other hand, lays such stress on the consequences of the Fall as to hold that every spark of original righteousness has been extinguished, and the image of God not merely defaced, but utterly blotted out.’

Frencu Conression, Art. IX. : . “adeo ut ipsius natura sit prorsus corrupta, et spiritu excaecatus, ac corde depravatus, omnem illam integritatem, sine ὉΠ prorsus exceptione, amiserit. Etsi enim nonnullam habet boni et mali discretionem : affirmamus tamen quicquid habet lucis mox fieri tenebras, cum de quaerendo Deo agitur, adeo ut sua intelligentia et ratione nullo modo possit ad eum accedere.”

Scorcn Conrsssion, Art. IIT. : “Qua transgressione, quae vulgo dicitur originale peccatum, prorsus deformata est illa Dei in homine imago.,”

1 The expression “original righteousness” is taken from the XIII. Articles, but does not occur in the Augsburg Confession. The phrase was used by the Saxon school of Reformers to signify the sinless state of man before the Fall ; we meet with it in the SAXON CONFESSION, and in the definition of Original Sin given by the FoRMULA OF CoNCORD :—

. “fest privatio concreatae in paradiso justitiae originalis seu imaginis dei, ad quam homo initio in veritate, sanctitate atque justitia creatus fuerat.”

2 In the INst1TUTEs (Book II.) Calvin himself speaks of the heavenly image as ‘obliterated’ by the Fall, both in Adam and in all his posterity.

WestMinsTER Conression, VIL. 2:

“By this sin they (¢.e., our first parents) fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.”

It is evident that the wording of our Article was not strong enough to suit the Westminster divines; in their revision they altered it thus :—

““Whereby.man is wholly deprived of original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined only to evil.” }

(4.) THE PUNISHMENT DUE TO ORIGINAL SIN.

and therefore, in every person born into this world, it deserveth

God’s wrath and damnation. (Eph. ii. 3; Rom. v. 18.) Pelagius and his followers denied that any penalty of Adam’s transgression passes on to his offspring. In formularies both of the Saxon and Swiss school the penalty attaching to Original Sin is spoken of as ‘eternal death’; see, ¢.g.:—

“Docent . . . quod hic morbus, seu vitium originis, vere sit peccatum, damnans et afferens nune quoque aeternam mortem his, qui non renascuntur per baptismum et Spiritum Sanctum.”

mortem, quae omnibus nobis semel, propter peccata, est obeunda, sed

etiam supplicia sempiterna peccatis et corruptioni nostrae debita.”

(5.) THe Erect oF Baptism.

And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are

regenerated ; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek Φρόνημα σαρκὸς... is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence - and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

Baptism removes all condemnation on account of Original Sin (Rom, viii. 1), but does not remove the effects of the

1 See Appendix IV. <

Fall upon our nature (Gal. ν, 17), so that there remains, even in the regenerate, the lusting of the flesh against the spirit (Rom. viii. 7), and this ‘concupiscentia’ has of itself the nature of sin (Rom. vii. 7). ᾿

Cf. what is said in the sixth of the XIII. Articles :—

“Quia vero infantes nascuntur cum peccato originis, habent opus remissione illius peccati, et illud ita remittitur ut reatus tollatur, licet corruptio naturae seu concupiscentia manet in hac vita, etsi incipit sanari, quia Spiritus Sanctus in ipsis etiam infantibus est efficax, et eos mundat.”

To the same effect also Calvin writes in InstiTUTES, IV. xv. 11 :—

* Baptismus quidem promittit nobis submersum esse nostrum Pharaonem, et peccati mortificationem ; non tamen ita ut amplius non sit, aut nobis negotium non facessat ; sed tantum ne superet. Nam quamdiu in hoc ecarcere corporis nostri clausi degemus, habitabunt in nobis reliquiae peccati; sed si promissionem in Baptismo nobis a Deo datam, fide tenemus, non dominabuntur nec regnabunt,”

Melanchthon, in Loct THEOLOGICI (p. 112), thus states the effect of Baptism :—

“Tdeo 516 respondemus, in baptismo tolli peccatum, quod ad reatum, seu imputationem attinet, sed manere morbum ipsum.”

Bonner’s words in “ Profitable and Necessary Doctrine” well express the teaching of our Church :—

When we come to the question whether the concupiscence which remains in the baptized is itself properly sin, we find great divergence in the formularies of the Reformation period. Those drawn up by the theologians of the

oS THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Lutheran and ‘ Reformed’ bodies agree in affirming that such concupiscence is truly and properly sin; see, 6... :— Saxon Conrsssion, Art. IT. : ‘**Hanc malam concupiscentiam dicimus esse peccatum.” Frencu Conression, Art. XI. : “Affirmamus quoque hoc vitium, etiam post baptismum, esse vere peccatum.” WESTMINSTER ConFEssion, VI. 5: ‘* Both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly

sin.” }

The CouNnciL oF TRENT, on the other hand, declared that the concupiscence remaining in the baptized is not properly sin. The decree of the Council upon this subject (Session V.) runs as follows :—

“Si quis per Jesu Christi gratiam, quae in baptismo confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitti negat, aut etiam asserit non tolli totum id, quod veram et propriam peccati rationem habet, sed illud dicit tantum radi aut non imputari, anathema sit, in renatis enim nihil odit Deus. . . . Manere autem in baptizatis concupis- centiam vel fomitem, sancta synodus fatetur et sentit, quae cum ad agonem relicta sit, nocere non consentientibus, sed utiliter per Christi gratiam repugnantibus non valet. Hane concupiscentiam, quam aliquando Apostolus peccatum appellat, sancta synodus declarat, ecclesiam catholicam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod vere et proprie in renatis peccatum sit, sed quia ex peccato est, et ad peccatum inclinat.”

It will be observed that our Article speaks guardedly ; while it differs from the decree of Trent in declaring that the concupiscence which remains in the baptized “has the nature of sin” (peccati in sese rationem habet *), yet it does not go so far as to affirm, with the other Confessions above quoted, that it is truly and properly sin.

§4.—NOTEWORTHY EXPRESSIONS IN THIS ARTICLE. (i.) Φρόνημα σαρκὸς (Rom. viii. 6). The key to the true meaning of φρόνημα in this phrase is to. be found in the use of the cognate verb in the New Testament. Cf. the following passages :—

1 Cf. the text of our Art. LX. as revised by the Westminster assembly of divines, Appendix IV. 2 See the use of the same Latin phrase in Art. XIII.

ARTICLE IX 7)

Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾷ. .. ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (8. Matt. xvi. 23).

Oi γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς φρονοῦσιν (Rom. viii. 5).

Μὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες (Rom. xii. 16).

Oi τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες (Phil. iii. 19).

Ta ἄνω φρονεῖτε, μὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Col. iii. 2).

In the light of these passages we understand φρόνημα σαρκὸς to signify the directing of the thoughts and energies to the interests of the flesh.

(ii.) An incidental use of language in the Article is doctrinally important, and should not be overlooked. The way in which renatis, which occurs twice in the Latin version, is represented in the one case by “them that are regenerated,” and in the other by “them that are baptized,” implies the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.

Article X

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God: wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working WITH us, when we have that good will.

Ea est hominis post lapsum Adae conditio, ut sese natura- libus suis viribus et bonis operi- bus ad fidem et invocationem Dei convertere ac praeparare non possit. Quare absyue gratia Dei (quae per Christum est) nos prae- veniente, ut velimus, et cooperante dum volumus, ad pietatis opera facienda, quae Deo grata sunt et accepta, nihil valemus.

§ 1.— SOURCE.

The first part of the Article (printed in thick type in the Latin version) was added in 1563, the words from “ut sese naturalibus ” down to “praeparare non possit” being taken from the Article “ De Peccato” in the Wurtemburg Confession. The Article of 1553, which forms the second part of our present Article, agrees almost verbatim with words of S. Augustine in his treatise ‘‘ De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio,” Cap. xvii.

The expression “ working WITH us” was altered in 1571 from “working in us” of the previous English versions. This change, though slight, is significant, since it brings into prominence the fact that man is not so utterly depraved but that he is able to co-operate with God. |

§ 2.—OBJECT.

This Article is really supplementary to the last, stating clearly the necessity of Divine grace, which was denied by the Pelagians

and Anabaptists. -

Cf. Rerormatio Leeum, ‘ De Haeresibus,’ Cap. 7:

“Nobis contra illos progrediendum est, qui tantum in libero arbitrio roboris et nervorum ponunt, ut eo solo sine alia speciali Christi gratia recte ab hominibus vivi posse constituant.”

In the case of this Article the title scarcely corresponds to the contents. “Or THE Necrssiry oF DiviINE Grace” would be a more suitable heading.

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1.) Man’s Incapaciry FoR GooD SINCE THE FALL.

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God.

In other words, man in his natural state is in a condition of slavery to sin (Rom. vii. 14; viii. 8. Cf. S. John Vill. 34).

We should keep in mind the distinction in the technical language of theology between ‘liberum arbitrium’ and ‘voluntas.’ ‘Liberum arbitrium’ signifies the power of freely choosing. ‘ Voluntas’ denotes an act of will, the determination of the ‘liberum arbitrium’ in a particular direction.

S. Augustine, whose etiicgs had great influence with the Reformers, gives the following account’ of man’s will. The ‘liberum arbitrium’” 296

(i.) At Creation a media vis,’ capable of ἜΟΣ inclined either to good or to evil, but coloured with good.

(ii.) Since the Fall it has been captivatwm, and hence in the power of sin.

(iii.) But through the work of Christ it is now /iberatum, so that by His grace it may be again turned in the direction of good.

_ Statements of other formularies of the Reformation period should be compared with the wording of our Article :—

Avesspure Conrsssion, Art. XVIIL: “De libero arbitrio docent, quod humana voluntas habeat ali- quam libertatem ad efficiendam civilem justitiam, et deligendas res rationi subjectas. Sed non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto effi-

1 See “De Spiritu et Littera,” Cap. xxxiii.

ciendae justitiae Dei seu justitiae spiritualis, quia animalis homo, non percipit ea, quae sunt Spiritus Dei.” | Saxon Conression, Art. V.:

“Sed homo nequaquam potest se liberare a peceato, et morte aeterna, viribus naturalibus: sed haec: liberatio et conversio hominis ad Deum, et novitas spiritualis, fit per Filium Dei vivi- ficantem nos Spiritu suo Sancto,”’

Frencu Conression, Art. [X.:

Seconp Hetvetic Conression, Art. [X.:

‘Non sublatus est quidem homini intellectus, non erepta ei voluntas, et prorsus in lapidem vel truncum est commutatus: caeterum illa ita sunt immutata et imminuta in homine, ut non possint amplius quod potuerunt ante lapsum, Intellectus enim obscuratus est: voluntas vero ex libera, facta est voluntas serva.”

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, IX. 3: ‘Man, by his fall into a state-of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as laid down at the Council of Trent is as follows (Session VI., Jan. 1547) :—

‘‘PDeclarat synodus . . . oportere, ut unusquisque agnoscat. et fateatur, quod cum omnes homines in praevaricatione Adae inno- centiam perdidissent, facti immundi . . . usque adeo servi erant peceati . . . tametsi in eis liberum arbitrium minime exstinctum esset, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum.”

Accordingly the Council anathematises those who say that the ‘liberum arbitrium’ is ‘extinctum’ and has become ‘ figmentum,’ ‘titulum sine re.’* The Council further lays down that freewill without grace cannot make man righteous; that there is no justification without Divine grace. The necessity of preventing grace is also strongly asserted; and they are anathematised who affirm that the free-will of man, when it has been roused and called, does not co-operate with God’s grace, but is passive.

1 Luther had affirmed at Heidelberg (1518) in one of his ‘ Paradoxes’ that

free-will after original sin ‘res est de solo titulo’—a matter of name only, without any corresponding reality.

(2.) THe Necessity or Divine GRACE IN ORDER THAT MAN MAY CHOOSE AND PERFORM THAT WHICH IS Goop. wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will. (See 1 Cor. li. 14; xii. 3.) Man can neither form good resolutions apart from God’s grace, nor carry them out by his own unassisted strength. There must: be :—

(a) The grace of God “ Preventing,” 1.6., going before: the very first desire to turn to God must come from Him (S. John vi. 44; Acts xvi. 14; Phil. 11. 13).

(Ὁ) The grace of God “ Co-operating,” 1.6., working together with man’s will, so that our better self is strengthened, but not superseded (Phil. ii. 13).

Note that the Article expressly speaks of the grace of God ‘by Christ’ (quae per Christum est). Cf Phil. iv. 13.

All spiritual benefits which God confers upon men He confers through Christ alone, Whose merits extend to all men, in all ages of the world (Rey. xiii. 8).

The teaching of our Article is opposed to—

(a) Pelagianism, which said that man’s condition by nature is such that he can keep God’s commandments if he will, without any special Divine assistance.

Cf. AUGSBURG CONFESSION, Art. XVIIL :

(Ὁ) Calvinism, according to which Divine grace, where it is really given, is irresistible, so that those who are saved are saved of necessity, their own will being superseded. (See the quotations given from Calvin in the notes on Art. XVI.

§ 3.) Cf. First Baptist ConrEsston, ὃ 23: “ All those that have this precious faith wrought in them by

the Spirit can never finally nor‘totally fall away.” ‘ LF

[After Art. X., in 1553, came an Article on Grace, which was

omitted in 1563.

The grace of Christ, or the holie Ghost by him geuen, dothe take awaie the stonie harte, and geueth an harte of fleshe. And although those that haue no will to good thinges, he maketh them to wil, and those that would euil thinges, he maketh them not to wille the same: Yet neuerthelesse he en- forceth not the wil. And _ther- fore no man when he sinneth can excuse himself as not worthie to be blamed or condemned, by alleging that he sinned unwillinglie, or by compulsion,

It ran thus :—

Gratia Christi, seu Spiritus Sanctus qui per eundem datur, cor lapi- deum aufert, et dat cor carneum. Atque licet ex nolentibus quae recta sunt, volentes faciat ; et ex volen- tibus prava, nolentes reddat, volun- tati nihilominus violentiam nullam infert. Et nemo hac de causa cum peccaverit, seipsum excusare potest, quasi nolens aut coactus peccaverit, ut eam ob causam accusarl non mereatur aut damnari. |

Article XI

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

Tantum propter meritum Domini ac Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, per fidem, non propter opera et merita nostra, justi coram Deo reputamur. uare sola fide nos justificari, doctrina est salu- berrima, ac consolationis plenissima : ut in homilia de justificatione hominis fusius explicatur.

§ 1.— SOURCE.

In 1553 the Article on Justification was very brief :—

“ Justification by onely faith in Jesus Christ in that sence, as it is declared in the homelie of Justification, is a most certeine, and holesome doctrine for Christien menne.”

The wording of this was slightly altered and the first part

(printed in thick type in the Latin version) prefixed in 1563. The new part agrees with the Art. “ De Justificatione” of the WURTEMBURG CoNFESSION, from which it was doubtless taken :—

* Homo enim fit Deo acceptus, et reputatur coram eo justus propter solum filium Dei Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum per fidem.”

We may compare the rather fuller statement in the fifth of the much earlier English formulary, the X. ARTICLES :—

“That sinners attain this justification by contrition and faith joined with charity, after such sort and manner as we before mentioned and declared ; not as though our contrition or faith, or any works proceeding thereof, can worthily merit or deserve to attain the said justification: for the only mercy and grace of the Father, promised freely unto us for His Son’s sake, Jesu Christ, and the merits of His Blood and Passion, be the only sufficient -

and worthy causes thereof.”

§ 2.—OBJECT.

The Article is directed against theories of human merit so prevalent in the Medizval Western Church, and so strongly protested against at the Reformation, especially by Luther. It may also be aimed at the tenets of the Anabaptists, whose error is thus alluded to in Archbishop Hermann’s ConsuLTATIO :—

“They boste themselves to be ryghtuous and to please God, not purely and absolutely for Christes sake, but for theyr owne mortification of themselues, for theyr owne good workes and persecution, if they suffre any.”

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) WHAT IS MEANT BY JUSTIFICATION ? We are accounted righteous before God,

‘Justification’ in the writings of S. Paul signifies the entering by man (who through sin, original and actual, is | by nature in a condition of alienation from God) upon a state of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (Rom. i. 17; iil. 22), de, upon a state of righteousness which God considers as such; in other words, the entering into a right relation with God, which is the starting-point of the Christian life.

(2.) THE GROUND OF OUR JUSTIFICATION.

only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings :

The state of δικαιοσύνη before God is not attained by any efforts or merits of our own (Rom, x. 3; Phil. iii. 9); nothing that man can do of himself can bring him into right relation with God, but the reconciliation comes from God Himself, Who gave His own Son (Rom. v. 8-10, Vill. 32, 333 2 Con v.21).

(a) Objectively, therefore, the ground of our justification is the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Rom. 111. 24).

It is necessary for man on his part to accept what God has done for him—he must accept the Gospel message and receive Baptism (Tit. ili. 5); this he does by faith.

(Ὁ) Thus, considering the matter subjectively, the sole requisite for entering upon a state of δικαιοσύνη before God is Faith (Rom, 1. 17, 1i,°22, 30, y. 15 ¢f. Acts xiiI, 39, ἀν σε: Gal. v. 6; Eph. ii. 8).

On the subject of ‘ Justification’ the following extracts should be compared with our Article :—

The CounciL oF TRENT understands the term ‘ Justification ’ in a wider sense than that explained above, taking it to include ‘Sanctification’; thus the decree of the Council (Session VI.) differs from our Article in defining Justification as not merely the “accounting” but the “ making” of us righteous :

“ Justificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctifi- catio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum, unde homo ex injusto fit justus et ex inimico amicus, ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae aeternae . . . justitia ~ dei, qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes.”

Avassure Conression, Art. IV. : ᾿

“Ttem docent, quod homines non possint justificari coram Deo propriis viribus, meritis aut operibus, sed gratis justificentur propter Christum per fidem, cum credunt se in gratiam recipi, et peccata remitti propter Christum, qui sua morte pro nostris peccatis satis- fecit. Hanc fidem imputat Deus pro justitia coram ipso (Rom. iii. et iv.).”

Conressio Variata, Art. “De Fide”:

“Cum igitur dicimus, Fide justificamur, non hoc intelligimus quod justi simus propter ipsius virtutis dignitatem. Sed haec est sententia, consequi nos remissionem peccatorum, et imputationem justitiae, per misericordiam propter Christum.”

Saxon Conression, Art. ITI. : “Hac fide cum erigitur, certum est donari remissionem pecca-

pronuntiare, a peccatis et aeternis peccatorum suppliciis absolvere propter justitiam Christi, quae a Deo fidei imputatur.”

It will be noticed that three of the formularies just quoted, which express the views of the Saxon, or Lutheran, school of Reformers, speak of the “imputation” of righteousness. Calvin also, in dealing with this subject, uses the term “imputation.” See Institutes, IIT. xi. 2 :—

Cf. also the following quotations from Confessions belonging to the Swiss school :—

Frenco Conression, Art. XVIII. :

‘‘Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccato- rum nostrorum remissione, quae sit etiam, ut testatur David, unica nostra felicitas. Itaque ceteras omnes rationes quibus homines existimant se coram Deo posse justificari, plane repudiamus : omnique virtutum et meritorum opinione abjecta, in sola Jesu Christi obedientia prorsus acquiescimus, quae quidem nobis impu- tatur, tum ut tegantur omnia nostra peccata, tum etiam ut gratiam coram Deo nanciscamur.”

“Proprie ergo loquendo, Deus solus nos justificat, et duntaxat propter Christum nos justificat, non imputans nobis peccata, sed imputans ejus nobis justitiam . . . ideo docemus et credimus cum apostolo, hominem peccatorem justificari sola fide in Christum, non lege, aut ullis operibus.”

The Westminster divines, in their revision of the eleventh of the XX XIX. Articles, inserted a clause :—

“ His (Christ’s) whole obedience and satisfaction being by God imputed unto us.”?

Our Article differs from the great number of Continental Confessions, in that it does not discuss at length the meaning of ‘Justification.’ The only approach to a definition of the term is that which is implied in the wording of the Article, “justi coram Deo reputamur.”

‘he fourth of the XIII. Articles, which were the outcome of an attempt to draw the English and German Reformers together, runs thus :—

“Ttem de justificatione docemus, quod ea proprie significat remissionem peccatorum et acceptationem seu reconciliationem nostram in gratiam et favorem Dei, hoc est veram renovationem in Christo.”

It is somewhat remarkable that in subsequent English formularies this phraseology is altogether departed from.

1 See Appendix IY. ~

(3.) Havine SpeciaL ReGarD ΤῸ THE NEEDS OF THE TIME, THE

Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

It is obvious that the best works of man are faulty and imperfect; if, therefore, God were to enter into judgment with man, no one living would be able to stand before Him (Ps. cxliii. 2), and we might well despair if it were left to us to bring ourselves into right relation to God by our own merits. It is, therefore, most comforting to be assured that we enter into δικαιοσύνη before God by accepting in faith what Christ has done for us.

There is no homily with the title “ Homily of Justification,” but the “ Homily of Salvation,” which deals with the subject, is evidently the one to which reference is made. In illustration of the statements of the Article we may quote a short passage from this homily :—

“And therefore St. Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith: which nevertheless is the gift of God and not man’s only work without God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified ; but it shutteth them out

_ from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not all together. Nor that faith also doth not shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterward of duty towards God, (for we are most bounden to serve God in doing good deeds commanded by Him in His Holy Scripture, all the days of our life;) but it excludeth them so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made good by doing of them” (pp. 22, 23; ed. S.P.C.K.).

Article XII

Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment: yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Bona opera quae sunt fructus Fidei et justificatos sequuntur, quanquam peccata nostra expiare et Divini judicii severitatem ferre non possunt, Deo tamen grata sunt et accepta in Christo, atque ex vera et viva fide necessario profluunt, ut plane ex illis, aeque fides viva cognosci possit, atque arbor ex fructu judicari.

ὃ 1.— SOURCE.

This was one of the new Articles added in 1563, and appears to have been borrowed to some extent from the Article “ De Bonis Operibus” in the WuRTEMBURG CONFESSION, in which the

following passage occurs :—

“ Non est autem sentiendum, quod iis bonis operibus, quae nos facimus, in judicio Dei, ubi agitur de expiatione peccatorum, et placatione divinae irae, ac merito aeternae salutis, confidendum sit. Omnia enim bona opera, quae nos facimus, sunt imperfecta, nec possunt severitatem divini judicii ferre.”

§ 2.—OBJECT.

Article XI. emphasises the great Reformation doctrine of Justification by Faith only; Article XII. was drawn up with the view of guarding against the practical evil which had been seen to arise from the misunderstanding of that great doctrine. Luther laid so much stress on faith that he came to depreciate works, and even to deny them their proper place, and to speak

of 5. James’ Epistle, which emphasises the necessity of good

works, as “straminea epistola.”* Calvin’s exaggerated teaching

on the subject of Predestination also tended to depreciation of man’s work. The matter, of course, did not rest with the authors of these teachings; their followers went much further, with the result that antinomianism became widely prevalent. It was in order to meet this evil outcome of the teaching of some of the Reformers that this Article was framed in 1563.

§ 3.—EXPOSITION.

(1.) Goop WorKS ARE IN THEMSELVES NoT MERITORIOUS.

Good works . . . cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgment :

Two things are here affirmed with regard to good works :—

(a) They cannot put away (expiare) sin.

Only the Blood of Christ can expiate sin (1 8. John i. 7); and it is a fatal error to put human merit in its place, as was too often done in medieval times.

(b) They cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.

We must all acknowledge that there is something of imperfection even in our best deeds (Ps. exliii. 2).2 Good works, therefore, are not rewarded “de condigna,” 1.6., because of their deserving it.®

With the teaching of the Article on this head we should

contrast—

(i.) The doctrine of the Church of Rome, according to which the good works of those who are justified are in themselves meritorious. See Counci, OF TRENT, Session VI., Canon XXXII. :— |

“Si quis dixerit, hominis justificati bona opera ita esse dona Dei, ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justificati merita; aut ipsum

‘*Neither may we rejoice in any works that we do, which all be so imperfect and impure that they are not able to stand before the righteous judgment-seat of God.”

8 As to the meaning of the scholastic phrase “meritum de condigno” see notes on Art. XIII. The doctrine expressed by it was repudiated by the Continental, as by the English, Reformers. See, e.g., SAXON CONFESSION, Art. IX. :

“Tdeo inanis est imaginatio fingentium obedientiam placere sua dignitate, et esse meritum condigni, ut loquuntur, et justitiam coram Deo, quae sit meritum vitae aeternae,’

go THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

justificatum bonis operibus, quae ab eo per Dei gratiam et Christi

et ipsius vitae aeternae, si tamen in gratia decesserit, consecutionem, atque etiam gloriae augmentum ; anathema sit.”

(ii.) The tenets of Pelagius and his followers, who held that some men have lived perfectly sinless lives,’ so that their works would be able to endure the severity of God’s judgment.

(2.) Goop WoRKS ARE PLEASING AND ACCEPTABLE TO GoD IN Curist. yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ,

Though not meritorious in themselves, yet the good works of Christians are pleasing to God, because of our union with Christ (see 1 8. Pet. ii. 5; Eph. ii 10; Tit. ii, 14, iii. 8; Heb. xiii. 16, 20, 21). To deny this is to divorce morality from religion. Some of the Reformers, however, did deny it,?7 and no more severe blow could be struck at Christian morality.

(3.) THE RELATION oF GooD WokkKs ΤῸ JustTiFyING FAITH.

Good works . . . are the fruits of faith, and follow after Justification, .. . and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.

The relation of good works to faith is here very clearly and carefully stated :—

(a) Good works are the fruits of faith.

(b) They do spring necessarily out of faith, so that where true faith is we may be sure that good works will also be found, .and where good works are wanting faith is certainly dead (S. Matt. vii. 16-20; Tit. 11. 14; 8. Jas. ii. 17-26).

(c) Thus works do not precede faith, so that a man may be justified by them, but follow after justification (justificatos sequuntur)—Hph. 11. 8—I10.

The ‘“ Homily of Salvation,’ referred to in the last Article,

lays down in similar language the proper relation of good works to faith :-— 7

1 See notes on Art. IX.

2 Luther, e.g., in 1518 offered to maintain this proposition at Heidelberg against all comers: “Non ille justus est qui multum operatur, sed qui sine opere multum credit in Christum.”

ee i 7a 0 os wear

ἐς Nor when they say that we be justified freely, they mean not that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward ; neither they mean not so to be justified without our good works, that we should do no good works at all” (p. 25)... . |

“Tt followeth necessarily that some other thing should be required for our salvation than the law; and that is a true and lively faith in Christ, bringing forth good works and a life according to God’s commandments” (p. 28)... .

“Our office is not to pass the time of this present life unfruit- fully and idly after that we are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do to the glory of God and profit of our neighbours : much less it is our office, after that we be once made Christ’s members, to live contrary to the same” (pp. 29, 30).

Some examples may be given to show how this question of the relation of good works to faith is treated in the Confessions of the Protestant and Reformed bodies on the Continent :—

«Principio, quod opera nostra non possint reconciliare Deum, aut mereri remissionem peccatorum, et gratiam ef justificationem, sed hance tantum fide consequimur. .. .

“Praeterea docent nostri, quod necesse sit bona opera facere, non ut confidamus per ea gratiam mereri, sed propter voluntatem Dei. Tantum fide apprehenditur remissio peccatorum ac gratia. Et quia per fidem accipitur Spiritus Sanctus, jam corda renovantur, et induunt novos affectus, ut parere bona opera possint.”

“ His bona opera, tam non rejicimus, ut prorsus negemus quen- quam plene posse salvum fieri, nisi huc per spiritum Christi evaserit, ut nihil jam bonorum operum in eo desyderetur, ad quae quidem Deus illum condidit.”

Bouemian Conression, Articles IX. and X.: “Salvifica fides . . . ita per charitatem operatur quaevis bona et sancta opera, ex quibus tanquam arbor ex fructibus cognoscitur. _ Sicut enim ignis absque calore, et sol absque splendore : ita etiam vera fides et Christi particeps, sine renovatione et sine charitate, adeoque sine multis sanctis et bonis operibus nunquam et nusquam esse potest. ...

g2 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

“Et talia bona opera placent Deo, non propter propriam ipsorum dignitatem et perfectionem . . . sed placent Deo per solum Christum Iesum in persona vel homine, qui prius a Christo Domino per fidem in ipsum justificatus, et Deo acceptus redditus est, quando credit.” .

Breieic Conression, Art. XXIV. :

“Fieri itaque non potest ut haec fides sancta in homine otiosa sit. Neque enim loquimur de fide vana atque mortua, sed de ea tantum quae in scriptura dicitur per charitatem operari: quaeque impellit hominem ut in illis sese operibus exerceat, quae Deus ipse in verbo suo praecepit. Haec vero opera a sincera fidei hujus radice emanantia, ideo demum bona et Deo grata sunt, quia per illius gratiam sanctificantur: ad nos autem justificandos nullius sunt prorsus momenti.”

‘““Docemus enim vere bona opera enasci ex viva fide, per Spiri- tum Sanctum, et a fidelibus fieri secundum voluntatem vel regulam verbi Dei. . . . Damnamus itaque omnes qui bona opera contem- nunt, non curanda et inutilia esse blaterant. Interim, quod et antea dictum est, non sentimus per opera bona nos servari, illaque ad salutem ita esse necessaria, ut absque illis nemo unquam sit servatus.”

Some difficulty has been caused by the apparent contradiction between the statements of 8. Paul and S. James as to the place to be assigned to good works. Contrast Rom. iii. 20; iv. 2, 3; v. I, with S, Jas. 11. 14, 21, 24, 26. The seeming contradiction may, however, be cleared up by a careful examination of the meaning of the terms used, and by keeping in mind the purpose with which each Apostle is writing.

The Epistle of S. James is a practical letter; he has in mind people who are content with a profession of belief only, and make no attempt to live up to it, and so, like a prophet of the Old Testament, or a practical preacher of our own day, S. James warns people that their life must be consistent with their pro- session, that mere intellectual acceptance is useless. ‘The demons believe,” he says, but they are none the better; they shudder, and are demons still (11. 19). The man who relies upon faith is challenged to show his faith apart from works. Such exhibition is, of course, impossible. The test and proof of faith lies in the actions of life (ii. 14-18), so that where good works are found a living faith may be known to exist (ef. S. Matt..vii. 16). By deeds, therefore, man will eventually be justified, his works form-

ing the ground of God's judgment at the last day (cf S. Matt. vil. 22, 23; Rom. ili. 5, 6; 2 Cor. v. 10, xi. 15 Rev. xx. 12, Xxli. 12)..

The Epistle to the Romans is a theological treatise, and therefore the author approaches the subject of the relation of faith and works from a different standpoint. ‘Justification,’ as we have already seen, means with S. Paul the entering upon a state of δικαιοσύνη, the coming of sinful man into a right relation with God, which is the starting-point of a new life. No efforts of man’s own can attain this δικαιοσύνη for himself, he has no power of himself to help himself, he is only required to accept in faith what God has done for him through Christ ; in other words, man is justified (in S. Paul’s sense of the term) by faith only, and not by works. At the same time the Apostle makes it clear in his writings that good works follow upon justification (Eph. 11. 10); that faith which justifies is not idle or barren, but issues in obedience (Rom. vi. 16), working by love (Gal. v. 6; 1 Thess. i. 3), and without love is altogether valueless (1 Cor. xiii. 2).

§ 4—NOTEWORTHY EXPRESSION IN THIS ARTICLE.

The phrase “ justificatos sequuntur” should be noted. It is traceable to S. Augustine. Cf. “De Fide et Operibus,” Cap. xiv. § 31 :—

“‘Sequuntur enim (bona opera) justificatum, non praecedunt justificandum.”

This passage of 8. Augustine is quoted in the “ Homily on

Fasting” (p. 292; ed. S.P.C.K.).

Article XIII

Works done before the Grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

Opera quae fiunt ante gratiam Christi, et Spiritus ejus afflatum, cum ex fide Jesu Christi non pro- deant, minime Deo grata sunt: neque gratiam (ut multi vocant) de congruo merentur: Imo cum non sint facta ut Deus illa fieri voluit et praecepit, peccati rationem habere non dubitamus,

§ 1.—SOURCE.

This Article was composed by the English Reformers.

In the

XLII. Articles of 1553, as published, the Article runs exactly as at present, but in a previous draft the first clause is slightly different :—

“Opera quae fiunt ante justificationem, cum ex fide,” το.

The wording was altered to its present form before the Articles were published, but the title remained unaltered. Hence the discrepancy now existing between the title and contents of the Article. A more exact title would be, OF WorKS BEFORE FAITH, or, OF WORKS BEFORE GRACE.

§ 2.— OBJECT.

To condemn the scholastic doctrine (expressly referred to in the Article), that the favour of God may be gained by man, and the bestowal of grace merited, as the reward of actions done merely in his own strength, and without any dependence on the

Holy Spirit. This Article is thus strongly anti-Pelagian.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

In Article XII. it is laid down that works which follow after, and spring out of, faith are pleasing and acceptable to God. The question now arises, What are we to say of works of man which are done before faith, or before the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit ? The Schoolmen spoke of a twofold merit attaching to human actions :— |

(i.) Merit de congrwo, which they ascribed to such works as man does by his own unaided strength, without God’s grace. Such works, they taught, would be rewarded out of God’s liberality.

(11.) Merit de condigno, which they ascribed to such works as are done with the assistance of grace, and to which a reward was held to be due as a matter of justice.

We have seen that in Article XII. the doctrine of merit de con- digno was rejected ; in the Article now under consideration a like emphatic denial is given to the doctrine of merit de congruo. Our Article treats, then, only of works done by man in his natural state, by his own unaided strength, and of such works it declares that :—

(1.) THEY ARE NOT PLEASING TO GOD. Works done before the Grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, (See Rom. vill. 7, 8; 8S. John xv. 5.)

(2.) THEY CANNOT MAKE MEN MEET TO RECEIVE GRACE (or, in the technical language of the scholastic theology, they do not deserve grace of congruity).

neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: (Rom. iv. “Ὁ; 240. iit. 5.)

This is, in reality, only another way of saying that no works or efforts of our own can avail at all for bringing us into a state of favour with, neither can they constitute any claim upon, God.

(3.) THEY HAVE THE Nature or SIN. yea rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin. (Rom. xiv. 23; Tit. i. 15; Heb. xi. 6.) This last clause has caused some difficulty, because the Article seems at first sight to class any efforts after goodness

on the part of the heathen as sin. But such a position would be contrary to the teaching of Scripture, as given, é.g., in what is recorded of the Roman centurion Cornelius, who did not belong to God’s Covenant people, and yet his good works were acceptable to God (Acts x. 4). The answer to the difficulty in which we here seem to be involved is to be found in the doctrine of ‘ Preventing Grace’: the works of Cornelius, even in his Gentile state, were not done without faith, or apart from the grace of God. We must recognise that God gives to all men their measure of the Holy Spirit; many, indeed, may quench the Spirit, but to His blessed influence is to be attributed what-

_ ever: of goodness is found in the lives of righteous heathen. There is a ‘ Light which lighteth every man” (S. John i. 9), so that even the heathen are led to seek the Lord, if haply they might find Him (Acts xvii. 27). To this Divine Light we must attribute all that is good in mankind. But good works done without this—eg., from pride, self- righteousness, love of praise, or other similar motives—are not pleasing to God, and have the nature of sin.

With our Article we should compare the Canons of the 6th Session of the CouNncIL OF TRENT :—

“Canon I.—Si quis dixerit, hominem suis operibus, quae vel per humanae naturae vires vel per legis doctrinam fiant, absque divina per Christum gratia, posse justificari coram Deo: anathema sit.

It will be seen that the doctrine of the Roman Church, as defined by the Council, agrees in the main with that laid down in the English Article. There is, however, one point of divergence which should not be overlooked. Canon VII. anathe- matises those who hold that ‘works before justification’ are truly and properly sins. Our Article does not, indeed, affirm that such works are sin, but it uses with respect to them the same

guarded phrase which we have already noticed in Article IX., and declares that they ‘‘ have the nature of sin” (peccati rationem habere).’

§ 4.—NOTEWORTHY EXPRESSION IN THIS ARTICLE.

The School-authors.

We may briefly describe Scholasticism as an attempt to unite theology and philosophy by systematising theology upon a philosophie basis. It may be said to date from the time of Charlemagne, the monasteries established by him becoming the schools of a revived study of philosophy; and, since learning and literary skill were in those times chiefly confined to ecclesiastics, it was natural that philosophical activity should show itself chiefly in the domain of theology. From the ninth to the eleventh centuries we have the rise of Scholasticism. During the latter half of the twelfth century came the struggle between the Nominalists and the Realists,” which resulted in the triumph of the latter. The twelfth and thirteenth centuries may be regarded as the prime of Scholasticism, and the three most renowned of the School- men were Albertus Magnus,* Thomas Aquinas,* and John Duns Scotus.°

1 The formularies influenced by the Calvinistic Theology, which emphasises the total corruption of the natural man, lay stress, as we should expect, upon _ the sinful character of works done by man in his natural state. See the text of Article XIII. as revised by the Westminster divines, Appendix IV.

2 This controversy was with respect to our abstract or general ideas. The Realists contended that an abstraction—e.g., circle, beauty, right—had a real existence (apart from round things, beautiful objects, right actions). Those that held the opposite view were called Nominalists, since they held that there is nothing general but names ; e.g., the name circle is applied to round things, and is merely a general name.

® Count of Bollstiidt, a Dominican, born 1193 or 1205; died 1280.

4 A Dominican, born 1224; died 1274. He was the author of the famous ‘Summa Theologiae,’ and is called the ‘ Angelic doctor.’ His followers inclined rather to Nominalism ; they followed S. Augustine on the doctrine of Grace, and were opposed to the teaching which was springing up in some quarters as to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.

® A Franciscan, died 1308. The Scotists inclined to Realism, and somewhat to Pelagianism; they strongly upheld the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.

Article XIV

Voluntary works besides, over and above God’s commandments, which they call Works of Super- erogation, cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required : whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

Opera quae supererogationis appellant, non possunt sine arrogantia et impietate praedicari. Nam illis declarant homines non tantum se Deo reddere quae tenentur, sed plus in ejus gratiam facere quam deberent : Cum aperte Christus dicat: Cum feceritis omnia quae-

-cunque praecepta sunt vobis, dicite :

Servi inutiles sumus.

δ 1.—SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers, 1552-3.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

To condemn the doctrine of Works of Supererogation taught by

some of the later Schoolmen.

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1.) WHAT IS MEANT BY “ WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION.” Voluntary works besides, over and above God’s commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation. The term ‘Supererogation’ is derived from the Latin

super-erogare.

Erogare strictly signifies “to vote money

out of the treasury,” but is also used in the more general sense “to spend.” Swpererogare therefore means ‘“ to spend more than is required.” The verb is used in the Vulgate, S. Luke x. 35, “quodcumque supererogaveris,” 1.6., whatso-

ever thou shalt have spent over and above.

The distinction had been drawn by the later Schoolmen, and divines of the Roman Church, between the commandments of God, which all men are obliged to keep, and Counsels of Per- section, which are assumed to be over and above God’s commandments, and to which it is given to some to attain. Some passages of Scripture were held to favour this distinction ; see especially S. Matt. xix. 11, 12, 21; 1 Cor. vii. I, 7, 25. Thus vows of poverty, or of chastity, being not necessary for all Christians, came to be looked upon as meritorious in themselves, and it was imagined that those who took such vows were doing more for God than was required of them.

In the decrees of the Council of Trent nothing is laid down concerning ‘consilia evangelica’ or ‘consilia perfectionis, but we may judge of current teaching from the writings of Bellarmine. See his ‘De Monachis ’ :—

Cap. VII.—“Consilium perfectionis vocamus opus bonum, a Christo nobis non imperatum, sed demonstratum, non mandatum sed com- mendatum.”

Cap. VIII.—“ Sententia est catholicorum omnium, multa esse vere et proprie consilia evangelica, sed praecipue tria, continentiam, obedien- tiam et paupertatem, quae nec sint praecepta nec indifferentia, sed Deo grata, et ab illa commendata.”

Cap. XIT.—“ Videmus in omnibus bene institutis rebuspublicis prae- ter praemia et poenas . . . esse etiam praemia quaedam decreta heroicis operibus;.. . ita ergo non abhorret a ratione, imo potius conforme est rationi, ut praeter vitam aeternam, promissam observatoribus legis divinae, sint etiam certa praemia et singulares honores pro iis, qui non solum Dei legem servant, sed etiam virtutes heroicas ostendunt.”

(2.) Toe Doctrine oF WoRKS OF SUPEREROGATION IS ARROGANT

Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required ; whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants. :

What God requires of us is nothing short of this :—to love Him with all the heart, with all the sou!, with all the strength, and with all the mind (S. Luke x. 27); that we

should be perfect, even as He is perfect (S. Matt. v. 48). It is obviously impossible to do more than fulfil this requirement of God; on the contrary, we all fall far short of it; we all need to pray continually, as our Lord has taught us, “Forgive us our trespasses ” (S. Matt. vi. 12; S. Luke xi. 4), and, if there is any truth in us, we shall all acknowledge our own unworthiness (see 8. Luke xvii. 10, the passage referred to in the Article). It is not, of course, denied that vows of poverty, chastity, &c., have their place in the Christian Religion; but the mistake lies (so the Article shows us) in considering such works to be over and above God’s commandments, ‘To those who feel themselves called to such state of life the so-called ‘Counsels of Perfection ’ become God’s commandments.

To suppose that there is a certain fixed measure of obedience beyond which it is not necessary to go, that we render unto God as much as we are bound to do, is impiety, since the Perfection of God Himself is our standard. Again, to imagine that we do more than of bounden duty is required is arrogance, because we ourselves, body, soul, and spirit, are entirely God’s, so that we owe ourselves and all that we have to His service, Where all is thus owing it is impossible that part can be over-pay.

Concerning the subject treated in this Article we may compate :—

WurTEMBURG ConFession, Art. ‘De Lege’: “Sed quod nonnulli sentiunt hominem posse in hac vita eo ' pervenire, ut non tantum impleat suis operibus Decalogum, verum etiam possit plura et majora opera facere, quam in Decalogo prae- cepta sunt, quae vocant opera supererogationis, alienum est a pro- phetica et Apostolica doctrina, et pugnat cum sententia verae Catholicae Ecclesiae.”

WESTMINSTER ConFession, XVI. 4.:

“They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to super- erogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.”

Article XV

SIN.

Christ in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh, and in His spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, Who by sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world ; and sin, as Saint John saith, was notin Him. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Christus in nostrae naturae veri- tate per omnia similis factus est nobis, excepto peccato, a quo pror- sus erat immunis, tum in carne tum in spiritu. Venit, ut agnus absque macula esset, qui mundi peccata per immolationem sui semel factam, tolleret: et peccatum (ut inquit Johannes) in eo non erat. Sed nos reliqui, etiam baptizati, et in Christo regenerati, in multis tamen offendi- mus omnes: Et si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est.

§ 1.— SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers, 1552-3.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

This Article was drawn up to guard against a prevalent form

of Anabaptism.

In a letter to Bullinger, dated June 25, 1549,

Hooper thus writes of the Anabaptists :—

“They contend that a man who is reconciled to God is without sin, and free from all stain of concupiscence, and that nothing of the old Adam remains in his nature; and a man, they say, who is thus regenerate cannot sin” (Original Letters, p. 65).

“Tllorum etiam superbia legibus nostris est frangenda, qui tan- tam vitae perfectionem hominibus justificatis attribuunt, quantam nec imbecillitas nostrae naturae fert, nec quisquam sibi praeter

Christum sumere potest.”

See further the notes on Article XVI.

The compilers of the Article may also have had in view scholastic teaching with regard to the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin.

§ 3 EXPOSITION.

(1.) CHRIST'S TRUE MANHOOD DOES NOT INCLUDE PARTICIPATION ΙΝ SIN.

Christ in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh, and in His spirit.

Christ was perfect man. Sin is not part of human nature, but a fault and corruption of it. In sin, therefore, He had no share (8. John viii. 46, xiv. 30; 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. iv. 163.15, Pet. un. 22> 1S. John. 5)

(2.) Tae Errecr or THE DEATH OF THE SINLESS ONE.

He came to be the Lamb without spot, Who by sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in Him. (See δ. Johni. 202 1 ©, Pet 1, τὸ}

The fact of our Lord’s sinlessness infuses an element of righteousness (2 Cor. v. 21) and sacrificial power (1 5S. Pet. ii. 22-24; Heb. ix. 14) into His death. If Christ could have been convicted of one single sin, He would have been disqualified for the altar; He might, indeed, have died as a martyr and left a noble example, but could not have been accepted as the atoning Sacrifice for sin (ph. v. 2 ; and cf. 1 S. John 111. 5, the passage quoted in the Article). The Atonement has been already treated in Article II., but we should notice that three points with regard to our Lord’s death are*here emphasised :—

(a) Its expiatory character—Who by sacrifice of Himself .. . should take away the sins (1 S. John ii. 2; iv. 10).

(Ὁ) Its unique character; the Sacrifice of Christ was once made, and cannot be repeated” (Heb ix. 26).

(c) That it avails for all sin’—should take away the sins of the world (1 S. John ii. 2).

If any sins remain unforgiven at last, it will not be

1 Cf. Article XXXI. 2 The sufficiency of Christ’s Atoning Sacrifice for all sin is several times dwelt upon in the Articles. See notes on Articles 1X, and XXXI,

because of any defect or shortcoming in Christ’s sacrificial work, but because men have refused to confess and forsake them.

(3.) No oTHER HUMAN BEING WAS, OR IS, PERFECTLY GOOD.

But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ,

yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

The words of the Article here are taken from 8. Jas, ili. 2 and 1 §. John i. 8.

The subject of the sin of the regenerate is further treated in Article XVI., where see notes.

There is no express allusion in the Article to the question of the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin, but it is very probable that the compilers, in drawing it up, had in mind current teaching upon the subject. The title of the Article itself, “CHRIST ALONE WiTHouT Sin,” excludes extravagant doctrine on this point. It would seem to be self-evident that our Lord’s Mother, having been born in the usual way, of human parents, must have shared in the taint of Original Sin. Scripture, indeed, speaks of her as “highly favoured” or “full of grace” ἡ (κεχαριτωμένη), and as “blessed among women” (8, Luke i. 28, 42, 43, 48; xi. 27, 28); and it was a pious opinion in early times that the grace of God did work so mightily in her that she was preserved from actual sin.” Duns Scotus and the Franciscan divines, who followed his lead, began to teach (circ. 1300) her immaculate conception, ie., her freedom from Original Sin; and the Council of Trent in its decree on ‘Original Sin’ Seaton V.) expressly excepts the Blessed Virgin from what is laid down under that head :—

“ Declarat tamen haec ipsa sancta synodus, non esse suae inten- tionis comprehendere in hoe decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam Virginem Mariam.”

The “Immaculate Conception” of our Lord’s Mother was not, however, declared to be a doctrine of the Catholic Church until

1854, when Pope Pius IX. issued (December 8th) the famous Bull “ Ineffabilis ” :—

“Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus, doctrinam, quae tenet, beatissimam virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis

1 “Gratia plena” is the rendering of the Vulgate in §. Luke i. 28, and with this the Syriac Version agrees.

* See 5. Augustine, ‘De Natura et Gratia,’ § 42.

fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meri- torum Christi Jesu salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.”

Such doctrine of the absolute freedom of the Blessed Virgin from all participation in sin has no foundation in Holy Scripture, and is implicitly repudiated by our Church in this fifteenth Article. Our Reformers at the same time speak of her with that veneration and respect which is due. See, e.g., the HomILy or RE- -PENTANCE, Part I. p. 564 :—

“ Jesus Christ, Who being true and natural God, equal and of one substance with the Father, did at the time appointed take upon Him our frail nature, in the blessed Virgin’s womb, and that of her undefiled substance; that so He might be a Mediator betwixt God and us, and pacify His wrath.”

Again, in the Homity on WILFUL REBELLION, Part II. p. 607, we read :—

“The obedience of this most noble and most virtuous lady to a foreign and pagan prince doth well teach us, who in comparison to her are most base and vile, what ready obedience we do owe to our natural and gracious Sovereign.”

Article XVI

Not every deadly sin willingly - committed after Baptism, is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism.

After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives. And therefore, they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

Non omne peccatum wmortale post Baptismum voluntarie perpe- - tratum, est peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum et irremissibile. Proinde lapsis a Baptismo in peccata, locus poenitentiae non est negandus.

Post acceptum Spiritum Sanctum, possumus a gratia data recedere atque peccare, denuoque per gratiam Dei resurgere ac resipis- cere. Ideoque illi damnandi sunt, qui se quamdiu hic vivant, amplius | non posse peccare affirmant, aut vere resipiscentibus veniae locum dene- gant.

§ 1.—SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers, 1552-3.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

To condemn a very dangerous form of Anabaptist teaching.

In the Article

‘De Falsa Poenitentia’.of the SCHMALKALD

ARTICLES certain ‘ sectarii’ are alluded to who said :—

habuisse.’ :

“Etiam illi de justificatis perverse sentiunt, qui credunt illos, postquam justi semel facti sunt, in peccatum non posse incidere, aut si forte quicquam eorum faciunt, quae Dei legibus prohibentur,

ea Deum pro peccatis non accipere.

Quibus opinione contrarii,

_ sed impietate pares sunt, qui quodcumque peccatum mortale, quod Tos re)

post baptismum a nobis susceptum voluntate nostra committitur, illud omne contra Spiritum Sanctum affirmant gestum esse et remitti non posse.”

That the errors condemned in the Article had found their way into this country is also shown by the fact that in Stat. 32 Henry VIII. c. 49, § 11, they are excluded from the king’s pardon who hold “That synners after baptisme cannot be re-

stored by repentaunce.”

quoted in the notes on Article XV. § 2.

cited he continues :—

See also Hooper’s letter to Bullinger

After the words there

“They add that all hope ‘of pardon is taken away from those who, after having received the Holy Ghost, fall into sin.”

[The XLIL Articles of 1553 contained one on “ Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,” which immediately followed the Article

on “Sin after Baptism.”

It was, however, struck out in 1563,

most likely from reluctance to define the unpardonable sin :—

GHOST.

erievous, and hainous crime, wher- upon this kinde of sinne is called and affirmed of the Lord, unpardonable.

And because soche be- cuilty of Goddes curse, thei en-_ tangle themselves with a moste

Blasphemia in Spiritum Sanctum, est cum quis Verborum Dei manifeste perceptam veritatem, ex malitia et obfirmatione animi, con- vitiis insectatur, et hostiliter in- sequitur. Atque hujusmodi, quia maledicto sunt obnoxii, gravissimo sese astringunt sceleri. Unde peccati hoc genus Irremissible a Domino appellatur, et affirmatur. |

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1). AFTER RECEIVING THE HOLY GHOST IT IS POSSIBLE TO SIN—

After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from

grace given, and fall into sin... .

And therefore they are

to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long

as they live here.

(See S. Jas. iii. 2; 1 S. John i 8, the

passages quoted in the last Article), The numerous exhortations to perseverance contained in Holy Scripture imply that those who have received grace

are liable to fall (ef. 1 Cor. ix. 27 ; Heb. iii. 6, vi. 4-6, x. 38; Rev. ii. 4, 5). The very figures, too, under which the gift of the Holy Spirit is spoken of in the New Testament indicate the possibility of falling away after having received the gift. Thus the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as—

(a) A seal (Eph. i. 13; iv. 30). Now a seal is that which certifies a contract, which is void if both parties do not keep it.

(Ὁ) An earnest (2 Cor, i. 22, v. 5; Eph. 1. 13, 14). An earnest is part payment given in pledge of the full price, which may, however, be forfeited.

Our Church in her services continually assumes the possibility of falling from grace; ¢.g., in the Collect for the Second Sunday in Advent, we pray “that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life;” and again in the Burial Service, “ Suffer us not at our last hour for any pains of death to fall from Thee.”

With the teaching of the Article on this head οὐ what is said

in the Article on Justification in the Kine’s Book (Formularies of Faith, p. 367) :—

And it is no doubt, but although we be once justified, yet we may fall therefrom by our own freewill and consenting unto sin, and following the desires thereof . . . and here all phantastical imagination, curious reasoning, and vain trust of predestination is to be laid apart.”

The formularies of the Saxon School and the Canons of the Council of Trent also agree with our Article :—

Avessure Conression, Part I. Art. XIT.: “* Damnant Anabaptistas qui negant semel justificatos posse amit- tere Spiritum Sanctum. Item, qui contendunt quibusdam tantam perfectionem in hac vita contingere, ut peccare non possint.”

Saxon Conression, Art. XVI. : “Prorsus enim clare damnamus Catharos et Novatianos, qui finxerunt, nec labi posse electos in delicta contra conscientiam, nec lapsos post emendationem recipiendos esse.”

