Gibson on Article XIX: Of the Church

• Slight verbal changes were introduced into the English Article in Elizabeth’s reign in order to bring it into more exact accordance with the Latin, in which there has been no alteration whatever. “And manner of ceremonies ” was added in 1563 ; and ” their ” before ” faith ” omitted in 1571.

The object of the Article appears to be twofold : (1) to give such a definition or description of the visible Church as shall exclude the claim of the Koman Church to be the only true Church, while not embracing under the terms of the definition the various sects of Anabaptists and others then springing up ; and (2) to deny the claim of the Roman Church to infallibility.

That some such polemical object was intended by those who framed the description in the first part of the Article appears from the following passage in the Ee/ormatio Legum Fcclesiasticarum, between which and the Article there is evidently a very close connection : —

“Etiam illorum insania legum vinculis est constringenda, qui Romanam Ecclesiam in hujusmodi petra fundatam esse existimant, ut nee erraverit, nee 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. Quapropter illorum etiam intolerabilis est error, qui totius Christiani orbis universam ecclesiam solius episcopi Romani principatu contineri volunt. Nos enim eam quoe cemi potest ecclesiam sic definimus ut omnium ccetus sit fidelium hominum, in quo sacra Scriptura sincere docetur, et sacramenta (saltem his eorum partibus quae necessarige sunt) juxta Christi prtescriptum administrantur.” ^

To a later date belongs the ‘Homily for Whitsunday, first published in 1563, and ascribed to the authorship of Bishop Jewell. But it is interesting to notice that it introduces a description of the Church which is evidently suggested by that in the Article into a similar polemical passage combating the claims of the Church of Rome. ” But now herein standeth the controversy, whether

• De Hares, o. xxi. , De Roniana Ec«‘lesia et intestate Romani iK)ntificiH.

all men do justly arrogate to themselves the Holy Ghost, or no. The Bishops of Rome have for a long time made a sore challenge thereunto, reasoning for themselves after this sort. The Holy Ghost, say they, was promised to the Church, and never forsaketh the Church : but we are the chief heads and the principal part of the Church : therefore we have the Holy Ghost for ever ; and whatsoever things we decree are undoubted verities and oracles of the Holy Ghost. That ye may perceive the weakness of this argument, it is needful to teach you first what the true Church of Christ is, and then to confer the Church of Rome therewith, to discern how well they agree together.

“The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God’s faithful and elect people, halt upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head comer-stone. 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. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God and also to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith.”^

The connection between the description here given and that in the Article is obvious. That in the Homily is little more than a rhetorical amplification of that given in the Article. The chief difference is that the Homily adds a third note to the two given in the Article, namely, “the right use of ecclesiastical discipline.” ^ It may, however, fairly be argued that even

» “The second part of the sermon for Whitsunday.” The Homilies, 1>. 494 (ed. S.P.C.K.).

3 This “note or mark ” is also added in the ” Short Catechism ” issued together with the Articles in 1553 (see Dixon’s History of the Church of

this is no substantial addition, because it is really included in the right administration of the sacraments, which must involve their administration by properly qualified persons, and to those only who are properly qualified to receive them.*

The main subjects to be considered in connection with this Article are the following : —

1. The description of the visible Church.

2. The statement that the Church of Rome hath erred in matters of faith.

I. The Description of the visible Church,

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.

It will be convenient to consider separately each term in this description.

England, vol. iii. p. 528), where it is said that ’* the marks of this Church are : first, pure preaching of the gospel ; then, brotherly love, out of which, as members of all one body, springeth goodwill of each to other ; thirdly, upright and uncorrupted use of the Lord’s sacraments, according to the ordinance of the gosi)el ; last of all, brotherly correction and excommunication, or banishing those out of the Church that will not amend their lives. This mark the holy Fathers termed discipline.” See Liturgies of King Edward VI. (Parker Society) p. 513. Somewhat to the same effect we read in Nowell’s Cateehi^, published in 1570, that the ” marks of the visible Church are the sincere preaching of the gospel, that IS to say, of the benefits of Christ, invocation and administration of the sacraments,” and it is added that “in the same Church, if it be well ordered, there shall be seen to be observed a certain order and manner of government, and such a form of ecclesiastical discipline,” etc. See Nowell’s CaUchism (Parker Society), pp. 56, 175 ; cf. also Ridley’s Works (Parker Society), p. 123.

