BX 5137 .G5 v.2 Gibson, Edgar C. S. 1848 1924. The Thirty-nine Articles the Church of England THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND EXPLAINED WITH AN INTRODUCTION By EDGAR C. S. GIBSON, D.D. VICAR OF LEEDS AND PREBENDARY OF WELLS SOMETIME PRINCIPAL OF WELLS THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE IN TWO VOLUMES VOL, II ARTICLES IX-XXXIX LONDON METHUEN & CO. NEW YORK: MACMILLAN & CO. LIMITED 1897 PREFACE ♦ For some years there has been a widely-spread feeling, among those whose work called them to lecture on the XXXIX. Articles, that there is room for another treatise on the subject. Archdeacon Hard wick's invaluable work is purely historical, and attempts no interpretation or Scriptural proof of the Articles themselves. Bishop Forbes' Explanation is excellent as a theological treatise, but, in spite of its title, it is scarcely an " explanation " of the Articles. Dr. Boulbee's Theology of the Church of England is clear and business-like, but it is written from a party point of view. Of Bishop Harold Browne's well-known Exposition it is sufficient to say that the first edition was published in 1850, and that a good deal of fresh light has been thrown upon the Articles during the last forty-six years. But since the Bishop was content to issue edition after edition without making any change in it, or subjecting it to a much- needed revision, the book, which has in the past been of so much service to the Church, has become in many parts {e.g. in all that concerns the history of the Creeds) antiquated and out of date. Since the present work was sent to the press, two other volumes on the same subject have appeared, namely, an Introduction to the XXXIX. Articles, by Dr. Maclear and Mr. Williams, and The Thirty-nine Articles and the Age of the Beforma- vi PREFACE Hon, by the Eev. E. Tyrrell Green, — a fact which affords striking evidence of the feeling alluded to above, that the text-books at present in use are not altogether adequate. Mr. Green's work contains much illustrative matter from contemporary documents, and that by Dr. Maclear and Mr. Williams is excellent as a short text- book. My own work is on a somewhat larger scale, and may perhaps appear to be more ambitious, in aiming at completeness as a commentary upon the Articles ; and I trust that it may be found that there is room for it as well as for these others. My object throughout has been to make the work correspond as closely as possible to the title. It is not in any way intended to be a complete system of theology. The subjects discussed are strictly limited to those which are fairly suggested by the text of the Articles. Nor is it a history of doctrine. I have simply endeavoured to explain the teaching of the Articles, assuming a general knowledge of ecclesiastical history on the part of the reader, and only tracing out the history of doctrine where it seemed to be absolutely necessary in order to enable him to understand the meaning of the text of the Articles and the expressions used in it. My aim has always been to discover and elucidate the " plain, literal, and gram- matical sense " of the document on which I have undertaken to comment. I can honestly say that I have striven to be perfectly fair, and to avoid the temptation to " read in " to the Articles meanings which I am not convinced to be really there. How far I have succeeded my readers must judge for themselves. One possible criticism I should like to meet before- hand. It may perhaps be said that there is a lack of proportion in the treatment of the Articles, since far more space has been devoted to the first eight than to PREFACE vii the remaining thirty-one. My reply must be that the fault, if it be a fault, has been deliberately committed, — and for this reason. The first eight Articles practically re-state, in an enlarged form, the rule of faith as con- tained in the Church's Creed, and therefore stand on a different footing from the others. In some works on the Articles this seems to be regarded as a reason for devoting but little space to them, it being presumably taken for granted that the student will have previously mastered Pearson's great work, or some other treatise on the Creed. It has seemed to me wiser to adopt the opposite course, and to make the commentary upon them fuller than that on the remaining Articles, in order to emphasize their importance, and to give them their proper position. I trust, however, that the lack of proportion is not really so great as might at first sight appear. Many of the later Articles admit of very slight treatment, and I hope that it will be found that adequate attention has been paid to the really important ones among them, especially to those on the Church, the Sacraments, and the Ministry. It only remains for me to express my thanks to those who have assisted me in the work, especially to the Eev. A. Eobertson, D.D., Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham, who has kindly looked through the proof sheets, and helped me by making many valuable suggestions. E. C. S. G. The Vicarage, Leeds, December 10, 189G. SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS PAOE Article IX. — Of Original or Birth Six .... 357 Original Sin 359 The Effect of Baptism in the removal of Original Sin . . 373 The Character of Concupiscence 375 Article X. — Of Freewill 378 Freewill 379 The Need of Grace 380 Article XI. — Of the Justification of Man .... 388 Justification : Its Meaning and Relation to Sanctification . 389 The Meritorious Cause of Justification 397 The Instrument or Formal Cause of Justification . . . 