Counc oF TRENT, Session VI. Canon XXIII:

“Si quis hominen semel justificatum dixerit amplius peccare non posse, nec gratiam amittere, atque ideo eum qui labitur et peccat nunquam vere fuisse justificatum ; aut contra posse in tota vita pec- cata omnia, etiam venalia, vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, que- madmodum de beata Virgine Maria tenet Ecclesia: anathema sit.”

Calvin’s teaching, on the other hand, is altogether irreconcilable with the doctrine of our Church. He taught that Divine Grace, where it is really given, is irresistible, and therefore that the elect who have been once justified, and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, can never fall from grace; if a member of the Church fall away, his fall must be considered a proof that he is not of the number of the elect, and that he never in reality . received saving grace. Cf. Catvin’s Instirutes, III. xxiv. 6,7 :— .

“Jam vero neque hoc dubium est, quum orat Christus pro omnibus electis, quin idem illis precetur quod Petro, ut nunquam deficiat fides eorum. Ex quo elicimus, extra periculum defectionis esse, quia eorum pietati constantiam postulans Filius Dei, repulsam passus non est. Quid hine nos discere voluit Christus, nisi ut confidamus perpetuo nos fore salvos, quia illius semel facti sumus? At quotidie accidit ut qui videbantur esse Christi, rursum defi- clant ab eo, et corruant . . . sed aeque etiam certum, nunquam ea cordis fiducia tales Christo adhaesisse, qua nobis electionis certitudinem stabiliri dico.”

That the language of our Article was unacceptable to the Calvinistic party in this country is evident from the attack which they made upon it in the “Seconde Admonition to the Parliament” (1572) :—

‘And in deede the booke of the Articles of Christian religion speaketh very dangerously of falling from grace.”

See also the 5th of the LamMBreTH ARTICLES:

“Vera, viva, et justificans fides, et Spiritus Dei sanctificans, non extinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit in electis, aut finaliter, aut totaliter.”

WESTMINSTER ConressIon, XI. 5: “They can never fall from the state of justification.”

(2.) SIN AFTER BapTisM, OR FALL FROM GRACE, IS NOT WHAT IS GHOST.

Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism, is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Note that the Article expressly specifies “deadly sin willingly committed,” 1.6., known and deliberate sin, as opposed to sin done through ignorance or infirmity. All

ARTICLE Xvt : 169

such sin is, in its nature, deadly (Rom. vi. 23; vii. 9), and is committed against God, the Three in One, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but still it is not unpardonable, unless it be that sin which our Lord calls “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost” (S. Matt. xii. 31, 32; S. Mark iii, 28—30). Our Article thus plainly declares that the unpardonable sin is not equivalent to post-Baptismal sin, but no explanation is given as to what is signified by ‘‘ blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.” Our Lord’s most solemn warning with regard to it was evidently occasioned by the Pharisees’ ascription of His works to the instrumentality of Beelzebub (S. Mark iii. 22, 30). Such conduct as theirs might then be forgiven, but it would seem that Christ warns them that if continued when He was glorified and attested by the Holy Spirit, it would be unpardonable. Thus we conclude that the sin spoken of in 8S. Matt. xii. 31, 32; S. Mark iii. 28, 29, is not an act, but rather a condition, which is itself the result of continued acts of sin against light and knowledge, and of grieving the Holy Spirit. Cf Eph. iv. 30; 1 8. John v. 16,17; Heb. vi. 4-6, x. 26—29. See also the explanation of “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost” given in the sixteenth Article of 1553, the text of which has been quoted above, p. 106. Two points have been laid down :— (i.) That it is possible to fall into sin after Baptism. (ii.) Post-Baptismal sin is not the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, : It follows, therefore, that :-—

(3.) REPENTANCE I8 NOT TO BE DENIED TO SUCH AS SIN AFTER

The grant of repentance (locus penitentiae)' is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. . .. by the grace of

God we may arise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned which . .. deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

Rom. xi. 23; 2 Cor. ii. 6-8; Gal. vi. 1 may be referred to, but Holy Scripture is full of exhortations to those who have once known the favour and grace of God, and have fallen from it, that they should “repent, and do the first works” (Rev. ii. 5).

' The expression is taken from Heb. xii. 17.

The question of penitential discipline, and of the advisability of restoring again to the communion of the Church those who had lapsed in time of persecution, agitated the Church in the time of S. Cyprian. Novatian and his fellows, who refused the place of repentance to those who had fallen away, were strongly opposed by him. Cf. Epistle LIV. :—

(Τὺ did not seem to be right, or agreeable to fatherly love or divine clemency, that the Church should be shut against such as knock for admission ; that the comfort of the hope of salvation should be denied to those who grieve and sue for pardon; and that so they should leave this world, and go to God, without communion and peace with the Church, since our great Lawgiver, as He hath assured us that what is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, so hath likewise promised that what is first loosed in the Church here, shall also be loosed in heaven ”

The Novatians, whose error was revived by some of the sectaries of the Reformation period, are expressly condemned in Article XII. of the AuGsBuRG CONFESSION :-—

“Damnantur et Novatiani, qui nolebant absolvere lapsos post baptismum redeuntes ad poenitentiam.”

See also SAXON ConFEssION, Article XVI., quoted above p. 107; and cf. the HoMILY oF REPENTANCE, p. 568 :—

“Whereupon we do not without a just cause detest and abhor the damnable opinion of them which do most wickedly go about to persuade the simple and ignorant people, that, if we chance, after we be once come to God, and grafted in His Son Jesus Christ,

' to fall into some horrible sin, repentance shall be unprofitable to us, there 15 no more hope of reconciliation, or to be received again into the favour and mercy of God.”

We may remark, in conclusion, that the case of S. Peter, as recorded in Holy Scripture, furnishes a good illustration of true doctrine on the points dealt with in our Article. It is manifest from our Lord’s words in S. Matt. xvi. 17 that S, Peter had received grace; from this he fell when he denied his Lord, yet was restored and became the leader of the Apostolic band.

Article XVII

Predestination to life, is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation, those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by His Spirit working in due season ; they through grace obey the calling : they be justified freely : they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing wp their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as

Praedestinatio ad vitam, est aeter- num Dei propositum, quo (ante jacta mundi fundamenta) suo con- silio, nobis quidem occulto, con- stanter decrevit, eos quos in Christo elegit ex hominum genere, a male- dicto et exitio liberare, atque (ut vasa in honorem efficta) per Christum ad aeternam salutem adducere : Unde qui tam praeclaro Dei bence- ficio sunt donati, illi Spiritu ejus opportuno tempore operante, secundum propositum ejus vocantur : vocationi per gratiam parent : justi- ficantur gratis: adoptantur in filios: unigeniti ejus Jesu Christi imagini efficiuntur conformes: in bonis ope- ribus sancte ambulant: et demum ex Dei misericordia pertingunt ad sempiternam felicitatem.

Quemadmodum praedestinationis et electionis nostrae in Christo pia consideratio, dulcis, suavis et in- effabilis consolationis plena est vere plis et his qui sentiunt in se vim Spiritus Christi, facta carnis et membra quae adhue sunt super terram mortificantem, animumque ad coelestia et superna rapientem, tum quia fidem nostram de aeterna salute consequenda per Christum plurimum stabilit atque confirmat, tum quia amorem nostrum in Deum vehementer accendit: ita homini- bus curiosis, carnalibus, et Spiritu

air

because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretch- lessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they

Christi destitutis, ob oculos perpetuo versari praedestinationis Dei sententiam, perniciosissimum est praecipitium, unde illos diabolus protrudit, vel in desperationem, vel in aeque perniciosam impurissimae vitae securitatem.

Deinde promissiones divinas sic amplecti oportet, ut nobis in sacris literis generaliter propositae sunt: et Dei voluntas in nostris actionibus ea sequenda est, quam in verbo Dei habemus diserte revelatam.

be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared to us in the Word of God.

§ 1.— SOURCE,

This Article is the composition of the English Reformers (1552-3).

In the teaching of Luther and ‘those who followed him, the doctrine of Predestination held no very important place ; hence in the famous and widely accepted Augsburg Confession, as also in the later Wurtemberg Confession, there is no Article on Predestination. Amongst the Reformed, however, and especially with Calvin, the subject assumed quite a fundamental importance. The intimacy of Cranmer with Bucer, Peter Martyr, and other leading divines belonging to the Swiss or Reformed school accounts for the place given to the treatment of Predestination in our Articles, and it is noteworthy that the language of this seventeenth Article presents a remarkable agreement with the definition of Predestination given by Peter Martyr in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans! (p. 411, folio ed. 1558) :—

1 It will be remembered that Peter Martyr resided in England for some years (1548-1553) during the reign of Edward VI., and enjoyed close friendship with Archbishop Cranmer. The words quoted above were not published until after he left England, but seem from the Preface to have been written as early as 1552, 7.e., about the same time as our Article,

dilexit in Christo, vocare ad adoptionem filiorum, ad justificationem ex fide et tandem ad gloriam per bona opera, quo conformes fiant imagini Filii Dei, utque in illis declaretur gloria et misericordia Creatoris.”

At the same time there are in this Article very important differences from the manner of stating the doctrine of Predestination which is found in the formularies of the Swiss school as influenced by Calvin,’ and in the concluding paragraph (beginning “Furthermore we must receive God’s promises”) a resemblance may be traced to passages in the writings of Melanchthon.* The middle paragraph resembles some passages in Bishop Barlowe’s Dialogue on the Lutheran Factions.

In the Revision of 1563 two slight changes were made in the text of the Article :—

(Ὁ) The words “in Christo” (printed in thick type in the Latin Version) were added. (ii.) In 1553 the last paragraph began thus :—

“Furthermore, although the decrees of predestination are un- knowen unto us, yeat we must receive,” &c.

This clause was altered to its present form.

§ 2.— OBJECT.

The object of those who drew up the Article seems to have been to state, in view of the many altercations on this awful and mysterious subject, the doctrine of Predestination and Election in Scriptural terms, and to guard against the abuse to which it was seen to be liable.

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1.) WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY PREDESTINATION AND

In the first part of the Article we have simply a statement of the doctrine of Predestination and Election in the phraseology of Scripture, without addition or comment.

Predestination to life, is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, (Eph. i. 4, 5, 11; Rom. viii. 28, 29, ix. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Tim. i. 9.)

1 These important differences will be noted in the Exposition, § 3, below. ἐν Several passages are quoted from Melanchthon by Archbishop Laurence in his Bampton Lectures, Ρ. 179.

so deliver from curse and damnation, (Gal. ili. 13.)

those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, (Eph.i, 4, 6; 18. Pet. i. 2-5.)

as vessels made to honour. (Rom. ix. 21.)

Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose, by His Spirit working in due season: they through grace obey the calling: (Rom. viii. 28, 30; 2 Thess. ii. 14; 2°Tim, i. 9.)

they be justified freely: (Rom. 111. 24; viii. 30.)

they be made sons of God by adoption: (Hph. 1. 5; Gal. 11], 26, iv. 5; Rom. viii. 15.)

they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: (Rom. viiI. 29; 2 Cor. ii. 18.)

they walk religiously in good works, (Eph. i. 4; 1 Thess. iv. J)

and at length by God’s mercy they attain to everlasting felicity. (Eph. i. 11; 2 Thess. ii.14; 1 8. Pet. i, 2-5, v. 10.)

From the first it has been God’s purpose to gather a Church out of the world ; it is in fulfilment of this purpose that He now sends forth everywhere the preachers of the Gospel and ca//s men into His Church (Rom. 1. 6, x. 14, 15; 1 Cor. i. 9; 1 Thess. ii, 12). Those who are thus called by God are regarded as chosen by Him from the mass of mankind, and are spoken of as His elect (Rom. viii. 23, x1. 5, 73 Coli, 12; 1. Thess-a, 4,71 1 2 fim, ii, 10; 1 S. Pet. ii. g).1 It is simply due to His sovereign will and pleasure that some have the privilege of admission to the Church offered to them, while others have not (Deut. x. 15; Eph.i. 4, 5; 1 S. Pet. ii. Ὁ; and see especially 8, Paul’s argument in Rom. ix.—xi.). As to those who have not this privilege offered them, we may be sure that they will be judged each one according to his opportunities at the last day (Acts xvi. 31; Rom, 1]. 11-- 16). With regard to those admitted to the Church, every one so elected is predestinated to salvation (ef. 8S. John vi. 39), and has power to attain to it. In considering the famous passages in the Epistle to the Romans which are so

1 The Christian Church has thus succeeded to the privilege of God’s ancient people, which is spoken of in the Old Testament as elect, Cf, e.g., Deut. vii. 6; Ps, xxxili. 12,

ARTICLE XVII {τὸ

often quoted in controversy on the subject of Predestination, we should note :—

(i.) That in viii. 28—30 the verbs προέγνω, προώρισε, ἐκάλεσε, ἐδικαίωσε, ἐδόξασε, are all in the past tense. The glory referred to in the last of these is, therefore, not the future glory which those finally saved will enjoy in the world to come, but the present glory of Christians in the Church (cf. S. John xvii. 22; Eph. i. 18, ii. 6; Col. 1. 26, 27).

(ii.) That the analogy of the potter (ix. 21) does not in reality favour the doctrine it is sometimes quoted to support, since the potter makes no vessels for destruction.

In order that we may understand the relation of the teaching

of our Article to other teaching upon the subject, we must observe particularly :—

(a) Nothing is said in the Article about reprobation, or pre-

destination to eternal death.

In this, as throughout, the Article is strictly on Scriptural lines. The election of some does not imply the final rejection of all the rest. God chooses some, not because He has no regard for those that remain, but in order that, by means of His elect, He may accomplish His good purpose for the whole race (Gen. xii. I—3, xviii. 18, 19; 8S. John xv. 16; Rom. xi. 25-- 32).

On the other hand, the doctrine of Reprobation is an integral part of Calvinism, and its entire omission forbids us to regard the doctrine of Predestination stated in the Article as in any sense Calvinistic.

_Calvin’s own teaching may be illustrated by one or two quotations :—

Institutes, ITI. xxi. 5:

“Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit, quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes; sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem praedesti- natum dicimus.”

Again, III. xxiii. 1:

“ Multi quidem ace si invidiam a Deo repellere vellent, electionem ita fatentur ut megant quenquam reprobari: sed inscite nimis et Se pueriliter, quando ipsa electio nisi reprobationi opposita non staret.

i16 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

With our Article we may contrast the following statements of Calvinistic formulae :—

FrencH Conression, Art. XII. : ‘“‘Credimus ex hac corruptione et damnatione universali, in qua omnes homines natura sunt submersi, Deum alios quidem eripere . alios vero in ea corruptione et damnatione relinquere.”

LAMBETH ARTICLES, I. : “Deus ab aeterno praedestinavit quosdam ad vitam, et quosdam ad mortem reprobavit.”

Canons oF Dort, “De Divina Praedestinatione,” Art. VI. : “Atque hic potissimum sese nobis aperit profunda, misericors

decretum illud electionis et reprobationis in verbo Dei revelatum.”

(Ὁ) Nothing is said in the Article about the motive or cause of Predestination. According to Calvinism, the moving cause of Predestination, as also of Reprobation, is God’s absolute will, irrespective of anything in those predestinated.

Cy, Ai. San. τὰ:

See also the second quotation given under the heading (a) above.

LaMBETH ARTICLES, II. :

“Causa movens aut efficiens praedestinationis ad vitam non est praevisio fidei aut perseverantiae, aut bonorum operum, aut ullius rei quae insit in personis praedestinatis, sed sola voluntas benepla- citi Deo.”

Canons oF Dort, “De Divina Praedestinatione,”’ Art. IX. : “‘Kadem haec electio facta est non ex praevisa fide, fideique obedientia, sanctitate, aut alia aliqua bona qualitate et dispositione,

tanquam causa seu conditione in homine eligendo praerequisita, sed ad fidem, fideique obedientiam, sanctitatem.” ...

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, X. 2. : “This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man.”

According to Arminianism, on the other hand, the decree of Predestination is not arbitrary, but in consequence of God’s foreknowledge that those predestinated will respond to His call and make good use of the grace given to them.

Cf. the Confession of the ‘‘ Remonstrants,” xvii. 3:

‘¢ Est vocatio efficax ab eventu potius, quam a sola intentione Dei sic dicta, quae scilicet effectum suum salutarem reipsa sortitur, non quidem idcirco, quod ex praecisa salvandi intentione per singu- larem et arcanam quandam Dei sapientiam sic administretur, ut fructuose congruat voluntati ejus, qui vocatur, neque quod in ea efficaciter per potentiam irresistibilem aut vim quantam omnipo- tentem voluntas ejus, qui vocatur, ad credendum ita determinetur, ut non possit non credere et obedire.” ...

In the view of both Calvinists and Arminians election is considered to be to final glory, and by the elect are meant, therefore, those eventually saved. But, as we have seen, according to Scripture teaching, which our Article simply affirms, election is to membership in the Church, and the elect are therefore the baptized. This is certainly the view of our Church in her public offices and in the Catechism. See the BaprisMAL OFFICE, where we pray that the child about to be baptized ‘“‘ may ever remain in the number of God’s faithful and elect children;” and again, in the Rubric at the end of the same service, we are assured, “ It is certain by God’s word that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.” So, too, in the CuurcH CaTEcHISM the baptized person is taught to express his belief in the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifieth him “ and all the elect people of God.”

1 The baptized in general are constantly spoken of as “the elect” in the Letter of S. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the Epistles of 5. Ignatius, and in the “Shepherd” of Hermas.

eae THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

With this doctrine of our Church the Calvinistic belief stands in sharp contrast, as expressed, ¢.g., in the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, xX. 4:—

“Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.”

(2.) PRacTICAL RESULTS OF THE CONSIDERATION OF PREDESTINA-

TION. :

(a) For the godly.

The godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things,

The consideration of God’s Predestination and Election is thus full of comfort for His people, because—

(i.) it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because

(11.) it doth fervently kindle their love towards God.

(b.) For the ungodly.

For curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall,

The compilers of the Article here evidently have in view the evil consequences which were seen to follow in some cases upon the consideration of the doctrine of Predestination as it was often taught and understood at the time.

whereby the devil doth thrust them either

(i.) into desperation, or

(ii.) into wretchlessness! of most unclean living, no less |

perilous than desperation. Jalvin himself admits that his doctrine of Predestina-

tion lies open to similar objection. See eg., INSTITUTES, ΤΙ 2 12 |

“Hoc quoque ad evertendam praedestinationem exagitant,. quod ipsa stante, concidat omnis solicitudo, et bene agendi

“For men to be careless about what is spoken by them and their own matter . is the part, doubtless, of dissolute and wretcbless persons.”

studium. . . . Ita omnes projicient se, et deploratum in morem, -quocungue libido tulerit praecipites ibunt. Et sane non in universum mentiuntur.”

Of. III. xxiv. 4:

“Ἐπ vero licet, periculosi maris instar habeatur praedestina- tionis disputatio; patet tamen in ea lustranda tuta et pacata, addo et jucunda navigatio, nisi quis periclitari ultro affectet. Nam quemadmodum in exitialem abyssum se ingurgitant, qui ut de sua electione fiant certiores, aeternum Dei consilium sine verbo, percontantur: ita qui recte atque ordine ipsam investi- gant qualiter in verbo continetur, eximium inde referunt con- solationis fructum.”

(3.) THe Docrrine or INDIVIDUAL PREDESTINATION REPUDIATED. Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: (See S. John

iii. 16; 1 Tim. ii. 4, 6.)

The meaning is that we must receive God’s promises as they are set forth to us, viz, as applying to the ‘genus humanum, and not to some favoured individuals only.

Cf. the wording of His Magesty’s DECLARATION prefixed to the Articles in 1628 :—

‘That therefore in these both curious and unhappy differences, which have for so many hundred years, in different times and places, exercised the Church of Christ, we will, that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God’s promises, as they be generally set forth to us in the Holy Scriptures.”

“Quapropter omnes nobis admonendi sunt, ut in actionibus suscipiendis ad decreta praedestinationis 56. non referant, sed uni- versam vitae suae rationem ad Dei leges accomodent; cum et promissiones bonis, et minas malis, in Sacris Scripturis generaliter propositas contemplentur.”

In the light of this last: paragraph, we should not omit to notice the manner in which the doctrine is stated in the first ‘part of the Article. Predestination is there declared to be

1 For the use of the adverb generadly in the Article, cf, CHURCH CATECHISM :

“@. How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in His Church ? A, Two only, as generally necessary to salvation.” ...

See also 2 Sam. xvii. 11; Jer. xlviii. 38.

“the purpose of God whereby . . . He hath constantly decreed

. to deliver from curse, &e., ... and to bring... to eternal salvation,” not individuals separately, but a certain class of persons as Christians collectively, “those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind.”

Calvin’s manner of stating the doctrine of Predestination should be carefully compared with this, and the vital difference will at once appear. See, e.g., INsTrITUTES, III. xxi. 5 :—

“Ttaque prout in alterutrum finem quzsque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus.”

Again, III. xxi. 7 :—

Further, in III. xxiv, 1 Calvin expressly says :—

In this connection it is instructive to note that in the General Confession prefixed in 1552 to the Order for Morning and for Evening Prayer, which was based on a form composed in French by Calvin, the clause “ According to Thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord” was added by our English Reformers.’

The Article concludes :— And in our doings that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared to us in the Word of God.

“Debemus enim ad Dei cultum viis illis ingredi, et in illa Dei voluntate commorari, quam in Sacris Scripturis patefactam esse videmus.” ὦ

This last clause of the Article is manifestly directed against those who held that, besides the revealed will of God (cf 1 Tim.

1 Cf. Article VII. :— “Per Christum qui unicus est Mediator Dei et hominym Deus et homo, aeterna vita hwmano generi est proposita.”

ii. 4), there is also His secret will according to which He has elected only a few.

A few quotations may be given to indicate the position taken up by the Church of Rome in the controversy on the subject of Predestination. The Councit or TRENT (Session VI.) decreed :—

** Nemo quoque, quamdiu in hac mortalitate vivitur, de arcano divinae praedestinationis mysterio usque adeo praesumere debet, ut. certo statuat se omnino esse in numero praedestinatorum ; quasi verum esset, quod justificatus aut amplius peccare non possit, aut si peccaverit, certam sibi resipiscentiam promittere debeat: nam nisi ex speciali revelatione, sciri non potest quos Deus sibi elegerit.”

Cf. Canon XVII. of the same session :—

“Si quis justificationis gratiam non nisi praedestinatis ad vitam contingere dixerit, reliquos vero omnes, qui vocantur, vocari quidem, sed gratiam non accipere, utpote divina potestate praedestinatos ad malum : anathema sit.”

Article XVIII

They also are to be had accursed, that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the Light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

Sunt et illi anathematizandi qui dicere audent, unumquemque in lege aut secta quam profitetur, esse servandum, modo juxta illam et lumen naturae accurate vixerit: cum sacrae literae tantum Jesu Christi nomen praedicent, in quo salvos fieri homines oporteat.

§ 1.— SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers, 155 2—3.

§ 2,—OBJECT,

The Article is directed against the theory of certain Anabaptists, that as long as people were conscientious in following out their own systems, it was a matter of no significance whether

they accepted or rejected the Gospel of Christ. This error is referred to in the Rerormatio Leaum, “ De Haeresibus,” Cap. 11 :—

“ Horribilis est et immanis illorum audacia qui contendunt in omni religione vel secta, quam homines professi fuerint, salutem illis esse sperandam, si tantum ad innocentiam et integritatem vitae pro viribus enitantur juxta lumen, quod illis praelucet a natura infusum. Auctoritate vero sacrarum literarum confixae sunt hujusmodi pestes. Solum enim et unicum ibi Jesu Christi nomen nobis commendatum est, ut omnis ex eo salus ad nos perveniat.” |

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) LATITUDINARIANISM ANATHEMATISED. They also are to be had accursed (sunt anathematizandi), that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the Law or

Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the Light of Nature.

The present Article alone of all the thirty-nine contains an anathema. ‘The only error, therefore, expressly anathe- matised by our Church is the Latitudinarian spirit, which finds its logical basis in the denial of all objective truth, going upon the supposition either that there is no such thing as Revelation, or that all religions are equally acceptable to God; the spirit which asks, ‘What does it matter what a man believes, so long as he lives a good life according to his light?’ and to which Pope has given expression in the oft-quoted lines :—

“For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight ; His can’t. be wrong whose life is in the right.”

But all experience goes to show that conduct in the long- run corresponds with belief. Conduct depends upon Creed ; thought lies at the foundation of action, and no structure of just deeds can be safely built unless the underlying thought be sound and firm. - Thus in the CauRcH CATECHISM that which is to be believed is taught before anything is said of that which is to be done, and the ATHANASIAN CREED plainly declares :—

*Quicunque vult salvus esse : Ante omnia opus est ut teneat catholicam fidem.”}

This brings us to the second part of our Article :—

(2.) THERE 1S ONLY ONE TRUE RELIGION, ONE WAY OF SALVA-

For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved. (See Acts iv. 12; 8. John xiv. 6; 1 8. Johny, 11, 12.)

- Mankind falls into two great divisions :— (a) Those who have the Gospel offered to them in this life. (Ὁ) Those who have not this offer. Taking (a) the case of those who have the offer of the Gospel,

1 Of. the words which occur in the decree on Original Sin of the COUNCIL OF TRENT (Session V.) :—

**Ut fides nostra catholica sine qua impossibile est placere Deo.,, permaneat.”’

we meet with no difficulty. Those who deliberately reject the one way of salvation do so at their peril (S. Mark xvi. 16). When, however, we come to consider (Ὁ) the case of those who have not the offer of the Gospel in this life, a difficulty arises, because the wording of the Article might seem to imply that all heathen, &c , must necessarily perish eternally, even though they had striven to live a good life according to their light. But there are several passages of Scripture—eg., Rom. 11. 12-16; Acts x. 34, 35—-which show us that people who make the best use they can of the light given to them will be judged according to it; that God will in no case require more than He has given (S. Luke xii. 48). What is most needful for us to keep in mind is that, whether in this life men hear of Christ or not, it is only through His meritorious work that they can be pardoned and saved; His Sacrifice is the only Sacrifice for sin. We must recognise, then, the existence of objective truth; that Christ’s work has an objective value for men, apart from our individual appreciation of it. His Sacrifice accomplished something for us before it was presented to us as an object of faith; it effected something for mankind (1 S. John 11. 2); the subjective impression on man’s heart is an after-thing, following upon faith in that eternal work. ‘Thus the Church believes that faithful Jews who lived under the Old Dispensation are saved, and that ‘‘ baptized infants dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved.” ? Neither of these classes can in this life have had explicit knowledge about Christ, yet His work avails for them. So, too, with the heathen, the good are saved, not by the Law or Sect which they profess, but by the work of Christ. The overlooking of the Intermediate State,” which is only too common amongst us, tends very much to cripple our Theology when dealing with questions such as the present. May it not be that after death righteous heathen have opportunity of accepting what Christ has done for them, and of coming to the knowledge of Him, Whose work had availed for them during their life on earth, while yet they knew Him not ? It is not the case, then, that man is free to choose a religion for himself, as though all were equally true. There is only one true religion—that of Jesus Christ. It is the firm conviction of this that has made the Church from the very first a missionary institution, not content that Christianity should take a place as

one amongst thahy religions of the world, but seeking, according to her Lord’s command, to embrace within her fold “ every creature ” (S. Mark. xvi. 15). This action she takes because, as members of the Church, we are brought into Covenant with God, wherein His grace is pledged to us and His promises made; of these, therefore, we may have the certainty upon our performing the conditions of the Covenant. Those outside the Covenant cannot have this same assurance.

It cannot, surely, be thought a matter of little importance whether men accept the Gospel and become ‘members of the Church or not, when we remember what great pains God is represented in Scripture as taking in order to bring men into the Church, rather than save them outside it. See S. Matt. xi. 11 Acts ii, 47; and note especially the case of Cornelius, who, though accepted by God as a Gentile (Acts x. 34, 35), yet is brought

into the Church (Acts xi. 13, 14).

[In the XLII. Articles of 1553 here followed the Article on the binding force of the Moral Commandments :—

The Lawe, whiche was geuen of God by Moses, although it binde not Christian menne, as concerning the Ceremonies, and Rites of the same: Neither is it required, that the Ciuile Preceptes and Ordres of it shoulde of necessitie bee receiued in any commune weale: Yet no manne, (bee he neuer so perfeicte a Christian) is exempte and _ lose from the Obedience of those Com- maundementes, whiche are called Moral. Wherfore thei are not to be harkened vnto, who aftirme that holie Scripture is geuen onlie to

Lex a Deo data per Mosen, licet quoad caerimonias et ritus Chris- tianos non astringat, neque civilia ejus praecepta in aliqua republica necessario recipi debeant, nihilo- minus ab obedientia mandatorum quae Moralia vocantur nullus, quantumvis Christianus est solutus. Quare illi non sunt audiendi, qui sacras literas tantum infirmis datas esse perhibent, et spiritum perpetuo jactant, a quo sibi quae praedicanto suggeri asserunt, quanquam cum sacris literis apertissime pugnent.

126 ‘THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

The Article was struck out from this place in 1563, but the first part of it, down to the words ‘‘ which are called Moral,’ was at the same time added to Article VII. (where see notes). That the second part, which condemns an error of the Anabaptists, was altogether omitted in 1563 may be taken as indicating that, during the ten years which had elapsed since the Article was originally framed, Anabaptist opinions had receded very much into the background, so that there was not the same necessity that the Church should expressly condemn them, Other changes made in 1563 point in the same direction :—

(1.) The words ‘‘ et hodie Anabaptistae repetunt ” were omitted

from Article IX. Gi.) The Article “DE GratiA” of 1553, which condemned extravagant Anabaptist opinions, was altogether omitted. (11.) The Article on “ HERETICKES CALLED MILLENARIL” of 1553 was also omitted. ]

Article XIX

The Visible Church of Christ, is

a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

Ecclesia Christi visibilis est coetus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei purum praedicatur, et Sacramenta, quoad ea quae necessario exiguntur, juxta Christi institutum recte admini- strantur.

Sicut erravit Ecclesia Hieroso- lymitana, Alexandrina et An- tiochena; ita et erravit Ecclesia Romana, non solum quoad agenda et caerimoniarum ritus, verum in his etiam quae credenda sunt.

§ 1.— SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers, 1552—3. With the first part of the Article we may compare the definition of the Church given in the AUGSBURG CoNnFESSION, Part I, Art. VII. :—

“Kst autem ecclesia congregatio sanctorum, in qua evangelium recte docetur, et recte administrantur sacramenta.”

§ 2.—OBJECT.

This Article was doubtless drawn up with a twofold object :— (a) To make clear what we are to understand by the Church, some definition on this point being especially necessary at the time of the Reformation, when visible unity with Rome

had been broken.

(6) In view of the breach with Rome, to justify the action of the Church of England by recording the conviction that the

-Church of Rome had erred in matters of faith. ΕΝ Ce 127

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) THE CHURCH IS VISIBLE.

We should first note that the Article speaks of the Visible Church of Christ. All that is laid down in the Articles with reference to the Church applies to the Visible Church, and nothing is anywhere said of an invisible Church. Here, as throughout, our Articles are strictly Scripturak No distinction is drawn by the New Testament writers between a visible and an invisible Church, but the Church appears in the Apostolic Epistles as a visible society, with its rite of admission (Baptism), its rules and organisation ; a body which may be known and observed of all men. That Christ Himself intended to found a Church in the sense of a visible society, and not merely in that of an invisible agoregation of pious souls, known only to God, is indicated by :—

(a) His method ; which was not to scatter His teaching haphazard over the world, for men to make what they could of it, but to train an organised body of disciples, who should preach the Gospel and admit others to their fellowship (S. Matt. xxviii. 19; cf. Acts 11. 41, 42, 47).

(b) His institution of certain corporate acts as Sacraments.

(i.) Baptism, a ceremony not new in itself, but understood by the Jews at the time as instituting into the visible society of God’s people.

(ii.) The Holy Eucharist, which is essentially a corporate action.

(Ὁ His teaching ; e.g., on the subject of the Kingdom of God. .It should be noted, too, that our Lord’s Prayer, recorded in S. John xvii. 21, 22, implies a visible unity of His followers.

The definitions of the Church given in the Lutheran formularies

agree with that of our Article. |

See AUGSBURG ConFEssIoN, Part I. Art. VII., quoted in § 1 above.

See also Saxon ConFEssion, Art. XII. :—

Cf. Art. XV. of the same Confession :—

“ Vult enim Deus conspici aut audiri suam ecclesiam in mundo, et vult sejunctam esse multis publicis signis ἃ reliquis gentibus.”

ἔν ἊΝ

The formularies of the Swiss School of Reformers, on the other hand, draw the distinction between the Visible and the Invisible Church, and speak of the true Church as invisible.

Scorcn Conression, Art. XVI. :

“Sicut in unum Deum Patrem, Filium et Spiritum Sanctum credimus, ita etiam ab initio fuisse et nunc esse, Matt. iii. 9, et in consummationem usque mundi futuram unam Ecclesiam constanter credimus, id est, societatem et multitudinem hominum a Deo

“Unde et ecclesia invisibilis appellari potest, non quod homines sint invisibiles, ex quibus ecclesia colligitur, sed quod oculis nostris absconsa, Deo autem soli nota, judicium humanum saepe subter- fugiat.”

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, XXV. 1, 2:

“The catholick or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof. . . . The visible church, which is also catholick or universal under the gospel, . . . consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children.”

See also the Seconp Baptist Conrsssion, Art. XX VI. :— “The Catholic or Universal Church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect.”

(2.) THe VisIBLE CHURCH IS THE CONGREGATION OF THE The Visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, By ‘congregation’ (cetus) is here meant, not a body of people assembled in one place, but the whole number of God’s people. In this sense the same Latin word is used in the Vulgate; see, ¢.g., Exod. xii. 19, “Qui comederit fermentatum, peribit anima ejus de ccetu Israel.” By ‘faithful men’ are meant believers in Jesus Christ.

(3.) Two Notes oF THE CHURCH ARE GIVEN. (i.) in the which the pure word of God is preached, and (ii.) the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite

to the same. R

In the XI. Articles of 1559 three notes of the Church are given :— | |

(1 do acknowledge also that Church to be the spouse of Christ,

wherein the word of God is truly taught, the Sacraments orderly

ministered according to Christ’s institution, and the authority of the keys duly used” (Article III.).

Cf. the HoMILy For WHITSUNDAY, 2nd part, pp. 494, 495 :—

“The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God’s faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head cornerstone. And it hath always three notes or marks, whereby it is known: pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ’s holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline.” [J.e., as explained in the context—“ the authority of the keys to excommunicate notorious sinners, and to absolve them which are truly penitent.” |

The same three notes of the Church are given in the Ordinal :—

The Bishop. Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, &e. ?

Answer. I wiil do so, by the help of the Lord.

Two only of these three notes or marks are expressly mentioned in the present Article :—

(a) The Preaching of the pure Word of God. (See Rom. x.

17; 2 lim. 1, 2.)

We must distinguish the Word preached from the Word written, ¢g., in the passage of 2 Tim. just referred to “ the Word ” cannot, of course, signify “the Bible.” By “the Word of God,” the preaching of which is a note of the Church, we must understand the great doctrines of the Church with reference to the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts xiii, 26; cf. 1 Cor. xv. I—4), which were embodied at a very early time in short dogmatic statements, and formed the nucleus of our Creeds. We have frequent allusions in the New Testament to the body of sound doctrine entrusted to the keeping of the Church, and which she proclaims to men (1 Tim. i. 10, vi. 3; 2 Tim. i. 13, iv. 3; Tit. i. 9, 13, ii. 1, 2). It is with reference to this that we pray in the Ordination Service, “ Replenish them with the truth of Thy doctrine,” and that the Bishop, in the same service,

gives to each ordained priest the charge, “Take thou authority to preach the Word of God.’ &

This body of doctrine, which it is one of the marks of the Church to hand on unimpaired, is not, of course, to be in any way set against the Bible. The WorD PREACHED and the WorpD WRrirTEN should always go together. Thus, when the Bishop says the words above quoted, he delivers the Bible at the same time to the newly ordained priest. In order that Church doctrine may be handed on unimpaired constant reference should be made to Scripture, which is the standard of doctrine. (See Article VI.).

The Church is first, then, a Dogmatic Institution, a preacher of doctrine.

(Ὁ) The due ministration of the Sacraments.

Steadfastness in Sacraments is necessary as well as steadfastness in doctrine (Acts ii. 42; Eph. iv. 5). Next to the teaching office of the Church comes the ministerial. Cf the charge in the Ordinal to which reference has already been made—“ Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the congregation.”

The Church system is thus Sacramental as well as Dogmatic. In the Article emphasis is laid on the due administration of the Sacraments “according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same,”

The requisites are :—

(i.) In Baptism—

Water.

The formula, “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”1 (See S. Matt. XXVill. 19).

i.) In the Holy Communion— |

The elements of Bread and Wine.

The recital of Christ’s words of Institution.

A. duly ordained minister (so our Church provides in the Ordinal). *

The Notes of the Church given in the Article—the Preaching of the Word and the due administration of the Sacraments—

1 That both water and the words are considered essential to the Sacrament by the Church is clear from the questions asked when a child is received who has been privately baptized :—* With what matter was this child baptized?” “With what words was this child baptized?”

2 With our Church’s requirement that the Sacraments are to be administered “according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are re-

demand a Ministry, carrying with it the idea of Church order and discipline. The third note of the Church, as stated in the Homilies and the Ordinal, is thus implied, though not expressly stated, in our Article. .

The following extracts on the Notes of the Church may be compared (in addition to the passages already quoted from the Augsburg and Saxon Confessions) :—

Rerormatio Leaum, “ De Haeresibus,” Cap. 21:

“Nos enim eam quae cerni potest Ecclesiam sic definimus, ut omnium ccetus sit fidelium hominum, in quo Sacra Scriptura sincere docetur, et sacramenta (saltem his eorum partibus quae necessariae sunt) juxta Christi praescriptum administrantur.”

“Quae quidem quum solius sit dei oculis nota, Sit tamen quibusdam ritibus, ab ipso Christo institutis, et verbo dei velut publica legitimaque disciplina, non solum cernitur cognosciturque, sed ita constituitur, ut in hance sine his nemo (nisi singulari dei privilegio) censeatur.”

Caxvin’s Institutes, IV. 1, 9: “Ubicumque enim Dei verbum sincere praedicari atque audiri, ubi sacramenta ex Christi instituto administrari videmus, illic aliquam esse Dei Ecclesiam nullo modo ambigendum est.”

ScotcH Conrgssion, Art. XVIII. :

‘“‘Notas ergo verae Kcclesiae Dei credimus, confitemur, et profitemur, primum et ante omnia, veram praedicationem Verbi Dei, in quo Deus seipsum nobis patefecit, sicut Prophetarum et Apostolorum scripta nobis declarant. . . . Deinde recta Sacra- mentorum Jesu Christi administratio, quae verbo et promissioni Dei annecti debent, ut illud in cordibus nostris confirment et obsignent. Postremo loco est disciplina Ecclesiastica recte ad- ministrata, sicut Dei verbum praescribit ad reprimendum vitium et virtutem fovendam.”

quisite to the same,” contrast what is laid down in THE CHIEF PRINCIPLES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AS PROFESSED BY THE PEOPLE CALLED QUAKERS :—

(a) Concerning Baptism.

“As there is one Lord, and one faith, so there is one baptism... and this baptism is a pure and spiritual thing, to wit, the Baptism of the Spirit, and fire,”

(b) Concerning the Communion, or Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ. “The communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is inward and spiritual . of which things the breaking of bread by Christ with His disciples was a figure which they even used in the Church for a time, who had received the substance, for the cause of the weak.”

(4.) LocaL CHURCHES ARE LIABLE TO ERROR, AND HAVE ERRED. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. The Church as a whole has the promise of Divine guidance, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her (S. John xvi. 13; 8S. Matt. xvi. 18); she is the ΟΠ pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. iii. 15). The several ' parts of the Church, however, are singly liable to error, and have in fact erred. See, ¢y, in the New Testament, the letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Rev. ii., iii.

In the present Article :—

. (a) First, the patriarchates of the Eastern Church are named as having erred. It is not clear what errors are referred to, the statement of the Article being quite general ; perhaps the denial of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Second Person in the Holy Trinity may be intended.

(Ὁ) But the real point of this part of the Article, doubtless, is the expression of the conviction that the Church of Rome has erred. In this case, again, the statement is quite general, and should be understood as referring to the Medizval corruptions which were a principal cause of the breach with Rome in the sixteenth century.

We may compare ReEForMATIO LEGuM, “De Haeresibus,”

Cap. 21 :—

“Etiam illorum insania legum vinculis est constringenda, qui Romanam Ecclesiam in hujusmodi petra fundatam esse existimant, ut nec erraverit, nec errare possit; cum et multi possint ejus errores ex superiore majorum memoria repeti, et etiam ex hac nostra proferri, partim in his quibus vita nostra debet informari, partim etiam in his quibus fides debet institui.”

Article XX

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same, ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

Habet Ecclesia Ritus sive Ceremonias statuendi jus, et in fidei controversiis auctoritatem : quam vis [Ecclesiae non licet quicquam instituere, quod Verbo Dei scripto adversetur, nec unum Scripturae locum sic exponere potest, ut alteri contradicat. Quare licet Ecclesia sit divinorum Scriptorum testis et conservatrix, attamen ut adversus eos nihil decernere, ita praeter illos nihil credendum de necessitate salu- tis debet obtrudere.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers. In 1553, and in the first draft of 1563, the Article began with the words, “It is not lawful for the Church to [...] Ecclesiae non licet quic- quam instituere”). The important clause at the beginning (in thick type in the Latin) appears in the Latin edition of 1563 as expressly sanctioned by the Queen; and the Article, with this clause added, was approved by Convocation, ratified by the Crown, and enforced by Parliament in 1571. The Wurtemburg Con- session may have been the model from which the new clause was taken. Cf the Article “De Ecclesia ” :—

“Credimus et confitemur . . . quod haee Ecclesia habeat jus judicandi de omnibus doctrinis . . . quod haec Ecclesia habeat jus interpretandae Scripturae. . . . Quare et Ecclesia sic habet auctoritatem judicandi de doctrinis, ut tamen contineat se intra metas Sacrae Scripturae, quae est vox sponsi sul, a qua voce nulli,

ne angelo quidem, fas est recedere.”

§ 2.—OBJECT.

The object of the Article in its present form seems to be to guard against— (a) Undue exaggeration of the carpet of the Church on the one hand, and (Ὁ) Undue depreciation of that same authority on the other.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.

The Church hath power (jus) to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in controversies of Faith.

This Article stands in close relation to the preceding. The Church being a visible society of men, Divinely organised, it follows that there must be an inherent power of ordering whatever is necessary for the corporate life of her members; like other societies, she must have authority to enact and enforce the rules which her members are bound to observe. Thus—

(a) The Church has the right of decreeing forms of worship and rites or ceremonies, wherewith to consecrate, or to celebrate, events in the lives of her children.

(6) Moreover, since controversies on matters of faith are constantly liable to occur, she must have power to settle points of dispute which may arise from time to time.

That the Church has this twofold authority is affirmed in our

Article.

(a) By the power which she has to decree rites or ceremonies, the Church ensures that all things are done, in accordance with the Apostolic precept, “decently and in order” (1 Cor. xiv. 40). The custom of the “churches of God” is quoted by S. Paul as deciding a controverted ceremonial matter (1 Cor. xi. 16). We may add that Christ Himself recognised the right of the Jewish Church to ordain ceremonies when He bade His disciples observe and do the things commanded by those who sat in Moses’ seat (S. Matt. xxiii. 2, 3); and when He expressly declared that while the great Moral Commandments of the Law have the first claim, yet, at the same time, the ceremonial precepts of the Church should not be passed over (S. Matt. xxiii. 23).

(6) We have already seen that to the Church as a whole the Lord has given the promise that she shall be led into all truth (8S. John xvi. 13); she is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. iii 15); she has, therefore, authority to determine doctrine. The authority attaching to decisions of the Church is stated by our Lord Himself (S. Matt. xviii. 17); and we may see examples of the exercise of that authority in the New Testament; eg., when disputes arose concerning circumcision and other matters, the question, which agitated the whole Christian community, and in which the freedom of the Gospel was involved, was decided by a decree of the Church, after a representative Council held at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 19-29). See also the charges given by S. Paul to Timothy and Titus respectively, which imply an authority of the Church in matters of faith (1 Tim. i. 3; Tit. i. 10). It is on the principle that the Church has such authority that Creeds and Formularies of Faith have in all ages been constructed and promulgated. ᾿

(2.) THe AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH LIMITED BY ἨΟΙΥ͂ ScripTURE.

The Divinely inspired Scriptures are entrusted, not to the individual, but to the Church, which is a witness and keeper of Holy Writ. (Cf Rom. 111. 2.)

(i.) The Church is a witness, inasmuch as in her life, as the visible Kingdom of Christ on earth, she testifies to the truth of His Gospel and His promises; she lets her light shine before men in defence and confirmation of the Gospel.

(ii.) The Church is also the keeper of Holy Writ; she hands on from age to age the Sacred Books, promulgating them as the Word of God in succeeding generations, and guarding them from corruption or perversion.

In Holy Scripture we have the infallible truth of God, but we, in our apprehension of it, are fallible; how, then, can we guard against receiving it wrongly? In order that Divine truth, as embodied in Holy Scripture, may pass: into the minds of men, that same Holy Spirit, Who inspired Scripture, is Himself given to the Church to lead and guide into all truth (S. John xvi. 13). "

It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written. (a) As regards Rites or Ceremonies.

These must not be contrary to Scripture, but at the same time it is not necessary that they should have the express authority of Scripture.

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, . . . yet . it ought not to decree anything against the same (viz., Holy Writ). Cf. what is laid down in Article XXXIV. :—

“Traditions and ceremonies . . . may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word.”

Thus, ¢.g, the use of the surplice in Divine Service, and of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, are Ceremonies decreed by the Church, and not contrary to Holy Scripture, although, at the same time, neither have they direct Scriptural sanction.

(Ὁ) With regard to Doctrine.

In this case it is necessary that what is laid down by the Church should have the express authority of Scripture.

The Church hath . . . authority in controversies of Faith: ... yet . . . besides the same (viz., Holy Writ) ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

Our Article further makes it clear what is meant when it is said that doctrine laid down by the Church should have the express warrant of Scripture; it is meant, not that a text or two must be found to support it, but that the Church must see that such doctrine is consistent with the whole tenor of Scripture.

neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be — repugnant to another.

On the subject dealt with in this Article the words of the CREED OF Pope Pius IV. should be compared :—

“ Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejusdem Eeclesiae observationes et constitutiones firmissime admitto, et amplector.

“Ttem sacram Scripturam juxta eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione sacrarum Scripturarum, admitto, nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam, et interpre- tabor,”

Two incidental, but significant, points should be noted in the above extract :— (i.) “* Keclesiastical traditions ” have the first place, being mentioned before the Holy Scripture. (ii.) While of the former it is said “ firmissime admitto,” with regard to Holy Scripture the formula used is simply “ admitto.” See also the decree of the CounciL oF Trent, ‘“ De Canonicis Scripturis ” (Session IV.) :— |

“Synodus ... orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris, quam Novi Testamenti, curn utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nec non traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et continua successione in ecclesia catholica con- servatas, pari pietatis affectu et reverentia suscipit et veneratur.”

Article XXI

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may: be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

Generalia Concilia sine jussu et voluntate principum congregari non possunt, et ubi convenerint, quia ex hominibus constant, qui non omnes Spiritu et Verbo Dei reguntur, et errare possunt, et interdum errarunt, etiam in his que ad normam pietatis pertinent : ideoque que ab illis constituuntur, ut ad salutem necessaria, neque robur habent, neque auctoritatem, nisi ostendi possint e sacris literis esse desumpta.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers, 1552-3.

8 2.—OBJECT.

To assert the sole right of the Civil Power to call General Councils, and to express the conviction that some of the Councils, which were at the time commonly reputed General Councils, had

fallen into error,

§ 3.—HXPOSITION.

(1.) GENERAL COUNCILS.

This Article is closely related to the preceding.

In Article

XX. it is laid down that the Church has authority in controversies of Faith; the present Article is concerned with General

Councils, by which the Church exercises that authority, for they

are an important stage in the process by which the judgment of the Church on matters of Faith has been ascertained. In order that a Council may be ranked as a General Council it is necessary that two main conditions should be fulfilled; it should be—

(a) Representative of the Church at large; and

(Ὁ) Free; %.e., there must be no constraint placed upon the

members by any civil or spiritual ruler, or by any faction within the Church itself.

The real test, however, of the cecumenicity of a Council con- fists in the reception of such Council and its work by every portion of the Church, The Divine Spirit is promised to the whole Church, and the consentient witness of the whole Church is therefore necessary. If this principle be kept in mind, deference to the decisions of General Councils is quite intelligible ; the actual deliberations of Synods may perhaps be marked by polemics and by bitterness of tone, but they are the regular machinery for registering the agreement of the Church, and their authority only becomes decisive after their verdict has been accepted by the Church at large. Their decisions, therefore, in the result, represent, not the tyranny of chance majorities, but the working out in balanced formulae of complex Scriptural truth.

The opinion of our English Reformers with regard to General Councils may be illustrated from the Rrrormatio LeEGum, “De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica,” Cap. 14 :—

“Nam quaedam illorum, qualia sunt praecipua illa quatuor, -Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum primum, Ephesinum et Chalcedo- nense, magna cum reverentia amplectimur et suscipimus. Quod quidem judicium de multis aliis quae postea celebrata sunt ferimus, in quibus videmus et confitemur sanctissimos patres de beata et summa T'rinitate, de Jesu Christo Domino et Servatore nostro, et humana redemptione per eum procurata, juxta Scripturas divinas multa gravissime et perquam sancte constituisse. Quibus tamen non aliter fidem nostram obligandam esse censemus, nisi quatenus ex Scripturis sanctis confirmari possint. Nam concilia nonnulla interdum errasse, et contraria inter sese definivisse, partim in actionibus juris, partim etiam in fide, manifestum est.”

Cf. also STAT. 1 ELIZABETH, c. 1, quoted under heading (5.) below. Ὰ

“ARTICLE ΧΧΙ ; tat

The opinion of both Saxon and Swiss schools of Reformers may be gathered from the following extracts : '—

HERMANN’S CONSULTATIO: ‘Which thinges nevertheless we set furth to be receyued and obserued of men committed to our charge, none otherwise than as a beginninge of so holie and necessary a thinge, until a general reformacion of congregacions be made by the holie empire, by a fre and Christian council vniuersall or national.”

Wortembpura Conression, Art. XXXIV., “ De Conciliis” : “‘Fatemur sua debere esse in Ecclesia de dogmatis et sacris judicia, et magnam esse legitimorum Conciliorum auctoritatem, Sed longe omnium maxima sit auctoritas verbi Dei necesse est. . .. Testantur quoque exempla, non Pontifices tantum, sed etiam Concilia erasse.” :

Scorcn Conrgssion, Art. XX.:_

“Quemadmodum non temere damnamus illud quod viri pii, congregati in generali concilio legitime convocato, nobis pro- posuerunt; ita sine justo examine non admittimus quicquid hominibus, generalis concilii nomine obtruditur: manifestum enim est, quod sicut fuerunt homines, ita etiam eorum quidam manifeste errarunt, idque in rebus maximi ponderis et momenti. Quatenus ergo concilium, sententiam et mandatum quod dat, probat plano Dei verbo, eatenus statim idipsum reveremur et amplectimur.”

Cf. the DECLARATION oF THE FarrH, CourcH ORDER, AND DISCIPLINE, OF THE CONGREGATIONAL OR INDEPENDENT Dissenters, “ Principles of Church Order and Discipline,” ὃ 2:

“They believe that the New Testament contains, either in the form of express statute or in the example and practice of the Apostles and Apostolic Churches, all the Articles of Faith necessary to be believed, and all the principles of order and discipline requisite for constituting and governing Christian societies ; and that human traditions, fathers and councils, canons and creeds, possess no authority over the faith and practice of Christians.”

1 Luther himself appealed more than once to a future General Council.

(2.) GENERAL COUNCILS SHOULD BE SUMMONED BY -THE CIVIL PowER. General Councils may not be gathered together without the com-

mandment and will of Princes. Cf. a letter of Cranmer to Melanchthon dated Lambeth, aa 2 7» 152.:-.-

“1 could wish, therefore, that those who excel others in erudition and judgment should be assembled together, after the example of the Apostles, and declare their judgment, as well respecting other subjects of dispute, as likewise especially respecting this controversy, and attest their agreement by some published document. But you will perhaps say, ‘And I also have often expressed the same wish ; but this matter cannot be effected without the aid of princes.’ I have therefore [consulted with]! the king’s majesty, who places his kingdom of England at your disposal, and most graciously promises, not only a place of security and quiet, but also his aid and assistance towards these godly endeavours,”— Original Letters, vol, i. Ὁ. 26.