» Cf. Rp. Browne, Exposition of the Iliirty-Nine Artielat, p. 452.

(a) The visible Church. The word ” Church ” is the English equivalent for the Greek eKKKrjala, which has passed through three stages of meaning. (1) In its classical sense it is not a religious word at all, but simply stands for the assembly of the citizens of Athens and (later) of other free Greek cities, called together for the discussion of public business. In this sense it occurs once in the New Testament of the ” lawful assembly ” (17 €vvo/io iKKXfjala) at Ephesus, Acts xix. 39. (2) It obtains a religious connotation first in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, where it is frequently used as the translation of the Hebrew [?, for the assembly of the Israelites, especially when gathered for sacred purposes. In this sense it is found twice in the New Testament, viz. in Acts vii. 38, where S. Stephen speaks of ” the Church in the wilderness,” and in Heb. ii. 1 2 in a quotation from the LXX. of Ps. xxii. 22. (3) This Old Testament use of the term prepared the way for the third stage in its usage, in which it is adopted by our Lord as the name of the Society which He came to found on earth. It is so used on two occasions by Him in the Gospels, namely in S. Matt. xvi. 18 (to be noted as its earliest occurrence), ” Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church ” (oUoSofiijaa) fiov rrjv iKKXrja-lav), and S. Matt, xviii. 18, where it is said of the erring brother, ” If he refuse to hear thee, tell it to the Church ; and if he refuse to hear the Church also,

• It is never used for the Hebrew TMV for which ffvvayuyyfi is the regular equivalent. This word is also used regularly in the first four books of the Pentateuch for ^Hp; but from Deuteronomy onwards, though ffwayuiyri is still occasionally used for it, iKKKijala is more usually employed. See Deut. iv. 10, ix. 10, xviii. 16, etc. ; and on the history of the word in general, see Trench’s Sguonyms of the Xecj Testament, p. 1.

i’

let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.”

Owing probably to its use in this sense by our Lord

Himself, we find on turning to the Acts and Epistles

that it is the familiar designation of the Christian

Society, used sometimes for the Society as a whole,

throughout the world, 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. i. 22 ;i

Phil. iii. 6, etc.; sometimes for the Church in a particular

place, as ” the Church which was in Jerusalem,” Acts

viii. 1 ; ” the Church of God which is at Corinth,” 1 Cor.

i. 2 ; ” the Church of the Thessalonians,” 1 Thess. i. 1 ; or

” the Church in Ephesus,” Kev. il 1 ; sometimes even

for a particular congregation gathered together in some

house. So we read of Prisca and Aquila, and “the

Church that is in their house ” (Rom. xvi 5 ; 1 Cor.

xvi. 19), and of Philemon, and the Church in his house

(Philem. 2, and cf. Col. iv. lb)} This varying usage of

the word in its Christian sense is faithfully reflected in

the language of our own Articles, which speak sometimes

of ” the Church ” (Art. XX.), or ” the visible Church ”

(Art. XIX.) as a whole, sometimes of ” every particular

or national Church” (Art. XXXIV.), such as “the

Church of Jerusalem,” of “Alexandria and Antioch,”

as well as ” the Church of Rome ” (Art. XIX.).

The phrase employed in the Article before us, ” the visihle Church,” is important. It obviously indicates that the Church is a definite ascertainable body, which can be pointed out to men, and distinguished from any other bodies or societies claiming identity or similarity with it.

^ This usage is especially characteristic of the Epistle to the Ephesians, in which the conception of one Catholic Church stands out with peculiar clearness. See Eph. i. 22, iii. 10, v. 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32.