398 The " Homily of Justification " 407 Article XII. — Of Good Works 410 Article XIII. — Of Works before Justification . . .415 The Title as compared with the Article itself . . . .415 The Scholastic Theory of Congruous Merit . . . .418 The Teaching of the Article upon the Subject .... 420 Article XIV. — Of Works of Supererogation . . 424 The Name " Works of Supererogation " ..... 425 The History of the Growth of the System of Indulgences . . 426 The Theological Defence offered for them .... 433 Article XV. — Of Christ alone without Sin . . . 439 Christ's Sinlessness 441 Article XVI. — Of Sin after Baptism 444 The fact that deadly Sin is not Unpardonable .... 446 The possibility of falling from Grace 455 ix X CONTENTS I'AGE Article XVII.— Of Predestination and Election . . 459 The Description of Predestination 465 The Steps which accompany it 481 The Practical Effect of the Doctrine 482 Two Considerations calculated to guard the Doctrine from Abuses ' . . . 485 Article XVIII. — Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ 488 Article XIX.— Of the Church 493 The Description of the Visible Church 496 The Statement that the Church of Rome hath erred in Matters of Faith 506 Article XX. — Of the Authority of the Church . . .511 The Legislative Power of the Church with regard to Rites or Ceremonies ......... 514 The Judicial Authority of the Church with regard to Doctrine . 520 The Office of the Church with regard to Holy Scripture . . 526 Article XXI. — Of the Authority of General Councils . 529 They may not be gathered together without the Consent of Princes 532 They are liable to Err 534 As a Matter of History they actually have Erred . . . 535 Article XXII.— Of Purgatory 537 Purgatory 542 Pardons 554 Adoration of Images and Reliques ...... 557 Invocation of Saints 564 Article XXIII. — Of Ministering in the Congregation . 573 The Need of an External Call and Mission . ... .575 The Description of those through whom the Call comes . . 578 Article XXIV. — Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People understandeth . . . 581 The Evidence of Scripture on this Subject .... 582 The Custom of the Primitive Church 583 CONTENTS XI PAGK Article XXV.— Of the Sacraments 585 The Description of Sacraments ordained of Christ . . . 588 The Number of such Sacraments ...... 593 The Five Rites 1 ' commonly called Sacraments " . . . 602 The Use of Sacraments 610 Article XXVI. — Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, WHICH HINDERS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS 615 Article XXVII.— Of Baptism 620 The Description of Baptism and its Effects . . . .621 Infant Baptism 634 Article XXVIII.— Of the Lord's Supper .... 641 The Description of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper . . 647 The Doctrine of Transubstantiation 649 The Nature of the Presence, and the "Mean whereby it is received " 660 Certain Practices in connection with the Eucharist . . . 664 Article XXIX. — Of the Wicked which do not Eat the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper . 668 Article XXX.— Of both Kinds 676 The History of the Practice condemned in it . . . .676 The Arguments by which it has been justified . . . . 683 Article XXXI. — Of the One Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross 687 The Sufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Cross .... 688 The Condemnation of the "Sacrifices of Masses " . . . 691 Article XXXII. — Of the Marriage of Priests . . . 695 There is no Prohibition of the Marriage of the Clergy in Scripture .......... 696 It is lawful for the Clergy to Many if they think it advisable . 697 Article XXXIII. — Of Excommunicate Persons: How they ARE TO BE AVOIDED 705 Article XXXIV. — Of the Traditions of the Church . .716 Article XXXV.— Of Homilies 722 The History of the Homilies 723 The Nature of the Assent demanded to them .... 726 xii CONTENTS PACE Article XXXVI. — Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers 729 The Objections of the Puritans 731 The Objections of the Romanists 748 Article XXXVII.— Of the Civil Magistrates . . . 759 The Royal Supremacy 761 The Papal Claims 772 The Lawfulness of Capital Punishment 780 The Lawfulness of War 781 Article XXXVIII. — Of Christian Men's Goods which are not Common 783 The Community of Goods 784 The Duty of Almsgiving 786 Article XXXIX.— Of a Christian Man's Oath . . .788 Index . . . . 793 ARTICLE IX De Peccato Originali. Peccatum originis non est (ut fabulantur Pelagiani) in imita- tione Adanii situm, sed est vitium ct depravatio naturae cujuslibet hominis ex Adamo naturaliter pro- pagati, qua fit ut ab originali justitia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua natura propendeat, et caro semper adversus spiritum con- cupiscat. Unde in unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damna- tionem meretur. Manet etiam in renatis hsec natura? depravatio, qua fit ut affectus carnis, Greece (ppovrj/xa aapKSs (quod alii sapien- tiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, alii studium carnis interpretantur) legi Dei non subjiciatur. Et quanquam renatis et credentibus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concupiscentiam fatetur Apostolus. 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 en- gendered 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 deserveth God's wrath and damna- tion. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek p6vr}fxa aapicosy 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. The original object of this Article is shown very definitely by the words which in the Article of 1553 followed the reference to the Pelagians : " which also the Anabaptists do nowadays renew " (et hodie Anabaptistae repetunt). These words, omitted at the revision of 1563 (possibly because the danger was less pressing), prove 24 358 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES that it was designed at least primarily to meet the revival of the Pelagian error on the subject of original sin by the Anabaptists. 1 A further object was probably to state the view of the Church of England on the effect of baptism in the removal of original sin, more particu- larly with regard to " concupiscence," which all parties admitted to remain in the regenerate, but concerning the character and precise nature of which widely differing views were advanced. Except for the omission of the words just noticed, the Article has stood without substantial change since it was first drawn up in 1553. 2 It has been sometimes thought that its language is based on that used in the Confession of Augsburg ; but the resemblance is very slight. 3 Nor is it much closer to the corresponding Article in the Thirteen drawn up in 1538 by a joint committee of Anglicans and Lutherans, which does little more than 1 The same error on the part of the Anabaptists is noticed in Hermann's Consultation: " Fyrste they denie originally synne, and they wyll not acknowledg howe greate filthynes, how greate impietie and even pestilent corruption was broughte upon us all thorowe the fall of Adame." — English translation of 1548, fol. cxlii. 2 Two slight changes in the English should be noticed. Where our present Article uses the phrase " original righteousness," the Edwardian Article had "his former righteousness, which he had at his creation" ; and instead of "inclined to evil " it had "given to evil." The alterations made at the revision of 1571 brought the English into closer conformity with the Latin. 3 "Item docent quod post lapsum Adse omnes homines secundum naturam propagati, nascantur cum peccato, hoc est sine metu Dei, sine fiducia erga Deum, et cum concupiscentia, quodque hie morbus, seu vitium originis vere sit peccatum, damnans et afferens nunc quoque seternam mortem his, qui non renascuntur per baptismum et Spiritum Sanctum. Damnant Pelagianos et alios qui vitium originis negant esse peccatum, et ut extenuent gloriam meriti et beneficiorum Christi dis- putant hominem propriis viribus rationis coram Deo justificari posse." — Conf. August, art. II. It will be noticed that the Anglican Article is far more guarded and cautious in its statements than this. See below, p. 376. ARTICLE IX 359 repeat the Lutheran formulary with the addition of a reference to the loss of original righteousness. 1 But though the language of our Article cannot be traced to any earlier source, the following passage from the Reformatio Legum illustrates its teaching, and points even more distinctly to the revival of the Pelagian heresy by a section of the Anabaptists : — " In labe peccati ex ortu nostro contracta, quam vitium originis appellamus, primum quidem Pelagianorum, deinde etiam Anabaptistarum nobis vitandus et submovendus est error, quorum in eo consensus contra veritatem sacrarum Scripturarum est, quod peccatum originis in Adamo solo haeserit, et non ad posteros transient, nec ullam afferat naturae nostra perversitatem, nisi quod ex Adami delicto propositum sit peccandi noxium exemplum, quod homines ad eandem pravitatem invitat imitandam et usurpandam. Et similiter 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." 2 The principal subjects to be considered in connection with this Article are the following : — 1. Original sin. 2. The effect of baptism in the removal of original sin. 3. The character of concupiscence. I. Original Sin. Under this head there are various points which require elucidation — (a) The phrase " original sin." (b) The Pelagian heresy, as showing what original sin is not. 1 See Hardwick, History of tlie Articles, p. 261. 2 Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, Be ITcercs, c 7. 360 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (c) Original righteousness, as that from which man is " very far gone." (d) The effect of the Fall. (a) The phrase " original sin " (Peccatum originale or peccatum originis). 1 This does not occur anywhere in Holy Scripture, but is due to S. Augustine, who makes use of it in one of his earlier works ; 2 and from his day forward it is of frequent occurrence, being made current coin through the Pelagian controversy. The phrase was perhaps suggested to Augustine by the similar expression " originis injuriam" which had been used by S. Ambrose ; 3 while still earlier S. Cyprian had said of a new-born infant, " secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate eontraxit." 4 (b) The Pelagian heresy ', as showing what original sin is not. This heresy originated early in the fifth century. Its founder, Pelagius, was a monk of British extraction who had settled at Eome. There he took offence at the well- known saying of Augustine, "Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt," which seemed to him to exalt the Divine at the expense of the human in the work of salvation. 5 Subsequently he and his friend and convert, Coelestius, elaborated the system which has since borne his name. His character may be seen from the charges which were brought against Coelestius at a Council held in 412 at Carthage, whither the two friends 1 The two expressions are evidently regarded as convertible terms. The latter is used in the text of the Article, the former in the title. 