Under the Roman Empire large bodies of bishops would not have been allowed to assemble from all parts without the sanction of the civil power, and at the present time, when the time- honoured intimate relation between Church and State is still, in many nations, maintained, the statement of the Article holds good. ‘There can be no doubt, however, that the union between Church and State is loosening all over Christendom, and in the event of its being everywhere dissolved, the commandment and will of Princes would have no concern with the Councils of the Church.”

(3.) GENERAL COUNCILS MAY ERR, AND SOMETIMES HAVE ERRED. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit

and Word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred,

1 One or more words are here wanting in the original.

2 Some of the Reformers were inclined to give a much more prominent position to the civil power in the Councils of the “Church than our Article affirms. See, ¢.g., WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, XXIII. 3 :—

“The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God,”’

even in things pertaining unto God (in his quae ad normam pietatis pertinent). The words of the Article are strictly true, as the evidence of history shows ; 6.07. :—

(a) The Council of Ariminum, A.D. 359, at which about 400 bishops were present, secured a temporary triumph for Arianism.

(Ὁ) A Council was held at Ephesus A.D. 4.49, the violent and disorderly proceedings of which gained for it from Pope Leo the title of ‘Latrocinium’ (i.e., Ruffian-synod), by which it is commonly known. It pronounced in favour of Hutychianism.

These were fairly representative Councils, but are not, of course, reckoned as General Councils, because their decisions have not been accepted by the Church at large. The infallibility of a Council can never be guaranteed at the moment, but the test of the value of its decisions is, as we have seen, their after-reception by the Church.

The object which the compilers of our Article here had in view seems to have been to record the conviction that some of those Councils which were commonly spoken of in the Western Church at the time as ‘‘ General Councils” had erred, “in his quae ad normam pietatis pertinent ;” thus :—

(i.) The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) had laid down the

doctrine of 'Transubstantiation.

(ii.) The Council of Constance (1414) had withheld the cup from the laity in the Holy Eucharist.

(4.) DeEcIsIONS oF COUNCILS AS TO THINGS NECESSARY TO SALVA-

Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

A General Council is summoned to declare what has always been the Faith, not to propound a new faith. The Faith has been once for all delivered (S. Jude 3), and is enshrined in Holy Scripture, which is thus the Church’s standard of doctrine; nothing may, therefore, be taught as an article of Faith unless it be traceable to Holy Scripture. Our Church is here simply carrying out the great Reformation principle which has been already laid down—that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation.” (See Article VI., and notes there.)

(5.) TABLE OF COUNCILS ACCOUNTED CECUMENICAL.

A.D. 325. Nicéa (1). A.D. 1215. Lateran (4). 381. Constantinople (1). 1245. Lyons (1). 431. Ephesus. 1274. Lyons (2). 451. Chalcedon. 1311. Vienne.

553. Constantinople (2). 1409. Pisa. 681. Constantinople (3). 1414-18. Constance. 787. Nica (2). 1430. Basle. Removed to 869. Constantinople (4). Florence. 1123. Lateran (1). 1512. Lateran (5). 1139. Lateran (2). 1545-63. Trent. 1179. Lateran (3). 1869. Vatican.

All these Councils are recognised as General Councils by the Church of Rome.

The English Reformers reverently accepted the first four. See the extract from the REFORMATIO LEGUM quoted above (under heading (1) of this section), and ¢f. Star. 1 ELizaBETH, c. 1, by which it is determined that nothing shall be henceforth accounted heresy but that which has been so adjudged,

“By the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils, or any of them, or by any other General Council, wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures.”

The Act has been repealed, but the words quoted may be taken as indicating the mind of the Reformers. The second and third Councils of Constantinople merely confirmed decrees of the preceding General Councils; hence they also may be considered as recognised by the English Church.

The Orthodox Eastern Church acknowledges the first seven Councils in the list given above as icumenical Councils, Cf. the ‘Holy Catechism’ by Bernadaces, p. 16 :—

Q. What is an Gicumenical Council?

A, An assembly of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church from all parts of the world to inquire and decide concerning questions of the Christian Faith.

Q. How many (cumenical Councils of this sort have there been ὃ

A. Seven, and the first of them composed the Creed.

The authorities of the Eastern Church were also willing to recognise the sessions at Florence, which were a continuation of the Council opened at Basle (1430). Α

It will have been already gathered from the examples we have given that the formularies which give expression to the views of the Swiss School of Reformers do not assign a very high value to the decisions of Councils. The very important and widely approved Second HELVETIC CONFESSION, however, in Article XL., holds to the first four Councils :—

“Et ut paucis multa hujus cause dicamus, quecunque de incarnationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi mysterio definita sunt ex Scripturis sanctis, et comprehensa symbolis ac sententiis quatuor primarum et prestantissimarum Synodorum, celebratarum, Nicex, Constantinopoli, Ephesi et Chalcedone, una cum beati Athanasii symbolo, et omnibus his similibus symbolis, credimus corde sincero, et ore libero ingenue profitemur, condemnantes omnia his contraria.”

Article XXII

The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images, as of Reliques, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Seripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of

Doctrina Romanensium de Purgatorio, de Indulgentiis, de venera- tione et adoratione tum imaginum tum reliquiarum, nec non de In- vocatione Sanctorum, res est futilis, inaniter conficta, et nullis Scriptu- rarum testimoniis innititur, imo verbo Dei contradicit.

God.

§ 1.— SOURCE. |

Composed by the English Reformers. In 1553 the Article began with the words “ Scholasticorum doctrina ”——“ the doctrine of the Scholeaucthoures.” The phrase “doctrina Romanensium”! was substituted for this in 1563.

Another change was also made in the wording of the Article at the revision in 1563. The adverb “ pernitiose,” which stood before the verb “contradicit” in the Latin text of 1553, was struck out.

ἢ 2.—OBJECT.

To repudiate the teaching of the Church of Rome on the heads named in the Article. It should be remembered, however, that the decree of the Council of Trent which deals with the subjects treated of in this Article bears date December 4, 1563, so that the framers of our Article (1553) could not have had this in their mind, but were rather referring to the current corrupt teaching of the Latin Church in the times immediately preceding the Reformation, This is, indeed, sufficiently indicated by the wording of the original Article, which speaks of “the doctrine of the School-

1 The words ‘ Romanenses’ and ‘Romanistae’ occur as early as 1520, being used by Luther, and by Ulrich von Hutten (the author of the ‘Epistolae

Obscurorum Virorum’), to designate the extreme Medieval party. 146 :

authors.” The change of this expression to “ Romish doctrine ” in the Elizabethan revision is significant; it was doubtless made because our Reformers were realising that the Church of Rome, at the Council of Trent, was adopting the teaching of the later Schoolmen as its own. The decrees of the Council upon the particular subjects in hand could not, however, have been before the revisers at the time when the change in the wording of our Article was made. § 3. EXPOSITION.

This Article condemns the Romish doctrine on the following heads, as not satisfying the test which has been already laid down, viz., that doctrine decreed by the Church must have the warrant of Holy Scripture. On the contrary, it is affirmed of the doctrine here dealt with, that it is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

(1.) PurGaAToRY,

The doctrine of Purgatory depends upon the distinction between the temporal and the eternal punishment of sin, to which every man is liable, It is held that God does indeed, for the sake of the merits and intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ, pardon sin, and at the same time remit the eternal punishment due to it. The sinner is, however, still liable to temporal punishment,’ which he must expiate by acts of penance in this life. Whatever is not expiated in this life must be expiated after death; the soul, therefore, continues to bear, in the next world, the temporal punishment of its sins. In order to shorten this purgatorial punishment, the prayers and supererogations of men on earth, and especially the offering of masses, are of great efficacy. Such is the “ Romish doctrine,” which led to serious results both in practice and doctrine. The souls of those that depart hence in the Lord are conceived as lying in flames, enduring torments equal to those of the lost,

‘for a longer or shorter period between death and the day of judgment.” Their friends on earth may obtain mitigation of their

1 The Council of Trent (Session XIV.) declares :—

**Falso omnino esse et a verbo Dei alienum, culpam a Domino nunquam remitti, quin universa etiam poena condonetur.”

Cf. Canon XIII. on the Sacrament of Penance (the same Session) :—

2 1 Cor. iii. 11-15 is sometimes quoted in support of this.

punishment by prayers, and by paying the priest to say mass for their souls; hence arose a most shameful traffic in holy things. Serious doctrinal consequences also followed. Purgatory was often so taught as to invalidate the power of the Passion of Christ, and to imply that there is an expiatory virtue in human suffering and merit ;! so much sin must be atoned for by just so much suffering, either inflicted upon the sinner by God, or voluntary penal visitations upon himself, or possibly the balance may have to be made up from the supererogatory works of saints. It is this popular doctrine of Purgatory which is justly condemned in our Article.

The Council of Trent affirmed the doctrine of Purgatory, but at the same time made an attempt to clear away abuses connected with it. See Session XXV. (December 1563) :—

“Cum Cathvlica ecclesia, a Spiritu Sancto edocta ex sacris litteris et antiqua patrum traditione, in sanctis conciliis et novissime in hac oecumenica synodo docuerit, purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis potissimum vero acceptabili altaris sacrificio juvari, praecipit sancta synodus episcopis, ut sanam de purgatorio doctrinam, a sanctis patribus et sanctis conciliis traditam, a Christi fidelibus credi, teneri, et ubique praedicari diligenter studeant: apud rudem vero plebem difficiliores ac subtiliores quaestiones, quaeque ad aedificationem non faciunt, et ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio, a popularibus concionibus secludantur ; incerta item, vel quae specie falsi laborant, evulgari ac tractari non permittant ; ea vero, quae ad curiositatem quandam aut superstitionem spectant vel turpe lucrum sapiunt, tanquam scandala et fidelium offendicula prohibeant.”

We must not, of course, understand that when the compilers of our Article censured ‘the Romish doctrine of Purgatory,’ they at the same time intended to reject the doctrine of the Primitive Church concerning the Intermediate State. Those who depart this life in a state of grace go to be with Christ (Phil. i. 23), and pass into a state of blessed rest and peace (Rev. xiv. 13)3?

1 The Council of Trent saw the danger involved, and attempted to guard against it :—

““ Accedit, quod dum satisfaciendo patimur pro peccatis, Christo, qui pro peccatis nostris satisfecit, conformes efficimur. . . . Neque vero ita nostra est satisfactio haec, quam pro peccatis nostris exsolvimus, ut non sit per Christum ; nam qui ex nobis tanquam ex nobis nihil possumus, eo co-operante omnia possumus. Ita non habet homo unde glorietur, sed omnis gloriatio nostra in Christo est” (Session XIV.).

2 Cf. the words of the prayer in the Burial Service :— ** Almighty God, with Whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence

in the Lord, and with Whom the souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity.”

but we must not conceive of them as altogether inactive, or as though asleep ;* the work of grace, begun in this life, goes on in their souls, they attain to higher and higher degrees of perfection, till at last they will, with joy, behold the Face of God in Heaven. It is obvious that in many at the time of their departure from this life there is much good, mingled with much evil as yet un- subdued. We cannot for a moment think of such as lost souls; neither, on the other hand, can we imagine them as fitted, at the moment of death, for the Beatific Vision of Heaven. Should we not, therefore, conclude that the good work begun in them will be continued in the waiting state beyond the grave, the evil being, by the continued operation of the Spirit of God, purged away, till they too are fitted, with all saints, to behold the Face of God with joy ?

Further, we should not forget that the members of Christ who have departed this life are still, by virtue of the common union with the living Lord, in close communion with us on earth; the Church Militant here and the Church Expectant in Paradise are vitally and indivisibly one, so that our brethren who have been taken from us into Paradise still have their part in the mutual _ offices of the members of the One Body. Of all the mutual Ὁ helps we enjoy in the Body of Christ, there is nothing that binds. us so closely to one another as the ministry of prayer. We pray continually for those we love in Christ while they are living here, and natural impulse and deep instinct of piety alike prompt us to continue to pray for them when they have passed from our sight to join the waiting Church beyond the grave.

΄- 1 This error was revived by some at the Reformation period, and was expressly condemned by the goth of the XLII. ARTICLES of 1553 :—

Qui animas defunctorum praedicant usque ad diem judicii absque omni sensu dormire, aut illas asserunt una cum corporibus mori, et extrema die cum illis excitandas, ab orthodoxa fide, quae nobis in sacris litteris traditur, prorsus dissentiunt.

See also REFORMATIO LEGUM, ‘De Haeresibus,’ Cap. 12:

“Quidam impie philosophantur animas hominum ex hac vita migrantium, quando semel ex corporibus excesserunt, usque ad supremum ultimi judicii tempus, vel somno involvi, vel prorsus ad nihilum recidere ; tum autem cum extremi judicii dies erit, illas rursus vel a somno excitari, vel cum propriis

corporibus ab interitu resurgere,”

There is abundant evidence which goes to prove that the practice of Prayer for the Dead prevailed in the Primitive Church.’ (a) The ancient Liturgies all contain commemoration of and intercession for the departed. A few quotations are here given :— The Greek Liturgy of S. James of Jerusalem ?

The Clementine Liturgy *:

€ \ a τ ὦ ΄ὔ 5 , a Ὑπὲρ των ἐν πίστει ἀναπαυσαμεένων δεηθώμεν.

S. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Lectures on the Mysteries * (v. 9), thus speaks:

Kira μνημονεύομεν καὶ TOV προκεκοιμημένων, πρῶτον, πατριαρχῶν, προφητῶν, ἀποστόλων, μαρτύρων, ὅπως ὁ θεὸς ταῖς εὐχαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ πρεσβείαις προσδέξηται ἡμῶν τὴν δέησιν" εἶτα καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν προκεκοι- μημένων ἁγίων πατέρων καὶ ἐπισκόπων καὶ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν προκεκοιμημένων, μεγίστην ὄνησιν πιστεύοντες ἔσεσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑπὲρ ὧν ἡ δέησις ἀναφέρεται τῆς ἁγίας καὶ φρικωδεστάτης προκειμένης Θυσώς.

The Greek Liturgy of 5. Mark®: Τούτων πάντων tas ψυχὰς ἀνάπαυσον, Δέσποτα Κύριε 6 Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἁγίων σου σκηναῖς, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου, χαριζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν σου ἀγαθά."

1 We may refer to 2 Tim. i. 16-18 as indicative of Apostolic practice. It is generally agreed by commentators that Onesiphorus, for whom §S. Paul there prays, was dead at the time when the Epistle was written. Cf iv. 19, where it is noteworthy that greeting is sent, not to Onesiphorus himself, but to his household.

2 Dating from the earlier part of the fourth century, and adopted throughout the patriar rchate of Antioch.

’ Embodied in the Apostolical Constitutions, and dating, perhaps, from the middle of the third century.

4 Delivered about the middle of the fourth century.

5 This dates very probably from the fourth century, and was used in the patriarchate of Alexandria.

6 There can be no doubt that the custom of Prayer for the Dead passed from the Jewish to the Christian Church. 2 Mace. xii. 39-45 testifies to the use of prayers for the dead amongst the Jews about two centuries béfore our Lord’s

(2) Inscriptions in the Catacombs also afford valuable incidental testimony to the practice of the primitive Christians, and show us that in early times death was not conceived as forming a barrier to the prayers which the living offered for their loved ones who had gone before.

Typical examples of such inscriptions are the following :—

(ii.) DomInE NE QUANDO ADUMBRETUR SPIRITUS VENERES DE

(iii.) Erenza vivas IN Duo. A. ὦ),

That our Reformers did not intend in the present Article to censure the Primitive practice of Prayer for the Dead will appear more clearly if we attentively consider the history of the text of the Article itself. The leading divines of our Church in Edward VI.’s reign’ were apparently divided on the question. Some of those who had come more immediately under the influence of the Swiss school of Continental Reformers? condemned the practice of praying for the dead, and classed it with Medieval corruptions which should be swept away.* ‘This view of the matter prevailed in the first draft of the Article as it stood in October 1552, when the text ran thus :— “Scholasticorum doctrina de Purgatorio, de precatione pro defunctis,’ &c.; but the

coming; and we are assured by the most competent Jewish scholars that during the time of our Lord’s earthly ministry prayers for the dead were continually offered in the synagogue services, as they still are to-day. Sacrifices were also offered in the Temple for the departed, and vicarious ablutions under- : taken by the living on behalf of those who had died while in a condition of ceremonial defilement (cf 1 Cor. xv. 29). Our Lord Himself during His sojourn upon earth, and His Apostles too, who were loyal observers of the traditions of their fathers, must often have joined in prayers for the departed.

1 The earlier English formularies, issued in the reign of Henry VIII., had commended the practice. See, ¢.g., the KING’s Book :—

“And truly it standeth with the very order of charity, a Christian man to pray for another, both quick and dead, and to commend one another in their prayers to God’s mercy, and to cause other to pray for them also, as well in masses and exequies” (Formularies of Faith, p. 375).

2 The line taken up by the Swiss school of Reformers may be gathered from the SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, Art. XX VI. :—

“Credimus enim fideles recta a morte corporea migrare ad Christum, ideoque viventium suffragiis aut precibus pro defunctis, denique illis suis officiis nihil indigere. Credimus item infideles recta praecipitari in Tartara, ex quibus nullus impiis aperitur, ullis viventium officiis, exitus.”

8. Thus in the ninth of a series of Articles drawn up by Bishop Hooper we find that “the doctrine of the schoolmen of purgatory, pardons, prayers for them that are departed out of this world,” are alike condemned,

words italicised were deliberately struck out before the Articles were published.?

(2.) PARDONS, OR INDULGENCES.

The theory of Indulgences was so uncertain that in 1552 the Cardinals dissuaded Pope Adrian VI. from issuing any decree on the subject. It is said that they grew out of what was originally a remission, either wholly or in part, of ecclesiastical censures or dispensation from ecclesiastical rules of discipline. Pope Urban 11. (1088) granted ‘Indulgence’ to all who fought for the Holy Sepulchre. His successors extended this to all who, not being able to go in person, maintained a soldier to go in their place, At a later period this was extended by Innocent III. to those who joined in crusade against heretical Christians. Pope Julius IL, in order to raise money for rebuilding S, Peter’s at Rome, published ‘Indulgences’ to all who would make contributions, a practice which was continued by his successor, Leo X. As regards the popular doctrine of Indulgences, the distinction between the temporal and eternal punishment due to sin, which underlies the doctrine of Purgatory, underlies it also. The superabundant merits of Christ and the supererogatory works of the Saints form a sort of treasury of merit, upon which the Pope may draw, and apply it to individual Christians for the remission of such temporal punishments and penances for sin as remain to be inflicted after the sins themselves and their eternal punishment have been remitted.

Bellarmine gives expression to the “Romish doctrine” of Indulgences censured by our Article :—

“Keclesia et scholae theologorum indulgentias vocant remis- siones oe a slg remanent see τ" remissionem

1 We may here note that in two passages in the Communion Service we have regard to the departed. (i.) We commemorate the faithful dead in the Prayer for the Church Militant :— :

“ And we also bless Thy holy Name for all Thy servants departed this life in Thy faith and fear; beseeching Thee to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of Thy heavenly kingdom.”

(ii.) In the prayer of Oblation we beseech—

“That by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion.” ᾿

The phrase “all Thy whole Church,” taken in its full and proper sense includes those members waiting in Paradise.

culparum et reconciliationem in sacramento poenitentiae adeptam, quas remissiones summi pontifices ex paterna lenitate . . . certis temporibus, et non sine justa aliqua et rationabili causa concedere solent” (De Indulgentiis, I. Cap. 1).

“Exstat in ecclesia thesaurus satisfactionum ex Christi pas- sionibus infinitus, qui nunquam exhauriri poterit. . . . Ad hune thesaurum superfluentium satisfactionum pertinent ekisin passiones beatae Mariae virginis et omnium aliorum sanctorum, qui plus passi sunt, quam eorum peccata requirerent” (Ibid., Cap. 2).

“Tndulgentia proprie est absolutio judiciaria, annexam habens solutionem ex thesauro” (Ibid., Cap. 5).

“Per indulgentias non tollitur nisi reatus poenae temporalis, qui remanet culpa dimissa. . . . Indulgentiae liberant homines a reatu poenae non solum coram ecclesia, sed etiam coram Deo” (Ibid., Cap. 7).

“Res certissima est, et apud Catholicos indubitata, indul- gentiis juvari posse animas, quae in purgatorio poenas luunt ”

(Ibid., Cap. 14).

The CounciL or TRENT on this subject decreed (Session XXV.) as follows :—

“Synodus indulgentiarum usum, christiano populo maxime salutarem et sacrorum conciliorum auctoritate probatum, in ecclesia retinendum esse docet et praecipit; eosque anathemate damnat, qui aut inutiles esse asserunt, vel eas concedendi in ecclesia potes- tatem esse negant. In his tamen concedendis moderationem juxta veterem et probatam in ecclesia consuetudinem adhiberi cupit, ne nimia facilitate ecclesiastica disciplina enervetur. Abusus vero, qui in his irrepserunt, quorum occasione insigne hoc indulgen- tiarum nomen ab haereticis blasphematur, emendatos et correctos cupiens, praesenti decreto generaliter statuit, pravos quaestus omnes pro his consequendis, unde plurima in christiano populo abusuum causa fluxit, omnino abolendos esse.”

Thus, while the Council affirmed that the Church has the power to grant Indulgences, and that the use of them is salutary, it at the same time strongly condemned abuses connected with them, and made a real attempt at reform in the matter. Since the sale of Indulgences was, on any theory, an abuse, the office of queestor was abolished by the Council.

(3.) THe WoRSHIPPING AND ADORATION OF IMAGES. It is only too true that in the times preceding the Reformation there was a great deal of superstitious veneration, and even actual

worship of images in and for themselves, This our Church strongly U

and justly condemns. We have the express word of God on the subject in the Second Commandment, which directly forbids us to make any graven image for the purpose of worshipping it.

The CounciL oF TRENT (Session XXV.) speaks somewhat guardedly with reference to the honour to be paid to images :—

‘“Tmagines porro Christi, deiparae virginis et aliorum sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas et retinendas, eisque debitum honorem et venerationem impertiendam, non quod credatur inesse aliqua in lis divinitas vel virtus, propter quam sint colendae, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum, vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda, veluti olim fiebat a gentibus, quae in idolis spem suam collocabant: sed quoniam honor, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant: ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus et procumbimus, Christum adoremus, et sanctos, quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur.” 1

The teaching of schoolmen and great divines of the Roman Church, however, certainly comes under the condemnation of our Article; eg.—

(a) Thomas Aquinas declares that the same reverence should be displayed towards an image of Christ, and towards Christ Himself; and seeing that Christ is adored with the adoration of latria,” it follows that His image is to be adored with the adoration of latria.°

(ὦ) Bellarmine (De Imaginibus, 11. Cap. 21) writes as follows :—

“Tmagines Christi et sanctorum venerandae sunt, non solum per accidens vel improprie, sed etiam per se et proprie, ita ut ipsae terminent venerationem ut in se considerantur, et non solum ut

* vicem gerunt exemplaris.”

As to the usage of the Primitive Church, the Christians of the first ages, through fear of idolatry, did not use images of Christ, but only emblematical representations, such as the Lamb and the Good Shepherd, besides the sign of the Cross. In the time of

1 The Council recognised the prevalence of abuses in connection with images by taking measures for reform in the matter :—

“Omnis porro superstitio in Sanctorum invocatione, Reliquiarum venera- tione,,et imaginum sacro usu tollatur: omnis turpis quaestus eliminetur, omnis denique lascivia vitetur: ita ut procaci venustate imagines non pin- gantur nec ornentur, et Sanctorum celebratione, ac Reliquiarum visitatione homines ad comessationes atque ebrietates non abutantur.”

5 λατρεία is the technical term for the highest kind of veneration or worship, due to God alone, as distinct from δουλεία, which may be rendered to creatures, 8. Summa Theologiae, III. xxv.

ARTICLE XXII | 155

Gregory the Great (i.¢., at the close of the sixth century) the custom of setting up representations of sacred subjects in churches had become common, and we find that Pope advocating the continuance of the custom for the better instruction of the minds of the ignorant. The Hastern Church was agitated by a keen controversy on the subject of images during the eighth century, which issued in the decrees of the Second Council of Nicwa(787). It was then decided that the sign of the Cross, and images of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, saints, and angels, might be set up in churches."

The proper and edifying use of images and pictures is not condemned by our Article. As Gregory the Great says, “It is one thing to worship an image, quite another thing to learn by it what is to be worshipped;” and it cannot be denied that images and pictures are of very great value in keeping great truths or facts continually before the minds of Christian people. The deplorable ignorance of very large numbers in this country concerning the fundamentals of our most holy Religion is doubtless owing, to a very considerable extent, to the neglect by our Church of that most effective method of teaching—by the eye. The strong language of the Homilies against images was justified by the circumstances of the time, but is felt to be not altogether applicable to the conditions of to-day. Recent restorations in our churches have furnished us with beautiful representations of the infant Christ in the arms of the Blessed Virgin, of the Crucifixion, and of our Lord in glory. Thus the great foundation truths of the Incarnation and the Atonement, together with the glorious issue of our Religion, the glorification of humanity in Christ upon the Divine Throne in Heaven, are constantly set forth before all.

How far images or pictures may be safely introduced into churches without danger of idolatry is a question that may be left to the discretion of the Church in each age and country.

The reaction from the Medieval abuse of images led some of the Reformers on the Continent, especially those of the Swiss school,’ not merely to condemn the abuse of images, but to altogether exclude and forbid any use of them.

1 In the Eastern Church at the present day all statues and carved images are rigidly excluded from churches, the Second Commandment being adhered to in its strictly literal sense. Painted representations of our Lord, of the Mother of God, and of the Saints, called Icons, are, however, retained, and play a very important part in the devotions of the faithful.

2 Luther did not object to the use of images, considering them as in them-

selves indifferent. Thus the Crucifix was retained by his followers, and is regularly used in Lutheran worship at the present day.

TETRAPOLITAN ConFEssION, XXIL :

“Et in statuas denique atque imagines, nostri sacras oraiiones strinxerunt, eo potissimum, quod aperte coli et adorari coeperunt, inanesque sumptus in eas fieri, qui esurienti et sitienti, et nudo Christo debebantur, quod denique et cultu illarum sumptuque, quamlibet cum verbo Dei pugnante, merita apud Deum quaerunt.

. Per se quidem liberum esse usum imaginum et nostri fatentur, sed quantumvis liber sit, Christiano spectandum est quid expediat, quid aedificet, et eo loci, eaque ratione imaginibus uti, ut nemini objiciat offendiculum,”

Saxon Conression, Art. XXII:

*‘ Alii apud alias statuas existimantur esse magis propitii. Hi furores cum palam similes sint ethnicorum, et haud dubie valde irritent iram Dei, et a docentibus taxandi sunt, et a piis magi- stratibus severe puniendi.”

“ Rejicimus itaque non modo Gentium idola, sed et Chris- tianorum simulacra. Tametsi enim Christus humanam assump- serit naturam, non ideo tamen assumpsit, ut typum praeferret statuariis atque pictoribus. . . . Spiritu suo se nobis perpetuo affuturum promisit. Joan xvi., 2 Cor. v. Quis ergo crederet umbram vel simulacrum corporis aliquam conferre piis utilitatem ? . . . Ut vero instituantur homines in religione, admoneanturque rerum divinarum et salutis suae, praedicare jussit Evangelium Dominus, Mare xvi., non pingere et pictura laicos erudire.”

(4.) THE WoRSHIPPING AND ADORATION OF RELICS.

We cannot wonder that our Church in the present Article strongly condemns the worship of relics, when we recall the disgusting spectacles of degrading superstition and of insatiable avarice afforded by the numerous pilgrimages to noted shrines in the times immediately preceding the Reformation. The ridiculous impostures to which the demand for relics gave rise are alluded to in some of the formularies and writings of the period. See, é.g., SCHMALKALD ARTICLES (p. 310) :—

‘“‘Reliquiae sanctorum refertae multis mendaciis, ineptiis et fatuitatibus. Canum et equorum ossa ibi saepe reperta sunt. Et licet aliquid forte laudandum fuisset, tamen propter imposturas istas, quae diabolo risum excitarunt, jam dudum damnari debuis- sent, cum praesertim careant verbo Dei, et non necessariae et inutiles sint.”

Cf. HoMILy aGainst Perit or IpoLatry (Third Part) :—

“And, because relics were so gainful, few places were there but they had reliques provided for them. And, for more plenty

of reliques, some one Saint had many heads, one in one place, and another in another place. Some had six arms and twenty-six fingers. And, where our Lord bare His cross alone, if all the pieces of the reliques thereof were gathered together, the greatest ship in England would scarcely bear them. . . . And not only the bones of the Saints, but everything appertaining to them was an holy relique. In some place they offer a sword, in some the scabbard, in some a shoe, in some a saddle that had been set upon some holy horse, in some the coals wherewith St. Laurence was roasted, in some place the tail of the ass which our Lord Jesus Christ sat on, to be kissed and offered to for a relique. For, rather than they would lack a relique, they would offer you a horse bone instead of a virgin’s arm, or the tail of the ass, to be kissed and offered unto for reliques. O wicked, impudent, and most shameless men, the devisers of these things! O'seely, foolish, and dastardly daws, and more beastly than the ass whose tail they kissed, that believe such things !”

The Counci, or TRENT recognised the prevalence of serious abuses in connection with the practice of the veneration of relics ; * while an attempt was made to remove these, the practice ‘itself was commended (Session XXV.) :—

“* Sanctorum quoque martyrum et aliorum cum Christo viventium sancta corpora, quae viva membra fuerunt Christi, et templum Spiritus sancti, ab ipso ad aeternam vitam suscitanda et glorifi- canda, a fidelibus veneranda esse per quae multa beneficia a Deo hominibus praestantur; ita ut affirmantes, sanctorum reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi, vel eas aliaque sacra monumenta a fidelibus inutiliter honorari, atque eorum opis im- petrandae causa sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari, omnino’ damnandos esse, prout jam pridem’ eos damnavit, et nunc etiam damnat ecclesia.”

We may hold much the same position with regard to relics as in relation to images. It is one thing carefully to treasure precious relics, quite another thing to worship them. The latter action is justly condemned by our Article, but the former is due to a beautiful instinct of natural piety, in accordance with which we cherish, in the home, relics of loved friends departed, and, as a nation, carefully preserve in museums and public buildings relics and mementoes of national heroes and public benefactors. Such relics, whether of our own personal friends or of great men

of history, may often arouse within us lofty and noble thoughts, leading to high purposes and great resolves, Ina similar manner, the contemplation of relics of the Saints of the Church may be most helpful to us who strive to follow in their train. From the time of the earliest persecutions relics of martyrs have been held in great respect by Christians. It was the general custom for the faithful to meet at the tombs of the martyrs, as in the Catacombs at Rome, for worship; and it was this, doubtless, which led to the practice in later times, when churches were built in other lands, of preserving within the altar a relic of some saint or martyr, in imitation of those first tombs of the martyred saints. From the period that the Empress Helena discovered the true Cross, relics occupied a very prominent position in the thoughts and affections of Christendom. An excellent statement of the true Christian position is afforded by the declaration of the Church at Smyrna after the martyrdom of Polycarp, when the Jews desired that his body should be entirely consumed lest the Christians should worship his relics :—

Ὑπέβαλον γοῦν twee Νικήτην τὸν τοῦ Ηρώδου πατέρα, ἀδελφὸν δὲ Αλκης, ἐντυχεῖν τῷ ἡγεμόνι, ὥστε μὴ δοῦναι αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα, “ μὴ, φησὶν, “ἀφέντες τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον, τοῦτον ἄρξωνται σέβειν. Kati ταῦτα εἶπον, ὑποβαλόντων καὶ ἐνισχυσάντων Ιουδαίων. of καὶ ἐτήρησαν μελλόντων ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς αὐτὸν λαμβανεῖν, ἀγνοοῦντες ὅτι οὔτε τὸν Χριστόν ΠΟΤΕ καταλιπεῖν δυνησόμεθα. τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου τῶν σωζομένων σωτηρίας παθόντα, οὔτε ἕτερον ΡΟ σέβειν. Τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ, υἷον ὄντα τοῦ θεοῦ, προσκυνοῦμεν" τοὺς δὲ μάρτυρας, ὡς μαθητὰς καὶ μιμητὰς . TOU Kupiou, a ἀγαπῶμεν ἀξίως, ἕ EVEKA εὐνοίας ἀνυπερβλήτου τῆς εἰς τὸν ἴδιον Βασιλέα καὶ Διδάσκαλον. ὧν γένοιτο καὶ ἡμᾶς συγκοινωνούς ΤΕ καὶ συμμαθητὰς γενέσθαι. ᾿Ιδὼν οὖν ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης τὴν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων γενομένην φιλονεικίαν, θεὶς αὐτὸν ἐν μέσῳ, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς ἔκαυσεν. Οὕτως τε ἡμεῖς ὕστερον ἀνελόμενοι τὰ τιμιώτερα λίθων πολυτελῶν καὶ δοκιμώτερα ὑπὲρ χρυσίον ὀστά αὐτοῦ, ἀπεθέμεθα ὅπου καὶ ἀκόλουθον ἣν. ἔνθα ὡς δυνατὸν ἡμῖν συναγομένοις ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ χαρᾷ παρέξει ὁ Κύριος ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου αὐτοῦ ἡμέραν γενέθλιον, εἴς τε τὴν τῶν προη- θληκότων μνήμην, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἄσκησίν τε καὶ ἑτοιμασίαν. ἦ

1 Eusebius, “Hist. Eccles,” IV. Cap. xv. ~

The Reformers of the Swiss School were not merely against the veneration of relics of the saints, but were opposed to preservation of such relics atall. See, e.g.—

Seconp Hutvetic Conression, Art. V. :

(5.) INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

Finally, our Article condemns the corrupt practice of the Latin Church in the times preceding the Reformation, when Invocation of Saints was carried on in such a way that only too often the common people worshipped the creature instead of the Creator." Theoretically, of course, a distinction was kept between prayers addressed to God Himself as the Author and Giver of all good, and invocations of the saints, asking for their intercessions, in the name of Christ, on behalf of the suppliant. Thus, in theory, the prerogative of God as the one only independent Author of good, and the sole Mediatorship of Christ, was guarded. It is obvious, however, that in practice these two great truths might, with unlearned people, easily be obscured, as in fact they were, and that to such an extent that it is scarcely too much to say that by the sixteenth century invocation of the saints had taken the form of a grotesque polytheism. Thus Hrasmus writes * concerning the prevailing custom of the day :—

“Some worship divers gods with divers ceremonies. This man every day salutes Christopher and visits his image, with what object? Because he persuades himself that if he does so he will that day be safe from an evil death. Another adores a certain Rochus. Why? Because he believes he will drive away the plague. Another mutters prayers to Barbara or George, that he

1 Cf. SAXON CONFESSION, Art. XXII:

“Maria Mater gratiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege, In hora mortis suscipe.” Hos versiculos audivimus doctorem theologiae monachum praefari morienti, et saepe repetere, cum quidem nullam Christi mentionem faceret, et possent . exempla multa recitari.

2 In the “Encomium Moriae.”. -

may not fall into the hands of the enemy. This: man fasts to Apollonia, that he may escape the toothache. Another visits the image of S. Job, that he may avoid the itch. In fact, as many things as there are that we either fear or wish for, so many gods have we made for them.”

The decree of the CoUNCIL oF-TRENT on this subject (Session XXYV.) runs as follows :—

‘“‘Mandat sancta Synodus omnibus episcopis ... ut... fideles diligenter instruant, docentes eos, Sanctos una cum Christo regnantes, orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre, bonum atque utile esse suppliciter eos invocare ; et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per Filium ejus Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui solus noster Redemptor et Salvator est, ad eorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere: illos vero qui negant Sanctos, aeterna felicitate in coelo fruentes, invocandos esse: aut qui asserunt, vel illos pro hominibus non orare, vel eorum, ut pro nobis etiam singulis orent, invocationem esse idololatriam, vel pugnare cum verbo Dei, adversarique honori unius mediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi, vel stultum esse in coelo regnantibus voce vel mente supplicare, impie sentire.”

As in the case of its decrees on Purgatory and on the use of Images, the Council worded its declaration on the Invocation of Saints cautiously. That the saints pray for us who are members of the Church Militant is not, of course, to be denied,’ but the practice of invoking them is justly censured by our Article, especially in view of the serious evils which are seen to result from the custom. It will be noticed that the Tridentine decree affirms that Invocation of Saints is not repugnant to the Word of God, and in no way interferes with the Mediatorial office of Christ, Who is the only Mediator between God and man. Whatever may be said or thought about the theory, such affirmation could scarcely be made with respect to the popular practice either of the pre-Reformation Church, or of the Church of Rome at the present day, for in Roman Catholic devotions which have authoritative sanction, more supplications are sometimes addressed to deceased human beings than to God the Father or to Christ; the Mediation*of Christ is altogether out of sight, and the saints are addressed as though they were themselves independent dispensers of the blessings pray ed for.

1 See what has been said above under the head of Purgatory, Ρ. 149.

A few examples are here given :— (a) From the “ Raccolta”:*

“We fly beneath thy shelter, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, and deliver us always ioe all ᾿ perils, O τρῶτε and blessed hi eark

“ Frale me not, my Mother, ἢ in my own hands, or I am lost.

Let me but cling to thee. Save me, my Hope; save me from hell.”

** Michael, glorious prince, chief and champion of the heavenly host, . . . vouchsafe to free us all from every evil, who with full confidence have recourse to thee.”

“ Benign Joseph, our Guide, protect us and the holy Church.”

(Ὁ) The following passages from Liguori’s “Glories of Mary ”? may be compared in this connection :—

“‘ Often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call upon her name, than we should be if we called on the Name of Jesus our Saviour.”

“ Many things are asked from God, and are not granted ; they are asked from Mary, and are obtained.”

* At the command of the Virgin all things obey, even God.” ** Mary has only to speak and her Son executes all.”

With such utterances as those above quoted we may contrast these passages of Scripture, S. Matt, xi. 28; S. John xiv. 6, 14; Acts iv. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 5,6; Heb. vii. 25. We recall, moreover, how that angels are recorded in the New Testament to have promptly refused and forbidden acts of reverence done to themselves; see Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 8, 9.

‘The prayers which this contains have Papal sanction, being specially “indulgenced.” The passages given are from the English translation (Burns & Oates, 1873). .

2 Alfonso Maria de Liguori was born at Naples in 1696, and died 1787. The “ Congregation of Rites” declared in 1803 that ‘‘in all. the writings of Alfonzo de Liguori there is not one word that can be justly found fault with ;” and in 1839 he was solemnly canonised.

Reformers on the Continent, both of the Saxon and Swiss schools, were emphatic in their repudiation of the practice of Invocation of Saints, as the formularies of the period testify :—

TETRAPOLITAN CONFESSION, Cap. XI. :

“ Rejectus est et alius circa haec abusus, quod quidam precibus et jejuniis, Deiparam quoque virginem Mariam, aliosque divos sic demereri volunt, ut per eorum intercessionem et merita, cum animae, tum corporis malis liberentur, bonisque omne genus cumu- lentur.”

Avaspura Conression, Part 1. Art. XXL: “Sed Scriptura non docet invocare Sanctos, seu petere auxilium a Sanctis. Quia unum Christum nobis proponit mediatorem, pro- pitiatorium, pontificem, et intercessorem.”

Saxon Conression, Art. XXII:

‘Hoc loco reprehendimus hance corruptelam ethnicam, quod defenditur consuetudo alloquentium homines, qui ex hac vita discesserunt, et petitur ab eis vel auxilium vel intercessio. . . .

Hane doctrinam de Mediatore obscuratam et corruptam esse, manifestum est, cum confugerent homines ad matrem Virginem, tanquam magis propitiam, et alii alios mediatores quaererent.”

Wurrempura Conression, Art. XXII. :

“Fatemur etiam quod sancti in coelis, suo quodam modo, pro nobis coram Deo orent, sicut et Angeli pro nobis sunt solliciti ; et omnes creaturae pro salute nostra coelesti quodam modo inge- miscunt, et nobiscum, quemadmodum Paulus loquitur, parturiunt. Sed sicut ex gemitu reliquarum creaturarum non est instituendus cultus invocandi eas, ita ex oratione sanctorum in coelis non est approbandus cultus invocandi sanctos: de his enim invocandis nullum extat in sacris literis vel mandatum, vel exemplum.”

FRENCH Conression, Art. XXIV. : “Quicquid homines de mortuorum sanctorum intercessione commenti sunt, nihil aliud esse quam fraudem et fallacias Satanae, ut homines a recta precandi forma abduceret.”

Betaic Conression, Art. XXVI.:

colimus, nec invocamus, neque illos coram Patre in coelis pro intercessoribus aut mediatoribus nostris agnoscimus.”

A comparison of the above extracts shows us that, while the Lutheran school rejected the practice of Invocation of Saints, the formularies which give expression to the Helvetic and Calvinistic theology go further, and deny that the saints pray for us,

Article XXIII

§ 1.—SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers, 155 2—3. We may compare the AUGSBURG CONFESSION, Part I. Art. XIV. :—

“De ordine ecclesiastico docent, quod nemo debeat in ecclesia publice docere, aut sacramenta administrare, nisi rite vocatus.”

The language of this Article of the Augsburg Confession was adopted in the tenth of the XIII. ARTICLES of 1538 :—

“De ministris Ecclesiae docemus, quod nemo debeat publice docere, aut sacramenta ministrare nisi rite vocatus, et quidem ab his, penes quos in Ecclesia, juxta verbum Dei, et leges ac consue- tudines uniuscujusque regionis, jus est vocandi et admittendi.”

1 The word ‘Congregation’ is evidently used here in the same sense as in Article XIX. (where see notes). It should be remarked that the Latin version has ‘ Ecclesia’ ; cf Deut. xxiii. 1, 2, where the Vulgate gives ‘ Ecclesia’ as the equivalent of Om, the word denoting the whole assembly of Israel as the people of God. Ἐκκλησία is thus used in the New Testament in Acts vii. 38, Heb. xii. 23. We may illustrate from the wording of CANON 55 :—

“Christ’s Holy Catholic Church ; i.¢., the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world.” x

§ 2.—OBJECT.

The Article is evidently directed against the error of those

who maintained that any one believing himself called to the work of the Ministry was bound to exercise the functions of a Minister in defiance of all Church Authority.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) Tae DIsTINCTION BETWEEN CLERGY AND LaIrty.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation. That men may enjoy the blessings of the Gospel it must first be preached to them. Preachers, therefore, must be sent (Rom. x. 15). Thus Christ sent forth His Apostles (S. John xx. 21); and the Mission was handed on by them to others, so that the setting apart of certain members with authority to preach the Word publicly, and to be her ministers in sacred ordinances, dates from the very beginning of the Church’s existence (Acts xiii. 1-3, xiv. 23; Eph. iv. 11, 12; Phil.i. 1). Such ministers of the Church are spoken of in the New Testament as “ambassadors of Christ ” (2 Cor. v. 20), “‘ ministers of Christ” (1 Cor. iv. 1), or “of God” (2 Cor. vi. 4), and “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. iv. 1: οὐ Col.i. 25; Tit. i. 7); they cannot of themselves assume authority as such, but must be called

to the office by God Himself (Acts xx.28; Heb. v. 4).

(2.) THE NEED OF ORDINATION FOR THE CLERGY.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same.

We find in the New Testament :—

(a) That election by the people did not constitute a man a minister. See, ¢g., Acts vi. 5, 6, where, after the Seven Deacons had been chosen by the whole body of the brethren, we read that they were admitted to their office by the imposition of the Apostles’ hands.

(Ὁ) Neither did the express inward call of the Holy Spirit itself alone suffice. See Acts xiii. 2, 3, where we have the account of the Ordination of SS. Barnabas and Paul by imposition of hands in obedience to a Divine command,

although they had already received the call of the Holy Spirit.

(c) We gather, therefore, that, from the very foundation of the Church, Ordination has been considered necessary. See the passages above quoted, and notice especially how, when the Apostles themselves were passing away from the earth, provision was made for the permanence of a duly ordained ministry’ (1 Tim. iii, iv. 14, v. 22; 2 Tim. i. 6, ii. 2; Tit. i. 5).” Thus the Threefold Ministry has come down to us by succession from the Apostles.

Cf. the Preface to the ORDINAL :—

“Tt is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are, requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority.”

1 Several passages in the Epistle of S. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (written 92-96 A.D.) are important in this connection :—

“Kara χώρας οὖν καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες (scil. of ἀπόστολοι) καθίστανον τὰς ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν ᾽ (xlii. 4).

“Kal οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ Kuplou ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς. Διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν κατέστησαν τοὺς προειρημένους καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν ἔδωκαν, ὅπως, ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν. Τοὺς οὖν κατασταθέντας ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων (scil. ἀποστολῶν) ἢ μεταξὺ ὑφ᾽

. ἑτέρων ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρῶν, συνευδοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πασῆς, καὶ λειτουργήσαν- τας ἀμέμπτως τῷ ποιμνίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ ταπεινοφροσύνης, ἡσύχως, καὶ ἀβα- ναύσως, μεμαρτυρημένους τε πολλοῖς χρόνοις ὑπὸ πάντων, τούτους οὐ δικαίως νομίζομεν ἀποβάλλεσθαι τῆς λειτουργίας ᾿ (xliv. 1.--3).

2 In the Pastoral Epistles we may trace the development of the Threefold Ministry. Two grades of ministers of the Church are mentioned—

(i.) διακόνοι (τ ‘Tim. 111. 8) ;

(ii.) πρεσβύτεροι, or ἐπισκόποι (1 Tim. iii. 1); both these names being indiffe-

rently used for holders of one and the same office. Cf. Tit. i. 5-73

Acts Xx. 17, 28, :

Then (iii.) above these two orders we have the office held by Timothy and Titus at Ephesus and Crete respectively, with powers delegated by the Apostle S. Paul to ordain ministers (1 Tim. v. 22; Tit. i. 5), to take measures for ensuring the teaching of sound doctrine (1 Tim. i. 3, iv. 6, 13, 14; 2 Tim. i. 13, ii. 2, iv. 2-4; Tit. i. 9, 13, ii. 1, 2, 15), to administer discipline (1 Tim. iii. Io, v.; Tit. iii. 10), and to provide for the due order of the Church (1 Tim. iii. 15; Tit. i. 5). No official title is given to Timothy and Titus ; but_to this third and highest order the name ἐπισκόπος was afterwards transferred.

(3.) WHOM ARE WE TO CONSIDER LAWFULLY ORDAINED ?

Those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

The former part of the Article lays it down that Ministers must not be self-appointed ; in this last clause it is declared that they must be appointed by those who have authority in the Church for this purpose; those are to be considered as lawfully ordained who are chosen and called by men who have public authority. It will be noticed that in the Latin text the words “co-optati et adsciti” correspond to the English “chosen and called”; both Latin words imply that Ministers must be admitted to their office by those who are themselves Ministers.

“By men who have public authority given unto them! in the Congregation”; i.e, by the Bishops. Episcopal Ordination is the necessary qualification in order to the exercising of Ministerial functions in the Church of England.

See the Preface to the ORDINAL :—

“And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed, in the [United] Church of England [and Ireland]; no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the [United] Church of England [and Ireland], or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination.”

We see in the adoption of the Episcopal form of Government by the Church Universal from the earliest times the guiding

1 The wording of the Article is somewhat vague here. We shall not be surprised at this if we recollect that the text still stands exactly as composed in 1552, when it was based upon, or drawn up with reference to, a previous Article which was the outcome of conferences between English and Lutheran divines (see § τ above). The English Church itself has always held fast to the Episcopal government of the Church, and insisted on the necessity of Episcopal Ordination, in this respect retaining its organic unity with the pre-Reformation Church, and parting company with foreign Reformers, both Lutheraw and Swiss. Certain individual bishops, who sympathised rather with the polity of Continental Reformed bodies than with the Order of the English Church, may have been guilty of irregularities (e.g., Archbishop Grindal, in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, licensed a certain John Morrison to officiate in England, who had only received Presbyterian orders in Scotland), but still the Rule of the Church in this country has always been the same.

hand of the Holy Spirit. The first serious departure from it was owing to the action of certain so-called Reformers in some countries (¢.g., in Germany, Geneva, and Scotland) in the sixteenth century." Since that time we have had ample proof that Gospel Truth and the Divinely-appointed Constitution of the Church stand or fall together; where the latter is departed from the former is soon tampered with, or imperfectly held.

1 It was not the wish of the earlier generation of Lutheran Reformers to abandon the historic constitution of the Church. Cf Melancthon, Apol. Augsburg Conf., VII. xiv. 23, 24 :—

**Hac de re in hoe conventu (viz.: at Augsburg) saepe testati sumus, nos summa voluntate cupere conservare politiam ecclesiasticam, et gradus in ecclesia factos etiam humana auctoritate. ... Porro hic iterum volumus testatum, nos libenter conservaturos esse ecclesiasticam et canonicam politiam, si modo episcopi desinant in nostras ecclesias saevire.”

Owing to the hostility of the bishops the Lutheran Reformers were unable to secure the episcopal succession, and we find accordingly that episcopacy was gradually abandoned in those States which had espoused the cause of the Reformation. It was suppressed in Hesse in 1526, and in Denmark in 1536, but lingered in Prussia until 1587; while in Sweden, where the Reformation was carried out on Lutheran lines, thesold episcopal arrangements were continued and remain to the present day.

In Switzerland, Zwingli, whose tendencies were at once Erastian and republican, abandoned episcopacy from the first, framing his ecclesiastical polity upon the republican model of the civil government. Calvin, on the other hand, not only expressed a willingness to recognise the authority of the — bishops (when exercised without tyranny), but even declared that those who refuse obedience to such authority are worthy of anathema :—

**Ttaque quicquid jubent (scil. episcopi) ac praescribunt, id necessario observandum esse contendunt a populo Christiano: qui violaverit, eum duplicis inobedientiae reum esse, quod Deo et ecclesiae sit rebellis. Sane si veri episcopi essent, aliquid eis in hac parte auctoritatis tribuerem, non quantum sibi postulant, sed quantum ad politiam ecclesiae rite ordinandam requiritur ” (INstiTuTES, IV. x. 6).

‘*Talem nobis hierarchiam si exhibeant in qua sic emineant episcopi, ut Christo subesse non recusent, ut ab illo tanquam ab unico capite pendeant et ad ipsum referantur ... tum vero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, si qui erunt, qui non eam reverentur, summaque obedientia observant” (De Necessitate Reform. Eccles.).

Article XXIV

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have _ Publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

Lingua populo non intellecta publicas in Ecclesia preces pera- gere, aut Sacramenta administrare, Verbo Dei et Primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini plane repugnat.

§ 1.— SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers. § 2— OBJECT.

To reform the usage of the Church in the matter of the language used in Public Worship. ‘The explanation of the use of Latin in the Western Church is to be found in the fact that at one time that language was understood all over Western Christendom. It was only by slow degrees that Latin ceased to be a living language, but in the lapse of centuries it gradually came about that the Church services, the language of which was stereotyped, were said in a tongue of which the bulk of the people understood less and less. So very gradual, however, was the decay of the language, that no definite time occurred for changing the language of the service-books until the Reformation. In 1553 the Article on this subject ran as follows :—

It is moste semelie, and moste; Decentissimum est et Verbo Dei

agreable to the Woorde of God that in the congregation nothing be openlie readde, or spoken in a tongue vnknowen to the people, the whiche thinge 8. Paule didde for- bidde except some were presente that should declare the same.

τόρ

maxime congruit, ut nihil in Ecclesia publice legatur aut recitetur lingua populo ignota, idque Paulus fieri vetuit, nisi adesset qui inter- pretaretur.

Cf. Canon IX. of the same Session :-—

The fact that the Church of Rome was holding fast to the use of the Latin language in the public services of the Church, doubtless accounts for the stronger form in which our Article was recast in 1563.

§ 3.—HXPOSITION.

The Article simply affirms that to have Publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people, is a thing plainly repugnant to—

(1.) the Word of God. See especially 1 Cor. xiv. 11--10.

The general rule laid down in Holy Scripture is, “ Let all

things be done unto edifying ” (1 Cor. xiv. 26). (2.) the custom of the Primitive Church.

It is quite certain that, in the earliest times, Christians in every land offered common Prayer and celebrated the Holy Eucharist in the vernacular, Thus the Liturgies of the Greek-speaking Churches of the East were Greek, and the Liturgy of the Church of Rome itself (at first a Greek- speaking community) was also Greek in the very earliest days; we may see a survival of this in the “ Kyrie Eleison ”

᾿ still repeated before the Lord’s Prayer in the Mass,

It is to be noted that in this Article—

(1.) The Church of England takes Holy Scripture as its Rule, contrary to which nothing may be decreed (cf Article XX.), and (2.) takes the Primitive Church as its pattern.