2 It may be noted that the word can also be used for *’ any gathering ” of men assembled by chance or tumultuously, as it is by the “town clerk ” in his speech at Ephesus, Acts xix. 32, 41. Its use for the building in which Christians meet together for worship is post-biblical, and apparently not found before the third century at the earlieat.

What the distinguishing marks of the Church are the Article proceeds to state, and these will presently be explained. But before this can be done, the phrase before us requires further consideration.

At the time when the Articles were drawn up there was in some quarters a tendency to attach little importance to the notion of a ” visible Church,” and to speak much of an “invisible Church,” consisting of true believers known only to God, wherever they might be found, outside and independent of all external organisation.^ That God does know who are really His, in whatever society or body they may be found, is of course perfectly true, and what no Christian can deny. But when this is said, there is really nothing more that can be said of an “invisible Church.” Its existence

^ See a startling exposition of this view in Hooper’s Brief and Clear Confeasion of the Christian Faith : ** I believe and confess one only Catholic and Universal Church, which is an holy congiegation and assembly of all faithful believers, which are chosen and predestinate unto everlasting life, before the foundations of the world were laid : of whose number I count myself, and believe that I am, through the only grace and mercy of the Father, and by the merits of my good Lord and Master Jesus Christ, and not by means of my good works and merits, which indeed are none.

” I believe that this Church is invisible to the eye of man, ‘and is only to God known ; and that the same Church is not set, compassed, and limited within a certain place or bounds, but is scattered and spread abroad throughout all the world ; but yet coupled together in heart, will, and spirit by the bond of faith and charity, having and altogether acknowledging one only God, one only head and mediator Jesus Christ, one faith, one law, one baptism, one spiritual table, wherein one meal, and one spiritual drink, is ministered to them unto the end of the world. This Church containeth in it all the righteous and chosen people, from the first righteous man unto the last that shall be found righteous in the end of the world : and therefore I do call it universal. For as touching the visible Church, which is the congregation of the good and of the wicked, of the chosen and of the reprobate, and generally of all those which say they believe in Christ, I do not believe that to be the Church, because that Church is seen of the eye, and the faith thereof is in visible things.” — Later writings of Bishop Hooper (Parker Society), p. 40.

does not practically concern us; for to say of any particular individuals that they belong to the true (invisible) Church, and of others that they belong only to the visible body, involves a serious confusion of thought, since the very act of pointing out any members of this ” invisible Church ” makes it at once a ” visible ” one ; and for man to say who does or who does not belong to it is to claim the prerogatives of God, and to assume the power to see into the hearts of men. Thus the phrase ” the invisible Church ” was mischievous and misleading, and led men to attach little importance to the Divinely appointed external organisation of the historical Church founded by our Lord ; and we may be thankful that those who are responsible for the Article ignored it altogether and spoke only of that body or society of which Scripture speaks, namely, ” the visible Church of Christ.” ^

That our Lord intended to found a Church, and that this Church was to be ” visible,” must now be shown. The passage already quoted from S. Matt. xvL 18 is conclusive evidence that it was our Lord’s purpose to found a Church ; and though, as has been previously mentioned, the word iKKXrja-ia only occurs on two occasions in the Gospels, yet in the former of the two passages it is closely connected, if not expressly identified with ” the kingdom of heaven,” which is the ordinary title by which our Lord refers to the new order of things which He came to inaugurate,