2 Ad Simplicianum, I. c. i. § 10. :! Apol. Pr&ph. David, i. § 56. Of. Aug. Contra duas Epist. IV. § 29. 4 Ep. lxiv. Cf. Bright's Anti - Pelagian Treatises of S. Augustine, p. ix. 5 " Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis," Conf. X. c. xxix. Cf. Be dono 'persev. c. xx., where Augustine himself refers to this fact. ARTICLE IX 361 had passed from Home. The charges (to which Coelestius returned evasive answers) were these: — 1. That Adam was created mortal, and would have died even if he had not sinned. 2. That his sin injured himself alone, and not the whole human race. 3. That infants at their birth are in the same condi- tion in which Adam was before the Fall. 4. That unbaptized infants as well as others would obtain eternal life. 5. That mankind neither died through Adam's death or transgression, nor would rise again through Christ's resurrection. 6. That the law had the same effect as the gospel in leading men to the kingdom of heaven. 7. That even before Christ came there had been sinless men. 1 Of these tenets the second and third are the most important, as being most intimately connected with the whole system that was subsequently known as Pelagianism. They amount to (a) a denial that the fall of Adam had affected his descendants ; and (&) closely connected with this " a denial of the necessity of supernatural and directly assisting grace in order to any true service of God on the part of man." 2 This latter seems to have been in the order of time prior to the first mentioned, which, however, is its ground and basis. Admit in any true sense the Fall, and Divine grace becomes a necessity. Deny the Fall, and grace may perhaps be dispensed with and human nature without supernatural assistance be found equal to the conflict with sin. 1 See on the whole subject Bright's Anti- Pelagian Treatises, Introd. p. xvi. seq., and SchafFs History of the Church, " Xioene and Post-Nicene Christianity." vol. ii. p. 790 seq. 8 Bright, p. ix. 362 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES There was, however, the fact of universal depravity to be explained. What account could be given of the fact that sin is found everywhere ? Pelagius could only explain it by saying that it resulted from the universal following of Adams example. Adam's fall, according to him, had no effect on the nature of his descendants. But by sinning he set an example which all, or almost all (for Pelagius admitted exceptions), had followed. This is the view of original sin which was revived by the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, and which is condemned in the opening words of our Article. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do Yainly talk. The meaning of the English phrase is made clear by a reference to the Latin, Peccatum originis non est in imitatione Adami situm. " Standeth not " is equivalent to " does not consist ; " 1 " the following of Adam " is the imitation of him, or sinning after his example. In support of the assertion of the Article, and the position taken up by the Church on this subject, it appears to be sufficient to appeal to the teaching of S. Paul in Ptom. v. 12-15: "As through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin ; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned : for until the law sin was in the world : but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adams transgression, who is a figure of Him that was to come." Universal depravity is recognised as a fact throughout the Old Testament, but no explanation of it is offered. There appear to be only two possible ones. Either, as the Pelagians asserted, it results from the fact that all 1 Compare the similar use of "standeth" in the Second Collect at Mattins : "in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life." ARTICLE IX 363 men follow Adam's example, and sin " after the likeness of his transgression," or there is a " fault " in the inherited nature which makes sinning easy and natural. Jewish writings outside the Canon show us that though there was no consistent doctrine among the Jews on the subject, yet some among them were feeling their way towards the position laid down by S. Paul, and were inclined to hold that universal sin was due to the fact that the fall of Adam had permanently affected his descendants. 1 And on this point the teaching of the New Testament is quite clear. The passage cited above is decisive as to the apostle's view, and conclusive against the Pelagian theory, while the whole line of argument in the early chapters of the Epistle to the Eomans tends to establish the fact that Adam's sin had a far-reaching effect upon mankind, that through it sin gained an entrance into the world and that all his descendants inherited a tendency to sin. 2 1 See Wisd. ii. 23 seq. ; Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] ; 4 Ezra iii. 7, 21 seq. ; Apoc. Baruch xvii. 3, xxiii. 4 ; and cf. Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 165 seq., and Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 136 seq. 2 The question may be raised how far is the Church's doctrine on this subject, and S. Paul's teaching in particular, affected by "critical" views of the Old Testament, and the belief that in Gen. i.