Throughout the Reformation period we find the authorities of the English Church constantly referring to the practice of the Primitive Church as their standard. In illustration of this we may quote the following passages :—

Toe Act oF UNIFORMITY, 1549. “Havinge eye and respecte to the most sincere and pure Christian Religion taught by the Scripture, as to the usages of the eres Church.”

THe Orpinat (Preface), 1549: “From the Apostles’ tyme there hathe bene these orders of Ministers in Christes Church.”

ΤῊΝ Act or UNIFORMITY, 1552: The Prayer Book of 1549 is spoken of as ‘‘a verye godly Order, agreeable to the Worde of God, and the Primative Church.”

“Homity AGAINST Perit oF ΤΡΟΙΑΤΕΥ͂, 1562: “The usage of the primitive Church, which was most pure and uncorrupt ” (p. 180). *“ And there is no doubt nee the vivienitive Church next the Apostles’ times was most pure” (p. 212). “The primitive Church, which is specially to be followed as most incorrupt and pure” (p. 231).

THE CANONS, 1604:

“Forasmuch as the ancient Fathers of the Church, led by example of the Apostles, appointed prayers and fasts to be used at the solemn Ordering of Ministers; and to that purpose allotted certain times, in which only Sacred Orders might be given or conferred : we, following their holy and religious example, do constitute and decree . . . ” (Canon XXXI.).

Extracts are here appended from some of the more important Continental Confessions, to show how Reformers of various schools dealt with the question of the language to be used in Public worship :—

Avespure Conression, Part II. Art. IIT, “De Missa”

“Servantur et usitatae ceremoniae fere omnes, praeterquam quod Latinis cantionibus admiscentur alicubi Germanicae, quae additae sunt ad docendum populum. Nam ad hoc unum opus est ceremoniis, ut doceant imperitos. Et non modo Paulus praecipit uti lingua intellecta populo in ecclesia, sed etiam ita constitutum est humano jure.”

Wortempure Conression, Art. XXVIL : “Sicut enim conciones et precationes lingua Ecclesiae nota habendae sunt, ita et sacramenta noto sermone dispensanda sunt.

172 THE THIRTY-NINE sgtiones

Seconp Hetnvetic Conression, Art. XXII. : “Taceant ergo omnes peregrinae linguae in coetibus sacris. Omnia proponantur lingua vulgari, et quae eo in loco ab hominibus in coetu intelligatur.”

Article XXV

Sacraments ordained of Christ, be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession: but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony,and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures: but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about: but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Sacramenta a Christo instituta,. non tantum sunt notae professionis Christianorum, sed certa quaedam potius testimonia, et efficacia signa gratiae atque bonae in nos volun- tatis Dei, per quae invisibiliter ipse in nobis operatur, nostramque fidem in se, non solum excitat, verum etiam confirmat.

Duo a Christo Domino nostro in Evangelio instituta sunt Sac- ramenta, scilicet, Baptismus et Coena Domini.

Quinque illa vulgo nominata Sacramenta, scilicet, Confirmatio, Poenitentia, Ordo, Matrimonium, et Extrema Unctio, pro Sacra- mentis Evangelicis habenda non sunt, ut quae partim a prava Apostolorum imitatione profluxe- runt, partim vitae status sunt in Scripturis quidem probati, sed Sacramentorum eandem cum Bap- tismo et Coena Domini rationem non habentes: ut quae signum aliquod visibile seu ceremoniam a Deo institutam non habeant.

Sacramenta non in hoc instituta sunt a Christo, ut spectarentur, aut circumferrentur, sed ut rite illis uteremur: Et in his duntaxat qui digne percipiunt, salutarem habent effectum: Qui vero indigne per- cipiunt, damnationem (ut inquit Paulus) sibi ipsis acquirunt.

§ 1. SOURCE. The first clause of the Article is evidently taken from Article

IX. of the XIII. Articues of 1538 :—

**Docemus, quod Sacramenta quae per Verbum Dei instituta

sunt, non tantum sint notae

professionis inter Christianos, sed

magis certa quaedam testimonia et efficacia signa gratiae, et bonae voluntatis Dei erga nos, per quae Deus invisibiliter operatur in nobis, et suam gratiam in nos invisibiliter diffundit, siquidem ea

rite susceperimus ; in his qui eis utuntur,”

The wording of this passage

quodque per ea excitatur et confirmatur fides

of the ΧΠΙ Articles 15. [ἡ its

turn traceable to the AUGSBURG CONFESSION, Part I. Art. XIII.:—

“ De usu sacramentorum docent, quod sacramenta instituta sint, non modo ut sint notae professionis inter homines, sed magis ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos, ad excitandam et confirmandam fidem in his qui utuntur proposita.”

A careful comparison shows us

that, while adopting the phrase-

ology of the Augsburg Confession,-the English divines made very

significant additions to it.

In the XLII. ArvicLEs of 1553 the Articles on the Sacraments

ran thus :—

observatu facillimis, | praestantissimis,

mus et θὰ Domini. |

Sacramenta non instituta sunt a Christo ut spectarentur aut circum- ferrentur, sed ut rite illis uteremur: Et in his duntaxat qui digne per- cipiunt, salutarem habent effectum, [idque non ex opere, ut quidam loquuntur, .operato; quae vox, ut peregrina est et Sacris literis ignota, sic parit sensum minime pium sed admodum superstitiosum. | Qui vero _indigne percipiunt, damnationem (ut inquit Paulus) sibi ipsis acquirunt.

Sacramentes ordeined by the worde of God be not onely badges, and tokens of Christien mennes professione, but rather thei bee cer- teine sure witnesses, and effectuall signes of grace, and Goddes’ good will towarde vs, by the whiche he dothe worke inuisiblie in vs, and dothe not onlie quicken, but also

Sacramenta per Verbum Dei in- stituta, non tantum sunt notae pro- fessionis Christianorum, sed certa quaedam potius testimonia et efficacia signa gratiae atque bonae in nos voluntatis Dei, per quae invisibiliter ipse in nobis operatur, nostramque fidem in se non solum excitat, verum etiam confirmat.

strengthen, and confirme our faith in him. |

This Article was entirely recast in 1563.

(1.) The opening paragraph* (enclosed in brackets above) was altogether omitted. |

(2.) In 1553 the idea was condemned that the Sacraments have a wholesome effect, arising “ex opere operato.” This phrase had been understood, at the time, to mean, that the mere act of receiving, altogether apart from a right disposition in the recipient, confers the grace of the Sacrament. Such an opinion could not, of course, be too strongly condemned.”

The condemnation, however, in reality arose from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the expression. ‘ Hx opere operato” was, in the scholastic terminology, opposed to “ ex opere operantis,” and was meant to exclude all idea of human merit; it signified that Grace is given to man upon performance of the outward work, or action, to which God has attached the promise, and was

1 This paragraph was taken almost verbatim from 8. Augustine’s Epistle to Januarius. The same words had been made use of by Alesius in the debate on the subject of the Sacraments in 1536.

2 The theory that the Sacraments confer grace ‘‘ ex opere operato” was also condemned in the following formularies :—

AUGSBURG CONFESSION, Part I. Art. XIII:

“Damnant igitur illos, qui docent, quod sacramenta ex opere operato justi- ficent, nec docent fidem requiri in usu sacramentorum, quae credat remitti peccata.”

XIII, ARTICLES, Art. IX.:

“‘ Neque enim in illis verum est, quod quidam dicunt, sacramenta conferre gratiam ex opere operato, sine bono motu utentis, nam in ratione utentibus necessum est, ut fides etiam utentis accedat, per quam credat illis promissio- nibus, et accipiat res promissas, quae per sacramenta conferantur.”’

SAXON CONFESSION, Art. XV.:

**Aperte damnamus portentosum errorem monachorum, qui scripserunt,

sumptionem mereri remissionem peccatorum, et quidem ex opere operato, sine

not meant to imply that Grace is given for any merit in the performance of the action by man (this would be “ex opere operantis”). Thus the spiritual partaking of Christ, whereby we dwell in Him, and He in us, is not, ordinarily,’ granted to us apart from the performance of the outward action (viz., the partaking of the consecrated Elements in the Eucharist), to which Christ Himself has attached the promise of the spiritual blessing. This efficacy of the Sacrament is not, of course, owing to any virtue or merit in our action, but solely to the work performed by Divine agency through it.

The Councit or TreNT (Session VII.) affirmed the efficacy of the Sacraments “ex opere operato.”

See Canon VIII. :-—

“ΑἹ quis dixerit, per ipsa novae legis Sacramenta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam, sed solam fidem divinae promissionis ad gratiam consequendam sufficere ; anathema sit.”

At the same time the Council so worded its declarations as to

ouard the meaning of the expression. Cf. Canon VI. (of the same Session) :—

“Si quis dixerit, Sacramenta novae legis non continere gratiam, quam significant, aut gratiam ipsam non ponentibus obicem non conferre . . . anathema sit.”

When the phrase “ex opere operato” had been cleared from the objectionable sense which had become attached to it the Reformers could no longer object to it, and the clause in this Article (enclosed in brackets above) which condemned it was, therefore, removed in 1563.

1 We must insert this qualifying word, because we doubt not that God gives the spiritual grace apart from the performance of the action commanded, when the performance of such action has been rendered impossible by adverse cireum- stances. We are bound to use the Sacraments wherever they may be had, but God in His operation is not tied to them.

Cf. the Rubric in the Order for “the Communion of the Sick” :—

“But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the Curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood, the Curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed his Blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth,

(3.) The concluding paragraph was transposed and made the first paragraph of the new Article. (4.) The middle portion of the Article as it now stands was

composed and inserted.

One small change has been since made in the wording of this

section.

As originally drawn up in 1563, besides the statement that the “five commonly called Sacraments .. .

are not to be

counted for Sacraments of the Gospel,” it also contained a very express declaration that “Penance” * hath not the like nature of a Sacrament with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper :-—

“But yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In which sort neither is Penance, for that it hath not any visible sign or ceremony

ordained of God.”

“Sed Sacramentorum eandem cum Baptismo et Coena Domini rationem non habentes: quomodo nec poenitentia, ut quae signum aliquod visibile seu ceremoniam a Deo institutam non habeant.”

The words “quomodo nec poenitentia” and the corresponding words in the English text were omitted when the Articles were re-issued in 1571.

§ 2. OBJECT.

(1.) To condemn disparagement of the Sacraments by declaring that they are more than badges or tokens of our profession.

(2.) To distinguish Baptism and the Holy Eucharist from other ordinances “commonly called sacraments” by claiming for them the special title of “Sacraments of the Gospel.”

(3.) To emphasise the necessity of.a right disposition in the recipient.

§ 3. EXPOSITION,

THE Name “ SACRAMENT.”

The Latin “sacramentum” was used in early times as a rendering of the Greek μυστήριον. It is thus used, ¢g., in the Vulgate version of Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, v. 32; Col. i. 273; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Rey. i. 20.

Our word “Sacrament” therefore simply represents the Greek

name “ Mystery,” which has been applied to the sacred ordinances of the Church from primitive times,’ and which is still the usual name of the Sacraments in the Eastern Church at the present day. Other derivations of the name have been proposed; eg., it is sometimes stated that the ordinances of the Church obtained the name of “Sacraments” owing to the resemblance of the initiatory rite of Baptism, wherein the Christian pledges his fidelity to Christ, to the ceremony attending the Roman soldier’s taking the oath of loyalty (sacramentum) to his commander. However suggestive this comparison may be, it does not appear to be the true account of the origin of the term “Sacrament” as applied to the ordinances of the Church.

The word “Sacrament,” meaning “ Mystery,” is capable of a very wide signification.

Cf. the Homity oF CoMMON PRAYER AND SACRAMENTS

(p. 377):—

“In a general acceptation the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to anything whereby an holy thing is signified.’’

But the word is commonly used by the Church in a more restricted sense to denote—

“Visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin and of our holiness and joining in Christ ” (Ibid., p. 376).

See also the explanation given in the CHURCH CATECHISM :—

Question. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament ? “ Answer. 1 mean an outward and visible sign of an inward ᾿ς and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.”

(a) God always, by His very nature, wishes to declare Himself. From all eternity, even before the universe was made, He has done so, by the eternal generation of the Son, which 1 Cf, e.g., the opening words of the first of the series of Lectures delivered (A.D. 386) by S. Cyril of Jerusalem on the Sacraments :— ᾿Επόθουν ὑμῖν καὶ πάλαι, ὦ γνήσια Kal περιπόθητα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τέκνα, περὶ

τῶν πνευματικῶν τούτων καὶ ἐπουρανίων διαλεχθῆναι μυστηρίων.

ἄλλως τε καὶ χωρητικοὶ τῶν θειοτέρων κατέστητε μυστηρίων, θειοῦ καὶ ζωοποιοῦ βαπτίσματος ἀξιωθέντες, ;

may thus be spoken of as a Sacrament. The Son, or Word, of God, is something outward to declare God Himself, Who is hidden (Col. i. 15).

(6) God declares Himself in Creation. The visible creation is Sacramental, being an outward sign of the invisible God (Rom. i. 20).

(c) God has declared Himself more particularly in the Incarnation. The human body of Jesus living amongst men was an outward and visible sign of the dwelling of God with men, and of His union with man (Col. ii. 9).

We see, therefore, that when God uses Sacraments in the

Church, His action is most suited to His own nature. He acts upon

that same principle in accordance with which He has always acted.

We now come to examine the statements of our Article in detail.

It treats of—

(1.) THE NATURE OF SACRAMENTS. (A.) WHAT SACRAMENTS ARE NOT. Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession. Zwingli held that the grace of God is always given to the spirit of man immediately.

Cf. Finer Ratio, ὃ 7 :—

“Credo, imo scio omnia sacramenta tam abesse ut gratiam con- ferant, ut ne adferant quidem aut dispensent. Qua in re forsan audacior tibi videri potero, potentissime Caesar.! Sed stat sen- tentia. Nam gratia ut a spiritu divino fit aut datur (loquor autem latine cum gratiae nomine utor, pro venia scilicet indulgentia et gratuito beneficio) ita donum istud ad solum spiritum pervenit. Dux autem vel vehiculum spiritui non est necessarium, ipse enim est virtus et latio qua cuncta feruntur, non qui ferri opus habeat ; neque id unquam legimus in scripturis sacris, quod sensibilia, qualia sacramenta sunt, certo secum ferrent spiritum, sed si sensi- bilia unquam Jata sunt cum spiritu, jam spiritus fuit qui tulit, non sensibilia,”

According to this view Sacraments can never be means of grace. With regard to Baptism, therefore, Zwingli taught that it is merely the external badge of membership in the Christian community, or a sort of certificate of spiritual life, which, however, if imparted at all, was imparted independently of the

material element.

1 The treatise was addressed to the Emperor (Charles V.).

Fiver Ratio, ὃ 7 :—

“ Baptismo igitur Ecclesia publice recipit eum, qui ptfasre- ceptus est per gratiam. Non ergo adfert gratiam baptismus, sed gratiam factam esse ei cui datur, Ecclesiae testatur. Credo igitur, O Caesar, sacramentum esse sacrae rei, hoc est factae gratiae, signum. Credo esse invisibilis gratiae, quae scilicet Dei munere facta et data est, visibilem figuram sive formam, hoc est visibile exemplum, quod tamen fere analogiam quandam rei per spiritum gestae prae se fert. Credo testimonium publicum esse.”

Cf. the same writer’s words in his treatise “ De Baptismo ἢ :—

“Baptismus foederis vel pacti signim est, non in hune finem institutum, ut eum qui baptizari solet justum efficiat, vel fidem baptizati confirmet. Impossible enim est ut res aliqua externa fidem hominis internam confirmet et stabiliat ” (Works, ii. 63).

The same principle is also laid down by Zwingli with regard to the Eucharist :—

“Nihil ergo eorum, quae externa sunt, fidem firmare vel nos in illa certiores reddere potest. Quod idem simili ratione de Eucharistia quoque, vel Coena Domini pronunciamus” (Works, il. 63).

This view of the Sacraments had spread widely on the Continent, and had also found its way into this country. It is expressly repudiated in our Article, as it was also by Luther, who denounced the opinion as “ diabolical,” and by Calvin, who characterised the teaching of the Zurich Reformer as “ profana,” ἢ “falsa et perniciosa.”” Even those of our English divines who went furthest in their agreement with the “ Reformed” theology rejected the idea that the Sacraments are bare signs;* 6.0. Hooper thus writes to Bucer (from Zurich, June 19, 1548) :—

“You write word, reverend sir, that you cannot believe the sacraments to be bare signs. Far be such a belief from the most unlearned Christian! . . . I do not write for the sake of dispute, but that I may testify to you, that the sacraments with us are not bare signs ” (Original Letters, i. 47, 48).

1 Τὴ a letter to Viret, 1542. 2 In a letter to Zebedzeus, 1539. Ὁ Zwingli himself was not always consistent, for at the Conference at Marburg (1529) he signed the following statement :— ἡ Baptismum esse sacramentum ad fidem a Deo institutum et praeceptum, non nudum signum, aut tesseram professionis Christianae, sed et opus Dei, in quo fides nostra requiritur, et per quam regeneramur.” =»

Latimer expresses himself more strongly :—

“Tn all ages the devil hath stirred up some light heads to esteem the Sacraments but lightly, as to be empty and bare signs ” (Ridley’s Works, p. 114).

Cf. also the following extracts from formularies :—

“De usu Sacramentorum docent, quod sacramenta instituta sint, non modo ut sint notae professionis inter homines, sed magis ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos, ad excitandam et confirmandem fidem in his qui utuntur proposita.”

Saxon Conression, Art. XIIL: “(uae tamen non sunt tantum signa professionis, sed multo magis (ut vetustas dixit) signa gratiae.” Scorcu Conrgssion, Art. XXT.:

“Ttaque vanitatem eorum, qui affirmant, Sacramenta nil aliud quam mera et nuda signa esse, omnino damnamus.”

In the Rerormatio Lecum the following statement is made on the subject (“‘ De Haeresibus,” Cap. 17) :-—

‘*‘Magna quoque temeritas illorum est, qui sacramenta sic ex- tenuant ut ea pro nudis signis, et externis tantum indiciis capi velint, quibus tanquam notis hominum Christianorum religio possit a caeteris internosci.”

(B.) WHAT SACRAMENTS ARE.* (i.) Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession.

The Church is a visible society, Baptism the initiatory rite admitting to Church membership, and the Holy Eucharist the pledge and security of union. The Sacraments may thus be looked upon as badges or tokens of our profession as Christians. Cf. 1 Cor. i. 13~17, where 8. Paul’s argu-

With the wording of our Article we may compare Calvin’s definition :—

ment seems to imply that Baptism was regarded as aii acknowledgment on the part of a convert of allegiance to his new Master.

But Sacraments have a far higher significance than this—

(11.) Rather they be certain sure witnesses ... of grace, and God’s good will towards us.

The Sacraments are pledges of the Divine Will in regard to man, and sureties of the truth of God’s promises; they are “pledges to assure us” of “the inward and spiritual grace given unto us” (CHURCH CATECHISM).

When it is said that they are “certain sure witnesses,” it is meant that they are such witnesses of God’s grace and good will as we may feel confident will never deceive us.

(iil.) Effectual signs! of grace, and God’s good will towards us.

In other words, a Sacrament actually effects that of which it is the sign. Baptism is a sign of Regeneration, and actually effects the same. ‘Thus in the Baptismal Office, immediately after the act of Baptism, the Priest says, ‘“‘Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate” (cf. Tit. 11. 5; 1 8. Pet. ili. 21).

Again, the Holy Eucharist is an outward sign of our Communion with Christ, and the partaking of it actually effects that Communion (1 Cor. x. 16). Of. the words of the long Exhortation in the Communion Service :—

‘For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament ; (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ

‘with us).”...

(iv.) By the which He doth work invisibly in us.

The words “by the which” refer to the Sacraments, as is clear in the Latin text (per quae). The Sacraments are thus the channels whereby the grace of God flows into the soul; they are the “ means whereby we receive” the inward and spiritual grace (CHURCH CATECHISM).

We should note that God is declared to be the efficient

‘* They be no vain nor bare tokens, as you would persuade (for a bare token is that which betokeneth only and giveth nothing, as a painted fire which giveth neither light nor heat); but in the due ministration of the Sacraments God is present, working with His Word and Sacraments,” ~

Cause, Who confers grace by the Sacraments ; the Sacraments themselves are not efficient, but instrumental, causes of grace. Canon VI. of Session VII. of the CounciL or TRENT (quoted above, p. 176), speaks of the Sacraments as “conferring ” grace.

With the wording of our Article οὐ the BreLaic Conres- sion, Art. XX XIII. :—"

‘¢Sunt enim Sacramenta signa, ac symbola visibilia rerum inter- narum et invisibilium, per quae ceu per media Deus ipse virtute Spiritus Sancti in nobis agit.”

(v.) And doth not only quicken (excitat), but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him. This clause is directly opposed to the Zwinglian theory of the Sacraments; see the passages from Zwingli quoted above, p. 180.

(2.) THe NUMBER OF SACRAMENTS. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

Of Sacramental Ordinances our Church gives a place of special honour to those two, the institution of which by our Lord Himself is expressly recorded in the New Testament, v1Z. :—

(a.) Baptism (8. Matt. xxviii. 19), and

(b.) The Lord’s Supper (1 Cor, xi. 23-26).

Of. CHurcH CATECHISM :—

“ Question. How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in His Church ?

“ Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.”

The position of the English Church is well illustrated by the RerorMatio LeGcum, ‘‘ De Sacramentis,” Cap. 2. Quid in Sacramento quaerendum sit :—

“Ad Sacramenti perfectionem tria concurrere debent. Primum evidens est et illustris nota, quae manifeste cerni possit. Secundum est Dei promissum, quod externo signo nobis repraesentatur et plane confirmatur. Tertium est Dei praeceptum, quo necessitas nobis imponitur, ista partim faciendi, partim commemorandi; quae tria cum authoritate Scripturarum in Baptismo solum occurrant, et Kucharistia, nos haec duo sola pro veris et propriis novi testamenti sacramentis ponimus.”

See also the HomiLy oF COMMON PRAYER AND SACRAMENTS

(p. 376) :— ee

‘¢ And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely, for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.”

The express limitation of the term “Sacrament,” as a definite title, to seven ordinances of the Church appears to be traceable to Peter Lombard (d. 1164), who, in the Fourth Book of his “ Sentences,” gives the name in its narrower sense to those seven ordinances which were subsequently recognised, at the Council of Florence (1430), and at the Council of Trent, as the Sacraments of the Church.’

See Canon I, of Session VII. of the CounciL oF TRENT (March 1547) :—

“Si quis dixerit, Sacramenta novae legis non fuisse omnia a Ι 8

) b ? ?

nium ; aut etiam aliquod horum septem non esse vere et proprie Sacramentum ; anathema sit.”

Cf. the CREED oF Pope Pius IV.:—

‘‘Profiteor quoque septem esse vere et proprie Sacramenta novae legis, a Jesu Christo, Domino nostro, instituta, atque ad salutem humani generis, licet non omnia singulis necessaria .. .

‘ illaque gratiam conferre.”

The Eastern Church also recognises the same Seven Sacraments, See, ¢.g., the “ Holy Cathechism ” by N. Bernardaces (p. 22) :—

““(. How many Mysteries are there, and what are they ?

“A. Seven—(r) Baptism; (2) Unction or Holy Ointment ;? .

(3) the Eucharist or Holy Communion; (4) Penance or Confession ; (5) Holy Orders; (6) Marriage ; and (7) Prayer-oil.” 8

The formularies of the Lutheran or Saxon school, when dealing with the Sacraments, treat of two only, but at the same time

1 In England the BisHops’ Book (1537) and the KING@’s Book (1543) acknowledged the Seven Sacraments.

2 Corresponding to our Confirmation. -

8 J.e., or anointing the sick.

they do not, as a rule, expressly exclude the other five ordinances from the number of the Sacraments. The WuRTEMBURG CoNFESSION, however, argues at length against the reception of these five as Sacraments of the Church.

The Confessions of the “ Reformed” departed much further in this matter, as in most other points, from the position of the Roman Church. The number of Sacraments is by them more expressly limited to two :—

Scotcnu Conression, Art. XXI.: **Nune tempore Evangelii, nos duo solum habere praecipua a - Christo instituta Sacramenta, agnoscimus et confitemur, quae ab omnibus illis utenda praecipiuntur, qui volunt corporis ipsius membra haberi, scilicet Baptismus et Coena vel mensa Domini, quae vulgo communio Corporis et Sanguinis ejus vocatur.”

The Sreconp HeELvetic ConrEssion, while it affirms (in Article XIX.) that there are only two Sacraments of the Church, goes on to speak in very disparaging terms of some of those other ordinances which were counted as Sacraments in the times preceding the Reformation :—

“ Novi populi Sacramenta sunt Baptismus et Coena Dominica. Sunt qui sacramenta novi populi septem numerent. Ex quibus nos poenitentiam, ordinationem ministrorum, non papisticam quidem illam, sed apostolicam, et matrimonium, agnoscimus instituta esse Dei utilia, sed non sacramenta. Confirmatio et Extrema unctio, inventa sunt hominum, quibus nullo cum damno carere potest ecclesia. . Neque illa nos in nostris ecclesiis habemus. Nam habent illa quaedam, quae minime probare possumus.” ~

(3.) THe Five SackAMENTAL ORDINANCES.

Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel.

Besides the two great Sacraments ordained by Christ, there are other ordinances of the Church which have a sacramental nature (7.¢., which are “an outward and

visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace”), and are therefore ‘“‘commonly called Sacraments”; yet they are not to be put upon the same level with Baptism and the Holy Eucharist; they have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. Although the two great Sacraments are thus separated from the other five ordinances named, sacramental character is not denied to these ordinances; on the other hand, the writers of our formularies acknowledge or imply, in several passages, that they are in some sense Sacraments. See, 6.0). :—

Homity oF Swearine, Part 1, (p. 74) :— ‘By like holy promise the Sacrament of Matrimony knitteth man and wife in perpetual love.”

Homity or Common Prayer AND SacraMENTs (p. 377) —

“For this visible sign, I mean laying on of hands, is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in Absolution, as the visible signs.in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are; and therefore Absolution is no such Sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are. And, though the Ordering of Ministers hath his visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other Sacraments besides do. Therefore neither it nor any other Sacrament else be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are.”

We must now proceed to speak a little more in detail of the five Ordinances named in the Article, and to indicate the position they occupy in the system of our Church,

(A.) Confirmation. 7

The name “Confirmation” is traced by some to δ. Ambrose,! but does not seem to have been in common use before the sixth century.” :

In the New Testament we have mention of the ordinance

1 Of. De Mysterii:,” vii. 42 :— **Ye have received the spiritual seal. . .. God the Father hath signed you, Christ our Lord hath confirmed you, and, as ye are taught by the apostolic lection, hath given you the pledge of the Spirit in your hearts,”

2 Probably the earliest example of the unqualified use of the title ‘‘ Confirmation,” of which we can definitely fix the date, occurs in a treatise of Paschasius, a deacon of Rome (d. 512 A.D.). That writer, alluding to Acts xix. 4-6, says :—

** See how great is the power of the Holy Spirit! In Baptism is bestowed the remission of sins; in the coming of the Holy Spirit gifts of supernatural powers are conferred, and miraculous signs are performed hy the confirmed ”’ (“ De Spiritu Sancto,” ii. 4).

itself as administered by the Apostles to the newly baptized. In Acts viii. 14—17 we read that SS. Peter and John were sent to Samaria, and that by imposition of their hands a special gift of the Holy Ghost was imparted to those who had been previously baptized. by Philip. Again, in Acts xix, 4—6 we read of special gifts of the Spirit through the imposition of S. Paul’s hands upon those whom he had previously baptized. See also Heb. vi. 2, where the “laying on of hands” is spoken of, and apparently connected with Baptism.

In early Christian literature the ordinance is usually called “ Chrism,”? or anointing, and “the Seal.”

The outward sign in Confirmation is the laying on of hands; the inward grace, a special gift of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual life, having been begun in Baptism, is strengthened by the imparting the plenary gift of the Holy Spirit to those confirmed. The Church therefore gives a special injunction to the Godparents at the close of the Baptismal Service :—

“Ye are to take care that this Child be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed by him.” .. .

_ In the Hast the “Chrism” has always been ministered with Baptism, but in the Western Church Baptism and Confirmation have been separated for nearly a thousand years. This dissociation of the two rites may be traced to two causes :—

(a.) In the early Church Baptism was normally administered at special seasons (Haster and Pentecost), in the presence of the Bishop, and the baptized were then confirmed immediately upon leaving the font. The extension of the administration of Baptism to other times, when the Bishop, who alone could confirm,” was not present, led to the separation of the two ordinances, Confirmation being administered, as it now is, by the Bishop in periodical visits.®

1 This is the usual name in the Eastern Church at the present day; οἱ

2 Exceptions have been allowed to this, especially in the Eastern Church, where Confirmation may be validly administered by every priest, though the Chrism must have been consecrated by a bishop. Tradition, however, from the first points to the Bishop as the minister of this ordinance, and in the passages of the New Testament already referred to it is recorded as administered by Apostles alone.

8 The 60th CANON (of 1604) orders the Bishop, or his Suffragan, to confirm at the customary triennial visitation, but in modern times it has been found necessary to hold “ Confirmations ” more frequently.

188 “THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

(b.) The growth of the practice of Infant Baptism also con- — tributed to the dissociation of that Sacrament from Confirmation, it being felt that the latter rite was scarcely applicable in its full significance to the baptized infant. |

In the English Church, since 1662, a renewal of Baptismal

vows has been required of the Candidate before Confirmation, a feature peculiar to the English rite. We must not, of course, fall into the error of supposing that personal responsibility begins with the day of Confirmation ; on the contrary, in the Baptismal Office, the Godparents are exhorted :—

“Ye must remember, that it is your parts and duties to see that this infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise, and profession, he hath here made by you.”

From what has been said it is clear that our Church regards «ς Confirmation ” as of perpetual obligation, and gives it a very important place in the spiritual life of her children.’

With the position taken up .by the Church of England we may contrast what is said in some of the Continental Confessions of the Reformation period :—

Saxon Conression, Art. XTX. :

“In ritu confirmationis, fiebat exploratio doctrinae, In qua singuli recitabant summam doctrinae, et palam profitebantur se improbare furores ethnicos et haereticos, et velle se esse et manere verae Ecclesiae membra, et non discessuros a vera sententia, quam tune profitebantur. Hic mos erat utilis ad erudiendos homines, et retinendos in vera agnitione Dei. Ac in ecclesiis nostris similia fiunt in catechesi juniorum, et in privata confessione, in qua “pastores doctrinam populi explorant. Sed ritus confirmationis, quem nunc episcopi retinent, quid est nisi inanis umbra ?”

Wortembpure Conression, Art. XI. :

“Non est nobis dubium, quin Apostoli initio revelati et con- firmati in die Pentecostes Kvangelii, contulerint impositione manuum admirandum donum Spiritus sancti credentibus in Christum, ut varlis linguis loquerentur. Et sentimus utilissi-

1 In addition to being (a) a strengthening of the spiritual life, begun in Baptism, by the special gift of the Holy Spirit, and (ὁ) a solemn renewal of Baptismal vows, Confirmation is also (c) the entrance to the full privileges of membership in the Church. See the rubric at the end of the ‘‘ Order of Confirmation :—

“And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.”

wericrn XXV 7 189

mum esse, ut pueri et adolescentes a Pastoribus Ecclesiae suae in Catechismo examinentur, et si quidem pie ac recte fuerint eruditi, approbentur; si vero prave, emendentur. Sed ex personali et temporali facto Apostolorum non est absque certo mandato Dei generale et perpetuum Sacramentum in Ecclesia statuendum.”

The estimation in which Confirmation is held by the Church of England may be further illustrated from the answer of the Bishops to the Puritan objections to the “ Order of Confirmation ” in 1661. Exception was taken to the wording of the “ Collect,” the Puritans stating their objections thus :—

“We desire that the practice of the Apostles may not be alleged as a ground of this imposition of hands for the confirmation of children, both because the Apostles did never use it in that case, as also because the Articles of the Church of England declare it to be a ‘corrupt imitation of the Apostles’ practice’ (Art. xxv.).

“‘ We desire that imposition of hands may not be made, as here it is, a sign to certify children of God’s grace and favour towards them ; because this seems to speak it a sacrament, and is contrary to that fore-mentioned 25th Article, which saith that ‘confirmation hath no visible sign appointed by God.’”

To this the Bishops replied :—

“ Prayer after the imposition of hands is grounded upon the practice of the Apostles (Heb. vi. 2, and Acts vill. 17); nor doth 25th Article say that confirmation is a corrupt imitation of the Apostles’ practice, but that the five commonly called Sacraments have ground partly of the corrupt following the Apostles, &c., which may be applied to some other of these five, but cannot be applied to confirmation, unless we-make the Church speak contradictions.”

(B.) Penance.

The inward grace of this Sacramental Ordinance is promised by our Lord Himself (S, John xx. 22, 23), but it is not recorded in the New Testament that the grace of Absolution was attached by our Lord to any special outward sign, and on this ground the writers of our Article refused to place Penance on the same level with Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. |

Cf. the HomiILy ror WHITSUNDAY :—

“Christ ordained the authority of the keys to excommunicate notorious sinners, and to absolve them which are truly penitent’

(p. 495).

Also the Homity or COMMON PRAYER AND SACRAMENTS !—

“For, although Absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet by the express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign, I mean laying on of hands, is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in Absolution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are; and therefore Absolution is no st. Ἢ Sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are” (pp. 376, 377).

At first Confession was made publicly before the Church, such open confession being necessary before the guilty person could be admitted again into the communion of the Church. At a very early period,’ however, it was recommended that penitents should confess their sins privately to a spiritual adviser, who might judge of the expediency of public confession and penance, if likely to tend to the quieting of the penitent’s conscience and the edification of the Church. [...] of the Primitive Church had a twofold character—

(a) It was the regular form for the readmission of the penitent

to Church communion and sacramental privileges.

(b) It had also for its express object the reassurance of the

troubled conscience of the offender himself.

When the primitive disciplinary system of the Church fell into disuse,” that part of the Absolution which concerned authoritative restoration to Holy Communion also ceased to be used, but the reassurance of the conscience of the penitent by God’s pardon being conveyed to him through the definite outward act of the Ministry of the Church was in no way affected by the cessation of the public discipline. The power of Absolution conferred upon the Ministry by the ordaining words of Christ Himself lasted on, when the primitive disciplinary system had passed away,

This power of Absolution the Church of England still claims for her priests ; for—

(a) She has deliberately retained in her formula of Ordination

1 Cf, e.g., Origen on Ps. xxxvii. Hom, 2 :—

“'Tantummodo circumspice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum. . . . Si intellexerit et praeviderit talem esse languorem tuum qui in conventu totius Ecclesiae exponi debeat et curari, ex quo fortassis et caeteri aedificari poterunt, et tu ipse facile sanari.” .. .

2 In the fifth century Pope Leo the Great directed that both confession and penance should take place in private under the direction of a priest ; and in the seventh century all public penance was discontinued, a result largely owing to the publication of the ‘ Penitential’ of Theodore of Tarsus; Archbishop of Canterbury.

of Priests those very words of Christ, which have ever been understood by all to be the basis of the power of

Absolution :—

“Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.”

(Ὁ) Provision is made in the Church’s system for the exercise of this power conferred at Ordination—

i.) In the Absolution pronounced by the priest at ἤκουον and Evening Prayer, and in the Communion Service.

(ii.) Besides providing forms of. Absolution, to be pronounced, after General Confession, in the public services of the Church, the Church of England also authorises Private Confession.

See the First Exhortation in the ComMUNION SERVICE :—

“If there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God’s Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God’s Holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.”

Cf. the Office for the VISITATION OF THE SICK :—

“Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special Con- session of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which Confession, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire-it) after this sort :—

“Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences: And by His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

If we are to be loyal to our Church we must strenuously resist those who would altogether deprive us of the great help to the spiritual life which special private Confession and Absolution affords, The Church of England does not set forth such special Confession as necessary to salvation, or of necessity obligatory upon all her members, but as voluntary, and to be used by her

children as they feel their need ;} at the same time, however, it is obvious that God has given us means of grace in His Church that we may duly use them. Private Confession is therefore distinctly recommended for such as feel scruples about coming to Communion on account of a disquieted conscience,’ and is enjoined upon a sick person whose conscience is troubled with any weighty matter.®

That our Church, since the Reformation, intends to retain the practice of private Confession is also clear from the words of CANON 113 (1604) :—

‘‘ Provided always, that if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the Minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we do not any way bind the said Minister by this our Constitution, but do straightly charge and admonish him, that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy (except they be such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same), under pain of irregularity.”

It should be noted that Confession is not the main subject of this Canon, which deals with the matter of presentation of crimes, &ec., to the ordinary, and is entitled “Ministers may present”; but the manner in which Confession is incidentally alluded to

' The Church of England in this differs from the Church of Rome, which regards Penance as a true and proper Sacrament in the narrow sense of the term, and necessary to salvation. Cf. the following Canons of Session XIV. of the COUNCIL OF TRENT :—

I, “Si quis dixerit, in Catholica Ecclesia, Poenitentiam non esse vere et proprie Sacramentum pro fidelibus, quoties post baptismum in peccata labuntur, ipsi Deo reconciliandis, a Christo Domino nostro institutum ; anathema sit.”

VI. “Si quis negaverit, Confessionem Sacramentalem vel institutam, vel ad salutem necessariam esse jure divino; aut dixerit, modum secrete confitendi soli sacerdoti, quem Ecclesia Catholica ab initio semper observavit et observat, alienum esse ab institutione et mandato Christi, et inventum esse humanum ; anathema sit.”

VII. “Si quis dixerit, in Sacramento Poenitentiae, ad remissionem peccatorum necessarium non esse jure divino, confiteri omnia et singula peccata mor- talia . . . aut demum, non licere confiteri peccata venalia ; anathema sit.”

VIII. “Si quis dixerit, confessionem omnium peccatorum, qualem Ecclesia servat, . esse impossibilem, et traditionem humanam, a piis abolendam; aut ad eam non teneri omnes et singulos utriusque sexus Christi fideles, juxta magni Concilii Lateranensis constitutionem, semel in anno, et ob id suadendum esse Christi fidelibus, ut non confiteantur tempore Quadragesimae; anathema sit.”

? See the Exhortation in the Communion Service quoted aboye. See the passage quoted above from the Order for the Visitation of the Sick.

affords conclusive testimony to the fact that Confession of “ secret and hidden sin” to the Minister was assumed by the clergy of that day (1604) as quite a regular and normal thing in the Church of England.

The formularies of the Lutheran or Protestant Reformers retain the practice of private Confession and Absolution, with certain safeguards and stipulations :—

‘‘Confessio in ecclesiis apud nos non est abolita. . . . Sed de confessione docent quod enumeratio delictorum non sit necessaria, nec sint onerandae conscientiae cura enumerandi omnia delicta, quia impossibile est omnia delicta recitare.” :

Saxon ΟὈΝΡΈΒΒΙΟΝ, Art. ΧΥ.: “De confessione privata facienda pastoribus, adfirmamus ritum privatae absolutionis in Ecclesia retinendum esse; et constanter - retinemus, propter multas graves causas. Sed simul docemus, non praecipiendam esse, nec postulanidam enumerationem delictorum in illo privato colloquio.”

Wortempurea Conression, Art. XIV.:

“ Ktsi autem sentimus, enumerationem peccatorum coram sacerdote non esse necessariam ad salutem, nec esse aliquod meritum remissionis peccatorum, tamen damus operam, ut generalis confessio peccatorum quantum fieri potest et licet, in Ecclesiis nostris conservetur, idque duabus de causis. Una est, ut hoe privato colloquio rudiores de rebus necessariis admoneantur et erudiantur. Altera, ut hac occasione privatim audiatur Evangelion Christi, de remissione peccatorum, quod Evangelion est vera clavis regni coelorum, et absolutio a peccatis, et ut per auditum Evangelii, seu absolutionis, fides vel concipiatur, vel confirmetur.”

‘The formularies influenced or drawn up by theologians of the Swiss school for the most part speak strongly against the retention of private confession to a priest; ¢.g.:—

TETRAPOLITAN Conression, Art. XX. : “Nam innumeras animas illa de peccatis sacerdoti confitendis constitutio, in gravem desperationem adegit, totque aliis vitiis obnoxia est, ut pridem abrogari debuerit.”

Seconp Hetvetic Conrsssion, Art. XIV. : “Credimus autem hance confessionem ingenuam, quae soli Deo fit, vel privatim inter Deum et peccatorem, vel palam in templo, ubi generalis illa peccatorum confessio recitatur, sufficere, nec

necessarium esse ad remissionem peccatorum consequendam, ut 2B

quis peccata sua confiteatur sacerdoti, susurrando in aures ipsius, ut vicissim cum impositione manuum ejus audiat ab ipso absolu- tionem: quod ejus rei nec praeceptum ullum, nec exemplum exstet in scripturis sacris. . . . Rite itaque et efficaciter ministri absolvunt, dum evangelium Christi, et in hoc remissionem pecca- torum, quae singulis promittitur fidelibus, sicuti et singuli sunt baptizati, praedicant, et ad singulos peculiariter pertinere testantur. Nec putamus absolutionem hance efficaciorem fieri, per hoc, quod in aurem alicui, aut super caput alicujus singulariter inmurmuratur.”

(C.) Orders.

The outward sign is the laying on of hands (see Acts vi. 6, ΧΙ, 3; 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. 1. 6); the inward grace is a special gift of the Holy Ghost for the work of the Ministry. See the passages in 1 and 2 Tim. referred to, which clearly imply that a spiritual gift passed to Timothy through, and simultaneously with, the imposition of hands.

Cf. the ORDINAL :—

‘‘When this Prayer is done, the Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the Order of Priesthood; the Receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees, and the Bishop saying,

“‘Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Inposition of our hands. .. .”

The words thus recited in the act of Ordination are a prayer, but a prayer which the Church is assured it is God’s will to grant; they are spoken, therefore, in sure confidence that the gift accompanies the outward sign.’

[On the subject of “Orders” see further the notes on Articles XXIII. and XXXVI]

(D.) Matrimony. See Eph. v. 31, 32, in the Vulgate :— ‘“‘Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem, et matrem suam, et

adhaerebit uxori suae; et erunt duo in carne una. Sacramentum hoc magnum est.”

1 Calvin was willing to give the name of “Sacrament” to “Orders.” See, €.g., INSTITUTES, IV, xix. 28 :—

“Quantum ad verum presbyterii munus attinet, quod ore Christi nobis est commendatum, libentur eo loco (scil. Sacramenti) habeo, Illic enim ceremonia est, primum ex Scripturis sumpta, deinde quam non esse inanem nec supervacuam, sed fidele spiritualis gratiae symbolum, testatur Paulus,”

Holy Scripture dwells upon—. (a) The Divine Institution of Matrimony (S. Matt. xix. 4-6; Eph. v. 31).

Cf. the opening address in the Marriage Service, where Holy Matrimony is spoken of as “an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency.”

(Ὁ) The deep mystery of the union of man and wife in mar-

riage (Eph. v. 32).?

The paramount sacredness of marriage is, as all history shows, “a mystery,” 1.6., a secret of God’s law, fully revealed in Christ. In heathen thought marriage has ever been a contract far less sacred than the indissoluble tie of blood, and wherever Christian principle is renounced or obscured that idea recurs in modern times.

(c) The high dignity of Matrimony as “signifying unto us the

mystical union that is betwixt Christ and His Church” (see Exhortation at the commencement of the Marriage Service, and cf. Eph. v. 23 et seqq.).

(d) The indissolubility of the Marriage tie.

This is distinctly affirmed by our Lord (8S. Matt. xix. 4-6; S. Mark x. 6—g9), and emphasised in the most striking manner in that part of the Marriage Service where it is directed—

Then shall the Priest join their right hands together, and say, “Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.”

Cf. also the Betrothal portion of the Service, where each of the contracting parties plights troth to the other—

** till death us do part.”

The indissoluble character of the Marriage bond is again affirmed in the third Collect of the Post-Matrimonial part of the Service :—

“OQ God, who... knitting them together, didst teach that it should never be ‘are to put asunder those whom thou by Matrimony hast made one.”

τς Divorce, therefore, is altogether inconsistent with. the Divine Institution of Matrimony. It is true that it was allowed by the 1 It cannot be doubted that in Eph. v. 32 the word μυστήριον (= Sacramentum)

applies to the type (the mutual relation of husband and wife) as well as to the Antitype (the mutual relation of Christ and His Church).

Jewish Law, but the legislation of Moses was in this respect

imperfect, because of the imperfection of those for whose sake it —

was given (S. Matt. xix. 7, 8). Separation a mensa et thoro, for the grave cause of adultery, is of course allowed, in accordance with our Lord’s special exception (S. Matt. v. 32, xix. 9); but the vinculum matrimoni is in no way dissolved by such separation, nor may either of those so living apart from one another, even though the innocent party, marry again before the other’s death (cf. Rom. vii. 2, 3; 1 Cor. vii. 39). Re-marriage of one party before the death of the other is (according to the original Divine Institution, upon which Christ has re-established Matrimony) nothing else than adultery (S. Matt. xix. 9; S. Mark x. 11, 12; S. Luke xvi. 18; Rom. vii. 3).

(K.) Extreme Unction.

See 5. Mark vi. 13; S. Jas. v. 14, 15.

In the former passage the anointing of the sick with oil is connected with bodily healing; in the latter, solemn anointing with prayer is connected with bodily healing and with forgiveness of sins.

Unction with oil, of a Sacramental character, has certainly been in use in the Church from the very earliest times. <A solemn anointing of the sick is still practised in the Eastern oy professedly as a means of healing; it is called ‘ Holy Oil,” or “ Prayer-Oil” (To εὐχέλαιον), and is administered by a ne wel of oe conjointly (varying from three to seven).”

1 The mind of our Church is shown in CANON 107 (of peau --

“ΤῊ all sentences for Divorce, Bond to be taken for not marrying during ‘each other’s Life.”

Cf. COUNCIL OF TRENT, Session XXIV. Canon vii. :—

“Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiam errare, cum docuit, et docet, juxta Evangelicam et Apostolicam doctrinam, propter adulterium alterius conjugum matrimonii vinculum non posse dissolvi; et utrumque, vel etiam innocentem, qui causam adulterio non dedit, non posse, altero conjuge vivente, aliud matrimonium contrahere ; moecharique eum, qui dimissa adultera aliam duxerit, et eam, quae dimisso adultero alii nupserit ; anathema sit.”

The authorities of the Greek Church allow divorce on ground of adultery, and also allow re-marriage to the innocent party. The Protestant and Reformed Confessions do not treat of this matter fully, but the Continental Reformers were inclined to allow re-marriage to the innocent divorced party. Cf, e.g., SAXON CoNnFESSION, Art. XVIII. :—

“Personae innocenti, cum re cognita pronunciatur esse libera, non pro- hibetur conjugium.”

2 This is in literal conformity with S. Jas. v. 14: προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς πρεσβυτέ- pous τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

Cf. the “Holy Catechism” (Orthodox Eastern Church) by Bernadaces :—

«0, What is the seventh Mystery, and what is its operation ? “A, The seventh Mystery is the Prayer-Oil, in which the sick man is anointed with oil, and the priest invokes the Divine Grace,

- which heals the weaknesses of soul and body” (p. 28).

- In the West a new theory grew up with Scholasticism. It was seen that bodily healing did not always follow upon the anointing of the sick, and the operation of the accompanying grace of Unction was therefore transferred from the physical to the spiritual sphere. In the twelfth century the term “ Extreme Unction” came into use, and the Council of Trent limited the solemn anointing to those who are near death :—

“Declaratur etiam, esse hanc Unctionem infirmis adhibendam, illis vero praesertim, qui tam periculose decumbunt, ut in exitu vitae constituti videantur: unde et Sacramentum exeuntium nun- eupatur” (Session XIV. Cap. iii.).

In the Prayer Book of 1549 the Anointing of the sick was retained, and an attempt made to restore its primitive aspect :—

“If the sicke person desyre to be annoynted, then shal the prieste annoynte him upon the forehead or breast only, makyng the signe of the crosse, saying thus,

“As with this visible oyle thy body outwardly is annoynted : so cur heauenly father, almyghtye God, graunte of his infinite goodnesse, that thy soule inwardly may be annoynted with the holy gost, who is the spirite of al strength, coumforte, reliefe, and gladnesse. And vouchesafe for his great mercy (yf it be his blessed will) to restore unto thee thy bodely helth, and strength, to serue him, and sende thee release of al thy paines, troubles, and diseases, both in body and minde. And howsoeuer his good- nesse (by his diuyne and unsearchable prouidéce) shall dispose of thee: we, his unworthy ministers and seruaitits, humbly beseche the eternall majestie, to doe with thee according to the multitude of his innumerable mercies, and to pardon thee all thy sinnes and offences, committed by all thy bodily senses, passions, and carnall affeccions: who also vouchsafe mercifully to grat unto thee gostely strégth, by his holy spirite, to withstad and ouercome al temptacions and assaultes of thine aduersarye, that in no wise he preuaile against thee, but that thou mayest haue perfit victory and triumph against the deuil, sinne, and death, through Christ our Lord: Who by his death hath ouercomed the Prince of death, and with the father, and the holy gost euermore liveth and reigneth God, worlde without ende. Amen.”

In the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1552) that part

of the Visitation Office which referred to the Anointing was dropped, and it has not since been restored. Thus a practice undoubtedly Scriptural has ceased to be enjoined in the Church of England, and there has been lost an Apostolic ordinance, whereby, with the assurance of an outward and visible sign, the faithful were prayed over, for the forgiveness of their sins, and their restoration to health, or spiritual support in their sickness,

The Continental Reformers not only denied to Unction the dignity and title of a Sacrament, but for the most part urged the discontinuation of its observance :—

Saxon Conression, Art. XIX. :

‘“‘Praeterea unctio, quae nune extrema nominatur, fuit olim medicatio; ut ex Jacobi epistola perspicuum est. Nune specta- culum est plenum superstitionis. Dicunt remitti peccata, per istas unctiones ; ct addunt invocationem mortuorum, quam etiam necesse est improbare. Ideo hi ritus non servantur in nostris ecclesiis, nec ante haec tempora Ecclesia sensit esse necessarios.”

Wortrembpura Conression, Art. XXII. : “Fatemur Apostolos unxisse aegros oleo, qui et corporalem sanitatem consecuti sunt. Fatemur etiam Epistolam, quae in- scribitur Iacobo, jubere Presbyteros Heclesiae ad aegrotos vocari, ut ungant eos oleo, et orent pro ipsis, ad consequendam sanitatem. Sed haec tum utiliter exercebantur cum ministri Ecclesiae adhue ornati erant dono aegrotos corporaliter et admirabiliter sanandi. Postquam autem hoc donum, confirmato Evangelio in Ecclesia, defuit, res ipsa testatur, hance unctionis ceremoniam otiose nunc et inutiliter usurpari.”

Sreconp’ Hetvetic Conression, Art. XXV.: ‘‘Papisticam visitationem cum sua illa unctione extrema, diximus superius, nos non approbare, quod absurda habeat, et a Scriptura canonica non approbetur.” 7

Before we pass on to consider the concluding paragraph of Article XXV., we must note that in dealing with the five Sacra-

mental Ordinances the Article says that they are “such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in Scripture.” ‘I'he use of the word “ partly ” here would seem to imply that all five ordinances must fall into one or other of the two classes named, ‘This, however, can scarcely be the sense intended, because, according to the principles of our leading Reformers, as expressed elsewhere, and according to the Prayer Book and Homilies, Confirmation, Penance, and Orders would not belong to either class. The words “have grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles” probably refer especially to Extreme Unction,’ while the words “states of life allowed in Scripture ” doubtless refer to Matrimony,

(4.) THe SACRAMENTS ARE TO BE USED DULY, AND TO BE RECEIVED

The Sacraments? were not ordained of Christ to be gazed ~ upon, or to be carried about: but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as §. Paul saith. No one would think of supposing that the Sacraments

1 The words may, however, have been intended, with a wider application, to refer to some of the other ordinances named, for we must remember that the writers of the Article had in view these ordinances as celebrated in the Western Church in the times immediately preceding the Reformation, when superstitious ceremonies, not traceable to their primitive and Apostolic institution, had been added to them.

2 From its contents we should conclude that this last paragraph refers to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist only. The expressions “ gazed [...] can only refer to this one Sacrament, and the passage of Scripture quoted has reference to it alone. How is it, then, that “Sacraments” are spoken of in the plural? Most likely the plural is used with reference to the two outward signs in this one Sacrament.