and the Society which was to be established on earth. That this “kingdom,” though “not of this world” (S. John xviiL 36), was nevertheless intended to be a « visible ” one, embracing good and bad alike, is indicated in more than one parable; e.g. that of the Tares (S. Matt. xiii. 24-30), the Draw-net (vers. 47-50), and the Wedding Garment (xxii. 1-14). It is intended to embrace all nations of the earth (xxviii. 19). The rite of baptism is appointed as the method of admission to it (lb., cf. S. John iil 3-5) ; a visible rite is instituted as the means of supporting the life of its members (S. Matt. XX vi. 26 ; S. John vi. 51), and men are commissioned and ” sent ” with power to remit and retain sins (S. John XX. 21-23). All this implies a definite, ascertainable body with an outward organisation, a body, or society, which can be described as a ” visible ” one. And when we turn to the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles we find abundant evidence that the actual existing iKK\r)(Tla was such. Throughout the Acts baptism is the rite of admission to it (Acts ii. 38, 41, viii. 12, xvi. 15, etc.); “continuing steadfastly in the breaking of the bread” is one of the characteristics of believers (ii 42, cf. ii. 46 and xx. 7); and “elders” are “appointed in every Church” (xiv. 23); and it may be safely said that wherever the ” Church ” is mentioned, the language used is only capable of being appHed to a visible body. Thus a “persecution arose against the Church” (viii. 1), the Church was “gathered together” (xiv. 27), “saluted” (xviii. 22), “confirmed” (xvi. 5). The same is true in regard to the Epistles. In every case S. Paul writes to members of a definite society, consisting, as his letters only too plainly show, of professed believers, some of whom were guilty of grievous sins, — a mixed body, in which the evil are mingled with the good ; and if further proof be required that this is 33

tm ■

h I

the character of the iKK\rja(a as described in Holy Scripture, it may be found in the Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia (Rev. ii., iii.), which are clearly addressed to visible organised societies, and which similarly recognise the existence of the evil as well as the good in those societies. Thus everywhere throughout Scripture it is ” the visible Church ” which is spoken of, to which the promises are made, and in which the hope of salvation is held out.

(b) This ” visible Church ” is described as a Congregation of faithful men (coetus fidelium). Stress may fairly be laid on the word ” congregation ” as implying that the Church is in some way united so as to be a definite body with an organism and a life of its own, for, as has been truly pointed out, a congregation is more than an aggregation. It means a body or society. ” There is a great difference between an aggregation and a body. A body is not merely a heap of members, … but it is a system of members knit together into one organism and pervaded by one life. … So the Church is a living organism deriving from Christ, who is its Head, the Hfe of the Holy Ghost.” ^

“Faithful” in this connection signifies “professed believers.” It cannot be taken as implying anything as to the character of the faith in the members of the Church, or as if it indicated the presence of a true and lively faith in all who belong to the body ; but it refers simply to those who “profess and call themselves Christians.” That this is so is shown by the fact that a later Article (XXVI.) expressly states (in full accordance, as has been already proved, with the teaching of Scripture) that ” in the visible Church the evil are ever mingled with the good.” Thus the Church consists of bad as well as good, and therefore the word ” faithful ” must be understood in the sense explained above.

(c) We now come to the ” notes ” of the Church, of which the Article gives two. The first is this : that in

the Church the pure word of God is preaohed.

That we are right in regarding this as one of the necessary notes or marks of the Church may fairly be inferred from many passages of Scripture. Our Lord’s charge to His Apostles after the resurrection was to ” make disciples of all nations,” not only “baptizing them,” but also ” teaching them to observe all things ” that He had commanded (S. Matt, xxviii. 19). The Church of the first days is described by S. Luke as continuing ” steadfast in the apostles’ teaching,” as well as in ” the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers ” (Acts ii. 42). S. Paul was sent to “preach the gospel” (1 Cor. i. 17). He charges Timothy to ” preach the word ” (2 Tim. iv. 2), to ” hold fast the form of sound words ” which he has heard (2 Tim. L 13); and generally, throughout the Apostolic Epistles, it is assumed that there is a definite body of teaching to be handed on by the Church and her ministers.^ That definite body of teaching, so far as necessary doctrine is concerned, we believe (as was shown under Article VI.) to be contained in Holy Scripture. ” Preaching,” as Hooker reminds us, is the ” open publication of heavenly mysteries.” ^ Thus the ” pure word of God is preached ” wherever the main doctrines of the gospel are openly taught and proclaimed. And since the main doctrines are summarised in those Creeds to which the Church of England expressly adheres, and which she declares ” ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture,” ^ it may reasonably be concluded that all who are in possession of the Creeds of the Church, and proclaim the doctrine contained in them, are so far forth

» See, e,g., 2 Tim. ii. 2 ; 1 Tim. iv. 13-16 ; S. Jiule 3.