-iii. we have a symbolical representation of spiritual truths rather than a literal history. On this subject a valuable letter will be found in the Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, vol. ii. p. 329, and reference may also be made to Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 146, where it is pointed out that the narrative in Genesis is "the typical and summary representation of a series of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half calcined bones can ever reproduce for us. In some way or other, as far back as history goes, and we may believe much further, there has been implanted in the human race this mysterious seed of sin, which, like other character- istics of the human race, is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin is present in every man who is born into the world. But the tendency does not become actual sin until it takes effect in defiance of an express command, in deliberate disregard of a known distinction between right and wrong. How men came to be possessed of such a command, by what process they arrived at the conscious distinction of right and wrong, we can 364 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES It may be added, that the conclusion which has forced itself upon the minds of theologians as an inference from the statements of Holy Scripture, that there is a taint in the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, is in remarkable accordance with the teaching of secular philosophers and poets, 1 and is but the theological expression of the doctrine which has been not discovered, but formulated by modern science under the name of heredity. (c) Original righteousness. — Having set aside the Pelagian heresy, the Article proceeds with its account of original sin, and lays down that 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 but vaguely speculate. Whatever it was, we may be sure that it could not have been presented to the imagination of primitive peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential truths all come out in that narrative — the recognition of the Divine will, the act of disobedience to the will so recognised, the perpetuation of the tendency to such disobedience, and we may add, perhaps, though here we get into a region of surmises, the connexion between moral evil and physical decay, for the surest pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part in us, the soul, through righteousness to God. These salient principles, which may have been due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods, are naturally and inevitably summed up as a group of single incidents. Their essential character is not altered, and in the interpretation of primitive beliefs we may safely remember that "a thousand years in the sight of God are but as one day." . . . It would be absurd to expect the language of modern science in the prophet who first incorporated the traditions of his race in the sacred books of the Hebrews. He uses the only kind of language available to his own intelligence and that of his contemporaries. But if the language which he does use is from that point of view abund- antly justified, then the application which S. Paul makes of it is equally justified. He, too, expresses truth through symbols ; and in the days when men can dispense with symbols his teaching may be obsolete, but not before. 1 See the interesting lecture on this subject in Mozley's Lectures and other Theological Papers, p. 148 seq. ARTICLE IX 365 original righteousness." What, then, was this " original righteousness " from which man is " very far gone " ? Following out the indications on the subject that may be gathered from Scripture, ancient writers have generally described it as being partly natural, partly supernatural, — natural in that it proceeded from free will and the power of choice, supernatural in that certain special gifts and graces in addition to free will were required for its exercise. 1 Adam could not have had concupiscence or lust, i.e. the direct inclination to evil which is now the incentive to sin in our nature, for he was made " in the image of God," and was " very good." On the other hand, as he was in a state of trial, there must have been something in him which sin could take hold of — a starting-point for temptation. To pro- tect him from yielding, it is thought that he must have " had by his created disposition a pleasure in goodness, and that pleasure naturally preserved him in obedience without the need of express effort." 2 This natural pleasure in goodness, which is practically equivalent to an implanted virtuous character, is what has been called 1 See the quotations in Bishop Bull's famous discourse "On the State of Man before the Fall" (Works, ii. p. 52 seq.). Bull concludes that "the meaning of the question [whether the original righteousness of the first man was supernatural], if it signify anything to any considerable purpose, is clearly this, whether Adam in the state of integrity needed a supernatural principle or power in order to the performing of such a righteousness as through the gracious acceptance of God should have been available to an eternal and celestial life and happiness. And the ques- tion being thus stated, ought to be held in the affirmative, if the consentient determination of the Church of God may be allowed its due weight in the balance of our judgments." "There is a sense, indeed," he adds, "wherein we may safely acknowledge the original righteousness 01 the first man to have been natural, and it is this, that he received the principle of that righteousness a nativitate sua, from his nativity, in his very creation, and together with his nature" (Op. cit. p. 131). Reference should also be made to S. Thomas, Summa Theologicr, l ma , Q. xciv. 9eq. - Mozley, The Av.gustin iaii Theory of Predestination, p. 91. 