Cf. SECOND EXHORTATION in the Communion Service in the Prayer Book of 1559 :— |

“Dearly beloved, forasmuch as our duty is to render to Almighty God our Heavenly Father, most hearty thanks for that he hath given his son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance, as it is declared unto us, as well by God’s word, as by the holy Sacraments of his blessed Body and Blood,”

QUEEN ELIZABETH’S INJUNCTIONS, 1559 :— “It is ordered for the more reverence to be given to these holy mysteries, being the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” . . . So also the Greek word ‘‘ mysteries” (corresponding to the Latin “ sacra- menta”) is used to denote the Eucharist alone :—

*“We who have duly received these holy mysteries” (Post-Communion Thanksgiving). .

were ordained by Christ merely for exhibition, asa spectacle — to onlookers; the end and object of their institution is the personal participation of the faithful. In order to such participation two conditions must be fulfilled :—

(a) The Sacraments must be duly (rite) used; {.6., they must be ‘duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same” (Article XIX.);* there must be the matter, the form, and the minister (see notes, p. 131).

(Ὁ) They must be worthily (digne) received by us after due self-examination and fitting preparation.

Those who do not participate rite cannot be truly said to receive the Sacrament at all. Those who do not participate digne receive to themselves damnationem (cf. 1 Cor. xi. 209).

See further the notes on Article X XIX.

“But before all other things, this we must be sure of specially, that this Supper be in such wise done and ministered as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded to be done, as His holy Apostles used it, and the good fathers in the Primitive Church frequented it” (pp. 473, 474; ed. S.P.C.K.).

Article XXVI

Athough in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments: yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences, and finally, being found guilty by just judgment, be deposed.

Quamvis in Ecclesia visibili, bonis malt semper sunt admixti, atque interdum ministerio Verbi et Sacra- mentorum administrationi praesint, tamen cum non suo sed Christi nomine agant, ejusque mandato et auctoritate ministrent, illorum mint- sterio uti licet, cam in Verbo Det audiendo, tum in Sacramentis per- cipiendis, Neque per ilorum malt- tiam effectus institutorum Christi tollitur, aut gratia donorum Dei minuitur, quoad eos qui fide et rite sibi oblata percipiunt, quae propter institutionem “Christi et promis- sionem efficacia sunt, licet per malos administrentur.

Ad Ecclesiae tamen disciplinam pertinet, ut in malos ministros inquiratur, accusenturque ab his, qui eorum flagitia noverint, atque tandem justo convicti judicio, deponantur.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

Much of the language of this Article is taken from Article V. of the XIII. ArticLes of 1538 (words common to the two are

printed in italics in the Latin Version), which in turn was based to some extent upon Article VIII. of Part I. of the AuasBure CONFESSION :—

“Quanquam ecclesia proprie sit congregatio sanctorum, et vere credentium ; tamen, cum in hac vita multi hypocritae et mali admixti sint, licet uti sacramentis, quae per malos administrantur, juxta vocem Christi: Sedent Scribae et Pharisaei in cathedra Moisis, ete. Et sacramenta et verbum propter ordinationem et mandatum Christi sunt efficacia, etiamsi per malos exhibeantur. Damnant Donatistas et similes, qui negabant licere uti ministerio malorum in ecclesia, et sentiebant ministerium malorum inutile et inefficax esse.”

§ 2.—OBJECT.

To repudiate the opinion of some of the sectaries of the day, that the validity of the Sacraments is destroyed by personal unfitness in the Minister.

“Deinde ab Ecclesiae corpore se ipsi segregant, et ad sacro- sanctam Domini mensam cum aliis recusant accedere, seque dicunt detineri vel ministrorum improbitate, vel aliorum fratrum.”

The Donatists' (in North Africa, A.D. 311-415) acted upon the principle that no one who is excommunicated, or who deserves to be excommunicated, can validly perform any sacramental action ; and this opinion was revived by Wiclif? (1324-1384), who seems to have held that a priest living in mortal sin is zpso facto degraded from his priesthood, so that all sacraments ministered by such an one are invalid. It is obvious that, according to this theory, no one would ever know for certain whether any sacrament was valid or not, because the state of the officiating Minister’s soul can really be known to God alone.

1 The Donatists are expressly condemned by name in the AUGSBURG CoNFESSION (quoted above, § 1). Cf. also the SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, Art, XVIII. :— ; .

‘‘Caeterum execramur in praesenti Donatistarum errorem, qui doctrinam

et administrationem sacramentorum, vel efficacem vel inefficacem, ex mala vel bona ministrorum vita aestimant.”

2 A Council held at Blackfriars (1382) condemned a series of propositions embodying the doctrines of Wiclif ; amongst them was the following :—

“That if a bishop or a priest be in mortal sin he cannot ordain, consecrate, or baptize.”

ARTICLE XXVI ° 203

The Counci, or Trent (Session VII., March 1547) passed the following Canon (On the Sacraments, XI.) :—

“Si quis dixerit, in ministris, dum Sacramenta conficiunt et con- ferunt, non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia ; anathema sit.”

From this doctrine of the necessity of “intention”! on the part of the Minister, it follows that if he withhold his inward assent, either from personal unbelief, from ill-will, or whatever cause, the act is void and conveys no grace. ‘Thus is the effect of the Sacraments made to depend upon the worthiness of the Minister.”

The Kastern Church holds that the validity of the Sacraments is in no way affected by unworthiness in the Minister.

Cf. the “Holy Catechism” (Orthodox Eastern Church) by Nicolas Bulgaris, where it is said of an unworthy Minister :—

“Certainly he celebrates a Mystery, since he has, as we said, the seal of the Mystery of the Priesthood, and the stamp indelibly, and the Mysteries entirely take place through the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, and the Blood of endless power which was shed from Christ’s side, that is through the supernatural power which Christ gave of the Mysteries being effected every day unto the end of the age. And this all the theologians in common assert, saying that the Mysteries do not proceed as from the agent,

. or as from the priest who celebrates them, but as from that which is performed, namely, as from the Mystery celebrated” (p. 26).

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1.) IN THE CHURCH THE EVIL AND GOOD ARE MINGLED, In the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good. Our Lord illustrated the nature of the Church in many parables. The kingdom of heaven is likened by Him— (a) To a field where tares are mingled with the wheat (S. Matt. xiii. 24-30).

1 Previously to the Council of Trent the doctrine of “intention” was merely a scholastic opinion, but it has Papal sanction as early as 1439, when it appears in a bull of Eugenius IV, 2 Cf. Bellarmine, “ Disput. Controv. de Justific.” (III. viii. 5) :- “ΝΟ one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true

sacrament, because the sacrament cannot be valid without the intention of the minister, and no man can see another’s intention.”

(6) To a “net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind ” (Zoid. 47, 48).

(c) To a marriage feast to which the servants “ gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good” (Ibid. xxii. 8—14). | 7

(2.) EVEN IF THE EVIL BE IN AUTHORITY WE MAY USE THEIR q

Sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments: yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

The Ministers of the Church do not administer their own Sacraments, but Christ’s, and the Church in receiving the Sacraments has respect unto Christ Himself, and not to the Minister, so that it receives them not so much from the Minister as from Christ Himself through the Minister (ef. 2 Cot. v 205.1 Cor ml: 5—7; Acts τι 12, Τὸ ana see especially S. Matt. xxui. 2, 3, where our Lord enjoins that the ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees, who were personally unworthy, is to be used in observing the precepts of the Mosaic Law). ‘The virtue and efficacy of Sacraments, since it depends solely on ‘ Christ’s institution and ‘promise,’ cannot be hindered by unworthiness in the Minister.

The source of the spiritual blessing conveyed to the faithful recipient is Christ’s promise, not the goodness of the Minister.!

(3.) CHURCH DISCIPLINE SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by 1 Very many passages in §. Augustine’s treatise, ‘‘De Baptismo contra Donatistos,” have an intimate bearing upon the subject of our Article ; e.g. :—

‘* Baptismus vero Christi verbis evangelicis consecratus et per adulteros et in adulteris sanctus est, quamvis illi sunt impudici et immundi; quia ipsa ejus sanctitas pollui non potest, et in sacramento suo divina virtus assistit, sive ad salutem bene utentium, sive ad perniciem male utentium.”

those that have knowledge of their offences, and finally, being found guilty by just judgment, be deposed.!

Some special prerogatives and responsibilities of Ministers are acknowledged not only by the Church, but by every sect ; and even those who take a low view of the Ministry demand a high standard of life from those who are the selected Ministers of the Congregation. Much more, therefore, should this be the case with the Church, which regards the Priesthood of its Ministers as a delegation, not so much from the Body, but rather from the Priesthood of the Head, Jesus Christ (ο΄. Lev. x. 3;-1 Tim. iii. 2, 3; Tit. i 7,8). From the very earliest times provision has been made for the removal of unworthy Ministers, by whose conduct the holy ‘Name of God is dishonoured and the consciences of the brethren offended (1 Tim. v. I, 19, 20; vi. 3-5). Itisa matter for much regret that the legal machinery for removing clergy of known evil life has in the English Church for so long a time been difficult to work. Recent legislation has, however, done something towards rendering it more effectual.

1 Cf. SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, Art. XVIII. :—

““ Atqui debet interim justa esse inter ministros disciplina. Inquirendum enim diligenter in doctrinam-et vitam ministrorum in synodis. Corripiendi sunt peccantes a senioribus, et in viam reducendi, si sunt sanabiles, aut deponendi, et velut lupi abigendi sunt per veros pastores a grege Dominico, si sunt incurabiles.”

Article XXVII

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened ; but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new _ Birth, whereby as by δὴ instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of Prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Baptismus non est tantum pro- fessionis signum ac discriminis nota, qua Christiani a non Christianis discernantur, sed etiam est signum Regenerationis, per quod tanquam per instrumentum recte Baptismum suscipientes, Ecclesiae inseruntur, promissiones de remissione pecca- torum atque adoptione nostra in filios Dei per Spiritum Sanctum visibiliter obsignantur, fides confir- matur, et vi divinae invocationis, gratia augetur.

Baptismus parvulorum omnino in Ecclesia retinendus est, ut qui cum Christi institutione optime congruat.

§ 1.— SOURCE.

This Article was composed by the English Reformers, and first

appeared as the 28th of the XLII Articles of 1553.

The last

paragraph then ran as follows :—

“The custome of the Churche to christen yonge children, is to bee commended, and in any wise to bee reteined in the Churche.”

The wording was altered to its present stronger form at the

Elizabethan revision (1563).

Whereas in the earlier draft it

was simply stated that Infant Baptism is tenable as a Church custom, it is now declared to have a higher authority: it is ‘most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”

In the text of the Article as it stood in 1553*and 1563 the

' ARTICLE XXVIII 207

Latin “signum Regenerationis” was represented in the English Version by “sign and seal of Regeneration.” The words “and seal” were omitted in 1571. In this connection, however, we should note that the verb “‘ obsignantur,” a few lines lower down, is still rendered “signed and sealed.”

§ 2.—OBJECT,

To declare the grace and blessings given in Baptism, in opposition to those who held the Sacrament to be simply a bare sign. It was, further, the object of those who recast the concluding paragraph in 1563 to make it plain that the English Church holds Infant Baptism to be the normal type of Baptism.

Although Infant Baptism is only expressly mentioned at the close of the Article, indications are not wanting which show that the compilers of the former part, in speaking of Baptism, had the Baptism of Infants in view. Thus in the clause “recte Baptis- mum suscipientes Kcclesiae inseruntur ” we cannot help remarking that only the objective qualification (recte) is mentioned, while the subjective qualifications (digne, cum fide) are not given here, as they are in the next Article. This fact points to the conclusion that the wording of the Article is concerned with the case of Infant Baptism only.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

THe Act or Baptism.

The Greek words βαπτίζω, βαπτισμός, denote, in the language of Scripture, any washing, whether by dipping or pouring; see, eg., ὃ. Mark vii. 4; S. Luke xi. 38. The outward act in the Sacrament significantly points to the inward grace—as the filth of the body is removed by washing with water, so are the stains of the soul by remission of sins; and, if we follow the Baptismal Ritual of the early Church, the immersion and rising again from the water of the Font symbolises our death and burial with Christ, and our rising again to newness of life with Him (Rom. vi. 3—5).?

Immersion “in Baptism has fallen into disuse in our cold climate, but it should be remembered that it is still stated in

1 Cf. the CHURCH CATECHISM, where the inward and spiritual grace of the Sacrament is explained as ‘‘a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.”

our Baptismal Office to be the normal and desirable mode of Baptism :—

“And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the Child may well endure it), he shall dip it in the Water discreetly and warily, saying, ‘

“But if they certify that the Child is weak, it shall suffice to pour Water upon it, saying the foresaid words.” }

We now proceed to analyse the contents of the Article.

(1.) BAPTISM IS A SIGN OF OUR PROFESSION. Baptism is . . . a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened (qua Christiani a non Christianis discernantur). In other words, Baptism makes a man a Christian; Christians are those incorporated into the Body of Christ by Baptism. But it has been already laid down (in Article XXV., where see notes) that the Sacraments are more than badges or tokens. Baptism, therefore, has a higher significance,”

(2.) BAPTISM IS A SIGN OF REGENERATION. Baptism is not only a sign of profession ... but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth. (S. John iii. 5 ; Eph. vy. 26% 1G, 1.35.) The immersion of a person, or the pouring of water upon

1 Cf. what is said as to the manner of Baptism in the ‘Teaching of the Apostles,” Cap. VIT. :—

“Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε' ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες, βαπ- τίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ᾿Ὑιοῦ καὶ τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. ᾿Εὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον᾽ εἰ δ᾽ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῴῷ, ἐν θερμῷ. "Eady δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον els τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα ἸΠατρὸς καὶ Ὑιοῦ καὶ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος."

Contrast the SECOND BAPTIST CONFESSION, Art. XXTX. :—

‘‘Tmmersion or dipping of the person in water is necessary to the due administration of that ordinance.” = -

The Church’s Baptism is sometimes contemptuously spoken of as “ sprinkling”; it ought not to be necessary to point out that the Church nowhere sanctions ‘‘ sprinkling.”

2 Calvin (INSTITUTES, IV. xv. 1) lays down that Baptism is not merely a sign :—

7 ‘*Proinde quibus visum est Baptismum non aliud esse quam tesseram ac notam qua religionem nostram apud homines profitemur, quomodo impera- toris sui insignia praeferunt milites, in suae professionis notam; ii quod primum erat in Baptismo non perpenderunt. Id vero est, quod a nobis acci- piendus sit cum hac promissione, Quicunque crediderint, et baptizati fuerint, salvos fore.”

him in Baptism is the outward and visible effectual! sign, whereby is conveyed the inward and spiritual grace of Regeneration.” Thus in the CaurcH CATECHISM the grace given in Baptism is declared to be—

“ A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness,” See the following passages in the Baptismal Office :—

* We call upon thee for this Infant, that he, coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration.

“Give thy holy Spirit to this Infant, that he may be born again.”

After the act of Baptism the following words occur :-—

‘Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate, .. .

“We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased tnee to regenerate this Infant with thy holy Spirit.” §

(3.) By ΒΑΡΤΙΒΜ WE ARE GRAFTED INTO THE CHURCH, THE BoDY

or CHRIST. whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church (Rom. vi. 3—5; 1 Cor. xii. 13;

Gal. 111. 27).

1 See Article XXV.

8 The opinion of our Reformers as to Regeneration in Baptism may be illustrated by a few quotations :—

CRANMER, in his “ Answer to Gardiner,” writes thus :

“For if you understand the matter, would you resemble a knave playing in a prince’s coat (in which nothing is inwardly wrought and altered) unto a man being baptized in water, who hath put upon him outwardly water, but inwardly is apparelled with Christ, and is, by the omnipotent working of God, spiritually regenerate, and changed into a new man” (Works, vol. iii. p. 487).

‘Again we read :

“ Whosoever will be spiritually regenerated in Christ, he must be baptized himself ” (Works, vol. ii. p. 455).

Similarly, in his CATECHISM, the same author says (p. 187):

“T trust you understand, good children, wherefore Baptism is called the bath of Regeneration, and how in Baptism we be born again, and made new creatures in Christ.”

Cf. RIDLEY’s words (Works, p. 240) :

“ After that manner the water in Baptism hath grace promised, and by that grace the Holy Spirit is given: not that grace is included in water, but that grace cometh by water.”

In direct contrast to the doctrine of the English Church stands the view of 2D

See CuuRCH CaTECHISM :-— “In my Baptism ; wherein I was made a member of Christ. Cf. the following quotations from the Baptismal Office :—

“That of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this Child that thing which by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized an Water and the Holy Ghost, and fenced into Christ’s holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same.”

“That he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ’s Church.”

Immediately after the act of Baptism the Priest is directed to [...] receive this Child into the congregation of Christ’s flock,” &e. ; “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church.” !

(4.) By BAPTISM ARE VISIBLY SIGNED AND SEALED THE DIVINE PROMISES— (a.) OF FORGIVENESS OF SINS; (b.) OF OUR ADOPTION AS SONS OF Gop. The promises of forgiveness of sin... are visibly signed and sealed. (Acts il, 38, xxil. 16.) In the NICENE CREED we “ acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.” ἡ See the following passages in the Baptismal Office :—

“Who... by the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son, Jesus Christ, in the river Jordan, didst sanctify Water to the mystical washing away of sin.”

‘* We call upon thee for this Infant, that he, coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration.”

the Continental Reformers of the Swiss school, as expressed in the CONSENSUS TIGURINUS, Art. XX.: ‘Qui in prima infantia baptizati sunt, eos in pueritia vel ineunte adoles- centia, interdum etiam senectute, regenerat Deus.” 1 RIDLEY writes thus :—

‘The society or conjunction with Christ through the Holy Ghost is grace.; and by the Sacrament we are made the members of the mystical body of Christ, for that by the Sacrament the part of the body is grafted in the head.”

2 According to Socinians, Baptism is merely a declaration or sealing, and not in any sense the instrument of Remission of sins. ‘“ Remissionis declara- tionem et obsignationem ” is the expression of Socinus himself.

“Ye have ptayed that our Lord Jesus Christ would vouchsafe to receive him, to release him of his sins.” ;

“Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation ; sanctify this Water to the mystical washing away of sin.”

The promises . . . of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed. (Gal. iii. 26, 27.) See the CHuRCH CATECHISM :— “In my Baptism; wherein I was made... the child of God.” !

Cf. the Thanksgiving in the Baptismal Office :—

“We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee . .. to receive him for thine own Child by adoption.”

The words “by the Holy Ghost” were first inserted in the English version of the Article in 1563, though the corresponding words “per Spiritum Sanctum” are found in the Latin text of

In the edition of 1563 the clause was printed thus :—

“Our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed.”

As thus printed, the words “by the Holy Ghost ” might be taken either in connection with the words that precede them or with the words following. As now commonly printed, the words are connected with the clause preceding, thus :—

“Our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly,” &e.

In this case the words express the truth that our adoption as sons of God is connected with the gift of the Holy Spirit (οὐ Rom. viii. 14-16; Gal. iv. 5, 6). But at the last authoritative revision of the Articles (1571) the pointing we have given above was adopted, a comma being placed after “God,” and no stop after the words “Holy Ghost.” According to this punctuation, the clause is an express statement to the effect that the Holy Ghost is the Agent in Baptism (S. Mark i. 8; Tit. iii. 5).

1 Contrast Calvin’s teaching (INSTITUTES, IV. xv. 22) :—

“Accedit postea sacramentum sigilli instar, non quod efficaciam Dei pro- missioni, quasi per se invalidae, conferat, sed eam duntaxat nobis confirmet, Unde sequitur, non ideo baptizari fidelium liberos, ut filii Dei tune primum fiant qui ante alieni fuerint ab Ecclesia . . . quia promissionis beneficio jam ante ad Christi corpus pertinebant.”

x14 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES —

(5.) By BaprisM FAITH IS CONFIRMED AND GRACE INCREASED. Faith is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of prayer unto God (vi divinae invocationis).

It would seem that the description of the grace and significance of Baptism, as far as the person baptized is himself concerned, ends with the word “sealed” (after which a colon is placed in the edition of 1571), and that the clause following, with which we are now concerned, is intended to refer to the effect of the solemnisation of Baptism upon those present at the service. This view of the meaning of the Article is confirmed when we seek to parallel its phraseology (as we have done in the case of the earlier statements of the Article) from the Baptismal Office. The passage in the Office where “confirmation of faith” and “increase of grace” are spoken of has reference, not to the child baptized, but to the congregation present at the service, With the wording of the Article—

‘* FAITH IS CONFIRMED and GRACE INCREASED,”

cf. the wording of the Thanksgiving after the reading of the Gospel in the Baptismal Office :—

‘“‘ Almighty and everlasting God, heavenly Father, we give thee humble thanks, for that thou hast vouchsafed to call us to the KNOWLEDGE OF THY GRACE, and raiTH in thee: INCREASE THIS KNOWLEDGE and CONFIRM THIS FAITH in us evermore. Give thy holy Spirit to this Infant,” W&e.

It will be noted that as far as the word “evermore” the terms of the prayer are general, evidently referring to the whole congregation assembled; but from that point onward the prayer is concerned with the infant brought to Baptism. The coincidence of the wording of the Article with the wording of the prayer quoted can scarcely be accidental.

(6.) INFANT BAPTISM IS TO BE RETAINED, AND IS DECLARED TO BE

The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

See 8. Mark x. 13-16 (the passage read in the Baptismal

Office). We there read of a spiritual blessing being given

' to unconscious infants’ on the ground of the faith of those

1 Παιδία is the word used in 8. Mark, but the parallel passage (S. Luke xviii. 15) has βρέφη.

od Ψννς

Lae a

who brought them. The passage, therefore, has a very direct | bearing upon the question of Infant Baptism. Our Lord by His action answered by anticipation the question, which of necessity was sure to arise, whether the New Covenant could take in unconscious infants, as the Old Covenant did ; whether, when He was no longer upon earth, little children might be made partakers of His Blessing. Christ Himself made the answer to this question clear, both by word and deed. Not only is it the case that infants may come unto Him (S: Mark x. 14), but those who have reached mature years must become like little children in order that they | may come unto Him (bid. v.15; S. Matt. xviii, 3). Infant Baptism is, therefore, not merely allowable and justifiable, but it is, in the abstract, the normal pattern of Christian Baptism: “cum Christi institutione optime congruat.”

In the Baptismal Office we may see it stated how infants are

qualified for Baptism. (a) The opening exhortation begins thus :—

“Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin; and that our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost,” &c.

Since infants are born in Original Sin, Baptism is needful for their recovery.’ (Ὁ) Infants are also specially qualified to receive Baptism

1 We should especially note the intimate connection between the denial of Original Sin and (i.) the refusal of Baptism to infants, or (ii.) the emptying of Infant Baptism of its true significance, and its retention merely as a ceremony of dedication to God. If the taint of Original Sin passes on to unconscious infants at birth, so also may the righteousness of Christ at the Font of new birth. On the other hand, if the taint of sin does not pass on to infants they do not need any regeneration, and Infant Baptism, with the significance which the Church teaches, is unnecessary.

Cf. X. ARTICLES, Art. II., on Baptism :—

“Infants must needs be christened because they be born in original sin,”

XIII. ARTICLES, Art. VI. :— __**Quia vero infantes nascuntur cum peccato originis, habent opus remissione illius peccati, et illud ita remittitur (scil. per Baptismum) ut reatus tollatur.” Kin@’s Book :—

** But also it appertaineth and is offered unto infants, which, because they be born in original sin, have need and ought to be christened.”

HERMANN’S CONSULTATIO:— ~~

“Because they admit not original sinne, they (7.¢., the Anabaptists) also | refuse the baptisme of children, and in as much as in them lyeth, they drawe awaye the moste parte of men from God and eternall salvation.”

214 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES ©

because of “their innocency,” which Christ “exhorteth all men to follow” (see the address in the Office after the reading of the Gospel).

Since infants are free from actual sin, in their case no impediment is opposed to the operation of the grace of God in the Sacrament.

At the time of their Baptism infants, of course, have not as yet conscious faith or repentance, which are the necessary subjective qualifications in the recipient of the Sacrament ?:—

“Why then are Infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them ?

‘Because they promise them both by their sureties; which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform ” (CuuRcH CaATECHISM).

From the time that the Church of Christ was first set up on earth as a society,” Infant Baptism, although not universally adopted in practice,’ was yet in theory almost universally believed to be right and proper. ‘Tertullian, indeed, is found opposing it,* but 8S. Cyprian and sixty-six bishops assembled in council with him (A.D. 253) were in favour of Infant Baptism, the necessity and appropriateness of which they grounded upon the doctrine of Original Sin, and upon the words of our Lord recorded in the Gospels, supporting it also by reference to the admission of Hebrew infants into covenant with God by Circumcision.

At the Reformation period the Anabaptists rejected the practice

1 In this connection it should be remembered that Circumision was of the nature of a Covenant (Gen, xvii. 9, 10, 14), but this circumstance did not prevent the Jewish child from being admitted into that Covenant before he was able consciously to perform the conditions.

2 The Baptisms which followed upon the first proclamation of the Gospel were of necessity, for the most part, Adult Baptisms ; but from the mention of the Baptism of whole households in such passages as Acts xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 16, we gather that children of tender age, as well as persons of mature years, were baptized by the Apostles.

3 Many, eg., voluntarily and purposely, postponed their Baptism, frequently even to their deathbed, in order that all the sins of their lives might be certainly removed by Baptismal grace, and in fear lest they should incur the guilt of post-Baptismal sin.

4 Cf. Tertullian, “De Baptismo,” Cap. xviii. :—

of Infant Baptism, and many in England followed their error, as we gather from the provision of Stat. 32 Henry VIII. c. 49,8 11, by which they were excluded from the king’s pardon who held “that infants ought not to be baptized, and if they be baptized, they ought to be re-baptized when they com to lawfull age.”

‘‘Deinde crudelis illorum impietas in baptismum irruit, quem infantibus impartiri nolunt, sed omnino nulla ratione.”

See also Ridley’s letter quoted in the notes on Article I., pp. 23, 24.

Objections are urged against Infant Baptism, and the practice itself is rejected, by the Baptists amongst modern Dissenters.”

Cf. SeconD Baptist ConFEssIoNn, Chap. 29 :—

“ Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament. . . . Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.”

A little reflection shows that a false and Donatistic conception as to the nature of the Church underlies the Baptist doctrine and practice. In the view of that sect the Church is the sum of individual elect men and women, only to be increased by individual conversions, and made up, therefore, of really godly persons: the process of renewal of the souls of men which Christ intended should be carried on within His Church is thus left to exterior agencies. The Catholic doctrine, on the other hand, is that the Church of God is a great educational society, within which, by the due use of the various means of grace, God’s gifts are to be fostered and developed; within which, being adopted as sons of God in Baptism, men come under all the holy influences of the Divine Family, and so grow up unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

The Continental Reformers, both of the Saxon and of the Swiss school, retained the practice of Infant Baptism :—

2 The Quakers, since they reject the outward form of Baptism, of necessity also reject Infant Baptism.

Cf. THE CHIEF PRINCIPLES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AS PROFESSED BY THE PEOPLE CALLED QUAKERS. ‘Concerning Baptism,’ § 12 :—

Ἢ As there is one Lord, and one faith, so there is one baptism. . . . And this baptism is a pure and spiritual thing, to wit the baptism of the Spirit and fire. . . . As to the baptism of infants, it is‘a mere human tradition, for which neither precept nor practice is to be found in all the Scripture.”

Avespura Conrsssion, Part I. Art. [X.: “106 Baptismo docent .. . quod pueri sint egtacgie qui per baptismum oblati Deo recipiantur in gratiam Dei.

“Damnant Anabaptistas, qui improbant baptismum puerorum, et affirmant pueros sine baptismo salvos fieri.”

Saxon Conressron, Art. XIV. :

“Retinemus et infantium baptismum: quia certissimum est, promissionem gratiae etiam ad infantes pertinere, et ad eos tantum qui Keclesiae inseruntur. Quia de his dictum est: Sinite parvulos ad me venire, quia talium est regnum coelorum. . . . Nec judica- mus hune morem tantum otiosam caerimoniam esse, sed vere tune a Deo recipi et sanctificari infantes : quia tune inseruntur Ecclesiae, et ad tales promissio pertinet.”

FRENCH ConFEssIon, Art. XXXYV.:

‘“‘Praeterea quamvis Baptismus sit fidei et resipiscentiae sacra- mentum, tamen quum una cum parentibus posteritatem etiam illorum in Ecclesia Deus recenseat, affirmamus infantes sanctis parentibus natos, esse ex Christi auctoritate baptizandos.”

ScotcnH Conression, Art. XXIIL:

‘“‘Baptismum pertinere, tam ad infantes fidelium quam ad ipsos fideles adultos et intellectu praeditos agnoscimus et confitemur, atque ita errorem Anabaptistarum damnamus, qui negant Baptis- ‘mum infantibus usque dum cognitionem et fidem habuerint.”

Beiatc Conression, Art. XXXIV.:

‘“‘ Anabaptistarum itaque errorem hic detestamur, qui non modo unico, et semel suscepto baptismo contenti non sunt: sed et baptis- mum infantium e fidelibus natorum damnant. Nos vero eos eadem

ratione baptizandos, et signo foederis obsignandos esse credimus, qua olim in Israele parvuli ἘΠ ὙΠΑῚ

“ Damnamus Anabaptistas, qui negant baptizandos esse infantulos recens natos a fidelibus. Nam juxta doctrinam evangelicam, horum est regnum Dei, et sunt in foedere Dei, cur itaque non daretur eis signum foederis Dei? Cur non per sanctum baptismum initia- rentur, qui sunt peculium et in ecclesia Dei?”

Article XXVIII

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another: but rather it is a Sacramentof our Redemption by Christ’s Death. Insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ: but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner: And the mean whereby

DE CG@iNA DOMINI.

Coena Domini non est tantum signum mutuae benevolentiae Chris- tianorum inter sese, verum potius est Sacramentum nostrae per mortem Christi redemptionis. Atque ideo rite, digne et cum fide sumen: - tibus, panis quem frangimus est com- municatio Corporis Christi: simi- liter poculum benedictionis, est com- municatio Sanguinis Christi.

Panis et vini transubstantiatio in Eucharistia, ex sacris literis probari non potest, sed apertis Scripturae verbis adversatur, Sacramenti na- turam evertit, et multarum super- stitionum dedit occasionem.

Corpus Christi datur, accipitur, et manducatur in Coena, tantum ceelesti et spirituali ratione. Me-

dium autem quo Corpus Christi

accipitur, et manducatur in Coena, fides est.

Sacramentum Eucharistiae ex in- stitutione Christi non servabatur,

the Body of Christ is received and | cireumferebatur, elevabatur, nec eaten in the Supper, is Faith. adorabatur. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. ὃ 1.—SOURCE.

This Article was composed by the English Reformers, and first

appeared as the 29th of the XLII. Articles of 1553.

At the

Elizabethan Revision (1563) significant alterations were made.

(a) In the second paragraph the statement that Transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament” was

added.

(Ὁ) In 1553 the third paragraph of the Article ran thus :—

Forasmoche as the trueth of mannes nature requireth, that the bodie of one, and theself same manne cannot be at one time in diuerse places, but must nedes be in some one certeine place: Therefore the bodie of Christe cannot bee presente at one time in many, and diverse places. And because (as holie Seripture doeth teache) Christe was taken vp into heauen, and there shall continue vnto thende of the worlde, a faithful man ought not, either to beleue, or openlie to confesse the reall, and bodilie presence (as thei terme it) of Christes fleshe and bloude, in the Sacra- mente of the Lordes supper.

Quum naturae humanae veritas requirat, ut unius ejusdemque hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non posset, sed in uno aliquo et definito loco esse oporteat, id- circo Christi corpus, in multis et diversis locis, eodem tempore, prae- sens esse non potest. Et quoniam, ut tradunt Sacrae literae, Christus in Coelum fuit sublatus, et ibi usque ad finem seculi est perman- surus, non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus et sanguinis Realem et Corporalem (ut loquuntur) praesen- tiam in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri.

The present paragraph beginning “The Body of Christ is given” was substituted for this in 1563. While the theory of the Roman Church as to the manner of the

Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was rejected as emphatically as ever, and an additional difficulty in the way of its acceptance stated, the new paragraph guards the truth from perversions of an opposite character. The paragraph of 1553 which it replaced must have suggested a view of the Sacrament in accord with that of Zwingli and his successors in the Swiss Reformation; it expressly excluded the presence of our Lord’s humanity in any way whatever at the celebration of the Eucharist. The present wording of the Article declares, on the other hand, that the Body of Christ is given (by the minister), taken, and eaten (by the communicant); in other words, that there is a Real Objective Presence.’

We are able to show very clearly that in substituting the new paragraph it was intended to recognise the ‘ Real Presence,’ The fact that the wording is due to Bishop Geste of Rochester

1 See the Exposition of this part of the Article, given below.

has been established by the discovery among the State papers of a letter from Geste to Cecil (dated December 22, 1566), in which he expressly states “ ye article was of myn own pennynge,” and defends the use of the adverb “only” in the clause “'The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner,” saying that by it he did not intend to “exclude ye presence of Christis Body from the Sacrament, but only ye grossenes and sensiblenes in ye receavinge thereof”; adding besides, “I wold not for all that denye thereby any thing that I had spoken for ye presence.” ἢ

It is, moreover, abundantly clear that the change made in the: wording of the Article in 1563 was most distasteful to those who sympathised with the views of the Swiss Reformers on the Eucharist. Cf, ¢.g., a letter written by Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger (July 1566), in which are pointed out what the writers conceive to be the blemishes still remaining in the Church of England :—

“Lastly, the Article composed in the time of Edward the Sixth respecting the spiritual eating, which expressly oppugned and took away the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and contained a most clear explanation of the truth, is now set forth among us mutilated and imperfect” (Zurich Letters, i. p. 165).

§ 2.— OBJECT.

The Article is divided into four clearly defined paragraphs, each having its own object :-—

(a) The Sacrament is declared to be more than a bare sign.

(6) The Roman theory as to the manner of Christ’s Presence in the Sacrament is repudiated.

(c) The opinion that there is no Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is repudiated.

(@) Certain practices common in pre-Reformation times are declared to be not traceable to Christ’s institution.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(i.) The Breaking of Bread. This is apparently the earliest designation of all; see Acts ii. 42 (ἦσαν δὲ προσκαρτεροῦντες. . . TH κλάσει TOU

+ The text of the Bishop’s letter is given in full in Appendix V.

ἄρτου, where the Peshitto Syriac Version renders by “ Eucharist ”), xx. 7 (ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, συνηγμένων ἡμῶν κλάσαι aprov :—Peshitto, “to break the Eucharist ”). The name is derived, of course, from the action of breaking the Bread, which has from the first, in imitation of the Lord’s own action (λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας EKAACE, S. Luke xxii. 19; ¢f parallels), formed part of the Eucharistic Celebration.

(ii.) The Eucharist.

S. Paul speaks of ἡ εὐχαριστία in 1 Cor. xiv. 16, and the same word is most likely also used with special reference to the Holy Eucharist in 1 Tim. ii. 1. Cf. the account of the Institution, “καὶ EYXAPICTHCAC ἔκλασε, καὶ εἶπε,᾽ κι τ. A (1 Cor. xi. 24.; and see also S. Matt. Sev. 275 5S. Mark xiv. 29:5, luke xxi. 10), Tis 16 the name most usual in the primitive Church; 6.0.γ) see the “ Didache,’ chap. ix., where the section dealing with the Sacrament is headed “ περὶ de τῆς εὐχαριστίας," and ef. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. c. 66, “καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εὐχαριστία."

It is a matter for much regret that the name “Hucha- rist,” which, in addition to being Scriptural and primitive, so well expresses the character of the Sacrament as our “ sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,” should to a great extent have fallen into disuse; a disuse traceable in the case of our own Church, no doubt, to the fact that the only titles directly given to the Sacrament in the Prayer Book are “The Lord’s Supper” and “'The Holy Communion,” or “The

“Communion.” For the use of the title “Eucharist” we

have the sanction of this twenty-eighth Article, the Latin text of which has “ Kucharistia” in two places where the English version gives ‘‘ The Lord’s Supper.”

(11.) Zhe Communion.

S. Paul uses this word in connection with the Sacrament in 1 Cor. x. 16 (To ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχ KOINQNIA τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστι; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ KOINQNIA τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν:). The name properly denotes the act of participating, and in this sense only it was used with reference to the Sacrament in early times, -but in post-

Reformation times it has been very largely used to designate the whole Office.

(iv.) Zhe Lord’s Supper.

I Cor. xi. 20 is the only passage in the New Testament where the expression Kupiaxoy δεῖπνον occurs; it is there used of the Agape or Love-Feast, with which, at that early period, the celebration of the Holy Eucharist was joined. It can scarcely, however, be fairly claimed that Holy Scripture sanctions the appropriation of the title “ Lord’s Supper” to the Holy Eucharist, now that it has been separated from the Agape. As a title of the Eucharist the name dates from the Reformation period, since which time it has been in more or less common use by those separated from the Church of Rome. In some of the earlier symbolic writings of the sixteenth century ‘Eucharist ” is the title given to the Sacrament, as, ¢.., in Zwingli’s “ Fidei Ratio,” and in the Tetrapolitan and First Helvetic Confessions; but it is at the same time spoken of as “sacrosancta Christi coena” (Tetrapolitan Confession, Cap. xviii.) and “coenam mysticam” (First Helvetic Confession, Art. XXIIIJ.). ‘“ Lord’s Supper” is the title adopted in the Augsburg Confession (Art. X.), and the great majority of subsequent formularies, both of the Saxon and Swiss schools, followed its lead '—-Bohemian Confession (Art. XIII), First Confession of Basle (Art. VI.), Calvin’s Institutes (IV. xvii.), Confessio Variata Art. X.), Saxonica (Art. XV.), Czengerina, French Con- session (Art. XXXVI.), Scotch (Art. XXI.), Belgic (Art. XXXYV.), Second Helvetic (Art. XXI.), Catechesis Heidelbergensis (§§ Ixxv.—lxxxii.), Consensus of Sandomir, and the Formula of Concord. Of the formularies issued during the course of the English Reformation, the earlier ones speak of “the Sacrament of the Altar” (X. Articles, Bishop’s Book, and King’s Book), while in the XIII. Articles the Sacrament is spoken of under the title of “The Eucharist.” It is in the reign of Edward VI., when the teaching of the Continental Reformers began to have more influence upon the theology of our own Re-

1 Of the later Continental formularies, the Wurtemburg Confession retains

the title “Eucharist,” adding in a parenthesis, “sic enim libuit majoribus nostris Coenam Dominicam vocare” (Art. XIX.).

formers, that we first meet with the title “ Lord’s Supper” in authoritative formularies of our Church (First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI, and XLII. Articles).

(v.) The Liturgy.

The word λειτουργία has passed through the following stages of meaning :—

(a) In classical Greek it denoted a civil or political service performed by an individual, or by a few, for the good of the many.

(Ὁ) In the Septuagint it is regularly used, together with its cognate words, of the service of Priests and Levites in the Tabernacle or Temple (see, ¢.g., Exod. xxviii. 31, 39; Num. iv. 12; 1 Chron. ix, 28, xvi. 453 and ef. in the New Testament, 8. Luke i. 23; Heb. ix. 21).

(c) In the terminology of the Christian Church the word was used to denote any ministerial function, but soon became narrowed in meaning so as to refer especially to the Service of the Altar.

In this last sense ἡ λειτουργία, or the fuller ἡ θεία λειτουργία, is the usual name of the Eucharistic Office in the Eastern Church at the present day.

(vi.) The Mass.

‘This name for the Sacrament had been most widely used in the Wéstern Church for many centuries previous to the Reformation.’ Its origin is lost in obscurity, and many derivations have been suggested, the one now generally accepted being that which traces the origin of the term “Missa” to the words pronounced by the deacon at the

᾿ dismissal of the catechumens, “Ite, missa est.” The title has in itself no doctrinal significance, but since the Church of Rome has retained it to the practical exclusion of all other names of the Sacrament, it is not unnaturally associated in the popular mind with Roman doctrine.

We now proceed to consider the statements of the Article in detail.

(1.) THE SACRAMENT IS NOT A BARE SIGN, BUT A PARTAKING OF THE Bopy AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that

Christians ought to have among themselves one to another,

1 In the Prayer Book of 1549 the Communion Office was headed, ‘‘ The Supper of the Lorde, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Masse.”

but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s

Death. Insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with

faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a par-

taking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing

is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. (See 1 Cor. x. 16.) Cf. the CHURCH CATECHISM :—

“ Question. What is the inward part, or thing signified ? “ Answer. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.”

See also the HomiLy ror Goop FRIDAY (Ist Part) :—

“Yea, and we shall be hereby the more ready to receive our Saviour and Maker in his blessed Sacrament to our everlasting comfort and health of soul” (p. 445; ed. S.P.C.K.) ;

and the HoMILY OF THE WORTHY RECEIVING, &C., OF THE SACRAMENT :—_

“But thus much he must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent, but, as the Scripture saith, the table of the Lord, the bread and cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of his death, yea the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord in a marvellous incorporation, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost, the very bond of our conjunction with Christ, is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality ἢ (p. 476).

The contrast between the teaching of our Church and that of the Swiss Reformer Zwingli with regard to the nature of the Sacraments, and their place in the spiritual life of Christians, which we have already had occasion to note (see on Article XXV., Ῥ. 179), appears again markedly in the present Article, which plainly declares that the Sacrament is not merely a love-feast, but a means of grace, Contrast Zwingli’s statement of the

import of the Eucharist given in his book, “ De vera et falsa religione ἢ :—

“Est ergo sive eucharistia sive synaxis sive coena dominica nihil aliud, quam commemoratio, qua ii, qui se Christi morte et sanguine firmiter credunt patri reconciliatos esse, hanc vitalem mortem annunciant, hoc est laudant, gratulantur et praedicant. Jam ergo sequitur, quod qui ad hune usum aut festivitatem con-

We should note that in this first paragraph of the Article the Sacrament is declared to be “a partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ to such as rightly (rite), worthily (digne), and with faith (cum fide) receive” it. Of the qualifying words here used, the first, rite, refers to the objective conditions, the due administration of the Sacrament “according to Christ’s ordinance in all” those things that of necessity are requisite to the same” (see on Article XIX., p. 131, and Article XXV., p. 200).

Digne and cum fide refer to the subjective conditions. The meaning of these two qualifications, which are not to be considered as identical, is well illustrated by a reference to the Latin Version of the Exhortation in the Communion Office (1560) :—

‘Nam sicut magnum beneficium est spiritualiter manducare corpus, et bibere sanguinem Christi, manere in Christo, et habere Christum in se habitantem, ac unum eflfici cum ipso; quod con- tigit illis qui digne accedunt, id est corde contrito et humiliato, cum vera fide ac fiducia certa misericordiae promissae per Christum ; ita praesens periculum est, si indigne accedamus, quia effici- mur rei corporis et sanguinis Domini, et ad judicium et condemna- tionem manducamus, quod non discernimus corpus Domini, nec ei debitum habemus honorem.”

The qualifications referred to, therefore, seem to be :— (a) Reverence for Christ’s Body sacramentally present (digne). (Ὁ) Faith in the promise attached to the Sacrament by God (cum fide). ‘hat by digne we should understand “ with reverence” also appears from Cranmer’s use of the word :—

« And here is to be diligently noted that we ought not wnrever- ently and unadvisedly to approach unto the meat of the Lord’s table, as we do to other common meats and drinks, but with great fear and dread lest we should come to the holy table wnaworthily, wherein is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto us very Christ Himself” (Works, vol. ii. p. 402).

(2.) 'TRANSUBSTANTIATION REPUDIATED. The Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was asserted (circ. 830) by Paschasius Radbertus, a monk (and afterwards

abbot) of Corbey. A controversy followed, in which Radbertus was opposed by Bertram (Ratramnus), a monk belonging to the same monastery, as well as by some of the foremost scholars of the time, amongst them Rabanus Maurus (Archbishop of Mentz) and Johannes Scotus, and at a later period by Berengarius (Archdeacon of Angers). In the succeeding centuries, however, the doctrine seems to have made way, as is indicated by the fact that Berengarius was condemned by a Council at Verceil in 1050, the writings of Johannes Scotus being also condemned at the same time. At the FourtH LATERAN CoUNCIL (1215) the doctrine of Transubstantiation was expressly decreed in the following terms :—

“Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur, in qua idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificium Jesus Christus, cujus corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub specie- bus panis et vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem potestate divina, ut ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis, accipiamus ipsi de suo, quod accepit ipse de nostro” (Cap. 1).

Finally, the CounciL oF TRENT laid down (Session XIII., October 1551) :—

“Quoniam autem Christus redemptor noster corpus suum id, quod sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit: ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nunc denuo sancta haec Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri, et totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus, quae con- versio convenienter et proprie a sancta Catholica Ecclesia Trans- substantiatio est appellata.”

Cf. Canon II. of the same Session :—

“Si quis dixerit, in sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento re- manere substantiam panis et vini una cum corpore et sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus, et totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat specie- bus panis et vini, quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transsubstantiationem appellat ; anathema sit.”

The terminology connected with the theory of Transubstantiation is that of the scholastic philosophy of the Middle Ages, and 1 Lanfrane, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1070 to 1089, took up

the controversy against Berengarius. 2F

philosophical opinions of the schoolmen underlie the doctrine. It is stated that, after the Consecration, the “substantia” of the Body and of the Blood of Christ altogether take the place of the “substantia” of the Bread and of the Wine respectively, although the “species” (ie, appearance) of bread and wine remain, The opinion that the “substance” of a thing is separable from its “accidents” (viz., appearance, touch, taste, smell, by which it is apprehended by our senses as existing in a certain place) necessarily underlies this theory, because, after Consecration, the “accidents” of bread and wine remain, whereas it is held by Romanists that the “substance” of the Elements is wholly changed. It is evident that the truth of the doctrine does not admit of demonstration, since we have no sense by which the “substance” of a thing may be apprehended apart from its “accidents”; it is, moreover, of course open to question whether the “substance” of anything can be said to exist at all apart from its “accidents.”

Concerning this doctrine of Transubstantiation our Article

declares *:—

(a) Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ: but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.

Cf., e.g., 1 Cor. xi. 26-28, where 8. Paul speaks of the consecrated Hlements as [...] this cup.”

(>) It overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament.”

For a Sacrament consists of two parts,° the outward part

1 The same three objections to Transubstantiation are stated in the REFOR- MATIO LEGUM, “ De Haeresibus,” Cap. 19 :—

‘*Peregrinum enim est, et alienum a sacris literis ... et a conditione sacramentorum longe dissidens; postremo communis quaedam sentina super- stitionum multarum in Ecclesiam Dei comportatarum.”’

2 Cf. Calvin’s INSTITUTES, IV. xvii. 14 :—

WURTEMBURG CONFESSION, Art. XIX. :—

. ‘Necessitas ipsa veritatis sacramenti exigere videtur, ut cum vera praesentia corporis Christi verus panis maneat.”

We have seen that several additions made at the Elizabethan revision (1563) are traceable to the Wurtemburg Confession ; possibly, therefore, the clause, ‘‘overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament,” which was inserted at that revision, may have been suggested by the passage quoted above from the same formulary,

3 Cf. the CHURCH CATECHISM :—

‘* Question. How many parts are there in a Sacrament ? *“* Answer. Two; the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace,”

(signwm), and the ‘inward part (res); but according to the Transubstantiation theory, the signum is altogether changed into the res, and thus the Sacramental character of the rite is destroyed. — (6) It hath given rise to many superstitions.

Eg., the use of the reserved Sacrament as a charm, processions of the Sacrament, &¢. (see notes on the last paragraph of the Article).

(3.) THERE IS A REAL OBJECTIVE PRESENCE IN THE EUCHARIST.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper.

‘The precise wording of this paragraph of the Article, when fairly considered, is only consistent with the doctrine of an Objective Presence. It is not said that the “sion” or “symbol” of the Body, but that the very Body of Christ Itself, is in the Sacrament— _

(a) given, 7.¢., by the Priest. It is the Body of Christ before the communicant receives it; the Presence of Christ’s Body is objective.

_ (Ὁ) taken, by the communicant; and that which is taken must be external to him who takes it,

(c) eaten. See the quotations from the Homilies under heading (1) above, and note that it is not there said that in the Sacrament we receive ‘symbols of Christ,’* but Christ Himself.

Very many passages might be quoted from the writings of the Fathers which testify to the belief of the Primitive Church in the Real Presence. Of these a few examples are here given :—

S. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (martyred A.D. 100—118),” ad Smyrn. vii., writes with reference to the Docete:

(74 Et 4 A Cal 3 , 8 \ ὃ A ε λ 7 ᾧ

ὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται, διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν

“τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν τῆρος ἡμῶν Ἴη

1 This is the teaching of Zwingli. See his “ Expositio fidei Christianae,” 88. 63-66 :—

*<Spiritualiter edere corpus Christi, nihil est aliud quam spiritu ac mente niti misericordia et bonitate dei per Christum ... Verum cum ad coenam domini cum hac spirituali manducatione venis, et domino gratias agis pro tanto beneficio, pro animi tui liberatione, qua liberatus es a desperationis pernicie, et pro pignore, quo certus es de aeterna beatitudine, ac simul cum fratribus panem et vinum, quae jam symbolicum Christi corpus sunt, partici- pas, jam proprie sacramentaliter edis, cum scilicet intus idem agis quod foris operaris, cum mens reficitur hac fide quam symbolis testaris.”

? This is the date assigned by Lightfoot. Harnack gives the date as ‘‘soon after 130.”

Justin Martyr (martyred A.D. 165), Apol. i. 66 :—

ee. A € a € A ΄“ Δ vig ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ἣν τῇ χρηστότητι ἤγειρεν."

/ “Od γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν" la) ε GAN ὃν τρόπον διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως A ἊΝ > 3 lal , A " > lal ΕῚ A , > καὶ τὴν δὲ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι.

Ireneeus (circ. 180 A.D.), arguing against the Gnostics, thus writes (Adv, Haer., v. 2) :—

ες" ᾿ς s \ Q lA , μὴ ε ΄ν ” Οπότε οὖν καὶ τὸ κεκραμένον ποτήριον, καὶ ὁ γεγονὼς ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ γίνεται ἡ εὐχαριστία σῶμα A a \ I fe \ ΄ ε an eo Χριστοῦ, ἐκ τουτῶν δὲ αὐξει καὶ συνίσταται ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν fal \ Ν 4) Us \ 4 “A a ὑπόστασις " πῶς δεκτικὴν μὴ εἶναι λέγουσι THY σάρκα τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶ ἑωὴ αἰώνιος, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος A , , BS uA > Ove: ta ᾽) τοῦ Κυρίου τρεφομένην, καὶ μέλος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχουσαν.

S. Cyril of Jerusalem, “ Lectures on the Mysteries” (delivered A.D. 386), lll, 3 :—

ἐς ‘0 Ἁ ¢ # A > ig Ν \ hen A Xr A σπερ yap ο αρτος THS EVXAPLTT LAS μετα TYHV €7T UK How του

᾿Αγίου Ivetpuaros οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος λιτός, ἀλλὰ σῶμα Χριστοῦ."

Of. iv. 6 :—“ M1) πρόσεχε οὖν ὡς ψιλοῖς τῷ ἄρτῳ καὶ τῷ οἴνῳ * σῶμα γὰρ καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ κατὰ τὴν δεσποτικὴν τυγχάνει ἀπόφασιν " εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἡ αἰσθησίς σοι τοῦτο ὑποβάλλει, ἀλλὰ ἡ πίστις σε βεβαι- ούτω. μὴ ἀπὸ τῆς γεύσεως κρίνῃς τὸ πρᾶγμα, GAN ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως πληροφοροῦ ἀνενδοίαστως σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ καταξιωθείς."

Amongst the words of our own English Reformers, who so constantly professed to hold by the doctrines of the Primitive Church, we find statements as to the Real Presence in the Eucharist as strong as those just quoted; eg. :—

RIDLEY says:

“In the Sacrament is a certain change, in that that bread, which was before common bread, is now made a lively presentation of Christ’s Body, and not only a figure, but effectuously representeth His Body; that even as the mortal body was nourished by that visible bread, so is the internal soul fed with the heavenly food of Christ’s Body, which the eyes of faith see, as the bodily eyes see only bread. Such a sacramental mutation I grant to be in the bread and wine, which truly is no small

change, but such a change as no mortal man can make, but only that omnipotency of Christ’s Word” (Works, pp. 274, 275).

“We behold with the eyes of faith Him (the true Lord and Saviour of the world) present after grace, and spiritually set upon the table ; and we worship Him which sitteth above, and is worshipped of the angels. For Christ is always assistant to His Mysteries, as the said Augustine saith” (Zbid., p. 251).