• Ecclesiadical Polity, Bk. V. c. xviii. » Article VIII.

t ,;i.jiiB^>w I I

M>.

fi

fl

‘J

in possession of ” the pure word of God,” and fulfilling their duty of preaching it, as to satisfy the requirements of this note of the Church.

(d) A second note of the Church is given in the

following words: The sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to

the same. It has already been shown that our Lord appointed baptism as the rite of admission to His Church, and that the Eucharist was instituted with the charge, ” Do this in remembrance of Me.” By it, as S. Paul says, we are to “show forth the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Cor. xi. 26). It is therefore a rite for all time, and in the face of these declarations it can scarcely be doubted that the due administration of the sacraments must be a necessary mark of the Church, and that any body of Christians not possessing sacraments thereby forfeits all claim to be regarded as a branch of Christ’s visible Church. A further question may be raised as to what constitutes a dice administration of the sacraments. And to this it may be replied that all the conditions necessary for the validity of sacraments must be fulfilled. There must be the proper ” matter,” le. in the one case water, in the other ” bread and wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received ” ; as well as the proper form of words. It would seem also that a regularly constituted ministry is implied in this note of the Church ; ^ for though the prevailing opinion in the Church has ever been that baptism (1) with water, and (2) in the name of the Holy Trinity, is valid by whomsoever it may be administered, these being, as the Prayer Book says, ” essentials of baptism,” yet for the consecration and administration of the Holy Communion it has ever

J The question of the Episcopal ministry and its necessity is considered elsewhere, and is therefore not touched upon here.

been held that the action of a rightly ordained minister is required.^ Unless these various conditions were satisfied, it would be impossible to maintain that the sacraments were ” duly (recte) ^ ministered according to Christ’s

^ This is not the place to enter fully into the question of the validity of lay haptism, which is carefully vindicated by Hooker {Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V. c. Ixii.). But in view of the distinction drawn in the text between the two sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist as far as the action of an ordained minister is concerned, it may be well to explain the scriptural grounds on which the Church is justified in maintaining that lay baptism is valid, while she never permits a lay consecration of the Eucharist. Briefly, then, it may be said that there are various indications in the New Testament that no importance is attached to the minister of baptism. In the Gospels we are expressly told that during our Lord’s earthly ministry “Jesus baptized not Himself, but His disciples” (S. John iv. 2). In the Acts of the Apostles we read that when the Holy Ghost had come on the household of Cornelius, Peter, though apparently the only apostle or Christian minister present, “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord ” (Acts x. 48). The Samaritans were baptized by Philip the deacon, though the Holy Ghost was not given till the hands of the ajK)stles were laid on them (Acts viii. 12-17). Of the men at Ephesus it is said that “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ” (Acts xix. 5, 6) ; the natural inference from these words being that the act of baptism was not performed by the apostle himself; an inference which is raised almost to a certainty by S. Paul’s own woi-ds in the Fii-st Epistle to the Corinthians, which show that his usual custom was not to baptize himself, “for God sent” him “not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. i. 14-17). These passages seem amply sufficient to warrant the Church in relaxing the rule that a regularly ordained minister is required for the ministerial act. But no such series of passages can be cited with regard to the Eucharist, and therefore the Church has never felt justified in sanctioning any relaxation of her rule that the Society should act through her regularly commissioned officers.