366 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES by divines the donum supematurale. It may be best understood by regarding it as a supernatural bias towards good, so that the natural tendency of man was to do what was right in consequence of this Divinely ordered inclination of his will in that direction. u This implanted rectitude," it may be added, " or good habit it was which made the first sin of man so heinous, and caused that distinction between it and all the other sins which have been committed in the world. For the first sin was the only sin which was committed against and in spite of a settled bias of nature towards good ; all the other sins which have been committed since have been committed in accordance with a natural bias towards evil. There was therefore a perversity in the first sin altogether peculiar to it, and such as made it a sin sui generis." 1 In view of modern theories of development, it may be added that there is nothing whatever in Holy Scrip- ture to make us think that man was in his unfallen condition perfect. Innocent he is distinctly represented as being. His state is one of primitive simplicity. But this is all. Nor is there anything in the Biblical account to lead us to imagine that he was in a high state of civilisation or of intellectual greatness. Scripture gives no countenance to the view that " an Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam " ; and more than one of the early Fathers denies that Adam was created " perfect " (reXeto?). 2 1 Mozley, The Augustinian Theory of Predestination, p. 91. 2 Thus Theophilus of Antioch (180) says that God placed Adam in Paradise Sioovs avr<2 d(popp.r)v vpoKOTriji oirws av^dvwv xai WXeios yepo/j.evos, k.t.\., Ad Autolyc. ii. 24; while Clement of Alexandria directly raises the question whether Adam was formed perfect or incomplete (reXetos r) dTeXrjs), and answers that he "was not made perfect in respect to his constitution, but in a fit condition to receive virtue" (Stromata, VI. xii. 96), "where," as Bishop Bull says, "he plainly enough teacheth that ARTICLE IX 367 (d) The effect of the Fall. — If the condition of man in his primitive condition before he had actually sinned was as it has been described above, what, it will be asked, was the effect of the Fall ? Concerning this there have been various views held, differing in regard to the extent of the depravity actually inherited by all men. (i.) The Greek Fathers generally, and the earlier Latin ones as well, laid no great stress on the Fall, and the most that can be said is that — so far as they have any definite teaching on the subject at all — they hold that it involved the loss of the supernatural bias of the will towards good, but nothing more. Man was left with a fundamentally sound nature, with no direct bias in one direction or the other. Thus on this view " original sin " is nothing more than a loss of higher goodness ; a state of defect rather than of positive sin ; a jprivatio rather than a depravatw natural. (ii.) Augustine and his followers in the controversy with the Pelagians dealt fully with the subject, and drew out more thoroughly than had yet been done the teaching of Scripture, showing therefrom that the Fall involved something more than only the withdrawal of the supernatural gifts, and left man with a corrupt nature, a direct bias towards evil. " The will," says Mozley, " according to the earlier school was not substan- tially affected by the Fall. . . . But in Augustine's scheme the will itself was disabled at the Fall ; and not only certain impulses to it withdrawn, its power of Adam was from the beginning not indeed made perfect, but yet endowed with the capacity whereby he might arrive to perfect virtue. " See the whole passage (Works, ii. p. 72), and cf. Lux Mundi, p. 535: "All that we are led to believe is that the historical development of man has not been the development simply as God meant it. It has been tainted throughout its whole fabric by an element of moral disorder, of human wilfulness." 368 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES choice was gone, and man was unable not only to rise above a defective goodness, but to avoid positive sin. He was thenceforth, prior to the operation of grace, in a state of necessity on the side of evil, a slave to the devil and to his own inordinate lusts." 1 (iii.) In later days, many of the schoolmen, and after them the Eoman divines of the sixteenth century, were content to regard original sin in a somewhat milder light than this, and to view it rather as a " privatio " than as a state of positive defect. Aquinas, however, after speaking of it as " qusedam privatio," " carentia originalis justitiae," terms it " inordinata dispositio, languor naturae," and freely admits that it is more than a mere " privatio." 2 But the. Council of Trent, following Scotus, regards it mainly as " the loss of holiness and righteous- ness " ; 3 and Bellarmine distinctly teaches that it is only the result of the withdrawal of the supernatural gift. 4 (iv.) On the other hand, both Lutherans and Calvinists have generally maintained an entire depravation of human nature, so that man is only inclined to evil ; and they have sometimes used such strong and exaggerated language on the corruption of man's nature, as to sug- gest that since the Fall the image of God is wholly 1 Op. cit. p. 125. For Augustine's teaching reference may be made to the Enchiridion, § 10 ; De Natura et gratia, c. iii. ; and the treatise De Gratia Christi et de Peccato originali. 2 ' ' Habet privationem originalis justitia et cum hoc inordinatam dis- positionem partium animoe, unde non est privatio pura sed et qufedam habitus corruptus," Sumrna, l ma 2 X Q. lxxxi. 