LATIMER :

“And the same presence may be called the real presence (because to the faithful believer there is the real or spiritual body of Christ), which thing I here rehearse, lest some sycophant or scorner should suppose me with the Anabaptist to make nothing else of the Sacrament but a bare and naked sign” (Works, vol. ii.

p. 252). JEWEL !

“We affirm that bread and wine are holy and heavenly mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that by them Christ Himself, being the true bread of eternal life, is so presently given unto us [sic nobis praesentem exhiberi| as that by faith we verily receive His Body and His Blood” (Apol., Part ii. p. 32; ed. S.P.C.K.).

It is sometimes urged that by the Declaration on Kneeling (commonly called the “ Black Rubric”), which is inserted in the Prayer Book after the Communion Office, the English Church is committed to a denial of the Real Presence. In considering the Declaration, however, the following points should be carefully borne in mind :—

(a) It was inserted in 1552 as an afterthought,’ and solely on the Royal authority,’ so that the Church was not in any way committed to it in its original form.

(6) At the Elizabethan revision (1559) the Declaration was altogether suppressed.

1 The Prayer Book passed both Houses of Convocation on April 14, 1552, and it was decided that it should come into use on All Saints’ Day following. On September 27, when three editions had been completed, the printing was suddenly stopped, on the ground that many printer’s errors had crept in, and at the last moment (October 27) the Declaration was added.

? An entry in the Privy Council Register (October 27, 1552) orders—

“A letter to the Lord Chancellor to cause to be signed unto the Book of Common Prayer, lately set forth, a certain Declaration signed by the King’s Majesty, and sent unto his Lordship, touching the kneeling at the receiving of the Communion ” (Burnet’s “ Reformation,” ed. Pocock, iii. 368, note 76).

(ὁ) When reintroduced in 1661 a very significant-change was

made in the wording :—

“We dooe declare that it is not ment thereby, that any ado- racion is doone, or oughte to bee doone, eyther unto the Sacra- mentall bread or wyne there bodily receyued, or unto anye reall and essencial presence there

“It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood.”

It thus appears that the Church would not have the “Black Rubric” in the Prayer Book until the words which might be taken for a denial of the truth of the Real Presence had been removed.

(dq) Further, what is said in the Declaration with respect to

“the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ” being “in Heaven, and not here” is not inconsistent with Roman doctrine, and may be paralleled from.the decrees of the Council. oF Trent. Cf. Session XIII. (October 1551) :—

‘““Neque enim haec inter se pugnant, ut ipse Salvator noster semper ad dexteram Patris im coclis assideat, juata modum eais- tendt naturalem, et ut multis nihilominus aliis in locis sacramen- taliter praesens sua substantia nobis adsit, ea existendi ratione, quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo, cogitatione per fidem illustrata assequi possumus et con- stantissime credere debemus.”

(4) THE Bopy oF CHRIST 15 PRESENT AFTER AN HEAVENLY AND

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper

only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.

While the doctrine of a corporal Presence, such as is implied in the theory of Transubstantiation, is excluded, the Church of England holds the doctrine of a spiritual and veal Presence. The use of statements with regard to the natural Body and Blood of Christ when speaking of the Sacrament is rather misleading ; for Christ present in His Sacrament is Christ Crucified and Risen, so that His Body is a spiritual Body (σῶμα πνευματικόν, τ Cor. xv. 44), v.¢., @ Body fully indwelt in and solely animated by πνεῦμα,

and hence, though material (S. Luke xxiv. 39), possessing

powers and capabilities which do not belong to the natural

body (S. John xx. 19). It should also be remembered that

the Body of Christ, of which we speak, is the Body united

everlastingly to the Deity of the Second Person in the

Blessed Trinity (ef. Article II.), so that the capabilities of

other bodies, whether natural or spiritual, can be no mea-

sure of the capabilities of the glorified Body of Him Who

fills all things (Eph. iv. 10). We are not, therefore, called

upon to choose between an obsolete scholastic philosophy

(implied in the definitions of the Church of Rome)! and

a merely figurative interpretation of our Lord’s words (as

given by Zwingli); but, in accordance with the teaching of

the formularies of our Church, we hold a real spiritual

Presence of the Body of Christ, acknowledging that to

define further the manner of that Presence is beyond the reach of our knowledge.

We may here notice the doctrine expressed by the formu-

laries of the Lutheran type. They emphatically assert the Real

Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament :—

Avessure Conression, Part I. Art. X.: “De coena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint, et distribuantur veecéntibus in coena Domini, et improbant secus docentes.”

Saxon Conression, Art. XV.: “Sed in usu instituto in hac communione vere et substan- tialiter adesse Christum, et vere exhiberi sumentibus corpus et sanguinem Christi,”

1 The doctrine of a Real though Spiritual Presence (as opposed to the conception involved in the doctrine of Transubstantiation) was held by some of those divines of the sixteenth century who were on the whole opposed to a doctrinal Reformation; 6.0. :—

Cardinal CAJETANUS (Papal Legate in Germany, before whom Luther was cited to appear in 1518) writes :

** Manducatur verum Corpus Christi in sacramento, sed non corporaliter, sed spiritualiter. Spiritualis manducatio, quae per animam fit, ad Christi carnem in sacramento existentem pertingit”’ (Opuse., Tom ii, Tract. 2; ** De Euch.,” Cap. v.).

GARDINER (Bishop of Winchester 1531-51 ; 1553-56, a great upholder of the Royal Supremacy, but otherwise an opponent of the Reformers), says :

‘*The Catholic teaching is, that the manner of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament is spiritual and supernatural, not corporal nor carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only spiritual, the how and manner whereof God = Sohairae ” (Quoted in Cranmer’s Answer to Gardiner, Works, vol, iii, Ρ. 241).

Wortempura Conression, Art. XIX, : :

“ De substantia Eucharistiae sentimus et docemus, quod verum corpus Christi et verus sanguis ejus in Eucharistia distribuatur, et refutamus eos qui dicunt panem et vinum Eucharistiae esse tantum absentis corporis et sanguinis Christi signa.”

ForMULA OF CONCORD :

“Credimus, quod in coena Domini corpus et sanguis Christi vere et substantialiter sint praesentia, et quod una cum pane et vino vere distribuantur atque sumantur. Credimus, verba testa- menti Christi. non aliter accipienda esse, quam sicut verba ipsa ad literam sonant, ita, ne panis absens Christi corpus et vinum absentem Christi sanguinem significent, sed ut propter sacra- mentalem unionem panis et vinum vere sint corpus et sanguis Christi” (p. 599). 7

“Docent, quemadmodum in Christo duae distinctae et non mutatae naturae inseparabiliter sunt unitae, ita in sacra coena duas diversas substantias, panem videlicet naturalem et verum naturale corpus Christi in instituta sacramenti administratione hic in terris simul esse praesentia ” (p. 736).

With regard to the Eucharist, therefore, the Reformers of the Saxon school, though rejecting ‘ private masses,’ were much more conservative than the Swiss Reformers. Cf :—

Av@ssura Conxression, Part 11. Art. IIT. : “Falso accusantur ecclesiae nostrae, quod missam aboleant, retinetur enim missa apud nos, et summa reverentia celebratur. Servantur et usitatae ceremoniae fere omnes.”

Luther met Zwingli in conference at Marburg (1529), but could come to no agreement with him on Eucharistic doctrine, and always vehemently opposed the teaching of the Swiss Reformer on this point. He himself rejected scholastic dogmas on the subject, and in his reply to Henry VIII. of England spoke of Transubstantiation as “impious” and “ blasphemous.” He held strongly, however, to the Real Presence, while refusing to define the precise manner of that Presence. ‘ Consubstantia- tion” is the name generally used to designate Luther’s own theory, and the Lutheran doctrine as finally set forth in the Formula of Concord. -

(5.) THE MEANS OF RECEPTION IS Fairu. The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. 3 This clause of the Article refers to the subjective part of the Sacrament, the inward reception and eating by the individual. The means whereby this takes place is faith. It is not, of course, the case that the Sacrament derives its _ efficacy from our faith, or that faith produces the Presence of Christ within the heart; but He is present externally, and faith appropriates; Him. During Christ’s sojourn upon earth in the flesh, the power of the Lord was present to heal (S. Luke v. 17), but only those who had faith were able to appropriate the healing grace which flowed from His sacred Body. So now in the Eucharist we acknowledge a real Presence of Christ external to ourselves from which the Sacrament derives its efficacy, and we confess that this Presence is also spiritwal, because the medium by which the external Presence affects us, and is with us, is not material contact but spiritual efficacy.

Calvin’s doctrine of the Eucharist should be particularly noted. He rejected Transubstantiation,' and also objected to the Lutheran view as inyolying the ubiquity” of our Lord’s risen Body ;* but, on the other hand, he rose far above Zwingli’s teaching as to the nature and use of the Sacrament, maintaining that while the Bread and Wine are symbols or representations * to which no

1 “Mira enim astutia hic lusit Satan, ut mentes hominum e coelo abstractas, perverso errore imbueret, ac si panis elemento affixus esset Christus. Ac primo quidem praesentia Christi in sacramento minime talis somnianda nobis est qualem Romanae curiae artifices confinxerunt; ac si locali praesentia, corpus Christi manibus attrectandum, atterendum dentibus, ore deglutiendum sisteretur ” (INSTITUTES, IV. xvii. 12).

2 Hence those in Switzerland who held Luther’s view were called Ubiqui- tarians.

8“ Alii... fatentur panem Coenae vere substantiam esse terreni et cor- ruptibilis elementi, nec quicquam in se pati mutationis, sed sub se habere inclusum Christi corpus, . . . Sed quia in pane corpus ipsum locantes, ubiqui- tatem illi affingunt naturae suae contrariam, addendo autem Sub pane, illi oceultum latere volunt: tales astutias e suis latebris paulisper extrahere necesse est” (INSTITUTES, IV. xvii. 16). :

4 “Ttaque sub pane et vino repraesentantur: quo discamus non modo nostra esse, sed nobis destinata in spiritualis vitae alimentum. Id est quod antea admonuimus, a rebus corporeis quae in sacramento proferuntur, quadam analogia nos ad spirituales deduci. Sie quum panis nobis in symbolum corporis Christi datur, haec statim concipienda est similitudo, Ut corporis nostri vitam panis alit. . . . Quum vinum in symbolum sanguinis propositum

— THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Presence of Christ is attached, yet those who receive in faith * do really and truly partake of the Body and Blood of Christ,’ which are thus in effect communicated to the faithful simultaneously with the Bread and Wine. It is usual to speak of this teaching as the doctrine of the Virtual Presence.

After the acceptance of the Consensus Tigurinus (1549), which embodied Calvin’s doctrine on the Eucharist, that doctrine was generally adopted throughout Switzerland, and appears in the Confessions subsequently issued by, or under the influence of, Reformers of the Swiss school. ΟἿ, e.g.:—

Frenco Conression, Art. XXXVI:

“@uamvis enim nunc sit in coelis, ibidem etiam mansurus, donec veniat mundum judicaturus: credimus tamen eum arcana et incomprehensibili spiritus sui virtute per fidem apprehensa, nos nutrire et vivificare sui corporis et sanguinis substantia.”

Scotcu Conression, Art. XXI.: “ Atque etiam quod in Coena Domini rite usurpata, Christus ita nobis conjungitur, quod sit ipsissimum animarum nostrarum nutrimentum et pabulum.”

Beteic Conression, Art. XXXV.:

“Ut autem panem hunce spiritualem et coelestem Christus nobis figuraret, sive repraesentaret ; instituit Panem et Vinum terrenum et visibilem in Corporis et Sanguinis sui Sacramentum: ut iis nobis testificetur, quam vere accipimus et tenemus manibus nostris hoc Sacramentum, illudque ore comedimus (unde et postmodum vita haec nostra sustentatur), tam vere etiam nos fide (quae animae nostrae est instar et manus et oris) recipere verum corpus et

. verum sanguinem Christi, in animis nostris, ad vitam spiritualem in nobis fovendam.”

2 “Quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque corporis ac sanguinis Domini communicationem, quae sub sacris Coenae symbolis fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libenter recipio: atque ita ut non imaginatione dun- taxat aut mentis intelligentia percipere, sed ut re ipsa frui in alimentum vitae aeternae intelligantur” (Jbid., IV. xvii. 19).

“Quod si humanitus excogitata symbola, quae imagines sunt rerum absen- tium potius quam notae praesentium, quas etiam ipsas fallaciter saepissime adumbrant, earum tamen titulis interdum ornantur: quae a Deo sunt instituta, multo majori ratione rerum nomina mutuantur, quarum et certam minimeque fallacem significationem semper gerunt, et adjunctam habent secum veritatem” (Ibid., TV. xvii. 21).

«“ Ergo accipiunt fideles qtiod datur a ministro domini, et edunt panem domini, ac bibunt de poculo domini: intus interim opera Christi per spiritum sanctum percipiunt etiam carnem et san- guinem domini, et pascuntur his in vitam aeternam.”

Of the German Reformers, Melanchthon approximated to Calvinistic doctrine on the Eucharist. In the Conressio VARIATA (1540) he substituted for the wording of the Augsburg Con- session (“quod Corpus et Sanguis Christi vere adsint, et dis- tribuantur in coena”) the following clause :-—

“Quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur Corpus et Sanguis Christi.”

(6.) CERTAIN PRACTICES COMMON IN MEDIAVAL TIMES ARE DE- The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. A few words must be said concerning each of the practices here referred to :— (i.) Reservation.

In pre-Reformation times the Reserved Host was sometimes worn round the neck,” held in the hand when undergoing the ordeal of fire,? or buried with the dead.* Such practices were not by the ordinance of Christ, Who instituted the Sacrament that it might be received. See the last paragraph of Article XXV., which states :-—

“The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about: but that we should duly use them.”

Cf. Councit or TRENT (Session XIII.) :—

*Fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institutum” (Cap. v.).

There can scarcely, however, be any objection to Reservation of the Sacrament, when the express purpose of such

ὁ This wording agrees with Calvin’s manner of speaking ; e.g. :—

“ Dico igitur, in Coenae mysterio per symbola panis et vini, Christum vere nobis exhiberi, adeoque corpus et sanguinem ejus” (Institutes, IV. xvii. 11).

2 Thus Pope Benedict XIII, when he fled in disguise from Avignon, for his ΟΝ ranges bore upon his breast a little box containing the consecrated

ement.

3. £.g., Fra Domenico, when going forth to the ordeal of fire on behalf of Sayona- rola, refused to enter the flames without bearing in his hand the consecrated Host. The incident will be familiar to readers of George Eliot’s ‘‘ Romola.”

4 This practice must have spread to some considerable extent, since we find it forbidden “to give the Eucharist to the bodies of the departed” by the Council of Carthage (397), and again by that of Auxerre (578).

Reservation is that those may receive who otherwise would be unable to do so. #.g., it is often impossible, and at all times difficult, to secure a reverent ‘celebration of the Holy Communion, or indeed any celebration at all, in the crowded dwellings of the poorest in our large cities, in cases of dangerous infectious diseases, or in critical cases of accidents. The communicating of such special cases with the Reserved Sacrament would be quite in accord with the practice of the Primitive Church,? Cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. i.:—

“ Εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ πρυέστο τεῦ καὶ ἐπευφημήσαντος παν τὸς τοῦ λαοῦ οἱ fame a παρ᾽ ἡμῖν διάκονοι διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ἫΝ Ν » 5 la 5 7 2) A ὕδατος καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσιν ἀποφέρουσι " (Cap. 65).

“OK be / Nee / 5. τὰς A > τ΄ , ¢ +

at ἡ διάδοσις καὶ ἡ μετάληψις ἀπὸ TOV εὐχαριστηθέντων ἑκάστῳ γίνεται καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσι διὰ τῶν διακόνων πέμπεται ” (Cap. 67).

In the Prayer Book of 1549 Reservation for the Communion of sick persons was allowed, though with certain restrictions :— |

“And yf the same daye there be a celebracion of the holy comunion in the churche, then shall the priest reserue (at the open communion) so muche of the sacrament of the body and bloud, as shall serue the sicke person, and so many as shall communicate with hym (yf there be any). And so soone as he conueniently may, after the open communion ended in the church, shall goe and minister the same.

‘¢ And yf there be moe sicke persons to be visited the same day that the curate doth celebrate in any sicke mas house; then shall the curate (there) reserue so muche of the sacramente of the body

‘and bloud: as shall serue the other sicke persons, and such as be appoynted to communicate with them (yf there be any). And shall immediately cary it, and minister it unto them.”

In the second Prayer Book (1552) permission to reserve the Sacrament was withdrawn; but in the ‘Latin Prayer Book authorised by Queen Elizabeth (1560) Reservation for the sick was again permitted.”

1 In the Eastern Church at the present day, as in primitive times, the Saera- ment is reserved for the purpose of Communion only.

2 Calvin altogether opposed Reservation, even for the purpose of communicating the sick. Cf. INSTITUTES, IV. xvii. 39 :—

“Quorsum igitur evadet altera (scil. consecratio), cujus vis ad aegrotos usque non pervenit ? Sed enim qui sic faciunt, habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum. Fateor, verum in re tanta, et in qua non sine magno peritulo erratur, nihil tutius est quam ipsam veritatem sequi,””

The rubric which now stands at the end of the Communion Service directing that the Consecrated Elements shall be reverently consumed immediately after the Blessing has historically no connection with Reservation. It was inserted at the revision of 1661, a century after the practice of Reservation had ceased in the English Church, and its purpose was to guard against any profane use of the Consecrated Elements.

(11.) Closely connected with the Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament are the Carrying about and Worshipping of the Consecrated Elements.

In Hast and West alike, in primitive times, the Sacra-

ment was reserved for purposes of Communion only; but

in the Middle Ages we find a development in the Western

Church, the Reserved Host being treated as an object of

worship. ‘The events of Holy Week were dramatised, the

Host being carried in procession on Palm Sunday, placed

in a sepulchre on Good Friday, and carried in the pro-

cession on Haster Day. After the institution of the Feast

of Corpus Christi (in the thirteenth century) a procession

of the Host soon became the characteristic observance of

the Festival At first the Host was always veiled when

thus carried, but by degrees the custom obtained of placing

It in a vessel of glass or crystal fitted into a case of

precious metal (called the Monstrance), and it was thus

exposed to the veneration of the faithful.” Thus in pre-

Reformation times men professed great reverence for the

Blessed Sacrament by worshipping, whether at a celebration,

or when the Host was carried in procession, and yet at the

same time neglected the very end of the Institution of the

Sacrament—its constant reception by all the faithful—so

that it had come about that the people communicated very

rarely. At the Reformation a reaction set in. Our Re-

formers, seeing that the purpose for which Christ instituted

1M. Thiers has shown (“Traité de l’Exposition du 5. Sacrament”) that the

origin of the procession is not to be traced to this Festival, because instances of the procession are on record before the Festival was instituted.

* The exposition of the Sacrament at other times than the Festival of Corpus Christi dates from the seventeenth century ; and in the present day, with some form of service, it is a matter of very frequent occurrence in the Roman Church. Such service concludes with the Blessing pronounced by the priest, who makes

the sign of the Cross over the people with the Monstrance ; hence the rite has gained the name of ‘‘ Benediction.”

the Sacrament had been obscured, emphasised the Communion aspect of the Eucharist, and drew attention to the fact that the worshipping of the Sacrament, which had for so long held a prominent place in the devotions of the Western Church, was not “ by Christ’s ordinance.”

While the Reformers thus found it necessary for those times to protest against the worshipping of the Sacrament, which had taken the place of frequent participation, they had no intention of refusing worship to Christ present in His Sacrament. #.g., RIDLEY says :—

‘“We worship, I confess, the same true Lord and Saviour of the world . . . we behold with the eyes of faith Him present after grace, and spiritually set upon the table; and we worship Him which sitteth above, and is worshipped of the angels” (Works, p. 251),

Christ present in the Sacrament is to be worshipped, for, as God (and the Manhood has been “taken into God”), worship is due to Him, under whatever conditions He manifests Himself. The worship is not directed to the outward sign, the substance of Bread and Wine; it is obvious that no adoration ought to be done unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine bodily received (Black Rubric).

(111.) Elevation.

The Elevation referred to in the Article is the lifting up of the Consecrated Elements for the adoration of the people, a practice usual in the West in pre-Reformation times, though not formally authorised before the thirteenth century, and now occupying a prominent place in the celebra-

‘tion of Mass in the Church of Rome.

Such EHlevation was expressly forbidden in the Prayer Book of 1549, by a rubric inserted immediately after the Consecration :—

“These wordes before rehersed are to be saied, turning still to the Altar, without any eleuacion, or shewing the Sacrament to the people.”

This prohibition was, however, removed in 1552, and has not since been revived.

The statement of the Article should not be taken as covering the Elevation of the Sacrament in presenting the Sacrifice to the Father, a ritual action almost universal in

early times,’ and traced, in primitive Liturgies, to the action of our Lord Himself at the Institution of the Sacrament. Cf., e.g., the Greek Liturgy of S. James :—

Ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἣ παρεδίδοτο, μᾶλλον δὲ ἑαυτὸν παρεδίδου, ὑπὲρ τῆς τοὶ κόσμου ζωῆς καὶ σωτηρίας > ε,ὦὖὐ Ἢ ἊΝ XN ” \ 7 [εἶτα ὁ ἱερεὺς τῇ χειρὶ τὸν ἄρτον κατασχὼν λέγει]

[...] oe ἊΝ ε / \. oer 4 \§.3 7 \ 35 /

λαβὼν τὸν ἄρτον ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων Kal ἀχράντων Kal ἀμώμων καὶ ἀθανά-

των αὐτοῦ χειρῶν, ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἀναδείξας σοὶ τῷ

Oc καὶ Πατρί, εὐχαριστήσας, ἁγιάσας, κλάσας, ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τοῖς αὐτοῦ μαθηταῖς καὶ ἀποστόλοις, εἰπών " K.T.A,

The Elevation of the Sacrament (corresponding to the typical heaving and waving of the Peace Offering) was thus in primitive times a representation on earth of the continual showing forth of Christ’s Sacrifice before the Father in heaven (¢f. 1 Cor. xi. 26), and was avowedly “by Christ’s ordinance,” for the elevation, no less than the blessing and the breaking, of the Bread was stated to be done in imitation of His own action.

The connection in which the words “lifted up” stand in the Article justifies us in limiting their application to the “shewing to the people,” for there is in the present Article no question as to the Eucharistic Sacrifice; but the paragraph in which the words occur is concerned with those devotions to the Sacrament which had so largely taken the place of Communion, and had thus obscured the great end of its institution.

The great moderation of the wording of this last paragraph of the Article is very noticeable. It is not asserted that the practices referred to are contrary to Christ’s ordinance, but simply affirmed that such uses do not come within the scope of what has been Divinely ordained. In dealing with the same subjects the Continental Confessions speak much more strongly. Cf, eg.:—

Saxon Conression, Art. XV.: : “Est et manifesta profanatio, coe coenae Domini circum- gestare et adorare.”

Wortemesure Conression, Art. XIX. : “ Alius error est, quod una pars Eucharistiae soleat in singu-

1 Tt is found in the Liturgies of 8S. James, 8. Basil, 5. Chrysostom, the Armenian and Coptic Liturgies, and others. It occurs in the modern Roman Service, as well as the Elevation for the adoration of the congregation.

ΔῊ) ΡΝ ΦΉΣ ὑ ἀν Bank ἡ τὰ

servatio panis in pixide, vel capsula, non sunt legitimus usus —

Sacramenti corporis Christi, sed mera ejusdem profanatio.”

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, X XIX. 4:

‘““Worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use ; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.”

On May 1, 1900, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Temple) delivered an opinion on the Reservation of the Sacrament, in which he came to the conclusion that “the Church of England does not at present allow Reservation in any form.” The conclusion was supported by a lengthy argument, in the course of which it was stated that “the language of the XXVIIIth Article cannot be taken otherwise than as condemning the practice altogether.” This seems to go beyond what the Article, strictly interpreted, actually says, and the Archbishop’s remark would more properly apply to the Lutheran and Calvinistic formularies quoted above.

Article XXIX

The wicked, and such as be void

of a lively faith, although they do |}

carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ: yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat ‘and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

Impii et fide vera destituti, licet carnaliter, et visibiliter (ut Augustinus loquitur) Corporis et Sanguinis Christi Sacramentum, dentibus premant, nullo tamen modo Christi participes efficiuntur. Sed potius tantae rei Sacramen- tum, seu Symbolum, ad judicium sibi manducant et bibunt.

§ 1.—SOURCE. This Article first appeared in the draft presented to Convoca-

tion in 1562.

It was, however, struck out from the Articles

as sanctioned by the Queen, and was not published until 1571, when it was reinserted by the Bishops. The scruples of Cecil, or of the Queen, who both inclined to

pre-Reformation doctrine on the Eucharist, may account for the withdrawal of this Article from the Convocation records in 1562; or perhaps its suppression should be traced to a desire to deal tenderly with those who held Roman doctrine, and who were still at this time in communion with the Church of England.

In 1571, however, the secession of the Romanist party in England was taking place,* so that there was no need for the continued exercise of such forbearance. This circumstance would account for the readmission of the Article at that date.

A further ground for hesitation in promulgating the Article may have been the doubt raised as’ to the authenticity of the

1 For the first eleven years of Elizabeth’s reign’ the Roman party made their Communions and celebrated in English churches according to the Prayer Book. The final Bull of excommunication was not issued from Rome until 1570.

ἫΣ 24H

242 > THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

words quoted and attributed to 5. Augustine.’ The fairness of

the quotation was, we know, called in question by Cecil during — an interview with Archbishop Parker, which took place in 1571.7

§ 2. OBJECT.

To guard against merely mechanical views of the Sacrament, and to provide a safeguard by reminding us how alone we may receive the Sacrament beneficially. We may compare the Article with the words of the Exhortation in the Communion Office :—

‘“‘For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament . . . so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily. For then we are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour; we eat and drink our own damnation, not considering the Lord’s Body.”

§ 3.—HXPOSITION.

It is clear, of course, that there can be no beneficial reception by those who are in a state of sin; the Sacrament cannot act as a sort of charm in the case of such as come without faith and unprepared. On the other hand, we have seen that Christ is present objectively in the Sacrament, His Presence not depending upon the mental emotion or spiritual condition of the recipient.

Now we are not here involved in any contradiction. We distinguish in the Holy Eucharist three parts—the Signum, the Res, and the Virtus Sacramenti.® Of these the Signum, viz., Bread and Wine, is evidently received by all communicants. The Res,

1 The passage in question occurs in the twenty-sixth Treatise on S. John. It was rejected by the Benedictine editors of S. Augustine as not being genuine, but the words occur in Alcuin, Bede, and others.

3 For this threefold division we have the sanction of the Church Catechism. It can scarcely escape the notice of an attentive reader that there is a marked difference between the account of Baptism and that of the Holy Eucharist there given. In the instruction on the Sacrament of Baptism two heads are given :— ;

“What is the outward visible sign or form in Baptism?” ‘* What is the inward and spiritual grace ?”

while in the account given of the Eucharist the teaching of the Catechism is arranged under three heads :— “‘ What is the outward part or sign (Signum) of the Lord’s Supper?”

‘“ What is the inward part, or thing signified (Res) ?” “ What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby (Virtus Sacramenti)?”

the Body and Blood of Christ, is really there,and is sacramentally received by all.’ But while the reality of the Sacrament is not dependent upon faith,’ our own individual ability to partake spiritually of Christ is thus dependent. Christ’s Presence is only realised by the faithful; only they receive the Virtus of the Sacrament; only they “so cat the Flesh of Christ and drink His Blood ”* that He evermore dwells in them, and they in Him.

The wicked, as our Article says, are in no wise partakers of Christ ; on the contrary, by their wilfulness and misuse of His most holy Ordinance, they incur condemnation. (See the passages of Scripture quoted below.)

It is to be noted that, since It neither derives virtue nor efficacy from the worthiness of the receivers, nor suffers any loss or diminution of Its power and perfectness by reason of their unworthiness, therefore the Sacrament always takes effect ; but not always the same effect. To some it is the savour of life, unto life ; to others, of death, unto death :—

“In such only as worthily receive the Sacraments, they have . a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation” (Article XXV.).

! Cf. Cranmer, Works, iii. p. 146 :—

“ As of some the Scripture saith, that their riches is their redemption, and to some it is their damnation ; and as God’s word to some is life, to some it is death and a snare, as the prophet saith ; and Christ Himself to somie is a stone to stumble at, to some is a raising from death; not by conversion of substances (7.¢., it is one and the same word and one and the same Christ, whatever the effect may be), but by good or evil use, that thing which to the godly is salvation, to the ungodly is damnation : so is the water in Baptism, and the Bread and Wine in the Lord’s Supper, to the worthy receivers Christ Himself and eternal life, and to the unworthy receivers everlasting death and damnation : not by conversion of one substance into another (the Sacraments are the same in both cases), but by godly or ungodly use thereof.”

* Cf. SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, Art. XIX. :—

“Interim sicut a dignitate, vel indignitate ministrorum, non aestimamus integritatem sacramentorum, itaque neque a conditione sumentium. Agnosci- mus enim sacramentorum integritatem ex fide vel veritate meraque bonitate Dei dependere. Sicut enim Verbum Dei manet verum Verbum Dei, quo non tantum verba nuda recitantur, dum praedicatur, sed simul a Deo offerun- tur res verbis significatae, vel annunciatae, tametsi impii vel increduli verba audiant, et intelligant, rebus tamen significatis non perfruantur ; eo quod vera fide non recipiant: Ita sacramenta verbo, signis, et rebus significatis, constantia, manent vera et integra Sacramenta, non tantum significantia res sacras, sed Deo offerente etiam res significatas, tametsi increduli res oblatas non percipiant. Fit hoc non dantis aut offerentis Dei vitio, sed hominum

* Prayer of Humble Access in Communion Office.

Our exposition is in accordance with Scripture teaching on the subject; see, ¢.g. :— (a) 1 Cor. xi. 27: ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον, ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναξίως, ἔ ενοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ

τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου.

A person who received unworthily could not be said to be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord if the Elements, after consecration, were mere ordinary bread and wine.

(Ὁ) 1 Cor. xi. 29: 6 yap ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων κρῖμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει

καὶ πίνει, μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα.

But there would be no blame in not discriminating the Lord’s Body, unless that Body were present there.

It is also in accord with the teaching of St. Augustine where his text is undisputed and his teaching unambiguous, see eg. Tract. in Joan., xxvii. 11: “Ut carnem Christi et sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in sacramento, quod et multi mali; sed usque ad_ spiritus participa- tionem manducemus, ut ejus spiritu vegetemur et non scandalizemur.”

With the doctrine thus stated Cranmer’s words are in agreement when he writes: ‘“ The diversity is not in the body, but in the eating thereof, no man eating it carnally; but the good eating it both Sacramentally and Spiritually, the evil only Sacramentally.” On the Lord’s Supper, pp. 224, 225 (ed. Parker Society). Ridley in the disputation at Oxford before his death expressly affirmed his agreement with St. Augustine: “Evil men,” he said, “do eat the very true and natural Body of Christ Sacramentally and no further, as St. Augustine saith. But good men do eat the very true Body both Sacra- mentally and Spiritually by grace.” Ridley’s Works, p. 246 (ed. Parker Society). The Article clearly, therefore, should not be interpreted as denying that there is a Sacramental eating of the Body of Christ which even the wicked share.

ἡ “a

Article XXX

The. Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people. For both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Calix Domini laicis non est denegandus: utraque enim pars Dominici Sacramenti ex Christi institutione et praecepto, omnibus Christianis ex aequo administrari

| debet.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers, and first inserted at the

Elizabethan revision (1563).

§ 2.—OBJECT.

To restore to the laity participation in the Chalice, which, by a strange abuse, had been taken from them in the Western Church.’ We may trace the withdrawal of the Cup from the laity to the

operation of two causes :—

(a) The danger of irreverence suggested this course as a

means for securing the Chalice from profanation.

Even in

the eleventh century, when Communion in both kinds was still the rule of the Church, the consecrated Wine was sometimes administered through a tube as a precaution against

spilling any portion of It.

(6) The growth of the belief in Transubstantiation also contributed to the discontinuance of the administration of the Sacrament in both kinds, for it was held that our Blessed Lord was so entirely and indivisibly present in either Element that all who were partakers of the consecrated Host

1 In the Eastern Church both Elements are given to the communicants

together in a spoon, the consecrated Bread being first dipped in the Chalice.

received therein His Body and His Blood. Thisis called

the doctrine of “ Concomitance.” ἢ The CounciL oF Constance (Session XIIL, June 15, 1415) enforced Communion in one kind, justifying it both as a safeguard against dangers, and vie from the doctrine of Con- comitance. The decree of the Council on the subject runs as_ follows :— ;

“Et sicut haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta, quod licet in primitiva ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, postea a conficientibus utraque, et a laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur: cum firmissime credendum sit, et nullatenus dubitandum, integrum Christi corpus et sanguinem tam sub specie panis, quam sub specie vini veraciter contineri. Unde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab ecclesia et sanctis patribus - rationabiliter introducta, et diutissime observata sit, habenda est pro lege, quam non licet reprobare, aut sine ecclesiae auctoritate pro libito mutare.”

Further, the penalty of excommunication is threatened :—

“Jtem ipsa sancta Synodus decernit et declarat super ista materia, reverendissimis in Christo patribus, et dominis patriarchis, primatibus, archiepiscopis, episcopis, et eorum in spiritualibus vicariis ubilibet constitutis, processus esse dirigendos, in quibus eis committatur et mandetur auctoritate hujus sacri Concilii sub poena excommunicationis, ut effectualiter puniant eos contra hoc decretum excedentes, qui communicando populum sub utraque specie panis et vini exhortati fuerint, et sic faciendum esse docuerint.”

At the outset of the Reformation in Germany, Luther protested against the withdrawal of the Cup from the laity,? and the AUGSBURG CONFESSION reformed the abuse. See Part II. Art. 1.:----

“ Laicis datur utraque species sacramenti in coena Domini, quia hic mos habet mandatum Domini (Matt. xxvi.) Bibite ex hoe omnes. Ubi manifeste praecepit Christus de poculo, ut omnes

2 In his famous ‘‘ Prelude on the Babylonish Captivity of the Church” (1520), Luther characterised departure from primitive rule in this matter as impiety.

bibant, et ne quis possit cavillari, quod hoe ad sacerdotes tantum pertineat, Paulus ad Corinth. exemplum recitat, in quo apparet totam ecclesiam utraque specie usam esse.”

In the reign of Henry VIII. the English Church was not prepared to go so far in a reforming direction as to alter the prevailing custom in this matter, and when the German reforming party (whose deputies had been in conference, in 1538, with representative English divines)’ freely censured the withdrawal of the Cup from the laity as an abuse, England replied with the Stx ARTICLE Law, the second Article of which expressly declared that Communion in both kinds is not necessary for all.

Stat. 1 Ed. VI. c. 1, however, in conformity with a unanimous decree of Convocation, legalised Communion in both kinds, which was also provided for in the two Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552.

With our Article we may compare the tenth of the XI. Articles of 1559, which affirms :—

“T am of that mind also, that the holy Communion or Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, for the due obedience to Christ’s institution, and to express the virtue of the same, ought to be ministered unto the people under both kinds: and that it is avouched by certain fathers of the Church to be a plain sacrilege, to rob them of the mystical cup for whom Christ hath shed his most precious Blood, seeing he himself hath said, Drink ye all of this ; considering also, that in the time of the ancient doctors of the Church, as Cyprian, Hierom, Augustine, Gelasius, and others, six hundred years after Christ and more, both the parts of the Sacrament were ministered to the people.”

When the CounciL or TRENT reassembled in 1562, under Pope Pius IV., both the Emperor Ferdinand and the Cardinal of Lorraine, with other representatives from France, urged the desirability of yielding Communion in both kinds. In the result, however, Decrees and Canons were agreed upon confirming the medizeval practice (Session X XJ.) :—

“Ttaque sancta ipsa Synodus, a Spiritu sancto, qui spiritus est sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et pietatis, edocta, atque ipsius Ecclesiae judicium et consuetudinem secuta, declarat ac

Canon IJ.—Si quis dixerit, sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non Justis causis et rationibus adductam fuisse, ut Laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantummodo specie communi- caret, aut in eo errasse ; anathema sit.

To the decrees on Reformation passed at the twenty-second Session of the Council was appended a further decree referring to the Pope the question of yielding the chalice to the laity :—

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

By Christ’s command and ordinance both kinds should be administered to all. His words at the Institution of the Sacrament, with reference to the Cup, were, Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες (S. Matt. xxvi. 27); and S. Mark (xiv. 23) adds, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες. Of. also 5. Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor. x. 21, ΧΙ. 26, e¢ seqg. | :

Two considerations which are sometimes brought forward as

justifying Communion in one kind may be briefly noticed :-—

(a) It has been urged that it was to aaa our Lord said the words, “ Drink ye all.”

But this argument scarcely applies, since the Roman Church withholds the Cup from all present at the celebration of the Eucharist, whether priests or laymen, except only the consecrating priest.

(0) There is the argument from the doctrine of “Concomi- tance,” viz., that in the one Species we receive both the Body and the Blood of the Lord, for in the Body we have the Blood.

But the Blood of Christ of which we partake in the Eucharist is emphatically stated by our Lord to be His Blood as shed in Sacrifice for us :—

“This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins” (Prayer of Consecration).

Cf. the words of administration :—

“The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for Oe ss

We do not, of course, assert that those who communicate in one kind only lose the grace of the Sacrament which is necessary to salvation ; at the same time the withdrawal of the Cup from the laity is a mutilation of Christ’s ordinance.

Since our Lord enjoined the reception of both Elements, it is the part of loyal Christians thankfully to receive both, being assured that no part of His ordinance is without its effect and grace, and that therefore the partaking of the chalice has its own special significance. For the participation of the Blood of Christ as shed in Sacrifice seems particularly to have reference to our need as sinners, so that participation in the Consecrated Cup is participation in the Life of Christ, as charged with all the healing power which flows from His atoning Sacrifice.

Article XXXI

The Offering of Christ once made |

is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits,

Oblatio Christi semel facta, perfecta est redemptio, propitiatio et satisfactio pro omnibus _peccatis totius mundi, tam _ originalibus quam actualibus. Neque praeter illam unicam est ulla alia pro peccatis expiatio. Unde Missarum sacrificia, quibus vulgo dicebatur, sacerdotem offerre Christum in remissionem poenae aut culpae pro vivis et defunctis, blasphema figmenta sunt, et perniciosae im- posturae.

§ 1.— SOURCE.

This Article was composed by the English Reformers, and first

appeared as the thirtieth of the XLII. Articles of 1553.

It is

parallel to Article III. Part II. of the AuGsBURG ConFEssIoNn, but there is not such close verbal agreement between the two as to warrant the conclusion that our Article was directly based upon the very much longer statement of the Lutheran formulary. Like our Article, the Augsburg Confession refers to the popular theory which led to the excessive multiplication of Masses :—

* Accessit opinio, quae auxit privatas missas in infinitum, vide- licet quod Christus sua passione satisfecerit pro peccato originis, et instituerit missam, in qua fieret oblatio pro quotidianis delictis, mortalibus et venialibus. Hine manavit publica opinio, quod missa sit opus delens peccata vivorum et mortuorum ex opere operato. Hic coeptum est disputari, utrum una missa dicta pro pluribus, tantundem valeat, quantum singulae pro singulis. Haec disputatio

In this connection the same Confession also emphasises the unique character of the Sacrifice of Christ :—

“De his opinionibus nostri admonuerunt, quod dissentiant a Scripturis sanctis, et laedant gloriam passionis Christi. Nam passio Christi fuit oblatio et satisfactio, non solum pro culpa originis, sed etiam pro omnibus reliquis peccatis.” .. .

We may also compare the ninth of the XI. ARTICLES of in Bap

“The doctrine that maintaineth the mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead, and a mean to deliver souls out of purgatory, is neither agreeable to Christ’s ordinance, nor grounded upon doctrine Apostolic, but contrariwise most ungodly and most injurious to the precious redemption of our Saviour Christ, and his only sufficient Sacrifice offered once for ever upon the altar of the Cross.”

The word “ blasphema” was inserted in the Article in 1563.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

To set forth the unique character and the completeness of the Sacrifice which Christ offered on the Cross, and to oppose the idea current in the times immediately preceding the Reformation with regard to the repetition of that Offering in the “Sacrifices of Masses.”

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) THe SACRIFICE OF CHRIST, ONCE OFFERED, IS THE ONLY

The Offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. (See Heb. ix. 25, 26; ὡς 10. 26.)

The doctrine of the Atonement has been already treated in Articles II. and XV. (where see notes). The point specially emphasised in the present Article is the unique character and the completeness of the Sacrifice of Christ, a truth which had been obscured by the pre-Reformation system with regard to the offering of Masses. (See the quotations from the Augsburg Confession, Part II. Art. IIL, given in § 1 above.)

252: THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

It is significant that in each place where the Offering of Christ is touched upon in the Articles the sufficiency of His Sacrifice, as an Atonement for al/ sin is especially dwelt upon :—

ArTIcLE IT. : “To be a Sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.”

ARTICLE XV.: “He came to be the Lamb without spot, who by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world.”

If the words of this thirty-first Article are carefully compared with the (more or less) parallel passage in the Augsburg Confession, the very emphatic manner in which this truth was stated by our English Reformers comes out in strong relief :— |

AUGSBURG CONFESSION : “« Passio Christi fuit oblatio et satisfactio, non solum pro culpa originis, sed etiam pro omnibus reliquis peccatis.”

Our Article contains the additional words, “ perfecta”. . . “totius mundi.” Similar phraseology also appears in the Consecration Prayer as arranged in 1552 :—

‘“ Who made there, by his one Oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.” }

(2.), CONDEMNATION OF THE IDEA THAT IN THE SACRIFICES OF

Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.

1 Tn Bullinger’s “ Decades” (1550), a book which exercised considerable influence in England, and was recommended by the Convocation of Canterbury (1586) as a text-book for curates who were not licensed to preach, there is likewise emphasised the sufficiency of the Sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the whole world :—

ARTICLE XXXT 7 9ga

What the Article thus strongly condemns is the popular theory (vulgo dicebatur) of the times immediately preceding the Reformation, in consequence of which the number of private Masses had been enormously multiplied, wherein it was supposed that Christ was offered for the remission of pain (especially Purgatorial pain) or guilt, and whereby both the unique character of the Sacrifice of Christ and the great end of the Institution of the Sacrament (viz., its reception by the faithful) had been obscured.

A strict attention to the precise wording of the Article, and a comparison with the Augsburg Confession (see § 1 above), make it evident that it is not the Primitive and Catholic doctrine as to the Eucharistic Sacrifice which is here condemned, but the common opinion bound up with the pre-Reformation system of sacrifices of Masses (note the plural), which had come to be regarded as efficacious for living or dead “ex opere operato,” and as affording in themselves a satisfaction apart from, or supplementary to, the Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ upon the Cross.’

These ‘sacrifices of Masses” are said by our Article to be :—

(a) Blasphemous fables, in that it was taught that Masses are

sacrifices for sin distinct from the Sacrifice of Christ.

imposturae).

Such strong language is indeed justified, for terrible results had followed upon the popular theory ; so many Masses were said for so much money, and in this way (so it was asserted) souls were released from Purgatory. It is easy to see how such a system would degenerate into most disgraceful imposture, and traffic for the sake of gain.

1 Bishop Gardiner, who was on the whole decidedly conservative in matters of doctrine, protested against the popular conception with which our Article deals. Cf, ¢.g., his Sermon on 8. Peter’s Day, 1548 :—

“When men added to the Mass an opinion of satisfaction, or of a new redemption, they put it to another use than it was ordained for.”

Cf. the same prelate’s words, as quoted by Cranmer, On the Lord’s Supper :—

“This is agreed, and by the Scriptures plainly taught, that the Oblation and Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ was and is a perfect work, once consummate in perfection without the necessity of reiteration, as it was never taught to be reiterated, but a mere blasphemy to presuppose it. It is also in the Catholic teaching, grounded upon the Scripture, agreed that the same Sacrifice once consummate was ordained by Christ’s institution in His most Holy Supper to be in the Church often remembered and showed forth” (p. 344).

Cf. the Homity For Repairing AND KEEPING ~ CLEAN OF CHURCHES :—

“What dens of thieves the churches of England have been made by the blasphemous buying and selling the most precious Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass” (p. 289).

‘'he HoMILY OF THE PLACE AND TIME OF PRAYER also speaks of the

‘“‘oross abusing. and filthy corrupting of the Lord’s Holy Supper, the Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood” (p. 369).-

This thirty-first Article, while it “rightly censures that erroneous view of the Sacrifice, does not declare against the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice rightly understood.” ὦ '

It should be noted that the protest contained in the latter half of the Article is connected with the dogmatic statement of the former part by the word ‘“ Wherefore,” indicating that the condemnation of the second part is directed against those who impugned the truth stated in the first, viz., against such as professed to make a fresh propitiation for sin distinct from that made upon the Cross of Calvary, or in any way to supplement “the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.” The Primitive and Catholic doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (it should scarcely be necessary to state) does not in any way contravene this great truth.

In the Eucharist as a Sacrament we receive spiritually the Body.and Blood of our Lord,Jesus Christ ; in the same Eucharist as a Sacrifice we in representation plead the one great Sacrifice which our High Priest continually presents for us in Heaven ; for one characteristic idea of the whole service, which comes out with especial prominence in the Primitive Liturgies, is that it is a representation on earth of the pleading of His Atoning Sacrifice by our Lord within the veil (Heb. ix. 24). The Sacrifice was once for all offered on Calvary. It can never be repeated or supplemented (Heb. ix. 25, 26), but its propitiatory virtue is ever- living and continuous (cf. Rev. v. 6, 12, where our Lord appears as the “‘ Lamb as it had been slain,” bearing before the Father the memorial of His Sacrifice), and the fulness of the propitiation

ARTICLE XXXI ass

is pleaded for the whole Church,’ wheresoever the commemoration of it is exhibited in the Holy Eucharist, wherein we, the members, are joined with our Head in His priestly action. When the priest says, “ Lift up your hearts,” we are in spirit lifted up to Heaven, entering in spirit the very Holy of Holies, and joining “with angels and archangels, and with all the company of Heaven,” in the Triumphal Hymn; then on the Altar, with the very acts and words of Christ, we make before the Father’ the Memorial which Christ commanded us to make, in correspondence with the continual memorial made by Himself in Heaven.

(1.) Holy Scripture. ;

In dealing with the testimony of Holy Scripture, our chief concern must necessarily be to carefully study the significance of our Lord’s own words in instituting the Sacrament. In the first place, it cannot escape us that the words occur in a Sacrificial setting; our Lord spoke at a Sacrificial time. Close attention to the words of Holy Scripture reveals further that He spoke in Sacrificial terms, in words which can only be rightly understood by reference to the old Sacrificial system.

Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε----“ Make this your offering.”

The verb employed occurs very many times in the Septua- gmt in the sense “to offer”; eg., Exod. x. 25, xxix. 38, 39; Lev. ix. 7, xvi. 24; cf, in the New Testament, Heb. xi. 28, and note especially that our Lord Himself uses the same word (S. Matt. xxvi. 18) in this sense with reference to the Passover Feast He was about to celebrate. In the same sense—“ to offer’”’—the word also occurs with reference to the Kucharist in Justin Martyr’s “ Dialogue with Trypho,” ὁ. 41 :—

“ καὶ ἡ τῆς σεμιδάλεως δὲ προςφορά, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἔλεγον, ἡ ὑπὲρ τῶν καθαριζομένων ἀπὸ τῆς λέπρας προσφέρεσθαι παραδοθεῖσα,

1 Cf. the Prayer of Oblation :—

“We Thy humble servants entirely desire Thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving ; most humbly beseeching Thee to grant, that by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His passion.”

* A memorial before God, and not merely before man, is clearly intended, for the words of Institution are recited and the manual acts performed in the course ofa prayertoGod, ;

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES :

τύπος ἦν τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας, Ov εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ πάθους,

οὗ ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ τῶν καθαιρομένων τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπὸ πάσης πονηρίας

ἀνθρώπων, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν παρέδωκε ποιεῖν.

"Exe τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

᾿Ανάμνησις does not occur very frequently in Holy Scripture. In the only other place in which it is found in the New Testament (Heb. x. 3) it is used of a Sacrificial memorial. Cf, in the Old Testament, Lev. xxiv. 7; Num. x. 10, where in each case the word is used with reference to a memorial before God. The Scriptural usage of the word is, in fact, restricted to this meaning.

.) The Primitive Liturgres.

These afford unmistakable evidence as to the belief of the Primitive Church. Though not actually composed by the Apostles and Fathers whose names they bear, they were the legitimate development of their unwritten traditions respecting the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Certain most important parts of these Liturgies are common to all, and the wording of these portions, it is only reasonable to con- dude, may be assigned to a period considerably earlier than that from which the extant Liturgies date ; perhaps it would be scarcely too much to say (with the great liturgiologist, Dr. Neale) that it has come down to us without material change from the Apostolic authors themselves. Besides this verbal agreement which appears in certain portions, the general tenor of the Liturgies also presents a remarkable agreement throughout, the same great conceptions with respect to the Sacrament running through all, though they may be expressed in varying phraseology. It can scarcely be doubted that this general tenor has also been derived from the tradition of the Apostles themselves, forming part of the παραθήκη which they handed down to their successors, In comparing the general tenor of the Primitive Liturgies, we must be impressed by the very distinct enunciation of the Sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist, which is so prominent a feature of them all. We here quote one or two examples :—

Liturcy or 8S. CLEMENT:

«ἰ Μ ΄ ΄ A 40 ee \ A θ , weer. εμνημένοι τοίνυν τοῦ πάθους αὐτοῦ καὶ TOP θανάτου καὶ τῆς.

“Ἂ al > A ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως, καὶ τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἐπανόδου, Kal τῆς

ARTICLE XXXI 2:1

» > ae Loy / ε “ ε ΄ a # / Ν σοι δὲ αὐτοῦ, ἐφ᾽ οἷς κατηξίωσας ἡμᾶς ἑστάναι ἐνώπιόν σου, καὶ ἱερατεύειν σοι "

Litrurey or S. ΦΑΜΕΒ:

“Me ΄ Ss > ear, Ὁ a 4...6 Ν “ “Ὁ 3 “ εμνημένοι οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τῶν ζωοποιῶν αὐτοῦ παθημάτων, τοῦ σωτηρίου σταυροῦ, καὶ τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τῆς τριημέρου ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως, καὶ τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου, καὶ τῆς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου τοῦ: Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς καθέδρας, καὶ τῆς δευτέρας ἐνδό ὶ ἂς αὐτοῦ ίας, ὅταν ἔλθ ;

ρας ἐνδόξου καὶ φοβερᾶς αὐτοῦ παρουσίας, ὅταν ἔλθῃ μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ὅταν μέλλῃ ἀποδιδόναι ἑκάστῳ

Ν IG. [...] [4 ΄ Ν Ν κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἀυτοῦ, προσφέρομέν σοι, Δέσποτα, τὴν φοβερὰν ταύτην καὶ ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, δεόμενοι." . ..

(3.) ΜΨαγίῳψ Christian Writers.

ΤῊΝ Dinacue (Palestinian Church, close of the first century Α.}.}):

“Kara κυριακὴν δὲ Κυρίου συναχθέντες κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε προσεξομολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν, 4 Ν ε 7 3 “ > an \ »” Ν 3 lf ὅπως καθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν 7. lds δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἀμφιβολίαν

A na ¢ laa > nan \ 7 ε »-» [2 Ὄ “Ὁ μετὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου αὐτοῦ μὴ συνελθέτω ὑμῖν, ἕως οὗ διαλλαγῶσιν,

[2 Ν ae / ε n 2 3 > ε ε » ε Wa μη κοινωθῃ 1) θυσία υμων" αὐτή γὰρ εστιν Ἴ ῥηθεῖσα ὑπὸ

Κυρίου "Ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ προσφέρειν μοι θυσίαν καθαράν" [7 A 4 > / 4 / Ν ” /,

ὅτι βασιλεὺς μέγας εἰμί, λέγει Κύριος, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά pov θαυμαστὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι" (Cap. xiv.).

The reference here is to Mal. i. 11, 14.

IanatTius oF ANTIOCH (A.D. 100-118):

“Σπουδάσατε οὖν μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι" μιά γὰρ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἕν ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, ἕν θυσιαστήριον, ὡς εἷς ἐπίσκοπος ἅμα τῳ πρεσ- βυτερίῳ καὶ διακόνοις, τοῖς συνδούλοις μου" ἵνα, ὃ ἐὰν πράσσητε,

κατὰ Θεὸν πράσσητε᾽" (Ad Philadelph., iv.).

Justin Martyr (a.D. 133-165).