’ The difference between “recte” and “rite” as used in the Articles is not very great, both words being capable of being rendered by the same English word “duly.” But “rite” includes a wider reference to due ecclesiastical order than “recte” does, as may be seen by a comparison of the following passag«‘S : Art. XIX. “Sacraments be duly (recte) ministered.” XXV. Sacraments were ordained “that we should diUy (rite) use them.” XXVII. “They that receive baptism rightly (recte) are giafted into the Chui-ch.” XXVIII. “To such as righUy (rite),

If

’ ‘I

iVSI

^r»wiHT w

ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” ^

II. The Statement that the Church of Rmm hath eiired

in Matters of Faith,

As the Church of Hiernsalem, 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 object of this clause is not to condemn the Roman Church as apostate, but simply to deny her claim to infallibility. Whatever may be said about the infallibility of the Church as a whole, it is clear from history that no one branch of the Church can claim for herself infallibility apart from other branches. So the Article points to the historical fact that in the past the principal Churches of the East have erred, mentioning the three great patriarchates, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, and maintains that similarly the Eoman Church

worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread,” etc. XXXII. ’ • That i)er8on which is rigUly (rite) cut off,” etc. XXXVI. ” We decree all such to be rightly (rite) and orderly consecrated.” Thus the sacraments may be dxUy ministered (recte), i.e. they may be vaZid, and yet something wanting for what Hooker calls their “ecclesiastical perfection” (Bk. V. Ixii. 15).

• A question is sometimes raised here concerning the Church of Rome, in conse<iuence of the denial of the cup to the laity. Can it be said that the sacraments are duly ministered where this practice is followed ? And if not, what about the claims of the Church of Rome to be regarded as a branch of Christ’s Church at all ? As is shown below, there is really no «‘OTt of question that the Church of England does recognise the Church of Rome as a true branch of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church, and therefore this clause of the Article cannot have been intended to exclude her. And since where the cup is denied to the laity the sacrament, though mutilated in the administration, is yet valid, both parts being duly consecrated, it may be said that the sacraments *M)e duly (recte) administered,” etc.

has also ” erred.” No particular errors are specified in any case ; but it is not difl&cult to point to periods during the great Arian controversy when each of the three Eastern Churches mentioned in the Article fell into serious errors. Thus the Church of Antioch went wrong at the Council of the Dedication in 341, when a defective creed acceptable to the Arians was accepted in lieu of the Nicene faith.^ The Church of Alexandria certainly ” erred ” when Athanasius was in banishment, and Gregory or George of Cappadocia ruling the See.* The Church of Jerusalem was also infected with Arianism for a considerable time.* In the same way the Article states that the Church of Eome has erred in the past. She erred when her Bishop Liberius accepted an Arian creed ; * when Zosimus vindicated Pelagius ; ^ and when Honorius accepted the Monothelite heresy.^ Later examples of errors might easily be given, but it is probable that those who compiled the Articles were thinking of these earlier ones, and pointing to well-known and admitted facts of history as establishing the general statement that the Church of Rome was liable to error, and as sufficient to justify them for not accepting as necessarily correct the decisions of the Council of Trent. In view of this Council, and any possible decisions that might emanate from it, it was important that the Church of England should make her own position clear, and state beforehand the grounds which she felt would justify her in declining (if necessary) to submit when Rome had formally spoken. The Council, it will be remembered, was

’ Cyril of Jerusalem was originally appointed by the Semi-Arians, and only gave in his adhesion to the Nicene faith about the year 362. See for the Arianism of the Church of Jerusalem, Hort’s Tioo Dissertations^ p. 92 seq.

■ I mt

=w

actually being held when the Articles were drawn up. Fourteen sessions had been held between 1546 and 1551, and among the subjects on which decrees had been passed were the Holy Scriptures (the Apocrypha being declared to be canonical in the fourth session), original sin and justification (sessions five and six), the number and nature of the sacraments (sessions seven to fourteen). It is possible, therefore, that these are referred to in our Article, but it is obviously impossible that the decrees of the Council on Communion in both kinds, or on Purgatory and kindred subjects, or the creed of Pope Pius iv. can have been intended, as these were not drawn up for some years after the Articles were issued.