3 Decree concerning original sin, Session V. (June 17, 1546). 4 "Corruptio naturae non ex alicujus doni carentia, neque ex alicujus malse qualitatis accessu, sed ex sola doni supernaturalis ob Adae peccatum amissione profluxit," De gratia primi hominis, c. v.; cf. c. i. ; and Amiss, gratia, iii. 1. Modern Roman teaching is on just the same lines. See Moehler's Symbolism, p. 43 seq. ; and Ferrone, Prcrlectiones, vol. iii. p. 122 seq. ARTICLE IX 369 obliterated, and the nature of man no better than that of the evil spirits. Thus the " Westminster Confession " says of our first parents : " By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly denied in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature con- veyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." 1 To which of these views thus briefly enumerated, it may be fairly asked, does the Anglican Article incline ? It clearly takes a darker view than that of the Greek Fathers, and of the Eoman Church as represented by the Council of Trent. Original sin is more than a " privatio." It is a "depravatio naturae." It " deserves God's wrath and damnation." Such language can only he used of something positive, not simply of a withdrawal of supernatural grace. But, on the other hand, strong as the language of the Article is, it falls very far short of that of the " Westminster Confession," and of Calvinists in general. " Quam longissime " in the Latin Article, if pressed, might perhaps be taken to indicate agreement with the Calvinist notion of a total loss of original 1 West. Conf. c. vi. So the Formula Concordioc (1577) says that original sin "is so deep a corruption of human nature, that nothing healthy or incorrupt in a man's soul or body, in inner or outward powers," is left. Similar but even stronger language is used in the Confessio Helvetica II. c. 8 : " Peccatum autem intelligimus esse nativam illam hominis corruptionem ex primis illis nostris parentibus in nos omnes derivatam vel propagatam, qua concupiscentiis pravis immersi et a bono aversi, ad omne vero malum propensi, pleni omni nequitia, diffi- dentia, contemtu et odio Dei, nihil boni ex nobis ipsis facere, imo ne cogitare quidem possuraus." 370 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES righteousness ; but if so, the English " very far gone " would appear strangely inadequate. Moreover, there is a significant silence about any imputation of Adam's sin (a prominent feature in later Calvinistic teaching) ; and that the Article is seriously defective from a Calvinistic point of view, is conclusively shown by the suggested emendations of the Assembly of Divines in 1643. They were not satisfied with it as it stood, but wished to insert a reference to the imputation of Adam's sin, and to materially strengthen the language of the Article, substi- tuting " wholly deprived of " for " very far gone from," and insisting that man " is of his own nature only inclined to evil." 1 This being so, we need have no hesitation in inter- preting the Latin by the English, and may rest content with the statement that man is " very far gone from original righteousness." So much is clearly taught in Holy Scripture. Not to lay too much stress on the language of the Psalmist, " Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me " (Ps. li. 5), or on the question of Job, " Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? " (Job xiv. 4), we notice that all through Scripture man is regarded as by nature corrupt. " The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. viii. 21); "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually " (vi. 5) ; " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick " (Jer. xvii. 9). So also in the New Testament : " I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing" (Eom. vii. 18). "The mind of the flesh is enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be ; and they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Eom. viii. 7). But, on the 1 See NeaPs History of the Puritans^ vol. iii. p. 559, where the Article is given as amended by the Divines. ARTICLE IX 371 other hand, there are passages which no less clearly indicate that, in spite of this universal depravity, the " image of God," in which man was originally created, still remains since the Fall, and therefore it cannot be true to say that he is " wholly deprived of " his original righteousness. Thus in Gen. ix. 6 the law, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," is based on the fact that " in the image of God made He man." In 1 Cor. xi. 7, S. Paul speaks of man as " the image and glory of God," while S. James says that men are "made after the likeness of God " (iii. 9). It may then be fairly concluded that on this subject the Church of England is in the main content to follow the teaching of Augustine : only, however, in the main, for there are statements which Augustine was led to make in the course of the controversy with the Pelagians to which we are most certainly not called upon to sub- scribe. To mention one point only. Augustine asserted that as a fact infants and others dying unbaptized meet with the punishment of hell. 1 Article IX. is careful only to state that original sin " deserves God's wrath and damnation," — a statement which follows naturally from the view taken of it as something positive, involving a real taint and disorder of the nature, but which falls short of expressing any opinion on the further question whether it actually meets with that which it deserves. 