See the passage quoted above (p. 255, 256) from the

“ Dialogue with Trypho,” c. 41. In the context Justin quotes Mal. i. 11 as prophetic of the Holy Eucharist.

TRENzvS (A.D. 180) :

“Tgitur Ecclesiae oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, et acceptum est Ei” (Adv. Haer., IV. xviii.).

S. CyprIAN (A.D. 250):

“Nam si Iesus Christus Dominus et Deus ἔων ipse est summus sacerdos Dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum primus obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit ; utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id, quod Christus fecit, imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia Deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre, secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse ” (Ep. lxiii., ed. Goldhorn).

. CyrIL OF JERUSALEM (A.D. 386) :

rat 4 Ee ε / ε \ ὃ Ν a a , a ira ἁγιάσαντες ἑαυτοὺς διὰ TOV πνευματικῶν τούτων ὕμνων παρακαλοῦμεν τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεὸν τὸ Αγιον Πνεῦμα ἐξαποσ- τεῖλαι ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα, ἵνα ποιήσῃ τὸν μὲν ἄρτον σῶμα Χρισ- γον Ἂς Ἂ μ Φ fal / Ν a A 3 ’ Ν τοῦ, τὸν δὲ οἶνον αἷμα Χριστοῦ. πάντως γὰρ οὗ ἂν ἐφάψηται τὸ

“Aytov IIvetpa, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται. Εἶτα μετὰ τὸ

an / ἀπαρτισθῆναι τὴν πνευματικὴν θυσίαν, τὴν ἀναίμακτον λατρείαν, ioe “A 7 > 7 m™ € n “ ΕΥ (4 Ν ἐπὶ τῆς θυσίας ἐκείνης τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ παρακαλοῦμεν τὸν Θεὸν ὑπὲρ κοινῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης, ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου εὐσταθείας, ὑπὲρ βασιλέων, ὑπὲρ στρατιωτῶν καὶ συμμάχων, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν ἀσθενείαις, ὑπὲρ τῶν καταπονουμένων, καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς ὑπὲρ πάντων βοηθείας δεομένων δεόμεθα πάντες ἡμεῖς καὶ ταύτην προσφέρομεν XN / . τὴν θυσίαν" (On the Mysteries, v. 7, 8).

(4.) The Council of Nicwa (A.D. 325), which we acknowledge

cecumenical, in several of its Canons assumes the truth of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Let one example suffice :—

‘H)Oev εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ μεγάλην σύνοδον, ὅτι ἐν τισι τόποις καὶ πόλεσι, τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τὴν εὐχαριστίαν ot διάκονοι διδόασιν. ὅπερ οὔτε ὁ κανὼν, οὔτε ἡ συνήθεια παρέδωκε, τοὺς ἐξουσίαν μὴ ἔχοντας προσφέρειν, τοῖς προσφέρουσι διδόναι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ " (Canon. xviii.).

(5.) Zhe Prayer Book.

It must be admitted that the Sacrificial aspect is not the

prominent aspect of the Holy Eucharist dwelt upon in our Communion Office. It was thought necessary for those times by the Reformers to dwell rather upon the Eucharist as the Communion, because of the false conception current that, the Offering of Calvary was literally repeated, or supplemented, at every celebration of Mass, and because such false notion had tended to obscure the great end of Christ’s Institution, the frequent reception by all the faithful, so that it had come about that the bulk of the people com-

ΝΣ ΝΣ δ... .........

municated very rarely. Hence the Office was entitled ‘The Order for the Administracion of the Lordes Supper, or Holye Communion,” and the name ‘Holy Table,” or ‘ Lord’s Table,” is consistently used for “ Altar” throughout in the Prayer Book. Ξ

Our Reformers, however, held the doctrine of ¢he Eucharistic Sacrifice,’ and our Office, framed as it was upon ancient models, contains, as we should expect, passages which indisputably testify to the Sacrificial character of the Sacrament; ¢.g.:— ,

(a) THe PRAYER OF CONSECRATION:

*‘ And did institute, and in his Holy Gospel command us to . continue, a perpetual memory? of that his precious Death, until his coming again.”

The words recited and the acts performed immediately afterwards themselves constitute the memorial, and these occur, it should be specially noted, not in the course of an address to the people, but during a Prayer to God the Father, and are therefore addressed to Him.? The Eucha-

** Pie. What say you to that council, where it is said, that the priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice of the Body of Christ ?

“* Ridley. I say, it is well said, if it be rightly understood.

Cf. CHURCH CATECHISM :—

‘* Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained ? ** Answer. For the continual remembrance of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.”

3 The significance of this will appear the more clearly if we compare the treatment which the Eucharistic Office has received at the hands of those who repudiate all notion of Sacrifice in connection with the Sacrament. While tite. English Reformers in this, as in other matters, took their stand upon the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, Calvin, on the other hand, thus

rist is thus primarily not a solemn reminder to men of Christ’s Death, but Christ’s own appointed way of pleading before the Father the memory of His Sacrifice.

(Ὁ) THE PRAYER oF ΟΒΙΑΤΙΟΝ :

“We thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.”

The words “ Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving ” corre- spend to “ Sacrifictwum EHucharisticum” of the older Service- books, and refer to the action of celebrating the Eucharist, not to the expressions of praise and thanksgiving occurring in the course of the Service.

(c) In this connection we may also draw attention to the reintroduction in 1559, by the ORNAMENTS Rusric, of such Vestments of the Ministers “as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.”* The use

speaks of the Sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist as it appears in the writings of the early Fathers :— .

Accordingly, when laying down tle ‘‘Manner of Celebrating the Lord’s Supper,” the Swiss Reformer gives these directions :—

‘* After Prayer and the Confession of Faith, to testify in the name of the people that all wish to live and die in the doctrine of Christ, he says aloud, ‘Let us listen to the Institution of the Holy Supper by Jesus Christ, as narrated by St. Paul in the eleventh chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians ”’ (Calvin’s Tracts, vol. ii. p. 119).

Then follows the reading of the portion of Scripture specified, succeeded by an exposition of it, and an exhortation based upon it. But all this is addressed to the people, and the Sacrament is therefore only a memorial in the sense of a reminder to the people of what Christ has done for them.

Cf. the directions given in the DIRECTORY FOR THE PUBLIC WORSHIP OF Gop drawn up by the Westminster Assembly of Divines :—

1 In the Book of 1549 this followed immediately after the Consecration, but since 1552 has been displaced, contrary to all Primitive usage, so that it is said after the Communion of the people.

2 The precise wording of the Rubric, as inserted in 1559, is as follows :—

“ And here is to be noted, that the Minister at the time of the cOmunion, and at all other tymes in hys ministracion, shall vse suche ornamentes in the

ARTICLE XXXI | 261

of these vestments was distinctly understood at the time to imply a recognition of the Sacrificial character of the Sacrament."

It is sometimes urged that the absence of the word Altar from the Prayer Book indicates the intention of our Church (1552) to reject the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The word occurs frequently in the Book of 1549, but was dropped in the revision of 1552.”

On this point we may note that—

(a) In the Act of Uniformity, 1552, it was explained that the alterations in the Prayer Book had been made in order to “render the book fully perfect in all such places in which it was necessary to be made more earnest and fit for the stirring up of all Christian people to the true honouring of Almighty God, and with no intention of contradicting | the former book.” The First Book is, moreover, described as a ‘very godly order, agreeable to the Word of God and the Primitive Church.”

In view of such statements as these we can scarcely interpret the substitution of Zable for Altar as having been made with the intention of the rejecting the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. ‘The true reason of the substitution is no doubt to be found (as has been already indicated) in the feeling of our Reformers that it was necessary for those times to lay special emphasis on the Communion aspect of the Holy Eucharist.

(6) The word Altar is retained in the Office for the Coronation of the Sovereign. :

Since we recognise in the Eucharist both Sacrifice and

church, as wer in vse by aucthoritie of parliamét in the second yere of the reygne of king Edward the VI. according to the acte of parliament set in the beginning of thys booke.”

The Prayer Book of 1552, on the other hand, had provided—

“That the minister at the tyme of the Comunion and all other tymes in his

- _ministracion, shall use neither albe, vestment, nor cope : but being archbishop

or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet ; and being a preest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice onely.”

2 The word Priest, however, was retained,

Sacrament, we speak of the structure upon which the Elements are consecrated both as the Altar and as the Lord’s Table, or the Holy Table. Of the two names [...] is much the more ancient, the name “ Table” being nowhere used in this connection by the Apostolic | Fathers. ‘God’s Board” was a frequent old English appellation for the Altar; cf, ¢g., the rubric at the commencement of the Communion Office in the Prayer Book of

140:-- . “Then the Prieste standyng at Goddes borde shall begin.”

It seems somewhat strange that those who object to the use of the name “ Altar,” on the ground that it is not found in the Prayer Book, should themselves habitually speak of the “Communion Table,” a name to which their objection equally applies, for it occurs nowhere in the Book of Common Prayer.

For the purpose of comparison we here add extracts from the Canons of the CounciL or TRENT (Session XXII.), which deal with the subject treated in our thirty-first Article :—

Canon 1.-- δὴ] quis dixerit, in Missa non offerri Deo verum et pro- prium sacrificlum . . . anathema sit.”

Canon IV.—“Si quis dixerit, blasphemiam irrogari sanctissimo Christi sacrificio in Cruce peracto per Missae sacrificium, aut illi per hoc derogari; anathema sit.”

In a decree of the same Session it is admitted that a “ private Mass” is not an ideal service :—

“‘Optaret quidem sacrosancta Synodus, ut in singulis Missis fideles adstantes non solum spirituali affectu, sed sacramentali

etiam Eucharistiae perceptione communicarent, quo ad eos sanctis- simi hujus sacrificii fructus uberior proveniret: nec tamen, si id non semper fiat, propterea Missas illas, in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, ut privatas et illicitas damnat, sed probat atque adeo commendat” (Cap. vi.).

It must be borne in mind that the above declarations bear date September 17, 1562, and that our Article, since it dates from 1553, could not have been drawn up with reference to the authoritative statements of the Tridentine Council.

The following statements of Continental Confessions may also be compared :—

AvasspurG Conression. See § 1, pp. 250, 251.

TETRAPOLITAN ConFEssion, Cap. XIX.:

“Kt contra qui Missas celebrant, praesumunt Christum Patri offerre pro vivis et defunctis, Missamque tale opus faciunt, quo solo fere favor Dei et salus comparetur, quicquid vel credant homines, vel vivant. Unde et pudenda illa ac bis terque impia sacri hujus nundinatio irrepsit, factumque est, ut nihil sit hodie Missa questiosius. Privatas itaque Missas rejecerunt, propterea quod Dominus in commune, discipulis hoc sacramentum commen- davit.”

Saxon Conression, Art. XV.:

“Multi ante hoc tempus scripserunt, fieri oblationem in missa pro vivis et mortuis, et mereri eam facienti et aliis remissionem peccatorum ex opere operato. . . . Hac opinione cumulabantur sacrificia, et crescebant aucupia quaestus. Talis est et missarum mercatus, et prophanatio coenae Domini, fere in toto orbe terrarum. Vult autem Deus, vitiosos cultus taxari et aboleri. Ideo vocem divinam simpliciter et vere proponimus, quae errores illos damnat. Ac toto pectore adfirmamus coram Deo et tota Ecclesia in coelo et in terra, tantum fuisse unicum sacrificium propitia- torium, seu quo ira aeterni Patris adversus genus humanum placata est; scilicet, totam Filii Dei Domini nostri Jesu Christi crucifixi et resuscitati obedientiam.”’

WorTEMBURG CoNFsssion, Art. XIX. :

“Deinde cum sacrificii nomen latissime pateat, ac generaliter significet sacrum cultum, libenter concedimus verum et legiti- mum usum Eucharistiae posse hoc modo sacrificium dici. Et si Eucharistia juxta institutionem Christi ita celebratur, ut in ea adnuncietur mors Christi, et dispensetur Ecclesiae sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi, recte vocatur Applicatio meriti pas- sionis Christi, his videlicet qui saeramentum sumunt.”

Snconp Hetveric Conressron, Art. XXL. : “Missa qualis aliquando apud veteres fuerit, tolerabilis an int¥lerabilis, modo non disputamus: hoc autem libere dicimus, — missam, quae hodie in usu est per universam Romanam Ecclesiam, plurimas et justissimas quidem ob causas, in ecclesiis nostris esse abrogatam, quas sigillatim ob brevitatem nunc non commemoramus. Certe approbare non potuimus, quod ex actione salubri, specta- culum inane est factum, quod item facta est meritoria, vel celebrata pro pretio, quodque in ea sacerdos dicitur conficere ipsum domini corpus, et hoc offerre realiter, pro remissione peccatorum vivorum et mortuorum: adde et in honorem et celebrationem, vel memoriam

sanctorum in coelis, ete.”

ee oe ae

Article XXXII

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

Episcopis, Presbyteris, et Diaco- nis, nullo mandato divino praecep- tum est ut aut coelibatum vove- ant, aut a matrimonio abstineant. Licet igitur etiam illis, ut caeteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc ad pietatem magis facere judicave- rint, pro suo arbitratu matrimo- nium contrahere.

§ 1.— SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers.

In 1553 the corre-

spending Article ran as follows:—

Bishoppes, Priestes, and Deacons are not commaunded to vowe the state of single life without mariage, neither by Goddes lawe are thei compelled to absteine from matvri- monie.

In 1563 this was recast and

Episcopis, Presbyteris et Diaconis non est mandatum ut ccelibatum voveant ; neque jure Divino cogun- tur matrimonio abstinere.

added to, a more general title

being then prefixed, to suit the reconstructed Article.

In the latter part of our present Article (added in 1563) it is to be noted that clerical marriage is positively declared lawful, whereas previously it had been merely stated negatively that no Divine command could be urged against it.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

To dispel the error that there is anything sinful or contrary to God’s law in the marriage of clergy, and to declare that Priests are free to marry, even as laymen are.

The estate of celibacy was held in high esteem among Christians from a very early period. Widows, monks, or nuns who took vows of celibacy were considered to be embracing a higher mode of life. But such celibate life was, at the same time, regarded as a special vocation (cf. S. Matt. xix. 10-12; 1 Cor. vii. 7, 8, 38-40), only allowed on condition of strict chastity, and to be forced upon no one, nor on any account to be made a subject of boasting. As early as the third century it was urged that the celibate life should be adopted by the clergy in general, and at the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) it was proposed that clergy should be obliged to live apart from their wives whom they had married before their ordination. The proposition was not agreed to, owing to the opposition of Paphnutius, an aged confessor and himself a celibate, and in the result the Council simply prohibited second marriages on the part of the clergy. The Trullan Council, held at Constantinople (4.D. 692), declared that priests and deacons might live with their wives, as the laity do, according to the ancient custom and ordinance of the Apostles. To this decision the Eastern Church has adhered, allowing priests and deacons to live in marriage; only a priest living in celibacy, however, may be chosen as a bishop. In the Western Church various attempts were made by the Popes to enforce celibacy ; e.g., by Leo IX. (1048-1054), Nicolas II. (1058-1061), and by Alexander II. (1061-1073), who issued an excommunication against all those who should attend a Mass celebrated by a priest having a wife or concubine. A decree to the like effect was also issued by Gregory VII. (Hildebrand) in 1074, the rule of celibacy for the clergy forming part of the great scheme of that famous Pope for the reorganisation of the Church. Under Anselm, as Archbishop of Canterbury, it was ruled in this country (1102) that no one should be ordained who did not profess celibacy. In 1215 a Canon of the Fourth Lateran Council required celibacy, and from this time forward the Popes made persistent efforts to enforce the rule, so that by the beginning of the sixteenth century the idea that the clergy should live a celibate life had gained such hold that freedom for them to marry was not conceded without considerable opposition.

The AuGsBuRG CoNFESSION (Part II. Art. II.) claimed freedom for the clergy to marry upon the ground of (a) the Law of God, which no law of man can alter; (Ὁ) the custom of the Primitive Church; and (c) the impure single life of the clergy

which had in fact followed upon the absolute prohibition of their marriage. .

In 1538, when certain representatives of the Lutheran Reformers came from Germany to confer with English divines, the rule of celibacy had not been formally abrogated in this country, and the deputies freely censured the enforcement of clerical celibacy, together with other remnants of Medizvalism, such as Communion in one kind, which were still at that time sanctioned in England. In view of their strictures, the third Article of the SraTuTE oF Six ARTICLES (1539) laid down that priests may not marry.

Permission was given for clergy to marry by the Ecclesiastical authorities in the first year of Edward VI., and this was confirmed by an Act of Parliament in the year following.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) The negative side of the matter :—

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage.

It is stated in the New Testament that marriage is honourable in all (Heb, xiii. 4). Some of the Apostles themselves were married men (e.g., S. Peter, S. Mark i. 30; 1 Cor. ix. 5), and the qualifications for the Ministry as given by S. Paul in the Pastoral Epistles have in view a married clergy (1 Tim. iii. 2, 5, 12; Tit.i.6). We may add that the forbidding to marry is even mentioned as characteristic of the apostasy of later times (1 Tim. iv. 1.-- 3).

(2.) The positive side of the matter :—

Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

Clergy and laity are alike free to marry, and the same high principle is set before each as the ground of action.

In dealing with the subject of Matrimony, the twenty-fourth

Session of the Counci or Trent (November 11, 1563) laid down the following Canon :—

matrimonium contrahere, contractumque validum esse non obstante lege ecclesiastica vel voto; et oppositum nil aliud esse quam damnare matrimonium, posseque omnes contrahere matri- monium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, etiam si eam voverint, habere donum ; anathema sit, cum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos supra id quod possumus tentari.”

The opinions of some of the leading Reformers on the Continent, and the statements of the chief Continental Confessions, on the subject τ the Celibacy of the Clergy may be briefly noted.

Luther himself held very strong opinions on the matter, which he expressed in language characteristically vehement and somewhat unguarded. Monastic vows of celibacy he denounced as impious, and though he himself had taken such vows, he did not scruple to break them, adding to the scandal of his conduct by marrying one who had taken vows as a nun.

The AUGSBURG CONFESSION speaks very strongly of the iniquity of the system of enforcing celibacy as practised at = time :—

Cy. also TETRAPOLITAN CONFESSION, Cap. XII:

“Proinde nemini obsistere potuimus, qui vitam monasticam, indubitatam jam Satanae servitutem, cum Christiana mutare voluisset. Sicut nec aliis ex ordine ecclesiastico, qui ductis uxoribus, genus vitae amplexi sunt, a quo proximis plus commodi, majorque vitae honestas, quam ab eo in quo erant, expectari potest. Denique nec eos qui apud nos, in verbi Dei ministerio, perseverarunt, arcere a jure conjugii, quicquid castitatis voverint, ob memoratas causas, nobis permisimus, cum divus Paulus praecipuus verae castitatis assertor, Episcopum quoque recipiat maritum.” _ μα

* Docent etiam, ut Sacerdotes negotiis saecularibus non occu- pentur, praesertim vero, ut ab statu conjugii liberi sint, quo aptiores sint et expeditiores ad serviendum proximi commodis et ecclesiae. Etenim conjugium multa secum adfert impedimenta, quae multos, quo minus bene respondeant suae vocationi, remo- rantur. Proinde nostri idoneos magis, habilioresque ad Ministerium ecclesiae existimant coelibes, si quibus tamen hoc peculiare donum a Deo datum fuerit.

“Non quod Sacerdotes peccare putent, si matrimonium con- trahant, si id moneat necessitas, sintve ad hoc aliae justae rationes. Nam et Paulus aperte docet, ad ecclesiastica munia tractanda, unius uxoris viros eligendos esse.”

Catvin’s Instrrures, IV. xii. 23:

“Una in re plusquam rigidi sunt et inexorabiles, ne conjugium Sacerdotibus permittant. Quanta apud eos scortandi grassetur impunitas dicere nihil attinet, ac foetido suo coelibatu freti occal- luerunt ad omnia flagitia, haec tamen prohibitio clare ostendit quam pestiferae sint omnes traditiones, utpote quae non solum orbavit Ecclesiam probis et idoneis Pastoribus, sed horrendam invexit scelerum colluviem, multasque animas in gurgitem despe- rationis projecit. Certe quod sacerdotibus interdictum fuit con- jugium, id factum est impia tyrannide, non modo contra verbum Dei, sed etiam contra omnem aequitatem. Primum vetare quod Dominus liberum reliquisset, nulla ratione hominibus licuit. Deinde nominatim Deum cavisse verbo suo ne haec libertas in-

fringeretur, clarius est quam ut longa demonstratione uti necesse fit.”

’ Saxon Conression, Art. XVIIL:

“Scimus autem voluntatem Dei esse, ne prohibeatur conjugium ullis personis, quae sunt idoneae ad conjugium; et quae extra conjugium non viverent absque periculo conscientiae: sicut Gen. ii., Matt. xix., 1 Cor. vii., scriptum est. Ideo conceditur apud nos conjugium sacerdotibus, et aliis personis, quae pie in conjugio vivere malunt, quam in coelibatu habere sauciatas conscientias, ne Deum invocare et pie vivere possint.”

WorteEembure Conression, Art. XXL:

“ Praeterea non dubitamus, quin qui sunt verae honestatis amantes, sentiant conjugium non tantum laicis, ut vocant, verum etiam ministris Ecclesiae liberum esse. Dicit enim Epistola ad- Hebraeos: Honorabile connubium in omnievs, et thorus immacu- latus. Et Paulus probat conjugium in Episcopo, et adfirmat prohibitionem conjugii esse Spiritum erroris et doctrinam dae- moniorum. . . . Nec obstare debet votum castitatis, propterea

quod tale votum humana superstitione, sine auctoritate verbi Dei, et contra fidem susceptum, non agnoscatur a Deo.”

“(Qui coelitus donum habent coelibatus, ita ut ex corde, vel toto animo, puri sint ac continentes, nec urantur graviter, serviant in ea vocatione Domino, donec senserint se divino munere prae- ditos, et ne efferant se caeteris, sed serviant Domino assidue, in simplicitate et humilitate. Aptiores autem hi sunt curandis rebus divinis, quam qui privatis familiae negotiis distrahuntur. Quod is adempto rursus dono, ustionem senserint durabilem, memi- nerint verbi apostolici, Melius est nubere, quam uri, 1 Cor. vii.”

It will be observed that the formularies above quoted for the most part use stronger language and go much further (with the exception of the Bohemian and Second Helvetic Confessions, both of which commend the celibate life for such as feel a call thereto) than our Article. Our Article simply says that priests are not Divinely commanded to “vow the estate of single life.” The Continental Reformers, generally speaking, in expressing their abhorrence and detestation of the prevalent corruption of the monastic life, were impelled to regard all such vows as contrary to the law of God, and therefore null and void.

Article XXXIII

That person which by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto.

Qui per publicam Ecclesiae denun- tiationem rite ab unitate Ecclesiae praecisus est et excommunicatus, is ab universa fidelium multitudine, donec per poenitentiam publice re- conciliatus fuerit, arbitrio Judicis competentis, habendus est tanquam Ethnicus et Publicanus.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers, and first appeared as the thirty-second of the XLII. Articles of 1553.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

The object both of this Article and of Article XXXIV. is the regulation of the internal discipline and usages of the Church, upon which subject there was much warm discussion in England

during the reign of Edward VI.

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1.) THE CHURCH HAS THE POWER OF EXCOMMUNICATION. That person which by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated. In the Christian Church in all ages Excommunication has been practised, as indeed every society, if it is to exist in a healthy condition, must have the power of excluding

unworthy members, and such as refuse to comply with the

conditions of membership.' The Lord Himself gave to the Church the power of Excommunication (S. Matt. xviii. 15-18), and we have in the New Testament itself evidences of the exercise of the power. (See 1 Cor. vy. 3-5; 1 Tim. i. 205 of. Tit. ii, 10.) In the exercise of the disciplinary power of the Church

three stages are to be distinguished :—

(a) The offender is repeatedly admonished, in accordance with the Apostolic precept, αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν Kat δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ (Tit. iii. 10).

Cf. 8. Ambrose, De Offic., lib. 11. cap, xxvii. :—

“Cum dolore amputatur etiam, quae putruit pars corporis, et diu tractatur, si potest sanari medicamentis: si non potest, tune a medico bono absciditur. Sic episcopi adfectus boni est, ut optet sanare infirmos, serpentia auferre ulcera, adurere aliqua, non abscidere: postremo quod sanari non potest, cum dolore abscindere.”

(0) In case he persists in ‘his error he is suspended from Communion. This is called the Lesser EHxcommunication, and did not exclude the offender from the Church, but from participation in the Eucharist and in the prayers of the faithful.

Cf. Theodoret, Epist. xxvii. ad Eulaliuam :—

« Κωλυέσθωσαν μὲν τῆς μεταλήψεως TOV LEpOV μυστηρίων, μὴ κωλυέσθωσαν δὲ τῆς τῶν κατηχουμένων εὐχῆς, μηδὲ τῆς TOV θείων ypapov ἀκροάσεως, μηδὲ τῆς τῶν διδασκάλων παραινέσεως."

This Lesser Excommunication was inflicted tor less serious

crimes, or upon those who, haying committed serious offences,

exhibited signs of true repentance, and expressed their willingness to submit to penitential discipline.

(c) Lastly, there is the Greater Excommunication, or Anathema, as it was sometimes called, involving expulsion from the Church (1 Cor. v. 5, παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ; ef. τ Tim. i. 20), and cutting off the guilty person not only from all share in the holy offices of her members, but even from all Christian fellowship. (See under heading (2.) below.)

1 We find Excommunication sanctioned under the Old Covenant, involving

the separation of the offender from social intercourse and exclusion from participation in any Religious service (Gen. xvii. 14; Exod. xii. 19; Lev. vii. 20;

Ezra x. 8; cf.,in the New Testament, 8. Luke vi. 22, ἀφορίσωσιν ; 8. J ohn i ix. 22, Neh wesc γένηται ; Xii. 423 XVI. 2),

ARTICLE XXXII = 273

This extreme penalty was reserved for such as persevered in sin after repeated warning, or had denied the faith ; and those thus cut off, if they remained impenitent, were not allowed Communion even in the hour of death, nor were they permitted the privilege of burial according to the rites of the Church."

It is with this Greater Excommunication that our Article is concerned,

That the Church of England claims the power of using such Excommunication ἢ appears further from—

(i.) CANON 65, which gives directions for the public denouncing of excommunicate persons.

(ii.) CANON 85, which, in detailing the duties of Churchwardens or Questmen, specifies—

“Especially they shall see... that all persons excommunicated, and so denounced, be kept out of the Church.”

(iii.) The Rusric at the commencement of the BuRIAL OFFICE, which provides that—

“The Office ensuing is not to be used for any that die un baptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves.”

(2.) THE ATTITUDE OF CHRISTIANS TOWARD THE EXCOMMUNICATE. That person which by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated,

1 In the eleventh century, owing to the fact that powerful barons, princes, and kings, sometimes defied a sentence of Excommunication, we find the more terrible sentence of Interdict occasionally resorted to by the Popes. This was, in fact, an excommunication of a whole district, province, or kingdom, according to the circumstances of the particular case. A well-known example in English history is the Interdict under which Pope Innocent III. laid this country (March 24, 1208) on account of his struggle with King John.

2 A form of publishing sentence of Excommunication was sanctioned by Convocation in 1571. After recounting the offence, it proceeds thus :—

** Kt quoniam praedictus A.B. conscientia nequitiae suae, ad diem legitime dictum comparere contempsit, et se justitiae contumaciter subduxit, et alios exemplo suo ad similem contumaciam animavit; idcirco hoc etiam vos in- super admonitos volo, episcopum nostrum nomine atque auctoritate Dei optimi maximi excommunicasse illum ab omni societate ecclesiae Dei, et tanquam membrum emortuum amputasse a Christi corpore. Hoc ille in statu versatur hoc tempore, et in tanto discrimine animae suae. Divus Paulus admonitus instinctu divini Spiritus, jubet ut talium hominum societatem, et contubernia fugiamus, ne participes simus ejusdem sceleris. 'Tamen, ut christiana charitas nos monet, quoniam ipse pro se orari non vult, nec periculum suum intelligit, oremus Deum omnes ejus nomine, ut aliquando agnoscat miseriam, et foedi- tatem vitae suae, et agat poenitentiam, et convertatur ad Deum: Deus enim noster est misericors, et potest lapsos etiam’a morte revocare,”

{ THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

e taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as then and Publican.’

Our Article is here referring to the words of the Lord, Who enjoined that when an obstinate offender refuses to listen to the admonition of the Church he is to be regarded as ‘an Heathen and Publican” (S. Matt. xviii. 17). The particular terms employed were adopted by our Lord from the phraseology of His Jewish contemporaries, amongst whom both heathen and publicans were looked upon with abhorrence, and held to be without the pale of religious society. We find the Apostles acting upon the rule laid down by the Lord, and directing that those who cause divisions and offences contrary to their doctrine are to be marked and avoided (Rom. xvi. 17). Christians are to withdraw themselves from the brother who walketh disorderly (2 Thess. iii. 6), and to have no company with him who obeys not the Apostolic tradition, or written injunction (2 Thess. iil. 6,14). The Corinthian Christians are exhorted by S. Paul not to keep company, or even to eat, with the brother who is a fornicator, &c. (1 Cor. v. 11), and the incestuous person whom the Apostle has excommunicated is accordingly to be put away from among them (1 Cor. v. 13). Similarly, 5. John directs that the man who transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ is not to be received into their houses by his hearers, nor to be bidden God speed (2 S. John 9, 10).

By Excommunication the brotherhood of grace is dissolved, but the brotherhood of nature remains, and, since - the power of the Church is only a spiritual power,” a man’s natural and civil rights are unaffected; so that an excommunicate person does not thereby lose authority over his family, nor a ruler who has been excluded from the Church

“Quasi prius excommunicatio possit in quoquam intelligi, quam Ecclesia sententiam excommunicationis contra illum direxerit, in qua pronunciatur illum non secus vitandum, quam ethnicum et publicanum.”

“Tnterfici Deus jussit sacerdotibus suis non obtemperantes et judicibus a se ad tempus constitutis non obaudientes. Et tune quidem gladio occidebantur, quando adhuc et circumcisio carnalis manebat: nunc autem, quia circumcisio spiritalis esse apud fideles servos Dei coepit, spiritali giadio superbi et contu- maces necantur, dum de ecclesia ejiciuntur,” bs

Be haat ἡ ἢ

his office οὐ charge in civil matters. With the growth of the temporal power of the Popes, however, Hxcommunication was made to take effect in the temporal as well as in the spiritual sphere ; and the Popes not only used it in such a way as to release men from natural obligations, but in their hands it became a powerful political engine for deposing sovereigns and absolving all subjects from their allegiance. ᾿ Indirectly this misuse of Ecclesiastical censure favoured the progress of the Reformation, by confirming Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth in their alienation from the Roman See.

(3.) THE PURPOSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

It must always be remembered that in pronouncing sentence

of Excommunication the Church has a merciful end in view.

(a) Towards the whole Church—It is a cutting off of the diseased member, so as to save the whole body from contamination (1 Cor. v. 6, 7).

(6) With regard to the excommunicate person—Kven this extreme step is taken with a view to the spiritual benefit of the individual concerned, that he may be ashamed of his wrong-doing (2 Thess. iii. 14) and renounce his error (1 Tim. i. 20), so that eventually the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. v. 5).

(4.) THE MEANS OF RESTORATION—PENANCE. until he be openly reconciled by penance,-and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto. (See 2 Cor. li, 6—10.) “Penance” signifies repentance and contrition, together with acceptance of the punishment assigned by the Church. It is expressly stated that the offender should be “ openly reconciled by penance,” in order that the reception into the Church again may be as public an act as the formal exclusion. The “ Judge that hath authority thereunto” is the Bishop, or the Ecclesiastical Court. In the case of temporary exclusion from Communion (Lesser Excommunication), the Prayer Book directs that the matter is to be referred to the Ordinary. See the Rubric at the commencement of the Communion Office :—

“Provided that every Minister so repelling any, as is specified in this, or the next precedent Paragraph of this Rubrick, shall be

obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary within fourteen days after at the farthest. And the Ordinary shall proceed against the offending person according to the Canon.” ἢ

There are many difficulties in the way of a proper administration of Church discipline, a state of things largely owing to the very imperfect manner in which the Reformation dealt with the Church’s disciplinary system.? That due exercise of discipline is very necessary to the true well-being of the Church no one can doubt, and its restoration is much to be desired.

Of. the address in the CoMMINATION :—

“Brethren, in the Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, that, at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin were put to open penance, and punished in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord ; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the more afraid to offend. ,

“Τηβίρδα whereof, (until the said discipline may be restored again, which is much to be wished,) it is thought good,” &c.

The Counci. oF TRENT (Session XXV., December 4, 1563), while defending a due use of Excommunication and Kcclesiastical

1 Cf. CANON 65 :—

Ministers solemnly to denounce Recusants and Excommunicates.

“All Ordinaries shall, in their several jurisdictions, carefully see and give order, that as well those who for obstinate refusing to frequent Divine Service established by public authority within this realm of England, as those also (especially of the better sort and condition) who for notorious contumacy, or other notable crimes, stand lawfully excommunicate, (unless within three months immediately after the said sentence of Excommunication pronounced against them, they reform themselves, and obtain the benefit of absolution,) be, every six months ensuing, as well in the Parish Church, as in the Cathedral Church of the diocese in which they remain, by the Minister openly, in time of Divine service, upon some Sunday, denounced and declared Excommunicate, that others may be thereby both admonished to refrain their company and society, and excited the rather to procure out a writ De excommunicato capiendo, thereby to bring and reduce them into due order and obedience. Likewise the registrar of every Ecclesiastical Court shall yearly between Michaelmas and Christmas duly certify the Archbishop of the Province of all and singular the premises aforesaid.”

2 See letter of Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger (July 1566) :—

“But what shall we say respecting discipline, the sinews of religion? There is none at all, neither has our Church its rod, or any exercise of superinten- — dence” (Zurich Letters, i. p. 164). ;

Cf. also letter of Withers to the Elector Palatine, where, speaking of the condition of the Church in England during Elizabeth’s reign, he says :—

“ But the ministry is in fact nothing at all, nor is there any discipline ” (Zurich Letters, ii. p. 163).

Te Ὺ ἀν ο

Pare

censures, recognised that their use without sufficient cause had béen productive of evil :—

““Quamvis excommunicationis gladius nervus sit ecclesiasticae disciplinae, et ad continendos in officio populos valde salutaris, sobrie tamen magnaque circumspectione exercendus est, cum experientia doceat, si temere aut levibus ex rebus incutiatur, magis contemni quam formidari, et perniciem potius parere quam salutem.”

Accordingly it was provided that the sword of Excommunication should not be lightly used, and that Ecclesiastical censures should be abstained from when an Execution could be made upon the property or the person of the individual concerned. ‘The decree on the subject concludes with the following words :—

“ Nefas autem sit saeculari cuilibet magistratui prohibere ecclesiastico judici, ne quem excommunicet, aut mandare, ut latam excommunicationem revocet, sub praetextu, quod contenta in praesenti decreto non sint observata: cum non ad saeculares, sed ad ecclesiasticos haec cognitio pertineat. Excommunicatus vero quicumque, si post legitimas monitiones non resipuerit, non solum ac Sacramenta et communionem fidelium ac familiaritatem non recipiatur, sed, si obdurato animo censuris annexus in illis per annum insorduerit, etiam contra eum, tamquam de haeresi suspec- tum, procedi possit.”

The Reformers of the Lutheran or Saxon school upheld the power of the Church to impose penance and to excommunicate ; but of all those who separated from the Roman obedience in the sixteenth century, those who followed Calvin were most rigid in their notions of ecclesiastical discipline. Cf, eg.:—

Frenon Conression, Art. XXXIII.: “Sequendum nobis putamus, quod Dominus noster Iesus Christus de Excommunicatione statuit, quam quidem approba- mus, et una cum suis appendicibus necessariam esse arbitramur.”

Betaic Conression, Art. XXXII:

“ Nos itaque omnia humana inventa, omnesque leges rejicimus, quae ad Dei cultum sunt introductae, ut iis conscientiae ullo modo illaqueentur, aut obstringantur. Easque solas suscipimus, quae idoneae sunt, vel ad fovendam alendamque concordiam, vel ad nos in Dei obedientia retinendos. Ad id vero imprimis necessaria est excommunicatio, ex praecepto verbi Dei usurpata, et aliae illi annexae disciplinae ecclesiasticae appendices.

Article XXXIV

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like, for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word.

Whosoever through his. private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church, hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

Traditiones et ceremonias Eccle- siasticas quae cum verbo Dei non pugnant, et sunt auctoritate publica institutae atque probatae, quisquis privato consilio volens et data opera publice violaverit, is, ut qui peccat in publicam ordinem Ecclesiae, quique laedit auctoritatem Magistratus, et qui infirmorum fratrum conscien- tias vulnerat, publice, ut caeteri timeant, arguendus est.

§ 1.— SOURCE.

The first paragraph is taken, with a few small changes, from

the fifth of the XIII. ArTicLES of 15 38.

(The words common

to the two are printed in italics in the Latin text.) In 1563 two additions were made :—

(a) In the first paragraph the word “ temporum ” was ΑΒΕ

. evidently with the view of making the statement-of principle more comprehensive.

(b) The last paragraph was added, declaring that a national Church has authority to institute and abolish ceremonies. With the wording of this part of the Article we may compare the third of the XI. ARTICLES, which had been issued a few years before (1559) :—

‘Every such particular church hath authority to institute, to change, clean to put away ceremonies, and other ecclesiastical rites, as they be superfluous, or be abused, and to constitute other making more to seemliness, to order, or edification.”

§ 2.— OBJECT. See the note on the object of Article XX XIII.

§ 3, EXPOSITION.

(1.) UNIFORMITY OF TRADITIONS AND CEREMONIES IS NOT NECESSARY.

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like, for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners.

This Article is not concerned with the laws and ordinances of God, which are binding on all men at all times, or with matters of faith which have been once for all delivered (S. Jude v. 3), but with things which are, in themselves, more or less indifferent. It is not necessary that there should be complete uniformity everywhere in such matters.’

1 Cf. with our Article the following extracts from Continental Confessions :—

AUGSBURG CONFESSION, Part I. Art. VII.:

“Nec necesse est ubique esse similes traditiones humanas, seu ritus aut ceremonias, ab hominibus inst™utas.” A

BOHEMIAN CONFESSION, Art. XV.:

“Quanquam etiam nostri, non omnium ritus ac mores servant, quod neque fieri potest, neque ut ubiubi in omnibus Ecclesiis idem ritus et ceremoniae serventur necessarium est. ...

“Ad haec docent, Humanas traditiones pro inviolabilibus ac aeternis legibus non haberi oportere. Verum quemadmodum certis ac justis causis feruntur, ita etiam aliis causis ac rebus exortis, et diversum monentibus, liceat eas absque peccato violare.”

FRENCH CONFESSION, Art. XXXII.:

‘*Credimus expedire, ut qui electi sunt, ecclesiae alicujus praefecti, inter se dispiciant, qua ratione totum corpus commode regi possit. Ita tamen, ut

(a) By Traditions are meant customs of the Church produced by the frequent and long-continued usage of the great part of the community. Such usages have, as a matter of fact, varied according to the diversities of times, countries, and men’s manners.

We may illustrate this point by reference to the Paschal Controversy in the early ages of the Church. While Anicetus was Pope (4.D. 157-168), 5. Polycarp of Smyrna visited Rome and discussed the Paschal question with him, but without arriving at mutual agreement. “For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the Apostles, with whom he associated ; and neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, who said that he was bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him. Which things being so, they communicated together; and in the church Anicetus yielded to Polycarp, out of respect no doubt, the office of consecrating the Kucharist, and they separated from each other in peace, all the church being at peace; both those that observed and those that did not observe maintaining peace.” °

(Ὁ) As to Ceremonies, the same principle holds good. Rigid. uniformity is not necessary with regard to them, but they

SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION, Cap. XXVII.:

“Quod si in ecclesiis dispares inveniuntur ritus, nemo ecclesias existimet ex eo esse dissidentes. Socrates, Impossibile fuerit, inquit, omnes ecclesi- arum, quae per civitates et regiones sunt, ritus conscribere. Nulla religio eosdem ritus custodit, etiamsi eandem de illis doctrinam amplectatur. Etenim qui ejusdem sunt fidei de ritibus inter se dissentiunt. . . . Semper vero ecclesiae in hujusmodi ritibus, sicut mediis, usae sunt libertate. Id quod nos hodie quoque facimus.”

“Q. Are all the sayings of the holy men enlightened and led by the Holy Ghost written, or did some remain unwritten ?

“A, There remained some unwritten, which have been kept by tradition in the Church from the time of the Apostles to this day.

“@Q. Give some examples.

“A. To turn to the Hast when we pray, to make the sign of the Cross, for the priests to wear a peculiar dress, for us to kindle lamps in the church, and many other things.”

* Trenzeus, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eecles., V. Cap. xxiv. 2N

may be modified by local or temporal circumstances. Thus, to give examples illustrative of the principle of the Article, ceremonies have been affected by—

(i.) Diversities of cowntries.

Baptism is now generally performed amongst us by affusion, and not by immersion.

(11.) Diversities of tvmes.

In early days, when the Church was persecuted, the public assemblies of Christians for worship were held in. secret places, in caves, or catacombs, At a later time, when Christianity became the acknowledged religion of the Roman Empire, gorgeous churches were built, and Divine worship celebrated with splendid ritual accessories,

(111). Diversities of men’s manners.

The Kiss of Peace, a ceremony connected with the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in primitive times, has been discontinued. |

The Article lays down one all-important limit to the diversity of Traditions and Ceremonies by providing that nothing be ordained against God’s Word.’

(2.) THOSE WHO BREAK CHURCH TRADITIONS AND CEREMONIES ON Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly. _ Traditions and Ceremonies are in themselves matters indifferent, but when established by the authority of the Church* they ought to be observed by all, on account of the reverence due to that authority, which is derived from God, Who has commanded us to obey our spiritual rulers (Heb. xiii. 17). The Christian Religion has for its end the raising and purifying of the individual man and the perfection of human society. Now no virtue tends so much

1 Cf. SAXON CONFESSION, Art. XX. :—

“Est igitur prima regula: Nulli creaturae, non angelis, non hominibus, non regibus, non episcopis licet condere leges aut ritus pugnantes cum verbo Dei.”

2 Cf. the first clause of Article XX. :— “The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonie3,”

to the accomplishment of this twofold purpose as brotherly love, which, besides rendering the individual like God Himself, Who is Love (1 8. John iv. 8), also creates the strongest union and greatest happiness in human society. Christ Himself did most particularly intend and enjoin that His followers should be joined together in one Body by mutual love (cf. S. John xiii. 34, 35; xv. 12; xvii. 21-23). The dissolving of this union, or the dislocating of this Body by the setting up of an individual private judgment against the common authority, and that, too, upon ground of matters in themselves indifferent, must be most reprehensible. People guilty of such action are to be rebuked.!

The object of this rebuke is next stated in the Article, viz., that others may fear to do the like (cf. 1 Tim. v. 20).

Further, three evil consequences are traced to the action of those who openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church :—

Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church . . . ought to be rebuked openly .

(a) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, (1 Cor. xi. 16; xiv. 40)

(6) and hurteth the authority of the magistrate,

Of course this effect can only follow when Church and State are closely related and civil sanction is given to Kcclesiastical traditions and ceremonies. The giving of such civil sanction to ordinances of the Church dates from the earliest times of the converted Roman Empire.

(c) and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren (1 Cor. Vill, 12).

It was very necessary for the Church to lay down that those

should be rebuked who set up their private judgment against

the common order, because considerable confusion was caused by action of this kind in the reign of Edward VI. As an example we might quote the case of Hooper, who, when nominated to the

Bishopric of Gloucester (April 7, 1550), refused to be conse-

crated in what he called the “ Aaronic habits,”? setting up his

1 Cf. Queen Klizabeth’s INJUNCTIONS, 1559 :—

** XXII. That they shall instruct and teach in their cures, that no man ought obstinately and maliciously to break and violate the laudable ceremonies of the Church, commanded by public authority to be observed.”

oh ee ree hs ὟΝ ee eS

own judgment in opposition to the “tradition” of the Church, Cranmer and Ridley, and even Peter Martyr and Bucer, strongly condemned his obstinacy in the matter.

(3.) THE POWER OF PARTICULAR OR NATIONAL CHURCHES IN THE Every particular or national Church, hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority.

In the first place we notice that the conde of the Article is carefully guarded. ‘Those rites alone are referred to which are ordained only by man’s authority. No particular Church, therefore, may change or abolish a ceremony which has the sanction of Divine authority, as the Sacraments have. ~ Since the rites and ceremonies referred to in the Article are in themselves indifferent, and depend for their precise form, to a certain extent, upon local or temporal conditions, it follows that they may be changed. This concluding paragraph of the Article lays it down that each national Church has the power of changing such ceremonies. During the integrity of the Roman Empire the various parts of Europe under the civil dominion of Rome must be regarded as forming one nation; hence the summoning of Councils from the whole Empire to deal with ceremonial matters. Even after the Empire had fallen to pieces, the Church, in those countries of Western Europe which had formed part of the Empire, was for many centuries held together by the supremacy of the Roman See. During the Middle Ages, however, the various nations of modern Europe had been continually gaining independent strength, and at the Reformation, when the Papal Supremacy was thrown off, the power of changing rites and ceremonies was claimed for each separate nation.

Cf. the Preface to the Prayer Book, “ Of Ceremonies, why some be abolished, and some retained” :—

“And in these our doings we condemn no other Nations, nor prescribe anything but to our own people only: For we think it convenient that every Country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God’s honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most perfect and godly living, without error or superstition ; and that théy should put

ARTICLE XXXIV : 285

away other things, which from time to time they perceive to be most abused, as in men’s ordinances it often chanceth diversly in divers countries.”

The fact that the Sovereign, as head of the nation, played so prominent a part in the English Reformation, and successfully asserted the supremacy of the Crown in causes Ecclesiastical, also contributed in no small degree to that identification of the Church with the nation, which was an important outcome of the Reformation as it took place in this country.

The Article concludes with a statement of the great principle which should rule all regulations made with respect to rites and ceremonies— |

So that all things be done to edifying (Rom. xiv. 19).

Article XXXV

The second Book of Homilies, | the several titles whereof we have |

joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in churches by the Ministers dill. gently, and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.

Tomus secundus Homiliarum, quarum singulos titulos huic Articulo subjunximus, continet piam et salutarem doctrinam, et his temporibus necessariam, non minus

quam prior Tomus Homiliarum,

quae editae sunt tempore Edwardi Sexti. Itaque eas in Ecclesiis per ministros diligenter et clare, ut a populo intelligi possint, recitandas | esse judicavimus.

Against Peril of Idolatry.

Of Prayer.

eee Se a

Of the Right Use of the Church.

Of Repairing and Keeping Clean of Churches. Of Good Works, first of Fasting.

Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.

Against Excess of Apparel.

Of the Place and Time of Prayer. That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be Minis-

tered in a Known Tongue.

. Of Alms-doing.

. Of the Passion of Christ.

and Blood of Christ.

. Of the Nativity of Christ.

. Of the Reverent Estimation of God’s Word.

Of the Resurrection of Christ. . Of the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament of the Body

Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. 3

i ϑθ.ῳ.ῳῃ0«{0ὍΜ 0. ἵ

17. For the Rogation-Days. ' 18. Of the State of Matrimony. 19. Of Repentance.

20. Against Idleness.

21. Agains? REBELLION.

§ r.—_SOURCE. .

The First Book of Homilies was presented to the Convocation of 1543, but not passed. In the year of Edward’s accession (1547) it was printed, apparently on the sole authority of Cranmer, and ordered by Royal authority to be read every Sunday in churches.” This Book obtained the sanction of Convocation in the thirty-fourth of the XLIT. ARTICLES of 1553 :—

canae per injunctiones Regias tra- ditae atque commendatae, piae sunt atque salutares, doctrinamque ab omnibus amplectendam continent : quare populo diligentur, expedite, clareque recitandae sunt.

It was intended in Edward’s reign to issue further Homilies,’ but the design was frustrated by the death of the king. The precise date of the publication of the Second Book of Homilies

1 It was the outcome of an agreement of the Bishops—

“To make certain Homilies for stay of such errors as were then by ignorant preachers sparkled among the people.”

2 The titles of the Homilies contained in the First Book are as follows :—

1. A fruitful Exhortation to the reading of Holy Scripture. 2. Of the Misery of all Mankind. 3. Of the Salvation of all Mankind. 4. Of the True and Lively Faith. 5. Of Good Works. 6. Of Christian Love and Charity. 7. Against Swearing and Perjury. ὃ, Of the Declining from God. g. An Exhortation against the Fear of Death. 10. An Exhortation to Obedience. 11. Against Whoredom and Adultery. 12. Against Strife and Contention.

® This is indicated in the Rubric after the Nicene Creed in the Prayer Book of 1552 :—

“After the Crede, if there be no sermon, shall follow one of the homelies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth by commune aucthoritie,”

288 THE ‘THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

is uncertain, but the present Article (1563) commends it together with the former book. The last Homily, “ Against Rebellion,” was added in 1571, after the rising in the North (1569).

§ 2.—OBJECT.

To commend the doctrine contained in the Books of Homilies, and to provide for the reading of the Homilies in churches. Cf. Rubric in the Communion Service after the Nicene Creed

See also Queen Elizabeth’s INJUNCTIONS (1559) :—

XXVII. “Because through lack of preachers in many places of the queen’s realms and dominions the people continue in ignorance and blindness, all parsons, vicars, and curates shall read in their churches every Sunday one of the homilies, which are and shall be set forth for the same purpose by the queen’s authority, in such ἐστι, as they shall be appointed to do in the preface of the same.’

This was one of the Articles excepted against by the Puritans, who laid great stress upon the necessity of a preaching ministry,” and also objected to the reading of aught else save Holy ae in the public services of the Church.

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD “ HOMILY.”

“Homily” is derived from the Greek ὁμιλία, denoting primarily “social intercourse,’ then “familiar conversation ;”* hence its ‘eclesiastical meaning, “a plain, familiar discourse.”

1 In 1559 this Rubric was made to read as follows :— |

“ After the Crede, yf there be no sermon, shall folowe one of the Homelies alredy set furth, or hereafter to be set furth by commune aucthoritie.” In this form, with the exception that the word “common” has been omitted, it still remains in our Prayer Book.

2 E.g., at the Savoy Conference (1661) the Puritans made the following exception to the Rubric after the Nicene Creed :—

“We desire that the preaching of the word may be strictly enjoined, and not left so indifferent, at the administration of the Sacraments.”

3 Cf. the use of the cognate verb in Acts xx. 11, ἐφ᾽ ἱκανόν τε ὁμιλήσας ἄχρις αὐγῆς.

(1.) BorH Books or HOMILIES CONTAIN A GODLY AND WHOLE-

The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth.

The approval here given to the two Books of Homilies must not be understood as involving a literal acceptance of every statement or argument contained in them. Passages of Scripture were sometimes then applied in a manner we should not now consider consistent with sound principles of exegesis. Arguments, too, may occur here and there which appear to us unsound or obscure, and which may therefore need correction or explanation. What is required from those who assent to the Articles is a general accept-

ance of the teaching of the Homilies as testifying to great truths of Christianity, some of which having been more or less obscured by superstition, the emphatic reassertion of them, as in the Homilies, was very necessary at the time of the Reformation.

(2.) THE HoMILIES ARE TO BE READ IN CHURCHES. 3 Therefore we judge them to be read in churches by the Ministers diligently, and distinctly, that they may be understanded of

the people.

During the sixteenth century there was much unsettle- ment and keen controversy upon points both of doctrine and discipline, so that instruction for the people in these matters was very necessary; although it was, at the same time, extremely difficult to provide for it, since very many of the clergy were either illiterate, and on that account not capable of preaching, or else strong partisans of Rome, or (especially in Elizabeth’s reign) of Geneva. The incompetence of the clergy for the work of preaching, whether from lack of learning, or from intemperate zeal, is indicated by the fact that preaching was prohibited under each of the four sovereigns, Henry VIII, Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth. The Homilies were drawn up and appointed to be read—

(a) Partly to supply the defect of sermons, owing to the great lack of competent ministers,

(Ὁ) Partly in order to secure something like unity of doctrine in those very unsettled times, and thus guard against the many heterodoxies, both old and new, with which the Church was then threatened.

We have no complete record of the authorship of the several Homilies. Those contained in the First Book were published under the superintendence and upon the authority of Cranmer, to whom the composition of Homilies 1, 3, 4, 5 is also generally assigned. No. 2 is attributed to Archdeacon Harpsfield, 6 to Bishop Bonner, and 11 to Thomas Becon.