That the clause before us is not intended to condemn the Eoman Church as apostate is clear from the language used. For this the language employed must have been far stronger. The Roman Church is spoken of as a ” Church,” though an erring one ; and although painfully strong language has sometimes been used of that Communion by individuals within the English Church, identifying it with Antichrist and the Babylon of the Apocalypse, yet this has been only the language of individuals. The position formally taken up by the Church of England has never wavered. While lamenting the errors of the Church of Rome, she has never maintained that they amount to apostasy, or destroy her claim to be regarded as a branch of Christ’s Church. So in the Institution of a Christian Man (1537) it is said that the ” Church of Rome, with all the other particular Churches in the world, compacted and united together, do make and constitute but one Catholic Church or body,” and “all the particular Churches in the world, which be members of this Catholic Church, may all be called apostolical Churches, as well as the Church of Rome, or any other Church wherein the apostles themselves were

sometime resident.” ^ But an even more convincing proof than language such as this is to be found in the fact that the English Church accepts the Orders of the Church of Rome, and has never denied the priesthood of, or attempted to reordain, any Roman priests who have sought admission to her Communion. If the Church of Rome were regarded as apostate, her ordinations could never be accepted as conveying a valid commission. The fact, then, that they are so accepted in the English Church is conclusive on this point, and further argument is needless. Some words of Hooker may, however, be cited in conclusion, as summing up the whole matter with clearness and fairness.

” The Church of Christ, which was from the beginning, is and continueth unto the end : of which Church all parts have not been always equally sincere and sound. … In S. Paul’s time the integrity of Rome was famous ; Corinth many ways reproved ; they of Galatia much more out of square. In S. John’s time Ephesus and Smyrna in far better state than Thyatira and Pergamus were. We hope, therefore, that to reform ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the Church we were of before. In the Church we were, and we are so still. Other differences between our estate before and now we know none, but only such as we see in Judah ; which having sometime been idolatrous became afterwards more

fl

If

soundly religious by renouncing idolatry and superstition… . The indisposition, therefore, of the Church of Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us for performing our duty to God ; even as desire of retaining conformity with them would be no excuse if we did not perform that duty.

“Notwithstanding, so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with them. For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel that they are in one respect enemies, but in another beloved of God, in like sort with Kome we dare not communicate concerning sundry her gross and grievous abominations, yet touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ ; and our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be His will) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distraction remain in anything, but that we * all may with one heart and one mouth glorify Grod, the Father of our Lord and Saviour,’ whose Church we are.” ^

EccL Polity, Bk. III. ch. i. § 10.

Notes

• Confesmo Aiigustana, c. vii., De ecclesia.
• The English word “Church “is ordinarily said to come from the Greek KvpiaK-^. But see the Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 694 (ed. ii.), where reasons are given for doubting this derivation,
• This silence about any ” invisible Church ” is all the more noteworthy because the Thirteen Articles drafted in 1538 had distinctly recognised two senses of the word Church: “unam, qua Ecclesia acciptur pro congregatione omnium sanctorum et vere fidelium, qui Christo capiti vere credunt et sanctificantur Spiritu ejus. Haeo autem vivum est et vere sanctum Christi corpus mysticum, sed soli Deo cognitum, qui hominum corda solus intuetur. Altera acceptio est qua Ecclesia acciptur pro congregatione omnium homiimm qui baptizati sunt in Christi,” etc. — Art. . See Hardwick, p. 263.
• Goulbourn’s Holy Catholic Churchy p. 9.
• See Brighfs HisUyry of the Church, p. 47. ^ Ih. pp. 48, 79.
• Bright, op. cit. p. 87. ^* Ih. p. 287.
• See Salmon’s InfallihUity of Iht Church, p. 427 seq.
• Formularies of Faith, \k 5;’. In the Necessary Doctrine and EriulUion for any Christian Man (1543), the passage is rewritten, but the recognition of the Church of Rome is equally clear. “The Church of England, Spain, Italy, and Poole be not sejmrate from the unity, but be one Church in God.” “The Church of Rome, being but a several Church, challenging that name of Catholic above all other, doeth great wrong to all other Churches … for that Church hath no more right to that name than the Church of France, Spain, England, or […] cU. p. 247.