Of the Second Book the authorship is even more uncertain, though it is sometimes affirmed that Bishop Jewel was chiefly responsible for its compilation.’ A considerable proportion of the matter is traceable to foreign sources, but the Sermons on the Passion (No. 13) and on the Resurrection (No. 15) are taken from Taverner’s “ Postils,” ”

1 This view is given by Forbes and Harold Browne.

2 A book of sermons on the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holy Days, issued in 1540 under the auspices of Cromwell, the King’s Vice-gerent, and with Cranmer’s sanction.

Article XXXVI

The Book of Consecration of Archbishops end Bishops, and Ordering of Piiests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering : neither hath it anything, that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the afore-named King Edward, unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered,

Libellus de Consecratione Archi- episcoporum et Episcoporum, et de Ordinatione Presbyterorum et Dia- conorum, editus nuper temporibus

‘Edwardi Sexti, et auctoritate Par-

liamenti illis ipsis temporibus confirmatus, omnia ad ejusmodi consecrationem et ordinationem necessaria continet, et nihil habet, — quod ex se sit aut superstitiosum, aut impium. Itaque quicunque juxta ritus illius Libri consecrati aut ordinati sunt, ab anno secundo praedicti regis Edwardi, usque ad hoc tempus, aut in posterum juxta eosdem ritus consecrabuntur, aut ordinabuntur, rite, atque ordine, atque legitime statuimus esse et fore consecratos et ordinatos.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

Composed by the English Reformers in 1563. spending Article of the XLII.

The corre- ARTICLES of 1553, which was

superseded by the present one, ran as follows :—

The Booke which of very late

CANAE.

Liber qui nuperrime authoritate Regis et Parliamenti Ecclesiae An- glicanae traditus est, continens modum et formam orandi, et Sacra

maner and fourme of praiying, and ministring the Sacramentes in the Churche of Englande, likewise also the booke of ordring Ministers of the Churche, set foorth by the forsaied aucthoritie, are godlie, and in no poincte repugnaunt to the _holsome doctrine of the Gospel but agreable thereunto, ferthering and beautifying the same not a litle, and therfore of al faithfull membres of the Churche of Eng- lande, and chieflie of the ministers of the worde, thei ought to be receiued, and allowed with all readinesse of minde, and thankes geuing, and to bee commended to the people of God.

menta administrandi in Ecclesia Anglicana: similiter et libellus eadem authoritate editus de ordina- tione ministrorum Ecclesiae, quoad doctrinae veritatem, pii sunt, et salutari doctrinae Evangelii in nullo repugnant sed congruunt, et ean- dem non parum promovent et illustrant, atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae fidelibus mem- bris, et maxime a ministris verbi cum omni promptitudine animorum et gratiarum actione, recipiendi, approbandi, et populo Dei commen- dandi sunt.

§ 2,— OBJECT.

To defend the validity of English Orders, and the Ordinal itself, against objections on the part both of Romanists and

Puritans.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) THE ORDINAL (OF 1550) CONTAINS ALL THINGS NECESSARY. The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by autho-

rity of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such

Consecration and Ordering.

Roman Catholics deny the validity of English Orders. The grounds upon which this denial has been given at

various times are :—

(a) That there is a break in the continuity of English Orders because the Elizabethan bishops were not properly consecrated (The Nag’s Head Fable).

(Ὁ) That Parker’s consecration was invalid because Barlow, his chief consecrator, had never received consecration,

(c) That the succession was broken owing to the fact that the consecrators of Parker were “ vacant” bishops; 1.6., without

jurisdiction.

These grounds sare now by educated and candid Roman Catholics for the most part given up as untenable.’

@ If, therefore, English Orders are invalid, it must be because there is something wanting in the Ordinal itself. Upon this point the whole question now turns. It is admitted on all hands that English Orders were valid up to the year 1550. If they have been invalid since that date, it must be because some necessary thing was omitted in the Ordinal of 1550.

In order to investigate this matter the Ordinal of 1550 must

be compared with the Pontifical which it superseded :—

(i.) In the Ordinal the forms for admission to the Minor Orders disappear.

In Anglo-Saxon times five Minor Orders were recog- . nised: (1) Ostiarius, (2) Lector, (3) Exorcist, (4) Acolyte, (5) Subdeacon. But before the Reformation these had long practically ceased to exist, although such Orders were

1 With regard to— (a) The Nag’s Head Fable.

This is rejected by Courayer (‘* Dissertation sur la Validité des Ordinations des Anglois.” Published 1723) and by Lingard (vol. vi., Appendix, pp. 670, 671) as unworthy of credit. It originated at Antwerp, forty-five years after the event, with an exiled priest named Holywood,

(b) Barlow’s Consecration.

This is denied because there is no record of it. But the same argument might be used with regard to the consecration of many other bishops of the period ; ¢.g., Gardiner and Lee (Archbishop of York). “Did any one call in question the consecration of those bishops on that account? Why should we doubt the consecration of Barlow and not that of Gardiner? I fear the only reason is this—Gardiner did not consecrate Parker, and Barlow did” (Lingard, quoted in Hook’s “ Parker,” p. 241, note). In answer to the argument ex silentio, it should be remembered that Barlow officiated as a bishop in the reign of Henry VIII. at the consecration of Skip (November 23, 1539), and of Bulkeley (February 19, 1542), and that he was treated as a bishop by Queen Mary’s Commissioners, and deprived as such (Bailey’s “ Defence of Holy Orders in the English Church,” pp. 39-41). At the same time it should also be noted that, even if Barlow was never consecrated, this would not invalidate Parker’s consecration, because there is no doubt with respect to the consecration of the other three bishops present, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins.

(6) Lack of jurisdiction of Parker's consecrators. ὁ

Parker’s consecrators were bishops by consecration, and were already also bishops elect to sees which had been vacated by death. Thus there was no intrusion, and the mere fact that they had not “ potestas jurisdic- tionis” (since there was no Archbishop to confirm them in the sees to which they had been elected) could not, on any principle, invalidate their ‘‘notestas ordinis.”

still taken at the universities, perhaps with the very unworthy object in view, that those who took them might be able to plead “ benejit of clergy.”

In the Ordinal of 1550 the Church thus provided for the continuance of those Orders only which, in the light of history, it deemed permanent.

(11.) On comparing the Ordination of Deacons with the corresponding portion of the Salisbury Pontifical, two points of difference only appear :—

(a) The characteristic vestments of a deacon (the stole and dalmatic) are no longer delivered to the person ordained.

(Ὁ) Deacons are not compared in the Ordinal to the Levites of the Old Testament.

So far it will be generally admitted that nothing essential was omitted in the Ordinal. We come to a difficulty, however, when we ask, ‘ What are the essentials of Priestly Ordination?’ To this question somewhat varying answers have been given :—

(a) It is obvious that any acts or words used in conferring Orders which are not universal cannot be held to be essential. The only essentials, therefore, to valid Ordination are the laying on of hands and prayer, since these alone have been used by the whole Church from the beginning (Acts vi, 6, Sill, 3% 1 Dime iye-14 2 11 ὃ.

(Ὁ) There is the view that the [...] is necessary to a true Ordination. To this the Schoolmen incline, but the custom cannot-be traced farther back than the tenth century, and did not obtain in England until the eleventh; moreover, it has never in the Eastern Church formed a part of the Ordination ceremony.’ The omission of the “ traditio instrumentorum” cannot, therefore, be held to invalidate English Orders.”

1 Pope Eugenius IV. (1431-1447) lays it down in his Epistle to the Arme- mans that the [...] is necessary to valid ordination. It is, however, remarkable that under the same Pope the COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (a continuation of that of Basle—1430—and recognised as cecumenical by the Eastern Church) acknowledged the validity of Orders in the Greek Church, which had always been conferred without the delivery of the chalice and

paten.

2 In the Ordinal of 1550 the “traditio instrumentorum” od been re- tamed :—

‘*The Bisshop shall deliuer to euery one of them, the Bible in the one

hande, and the Chalice or cuppe with the breade, in the other hande, and saying,” . ὁ ο

(c) It has sometimes been urged that the recital of the words “ Receive the Holy Ghost” is essential to a true ordination.’ This form of words has been retained in the English Ordinal ; yet, since it cannot be traced back earlier than the twelfth century, it cannot be maintained that its use is essential.

(ἃ) It is sometimes objected by Roman Catholic controver-

sialists that “intention” was lacking in the Bishops of the English Church at the Reformation period, and that therefore the Orders conferred by them are invalid. But surely the PREFACE TO THE ORDINAL may be taken as testifying to the right intention of the English Church at that time. It should be noted, too, that this very objection seems to imply that, as far as the actual forms and wording of Edward’s Ordinal are concerned, English Orders might be valid.

It thus appears that, viewing the matter historically, the only absolute essentials for true Ordination are laying on of hands and prayer. Nothing essential, therefore, was omitted in the Ordinal of 1550.

With respect to the Form of Consecrating Bishops, it is sometimes objected by Roman Catholics that the Form of 1550 is invalid because it is not specified at the time of the vmposition of hands what the intention of the rite is, there being no mention of the office of a bishop. It is also urged that the addition made in 166: to the form of words used at the imposition of hands is tantamount to an admission that the previous form is invalid.” In answer to this objection it may be observed :—

1 This is Bellarmine’s view. Cf. COUNCIL OF TRENT (Session XXIII.) :— Canon IV.—“ Si quis dixerit, per sacram ordinationem non dari Spiritum sanctum, ac proinde frustra Episcopos dicere: Accipe Spiritum sanctum... anathema sit,” Note that the Council does not declare the use of the words “ Accipe Spiri- tum sanctum” to be essential, but merely anathematises those who say that the form referred to is useless.

2 In the Ordinal of 1550 the form of words to be used at the imposition of hands runs thus :—

¥ Take the holy goste, and remember that thou stirre up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposicion of handes: for god hath not geuen us the spirite of feare, but of powere, and loue, and of sobernesse.”’

This wording remained unchanged in 1559, but in 1661 it was altered to its present form :—

“Receive the Holy Ghost, for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands ; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. | And remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is given thee by this Imposition of our hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.”’

(i.) That the intention of the rite is clearly specified in the Prayer used previously in the service on behalf of the person to be consecrated :—

“ Mercifully behold this thy servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop.”

(ii.) That in the Pontifical of Pope Clement VIIT. (1595) the only words used at the imposition of hands are, “ Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.”

(2.) THE ORDINAL CONTAINS NOTHING SUPERSTITIOUS OR UNGODLY.

Neither hath it anything, that of itself is superstitious or ungodly.

Two points in the Ordinal gave great offence to the party which sympathised with the Swiss school of Continental Reformers :—

(a) The use of the words, “ Receive the Holy Ghost,” which are said, at the imposition of hands, to each one ordained priest, or consecrated bishop. Agaimst the use of this form it was objected that God alone, and not man, can confer the Holy Spirit.

The words in question are taken from our Lord’s Commission to the Apostles after His Resurrection (ὃ. John xx. 22). ΑΒ used in the Ordinal they are a prayer, but of a very special kind, for we know that it is God’s will to answer it by accompanying the outward sign of imposition of hands with a special gift of His Spirit. The words are therefore said in sure confidence that the gift accompanies the outward sign. We have, moreover, examples recorded in Scripture of spiritual gifts being conferred instrumentally by man, acting under Divine authority (e.g., Deut. xxxiv. 9 ; Acts-vul. 17; ΞΙΣ ΟΣ 2 Tim, 1.0),

(Ὁ) Against the use of the words, “ Whose sins thow dost forgive,” &c., it was objected that God alone can forgive sins.

The Article defends the Ordinal from the charge of superstition or ungodliness, the Church of England teaching that at Ordination the Priest receives a special gift of the Holy Ghost for his office and ministry, and also the commission to absolve in Christ’s Name. (See Notes on Article XXV., under the head of “ Penance,” pp. 190, 191.)

(3.) THOSE ORDAINED OR CONSECRATED ACCORDING TO THE

And therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the afore- named King Edward, unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered,

What is here stated follows of course from the first point laid down in the Article, viz., that the Ordinal contains all things necessary to a valid Consecration and Ordination. ‘The reason why the validity of the Orders of those ordained according to the Ordinal (of 1550) is so emphatically insisted on in the present Article is this :— When the Prayer Book was repealed in Mary’s reign, the Act mentioned the Ordinal by name as also repealed. On the accession of Hlizabeth, when the Prayer Book was restored the Ordinal was not specified by name, it being understood to form part of the Prayer Book; but, on the ground of the omission to mention the Ordinal by name, Bonner, and others of his party, argued that all Ordinations since 1559 were in the eye of the law defective. Hence the necessity of maintaining, as in this Article, that those ordained or consecrated according to the Edwardine form were “rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and

ordered,” The question of the validity of Anglican Orders, so far as

controversy with Rome is concerned, was narrowed by Pope Leo XIII.’s letter, Apostolice Cure (Sept. 13, 1896) to the form of the Anglican rite. The Roman case rests chiefly on the contention that “in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the Sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacer- dotiwm, and of the powers of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but every trace of those things . . . was deliberately removed ” (§ 18). The Archbishops of England, in a reply addressed to the whole body of the Bishops of the Catholic Church (1897), vindicated the sacrificial character of the Eucharist as celebrated according to the Anglican rite (§ xi.), pointed to the Preface to the Ordinal as indicating the intention of our Church (ὃ xvii.), and urged that the Pope’s decree not only overthrows our orders but those of the Orientals and of his own com-

munion (ὃ xx.) ἐς

Article XXXVII

The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the Queen’s Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify : but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God Himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers,

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England,

The Laws of the Realm may

Regia Majestas in hoc Angliae regno, ac ceteris ejus dominiis, summam habet potestatem, ad quam omnium statuum hujus regni, sive illi Ecclesiastici sint, sive Civiles, in omnibus causis suprema gubernatio pertinet, et nulli externae jurisdictioni est subjecta, nec esse debet.

Cum Regiae Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus, quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorun- dam calumniatorum offendi, non damus Regibus nostris, aut verbi Dei, aut Sacramentorum admini- strationem, quod etiam Injunc- tiones ab Elizabetha Regina nostra, nuper editae, apertissime testan- tur, sed eam tantum praeroga. tivam, quam in Sacris Scripturis a Deo ipso, omnibus piis Prin- cipibus, videmus semper fuisse attributam, hoc est, ut omnes status atque ordines, fidei suae a Deo commissos, sive illi Ecclesiastici sint, sive Civiles, in officio contineant, et contumaces ac delinquentes, gladio civili coer- ceant.

Leges Regni possunt Christia-

w ARTIGLE XXXVIT 299

punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

nos propter capitalia et gravia cri- mina morte punire.

Christianis licet ex mandato Magistratus arma portare et justa bella administrare.

§ 1.—SOURCE.

This Article first appeared (in a much shorter form) as the thirty- sixth of the XLII. ArticLes of 1553. It then ran as follows :—

The Bisshope of Rome hath no iurisdiction in this Realme of Eng- lande.

and allowed of God: wherefore we

must obeie him, not onely for feare of punishment, but also for conscience sake.

It is lawefull for Christians, at the commaundement of the Magistrate, to weare weapons, and to serue in laweful wares.

Rex Angliae est supremum caput in terris, post Christum, Ecclesiae Anglicanae et Hibernicae.

Magistratus civilis est a Deo ordinatus atque probatus, quam- obrem illi, non solum propter iram, sed etiam propter conscientiam, obe- diendum est.

Christianis licet ex mandato Magistratus arma portare, et justa bella administrare.

At the Elizabethan revision (1563) the first paragraph was

remodelled, the title “ Supreme Head” being disused, and the words “chief power” .. . “chief government” substituted for it; at the same time the long second paragraph was added. The object of these changes was to state more guardedly the Royal Supremacy, which in the Edwardine Article had been stated rather baldly, and in a manner liable to an Erastian construction. We know that Queen Elizabeth had scruples in this matter, and was unwilling to be spoken of as “ Head” of the Church.’

§ 2.—OBJECT.

The object of the Article is evidently twofold :— (a) To assert the Royal, and repudiate the Papal, Supremacy, (6) To condemn Anabaptist zealots, who set the civil authority at defiance and impugned the lawfulness of war, Cf. REFORMATIO LEGuM, “ De Haeresibus,” Cap. 13 :—

“Quin et Anabaptistarum profligandus est agrestis stupor, qui negant licere Christianis magistratum gerere, quasi propterea Christus in terras descenderit, ut rerum publicarum administra- tionem aboleret. Imo vero Spiritus Sanctus statuit principes et magistratus esse Dei ministros, ut benefactis favorem suum im- partiant, et maleficia suppliciis constringant; quae duo si rebus humanis abessent, maxima sequeretur omnium rerum confusio.”

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) ASSERTION OF THE + Rovat, AND REPUDIATION OF THE PAPAL,

The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

The principle that every soul owes obedience to the Civil power is laid down in the New Testament; see especially Rom, xin. 13 1.5. Pet, i. 13, 143 and «7, Acts κεν 10, 1i, where S. Paul appeals to Cesar as supreme in his own cause. In the days, however, when the State was not Christian, the difficulty in determining the due relation between the Hcclesiastical and Civil powers was not felt, and the Church shrank from direct connection with the kingdoms of the world. Obedience to the heathen govern- although this title has been offered her; but she willingly accepts the title of governor, which amounts to the same thing” (Zurich Letters, i. p. 29) ;

and a letter from Jewel to Bullinger (London, May 22, 1559) :—

‘*The Queen is unwilling to be addressed, either by word of mouth, or in writing, as the head of the Church of England. For she seriously maintains that this honour is due to Christ alone, and cannot belong to any human being soever ; besides which, these titles have been so foully contaminated b y Antichrist, that they can no longer be adopted by anyone without impiety” (Zurich Letters, i 1. p. 33).

oe es

ment was indeed enjoined; but in its internal affairs the Church was self-governing, and we even find S. Paul rebuking the Corinthian Christians for going to law in the Civil courts (1 Cor. vi. 1—7).: When, after the accession of Constantine, the ruling power of the State became, for the first time, professedly Christian, the previously existing conditions were at once modified. As a result of the “establishment” of Christianity as the Religion of the Empire, actual separation between Church and State became henceforth impossible.

We must here review the historical relations of Church and State in this country, together with the relations of England and Rome :-—

(a) In Saxon times.

It must be remembered that at the time of the. introduction of Christianity into the various kingdoms of Saxon England, the adoption of the new religion was looked upon as a public matter, affecting not merely the personal but also the official life of the king, and also the whole national life. From the time that England acquired national unity Church and State grew side by side, and the Church exercised an important influence in the development and consolidation of the life of the nation. At the same time the insular position of the country made it natural that business, Ecclesiastical as well as Civil, should be transacted within

the limits of the island.’ The King, we find, exercised a certain undefined authority, and had to a certain extent a right of intervention in Ecclesiastical affairs.

(Ὁ) After the Norman Conquest.

At the Conquest (1066) the existing relations of Church and State were altered. William had patched up his title to the English throne by Papal approval, and brought England under the visitatorial authority of the Roman See; at the same time he refused to be in any sense the Pope’s

-1 The well-known appeal of Wilfrid (Bishop of York) affords a good illustration. Theodore of Tarsus (Archbishop of Canterbury), in. reorganising the Church, mapped out dioceses and subdivided the large diocese of York. He proceeded in rather a high-handed manner, and Wilfrid, who from the first had assumed a somewhat unfriendly attitude towards him, objected, appealing in person to the Pope (A.D. 678). ‘The Pope sided with Wilfrid, and by a Bull ordered him to be reinstated in his original and undivided see. The King and

the Witan, however, refused to recognise the Pope’s decision, and Wilfrid, on his return to this country, was imprisoned for appealing to a foreign power.

vassal, and strongly asserted the Royal prerogative. The Pope was to send no legate to this country unless invited to do so by the King, and English Churchmen were forbidden to leave the kingdom, to recognise any Pope, to excommunicate any noble, or to publish any Roman decree or letter without the Royal sanction. Another step taken in the reign of William I., which had very far-reaching consequences, was the separation of the Ecclesiastical and Civil courts. While the King in this matter conferred a great privilege upon the Church, at the same time he took care to retain his supremacy over.it; for we find him not only nominating the bishops, but also refusing to allow any Church Synod to make decrees which had not first received his approval.

(c) During the Middle Ages.

Gregory VII. (Hildebrand), who became Pope in 1073,

drew out a great scheme of Papal omnipotence in his famous “ Dictate” of twenty-seven theses, and from his time we may date the commencement of the great struggle for supremacy between Church and State, taking the form, on the Continent, of a contest between the Pope and the Emperor, and, in this country, of constant friction between the Royal and Papal powers. During the succeeding centuries the Popes established considerable authority over Ecclesiastical affairs and persons, the English kings, however, protesting from time to time against encroachments upon their ancient right. _ Henry IL, in the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164), dealt a severe blow at the Papal power. These Constitutions prevented appeals to foreign Powers, regulated Ecclesiastical appointments, subjected Ecclesiastical property to taxation, and extended the power of the King as against Papal aggression. This attempt to resume the authority of the Crown over Ecclesiastical persons was opposed by Becket, and temporarily thwarted by the strong feeling excited by that prelate’s murder.

Under Pope Jnnocent III, who was contemporary with King John, the Papacy triumphed, the English king even consenting to hold his kingdom as a vassal of the Roman

_ See. Yet even here we find signs of resistance to foreign

aggression :—

(i.) Magna Charta declares (June 15, 1215) that the English Church shall enjoy its full rights and privileges, a provision which clearly revives the anti-Papal part of the Constitutions of Clarendon.

i.) Archbishop Langton, when ordered to excommunicate the Barons, refused, even under a threat of suspension from the Pope. |

In the reign of Hdward J. there was strong opposition to the suzerainty of the Roman Pontiff. King and Parliament declared that the Papal claims based on King John’s surrender were void, no king having the power to cede the rights of the Crown and the liberties of the Church and nation. In 1307 a Parliament at Carlisle protested against the many forms of Papal exactions, and refused to allow the legate to leave the country with the money which he had collected.

In Edward ITI.’s reign the encroachments of Kine were further limited by the Great Statute of Provisors (1351), which guarded the rights of patrons against Papal interference, and by the Statute of Premunire (1353), which made it treason to appeal to the Pope against the King.

A little later, by 13 Richard 17. ¢. 2, any introduction of Papal bulls or sentences into this country was made penal; and afterwards followed the Great Statute of Preemunire (16 Richard II.), which made penal all applications to a foreign jurisdiction, either in the Court of Rome or elsewhere.

(d) At the Reformation.

In the reign of Henry VIII. the struggle between Pope and King was brought to a conclusion, the claims of Rome upon the Crown and nation of England being once for all repudiated. In 1534 the Convocations both of Canterbury and York renounced the Papal Supremacy in this land, affirming “that the Pope of Rome hath no greater jurisdiction conferred upon-him by God in Holy Scripture, in this kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop.” 1

“Quapropter illorum etiam intolerabilis est error, qui totius Christiani orbis. - wniversam Ecclesiam solius Episcopi Romani principatu contineri volunt.”

The following great Acts were passed by what is known |

as the Reformation Parliament (1534) :—

(i.) 25 Henry VIII. c. 19. Act of Restraint of Appeals and

Submission of Clergy.

This. confirmed the Act for Restraint of Appeals, 24 Henry VIII. c. 12, which finally abolished the Pope's appellate jurisdiction. It also embodied in an Act of Parliament the “ Submission” which had been wrung from the clergy (February 11, 1531), in which the King was recognised as—

“Ecclesiae et cleri Anglicani singularem protectorem, unicum

et supremum Dominum, et, quantum per Christi leges licet, etiam Supremum Caput.”

(ii.) 25 Henry VIII. c. 20. Act for Restraint of Annates.

Congé @élire and Letter massive.

Annates were the first year’s entire profit of a benefice claimed by the Pope, according to a valuation. By this Act these were withheld from Rome, but almost immediately afterwards were, by 26 Henry VIII. c. 3, given to the King.

At the same time the right of the Church to elect her own officers was taken from her, though the formal Congé d’élire still remained.

(iii.) 25 Henry VIII. c. 21. Act concerning Papal Dispensa-

tions, Peter’s Pence, ete. The exempt monasteries handed over to the King.

By this Act dispensations, licenses, faculties, &c., formerly granted by the Pope, were transferred to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and England was finally freed from all financial relations with the Roman See.

By the same Act the exempt monasteries, 7.¢, those which had been previously exempt from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop, or the ordinary, and subject only to the visitatorial jurisdiction of the Pope, were transferred so as to be under the immediate authority of the King as ‘Supreme Head” of the Church.

(iv.) 26 Henry VIII. c. 1. Act of Supreme Head.

This Act declared the King to be “the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England, called Kcclesia Anglicana.” This title had, indeed, been recognised by the Convocations both of Canterbury and York, but the qualification with which the clergy had accepted the title (viz.,

quantum per Christi leges licet) was omitted in the Act of

Parliament. It is true that Henry claimed to be simply

reviving the Constitutional Supremacy of the Crown, but

the title “Supreme Head” had an ominous sound, and

was in itself new. That the clergy realised the danger is

evident from the guarded wording of their acknowledgment

of the Royal Supremacy in their “‘ Submission.” It is, there-

fore, especially noteworthy that when this acknowledgment

was embodied in the Act the qualifying clause was omitted.

By Henry VIII., and by his successor, Edward VI., the Con-

stitutional Supremacy of the Crown was pressed a great deal too

far, and used in a wrong way, and that, too, not unfrequently for

the most unworthy ends; so that, while claiming to restore the

-ancient power of the Crown, the Tudors in reality made new

claims, and used their power for the spoliation of the Church.

The Acts of Parliament mentioned above, while they freed the

Church from Papal aggression, at the same time robbed her of

immemorial rights and subjected her to royal tyranny. Thus,

according to the Act for Restraint of Appeals, it is in the King’s power—

“ΤῸ visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual jurisdiction, - ought, and may be, lawfully reformed.”

The Act also deprived the Church of her right to frame her own Canons and Constitutions. Again the Act for Restraint of Annates was accompanied by a tyrannical destruction of the _ Church’s free right to elect to bishoprics. Further, by the Act concerning Papal Dispensations, &c., the exempt monasteries (to be followed a little later by the other monasteries of the kingdom) were given over to the King and his creatures for spoliation. In this case, as also by 26 Henry VIII. c. 3 (transferring Annates, which had been recovered, from the Pope to the King), we find a Papal power or privilege made over to the Crown. The general ‘tendency of Henry’s legislation, in fact, was to set the King in the place formerly occupied by the Pope.’ Under Fdward VI.

1 Of. Letter of Withers and Barthelot to Bullinger and Gualter (August

“When the supremacy was transferred to King Henry of pious memory, and all things which by the Canon law belonged to the Roman Pontiff as head of the Church were made over to him, he then being both king and pope ” (Zurich Letters, ii. p. 149).

See also Introduction, p, 8 and note 2.

the precedents of the previous reign were followed, and the newly vindicated Supremacy of the Crown in matters Kcclesiastical, as having the right of visitation and reformation, and as being the source of episcopal jurisdiction, was unduly pressed and unconstitutionally used. The visitatorial power of the Crown was most unjustly used for the suppression and spoliation of guilds and chantries (7 Hdward VI. ὁ. rg). The powers of the bishops were suspended during a Royal Visitation of the kingdom,} Ecclesiastical affairs being ordered by Royal Injunctions,’ and the First Book of Homilies was set forth solely upon the Royal authority. The “Order of Communion” (issued March 8, 1548) had received the formal sanction neither of Convocation nor of Parliament, but owed whatever authority it had simply to a Royal Proclamation.* Another example of the high-handed government of the Church through the Privy Council which characterised this reign is seen in the “ Order of Council” which commanded the demolition of altars, and, “instead of them, a table to be set up in some convenient part of the chancel within every church.”

It is remarkable that Queen Mary, in the earlier part of her reign, exercised the Royal Supremacy as freely as her predecessors, retaining the title adopted by her father. As “ Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England,” she issued Jnjune- tions * (March 1554) bidding the bishops deprive married clergy, re-establish the ancient services and processions, and set forth homilies ; also, by Commissions appointed under the authority of the Crown, she caused all the reforming bishops, on one ground or another, to be deprived.

(2) THE RoyaL SUPREMACY CAREFULLY GUARDED, SO AS TO EXCLUDE [IRASTIANISM. Where we attribute to the Queen’s Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our Princes

* The Commission for the Visitation was issued May 4, 1547.

* These owed their authority to a most unconstitutional Act of Henry’s reign, which made a Royal Proclamation of equal force with an Act of Parliament.

% In the Proclamation the King states that the ‘‘ Order” has been set forth ‘fon the advice of his dear uncle and others of his Privy Council.” There is thus no pretence even of Ecclesiastical sanction (Dodd “Church History,” vol. ii, Appendix viii.).

* This was purely a State Act, without any approval of Convocation.

the ministering either of God’s Word, or of Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify: but that only prerogative, which wé see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God Himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

Under Queen Elizabeth the language of Henry VIII.’s legislation with regard to the Royal Supremacy was avoided, as being liable to misconstruction; the obnoxious title, “Supreme Head,” was dropped,’ and anything like an Hrastian interpretation of the Supremacy was guarded against by the insertion of this second paragraph in our Article. The avowed aim of the Queen was simply to restore the ancient constitutional right of the English Crown. ‘Thus 1 Elizabeth c. i. is entitled :—

“An Act for restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the State, ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same.”

So also in the INJUNCTIONS (1559) it is laid down :—

“That all deans, archdeacons, parsons, vicars, and all other ecclesiastical persons shall faithfully keep and observe, and as far as in them may lie, shall cause to be observed and kept of other,

- all and singular laws and statutes made for the restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical, and abolishing of all foreign power, repugnant to the same. And furthermore, All ecclesiastical persons having cure of souls, shall, to the uttermost of their wit, knowledge, and learning, purely and sincerely, and without any colour or dissimulation, declare, manifest and open four times every year at the least, in their sermons and other collations, that all usurped and foreign power, having no establishment nor ground by the law of God, is, for most just causes, taken away and abolished: and that therefore no manner of obedience and subjection within her highness’s realms and dominions is due unto any such foreign power. And,

that the queen’s power within her realms and dominions is the highest power under God, to whom all men, within the same realms and dominions, by God’s laws, owe most loyalty and obedience, afore and above all other powers and poten in earth” (Doc. Ann., i. pp. 211, 212).

In the Queen’s “ admonition,” embodied in the same Injunctions, the Royal Supremacy is further guarded from an Erastian interpretation :—

“ And further her majesty forbiddeth all manner her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects, how by the words of the said oath it may be collected, that the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of divine offices in the church ; wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil-disposed persons. For certainly her majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge any other authority, than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, king Henry the Eighth, and king Edward the Sixth, which is, and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm; that is, under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner persons born within these her realms, dominions and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them” (Doc. Ann., pp. 232, 233).

We may here draw attention to the attitude of the English Church towards the Pope. It does not deny that he is, as Bishop of Rome, a true bishop of the Catholic Church of Christ, but only protests against his usurped jurisdiction in this realm. It should also be noted that, while in the Injunctions of Kdward VI. there is express mention of “the bishop of Rome his pretensed and usurped power and jurisdiction,” * in Elizabeth’s Injunctions reference is simply made in general terms to “usurped and foreign power.” At the Elizabethan revision of © the Prayer Book (1559), too, the clause, “from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities” (Good Lord deliver us), was omitted from the Litany.

This very moderate attitude of the English Church stands in contrast with the opinions expressed individually by some of her members, especially those who had sojourned abroad during the

? Doc. Ann., i. Ὁ. 5. »

reign of Queen Mary, and had come under the influence of the Swiss school of Reformers. :

See, eg., letter of Cox to Wolfgang Weidner (from London, May 20, 1559):—

“Meanwhile we, that little flock, who for these last five years, by the blessing of God, have been hidden among you in Germany, are thundering forth in our pulpits, and especially before our queen Elizabeth, that the Roman pontiff is truly antichrist” (Zurich Letters, vol. i. p. 27).

Letter of Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger (dated July 1566) :— “Tn the ecclesiastical regimen there are retained many traces

of the church of antichrist. For as formerly at Rome,” ὅσο. (Lbid., p. 164).

Letter of Grindal to Bullinger (London, August 29, 1567) :—

“That tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church, is altogether abolished ; and it is provided that all persons shall in future acknowledge him to be the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks” (Zdid., Ρ. 199). |

Letter of Richard Hilles to Bullinger (London, July 27, 1571) :—

“That labour of yours, of which you inform me, in replying to the whole of that impudent popish bull which the Roman antichrist has vomited forth against our most serene queen, will be, without doubt, very: greatly approved by the three bishops aforementioned,! to whom you have sent those three copies” (Jbid., Ρ. 242).

Letter of Cox to Rodolph Gualter (Ely, February 4, 1573):—

“1 have your book respecting the pope being antichrist, which this man? takes much pains to refute. You will not, I hope, allow him to triumph” (Jdid., p. 282).

Language such as that which occurs in the passages just quoted is directly traceable to reformers of the Swiss school, many of whom maintained that the Pope is Antichrist, and. spoke of the Church of Rome in their formularies as the

urch of Antichrist.

1 Viz., the Bishops of York (Grindal), Ely (Cox), and Salisbury (Jewel). 2 Nicholas Saunders,

Calvin, by the language he uses, suggests that the Church of Rome is “ Babylon ”—“the synagogue of Satan,”* and compares __ conformity to Rome with apostasy from God, likening it to sacrificing to the calf at Bethel.” He, moreover, expressly affirms that the Pope is that Antichrist foretold in Scripture ;* yet he acknowledges that in the Church of Rome some vestiges of a Church remain.‘

The FrencH Conression (Art. XXVIII.) declares :—

“‘Papisticos igitur conventus damnamus. . . . Ac proinde arbi- tramur, omnes eos, qui sese ejusmodi actionibus adjungunt, et iis communicant, a Christi corpore seipsos separare.”

Cf. the preface to the Judgment of the SyNop or ΠΟΕῚ :—

“Hane enim Ecclesiam, a Romani antichristi tyrannide et hor- ribili papatus idololatria potenti Dei manu vindicatam.” .. .

The outcome of the teaching of John Knox and his followers appears in the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, XX V. 6 :—

“There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ : nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof ; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.” Ὁ

It is matter for much thankfulness that these opinions with regard to the Papacy, though shared by some prominent divines of the Klizabethan period, did not find expression in the authorised formularies of the English Church.

1 INSTITUTES, IV. ii. 4. 2 INSTITUTES, IV. ii. 9. δ᾽ ἸΝΟΤΙΤΌΤΕΒ, ΓΝ. 1]. 12:-:---

‘“Antichristum in templo Dei sessurum praedixerunt Daniel et Paulus: Illius scelerati et abominandi regni ducem et antesignanum apud nos facimus Romanum pontificem,”

* INSTITUTES, LV. i; τ Ξ-

“Ut tamen manebant olim inter Iudaeos peculiares quaedam Ecclesiae praerogativae, ita nec hodie Papistis adimimus quae superesse ex dissipatione vestigia Ecclesiae inter eos Dominus voluit.”

δ Cf. the similar passage in the IrnIsH ARTICLES of 1615, Appendix VIL.

(3.) THE LAWFULNESS OF ΟΑΡΙ͂ΡΑΙ, PUNISHMENT. The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with hati for heinous and grievous offences.

The principle is laid down in Gen. ix. 6, and under the Mosaic Law not only murder but various other grievous offences were punishable with death (see, ¢g., Exod. xxi. 16,17; Lev. xx. 9 et seqqg.; Deut. xvii. 2—5, xxii. 20 et seqq.). In the New Testament, Rom. xiii. 4 indicates quite clearly that the infliction of capital punishment does not conflict with Christian principle. We see, therefore, that the abolition of the right of capital punishment would deprive the magistracy of a power given in the Old Testament, confirmed in the New, and which it possesses as God’s minister.

The reassertion of this right of the civil power was felt to be necessary at the Reformation period, more especially on the Continent, owing to the spread of Anabaptism, which brought anarchy and confusion in its train.

Cf. AUGSBURG CONFESSION, Part 1. Art. XVI.:—

“Damnant Anabaptistas, qui interdicunt haec civilia officia Christianis.”

The Saxon Conression has a long Article (XXIII.), “ De Magi- stratu politico,” in which occurs this passage :—

“ Deinde justitia Dei conspicitur in politica gubernatione ; quia vult puniri manifesta scelera a magistratibus: et cum ipsi, qui praesunt, non sumunt supplicia de sontibus, Deus ipse mirabiliter rapit eos ad poenas, et regulariter atrocia delicta punit atrocibus poenis in hae vita, ut dicitur : Qui gladium acceperit, gladio peribit: item, Seortatores et adulteros judicat Deus,” &e.

“Damnamus Anabaptistas, qui ut Christianum negant fungi posse officio magistratus, ita etiam negant quenquam a miagistratu juste occidi, aut magistratum bellum gerere posse, aut juramenta magistratui praestanda esse, et caetera.”

‘om =

(4.) THE LAWFULNESS OF MILITARY SERVICE. It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the

Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars. Christian nations, not less than individual Christians, are forbidden to enter upon strife for ambition’s sake or merely upon a principle of revenge (S. Matt. v. 38-41; Rom. xii. 18, 19). “Peace on earth,” sang the Angels at the Nativity; yet the true peace which Christ, the Prince of Peace, came. to bring was soon seen to involve conflict with the evil that is in the world. Hence Christ Himself says, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (S. Matt. x. 34). On account of the evil that is in the world, it will therefore be sometimes necessary for the Christian to fight, since true peace is not peace with evil and wrong. Hence war is sometimes necessary in order to resist unjust oppression or aggression, or for the protection of life, liberty, or independence. ‘The prevalence of war between nations is evidence of the*imperfection, or of the want, of international law. If the principles of Christianity and the sentiment of brotherhood, which our holy Religion inculcates, were widely diffused and firmly rooted in the hearts of men, and if a system of international morality were established and generally accepted, then, we imagine, the necessity for war would cease. On account of the mingling of evil with good in the world this state of things has not been attained, but it is the ideal goal to which all progress tends. Thus in the prophetic anticipations in the Old Testament of the reign of Messiah, the cessation of wars between the nations occupies a prominent place (see, 6..., Isa. ii. 4; Hos, ii. 18; Zech. ix. 10). Of course it by no means follows that, in the present condition of the world, peace at any price is to be preferred to war. That it is not in itself wrong to serve in the wars at the command of the civil power may be gathered from—

(a) The advice given by S. John the Baptist to soldiers

(S. Luke iii. 14).

(0) Thé commendation given to soldiers in several places in

the New Testament (eg., ὃ. Matt. villi. 5-13; Acts x. 1-4), without any intimation that their calling is in itself unholy.

(c) The fact that many of the early Christians served in the

army of Imperial Rome,’ and that many of the saints of the Church have been soldiers.

This concluding paragraph of the Article, like the preceding one, had special reference to the opinions of the Anabaptists. (See the quotations from the AuGsBURG CONFESSION and SECOND

Article XXXVIII

HELVETIC CONFESSION given under heading [ 3 ].)

1 Cf. Tertullian, Apol., Cap. xxxvii. :—

The stories of the “" Thundering Legion” and of the martyrdom of the Theban Legion are well known.

The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding every man ought of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

DE iLLICITA BONORUM COM-

Facultates et bona Christianorum non sunt communia, quoad jus et possessionem, ut quidam Anabap- tistae falso jactant. Debet tamen quisque de his quae possidet, pro facultatum ratione, pauperibus 6160. mosynas benigne distribuere.

§ 1.—SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers, 155 2—3.

§ 2.—OBJECT.

To condemn theories of Communism urged by the Anabaptists, especially on the Continent, and in some cases with the most

terrible results.

The prevalence of Anabaptist opinions in England is indicated in Stat. 32 Henry VIII. cap. 49, § 11, by which they were excluded from the King’s pardon who held :—

“That it is not Jeafull for a Christen man to beare office or rule in the Commen Welth: That no man’s lawes ought to be obeyed: That it is not leafull for a Christen man to take an othe

before any judge: . severall.”

. . That all things be common, and nothing

“ Excludatur etiam ab eisdem Anabaptistis inducta bonorum et possessionum communitas, quam tantopere urgent, ut nemini

quicquam relinquant proprium et suum.

In quo’ mirabiliter

loquuntur, cum furta prohiberi divina Scriptura cernant, et elee-

mosynas in utroque Testamento laudari videant, quas ex propriis 314 ,

See also the quotation from the AUGSBURG CoNFESSION in the notes on Article XXXVII. § 3, heading (3), p. 311.

The BELGic Conression (Art. XX XVI.) also gives a summa’ 7 of Anabaptist opinions which are to be condemned :—

“Quamobrem Anabaptistas et turbulentos omnes detestamur qui superiores dominationes et magistratus abjiciunt, jura ac judicia pervertunt, bona omnia communia faciunt, ac denique or- dines omnes ac gradus, quos honestatis gratia Deus inter homines constituit, abolent aut confundunt.”

The earlier Anabaptists had strong Millenarian expectations ; rejecting Infant Baptism, they taught that those who joined them must be baptized anew’ with the baptism of the Spirit. They also proclaimed the equality of all Christians and community of goods. All external law they abolished.”_ The Bible they regarded as unnecessary, since the perfect children of God have in themselves the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. War was held to be unlawful, and oaths unnecessary, within the kingdom of Christ. These ideal notions the Anabaptists attempted to force by violence upon men unprepared for them, and, rapidly degenerating themselves, Antinomianism became prevalent amongst them. ‘Their fanaticism knew no bounds, and drove them into every kind of madness, excess, and disorder. The outrages at Munster, which city became the scene of the wildest licentiousness, until Romanists and Protestants alike combined to secure its downfall (June 24, 1535), remain engraved upon the pages of history, an awful example of the terrible results to which sincere but ill-guided zeal may lead men.

§ 3. EXPOSITION.

(1.) COMMUNISM IS NOT A NECESSARY OUTCOME OF CHRISTIANITY. The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Some have gathered from Acts ii, 44, iv. 32, that in the 1 Hence the name ‘ Anabaptist.”

2 See REFORMATIO LEGUM, ‘‘ De Haeresibus,” Cap. 13, quoted on Article

XXXVII. § 2. Cf the quotations in the notes on Article XXXVII. § 3, heading (3), p. 311.

earliest days of the Church the Christians at Jerusalem, by the very rules of the Christian society, surrendered all their property as individuals into one common stock ; in fact, that Communism was their principle. Such an interpretation must, however, after careful consideration, be rejected on the following grounds :—

(a) We have clear evidence that the Apostles did not enforce any such rule of surrender of all private property. Thus S. Peter expressly tells Ananias that he had not been obliged to sell his property at all, and, moreover, that after he had sold it he had not been under any obligation to surrender the proceeds of the sale (Acts v. 4).

(b) A system of Communism is, of course, incompatible with Almsgiving, and—

(2.) ALMSGIVING IS A CHRISTIAN DUTY. Every man ought of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

Almsgiving was the practice of the early Church on a very large scale (see, ¢.g., Acts iv. 34-37, Xl. 29, 30, Xx. 35. xxiv. 17; Rom. xy.25 7 1 Cor xvi. 1Ξ Ὁ τα] 1. 70, 1 Tim. vi. 17, 18), in accordance with our Lord’s own teaching (5. Matt. vi 1-4; 8. Mark x. 21, 22; S. Luke xxi. I-4). In Acts ii. 44, iv. 32, we conclude, therefore, that S. Luke is describing, not an institution, but the spirit and temper of the first Christians. The Apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, understood our Lord’s teaching too well to convert what He intended to be a voluntary grace into an enforced rule. The sum of the whole matter is that, though Christian men’s goods be not common, yet ought they to be communicated to one another, according as the brethren have need (Rom. xii. 13 3 I Vor, xvi. 2; Heb, xu, 16).

Article XXXIX

As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle: so we judge that Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.

Quemadmodum juramentum va- num et temerarium a Domino nostro Jesu Christo, et Apostolo ejus Jacobo, Christianis hominibus interdic- tum esse fatemur: itaChristianorum religionem minime prohibere cen- semus, quin jubente magistratu, in causa fidei et charitatis, jurare liceat, modo id fiat juxta Prophetae doctrinam, in justitia, in judicio, et veritate.

§ 1.—SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers, 155 2—3.

§ 2,—OBJECT.

This Article has reference to the same disorderly spirits as Article XXXVIII., combating their scruples in the matter of

taking oaths.’

“Praeterea nec juramentorum Anabaptistae legitimum relin- quunt usum, in quo contra Scripturarum sententiam et veteris Testamenti patrum exempla, Pauli etiam Apostoli, imo Christi, imo Dei patris procedunt ; quorum juramenta saepe sunt in sacris

literis repetita.”

See also references given in the notes on Article XX XVII. § 3,

heading (3), p. 311, and Article XXXVIII. § 2, pp. 314, 315.

1 The Quakers, in their refusal either to take or administer an oath, as also in their objection to all war as utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel,

revived the opinions of the Anabaptists.

(1.) VAIN AND RASH SWEARING IS FORBIDDEN.

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian

men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle:

See the Third Commandment, and the words of our Lord recorded in 5. Matt. v. 34-37, and of S. James in his Epistle v. 12. These passages are no doubt the ones referred to in the Article.

(2.) THERE IS NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRIS-

so we judge that Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that

a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet's teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.

The Gospel prohibitions were evidently directed against ‘vain and rash swearing,” against the habit, to which the Jews of our Lord’s time were much addicted, of using oaths upon the most trifling occasions, swearing by Heaven, by Earth, by Jerusalem, and by the head (8S. Matt. v. 34-36), without seriously considering themselves bound by such asseverations. In view of this prevalent practice Christ exhorts ἔστω dé ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν (i.e, in your common intercourse with one another), Nai vai, Οὐ οὔ: τὸ δὲ περισ- σὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν (S. Matt. v. 37). That our Lord’s prohibition of swearing does not extend to solemn oaths before “the Magistrate . . . in a cause of faith and charity ” is clear from His own example; for, on being Himself adjured, or called to answer upon oath, before the high-priest’s judgment-seat, He refused not to do so (ὃ. Matt. xxvi. 63, 64). In many passages in his Epistles S. Paul also solemnly calls God to witness the truth of his statements (6..., Rom. i. 9, ix. 13 2 Cor. i. 18, 233; Gal. i, 20).

That to take an oath is not in itself unlawful appears from several places of Scripture (eg., Deut. vi. 13; Ps. xv. I, 4, Ixili. 11}, and under the Old Covenant a power was given to the judges of examining persons upon oath (Lev. v. 1). But the same Scripture likewise emphatically declares that, when an oath is taken, it must be done “in justice, judgment; and truth”

(Jer. iv. 2).} Further, God Himself is sometimes expressly said to swear (see Gen. xxii. 16; Jer. xliv. 26; Ps. Ixxxix. 35, Cx. 4, cxxxll. 11; Heb. vi. 13, vil. 21).

To conclude, if men were always truthful there would be no need for the administration of oaths; but while, on account of the evil that is in the world, solemn attestation of the truth by oath is required, it need not bs refused by the Christian.

Bishop Barlowe, in his Dialogue on the Lutheran Factions (1553), shows that errors referred to in these concluding Articles were spread at the Reformation by the Anabaptists. He writes: “They obstinately hold that it is unlawful for a judge to require any oath of a Christian man (Article XXXIX.). They say that Christian men ought to make no provision or resistance against their enemies (Article XX XVII.) also they show holy perfection outwardly .. . using their goods in. common (Article XXXVIIL) .. . also some hold that no man ought to be punished or suffer execution for any crime or trespass, be it never so horrible” (Article XXXVILI.), pp. 57, 59 (ed. Lunn).

“ Whosoever sweareth when he is required of a judge, let him be sure in his conscience that his oath have these three conditions, and he shall never need to be afraid of perjury. First, he that sweareth must swear truly; that is, he must, setting apart all favour and affection to the parties, have the truth only before his eyes, and for love thereof say and speak that which he knoweth to be truth, and no further. The second is, he that taketh an oath must do it with judgment ; not rashly and unadvisedly, but soberly, considering what an oath is. The third is, he that sweareth must swear in righteousness; that is, for the very zeal and love which he beareth to the defence of inno-

_ cency, to the maintenance of the truth, and to the righteousness of the matter or cause, all profit, disprofit, all love and favour unto the person for friendship or kindred, laid apart.”

Tu1s Book of Articles before rehearsed, is again approved, and allowed to be holden and executed within the Realm, by the assent and consent of our Sovereign Lady Exizazetu, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, ke.

The 1553 Articles omitted in 1563

Which Articles were deliberately read, and confirmed again by the subscription of the hands of the Archbishop and Bishops of the Upper House, and by the subscription of the whole Clergy in the Nether House in their Convocation, in the year of our Lord Gop

[571s

The last four Articles of 1553, struck out in 1563, ran as

follows :—

The Resurrection of the dead is not as yet brought to passe, as though it only belonged to the soulle, whiche by the grace of Christe is raised from the death of sinne, but it is to be loked for at the laste daie: for then (as Scripture doeth moste manifestlie testifie) to all that bee dead their awne bodies, fleshe, and bone shalbe restored, that the whole man maie (according to his workes) haue other rewarde, or punishment, as he hath liued vertuouslie or wickedlie.

Resurrectio mortuorum non ad- hue facta est, quasi tantum ad animum pertineat qui per Christi gratiam a morte peccatorum exci- tetur, sed extremo die quoad omnes qui obierunt, expectanda est, tunc enim vita defunctis (ut Scripturae manifestissime testantur) propria corpora, carnes et ossa restituentur, ut homo integer, prout vel recte vel perdite vixerit, juxta sua opera, sive praemia sive poenas reportet.

made in the wording oi the Articles.

1 This Ratification dates from 1571, since which tie no Change has been

The text of this Article is given

PARTE THIS LIFE DOE NEITHER] in the notes on Article XXIL, p. DIE WITH THE BODIES, NOR | 149, footnote.

Thei that goe about to renewe the fable of heretickes called Mil- lenarii, be repugnant to holie Scripture, and caste them selues headlong ‘into a Juishe dotage.

Qui Millenariorum fabulam re vocare conantur, sacris literis ad- versantur, et in Judaica delira- menta sese praecipitant.

Thei also are worthie of con- demnacion, who indeuoure at this time to restore the dangerouse opinion, that al menne, be thei neuer so ungodlie, shall at length bee saued, when thei haue suffered paines for their sinnes a certaine time appoincted by Goddes justice.

SUNT.

Hi quoque damnatione digni sunt, qui conantur hodie perni- ciosam opinionem instaurare, quod omnes, quantumvis impii, servandi sunt tandem, cum definito tempore a justitia divina poenas de admissis flagitiis luerunt.

_ On the omission of these Articles in 1563 see Introduction, Ῥ. 14, and compare the paragraph at the end of the notes on

Article XVIIL., p. 126. .

Appendix V. Bishop Geste's letter on Article XXVIII

Ricut HonouraBLe—I am verye sorye yt you are so sicke, God make make you whole, as it is my desyer and prayer. I wold have seen you er this, accordinge to my duetye and good will, but when I sent to knowe whether I might see you it was often answered yt you were not to be spoken with.

I suppose you have heard how ye Bisshop of Glocestre! found him selue greeved with ye plasynge of this adverbe onelye in this article, ‘The Body of Christ is gyven taken and eaten in ye Supper after an heavenly and spirituall maner only’ bycause it did take awaye ye presence of Christis Bodye in ye Sacrament, and privily noted me to take his part therein, and yeasterday in myn absence more playnely vouched me for ye same. Whereas betwene him and me, I told him playnely that this word onelye in ye foresaied Article did not exclude ye presence of Christis Body from the Sacrament, but only ye grossenes and sensiblenes in ye receavinge thereof: For I saied unto him though he tooke Christis Bodye in his hand, receaved it with his mouthe, and that corporally naturally reallye substantially and carnally as ye doctors doo write, yet did he not for all that see it, feale it, smell it, nor tast it. And therefore I told him I wolde speake against him herein, and ye rather bycause ye article was of myn own pennynge. And yet I wold not for all that denye thereby any thing that I had spoken for ye presence. And this was ye some of our talke.

And this that I saied is so true by all sortes of men that even D, Hardinge writeth ye same as it appeareth most evidently by his wordes reported in ye Busshoppe of Salisburie’s booke pagina 325, wich be these: ‘Then ye maye saye yt in ye Sacrament His verye Bodye is present, yea really that is to saye, in deede, substantially that is in substance, and corporally carnally and naturally, by ye wich words is ment that His verye Bodye His verye flesh and His verye human nature is there not after corporall carnall or naturall wise, but invisibly unspeakably supernaturally spiritually divinely and by waye unto Him only

1 Richard Cheyney.

knowen.’! ‘This I thought νοοῖ to-wit boy) ye he nc purgation. The Almighty God in Christ restore you to y I and longe kepe you in ye same with encrease of vertue and honour.

Yours whole to his poore pow" ἘΠῚ EpM. Rosen ; To ye right honourable and his singler good friend Sir Willm. Cecil Knight Principall Secretaire to ye Queens Mat.