2 1 De peccatorum meritis et remissione, I. xxi., II. c. iv. ; cf. Bright's Anti- Pelagian Treatises, p. xiv, note 4. 2 See on this point a striking letter of the late Dean Church, Life and Letters, p. 248. "The fact of what is meant by original sin is as mysteri- ous and inexplicable as the origin of evil, but it is obviously as much a fact. There is a fault and vice in the race, which, given time, as surely develops into actual sin as our physical constitution, given at birth, does into sickness and physical death. It is of this inherited sin in our nature, looked upon in the abstract and without reference to concrete cases, that I suppose the Article speaks. How can we suppose that such a nature looks in God's eyes according to the standard of perfect right- 372 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES As an illustration of this, reference may be made to the careful reticence of the note at the end of the Baptismal Service in the Book of Common Prayer. " It is certain by God's word that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." Nothing whatever is said of what happens in the case of those who die unbaptized, and the reticence is evidently designed ; for the note in question was copied almost verbatim from the " Institution of a Christian Man " (1537), which proceeded to say " and else not." 1 The eousness which we also suppose to be God's standard and law. Does it satisfy that standard ? Can He look with neutrality on its divergence from His perfect standard ? What is His moral judgment of it as a subject for moral judgment ? What He may do to cure it, to pardon it, to make allowances for it in known or unknown ways, is another matter, about which His known attributes of mercy alone may reassure us ; but the question is, How does He look upon this fact of our nature in itself ', that without exception it has this strong efficacious germ of evil within it, of which He sees all the possibilities and all the consequences ? Can He look on it, even in germ, with complacency or indifference ? Must He not judge it and condemn it as in itself, because evil, deserving con- demnation ? I cannot see what other answer can be given but one, and this is what the Article says. But all this settles nothing about the actual case of unbaptized infants, any more than the general necessity of believing the gospel settles anything as to the actual case of heathens who have never heard of the gospel. If, without fear, we leave them to the merciful dispensations, unrevealed to us, of Him who is their Father, though they do not know Him, much more may we leave infants who have never exercised will or reason. But in both cases we are obliged by facts and Scripture to acknowledge sinfulness and sin. In Christians, and those who may know of the gospel, this is cured, relieved, taken away, by known means which He has given us. In those who, by no fault of their own, are out of His family and Church, we cannot doubt, both from what we know of Him and from what He has told us, that He will provide what is necessary. But still there is the sinfulness and the sin ; and as sin, qud sin, we can only suppose that He looks on it with displeasure, and condemns it. I don't see that the Article, which is only treating of sin and sinfulness, and not of its remedy or God's love, does more than express what must be God's judg- ment on all sin, even in germ. How He deals with it is a separate matter." 1 Formularies of Faith, p. 93. ARTICLE IX 373 omission of these three words is highly significant ; and it may be added that, though the work possesses no authority, yet the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum may be appealed to as an historical witness that by the time of the reign of Edward VI. leading Anglican divines had come to see that while salvation must be denied to those who despise or reject baptism, yet in the case of children (at least of Christian parents) dying unbaptized through no fault of their own, there is room for good hope. 1 II. The effect of Baptism in the removal of Original Sin. In considering the effect of holy baptism in the removal of original sin, it must be remembered that there are two evils attaching to all sin, viz. the guilt, which needs pardon and forgiveness, and the power, which needs overcoming and driving out. On the view taken by the English Church, that what we call " original sin " is something more than a loss of higher goodness, being a germ of real evil, this is true of it as of all other sin. It has its guilt, which makes us " children of wrath " ; 2 1 De Hcvresibus, c. 18 : " Illorum etiam impia videri debet scrupulosa superstitio, qui Dei gratiam et Spiritum Sanctum tantopere cum sacra- mentorum elementis colligant, ut plane affirment nullum Christianorum infantem seternam salutem esse consecuturum, qui prius a morte fuerit occupatus, quam ad baptismum adduci potuerit : quod longe secus habere judicamus. Salus enim illis solum adimitur, qui sacrum hunc baptismi fontem contemnunt, aut superbia quadam ab eo, vel contumacia resiliunt ; quae importunitas cum in puerorum setatem non cadat, nihil contra salutem illorum authoritate Scripturarum decerni potest, immo contra cum illos communis promissio pueros in se comprehendat, optima nobis spes de illorum salute concipienda est." See also Hooker, Feci. Polity, Bk. V. c. lx. § 6. 2 Compare the description in the Church Catechism of the ' ' inward and spiritual grace" in baptism. "A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness ; for being by nature born in sin, and the children oficrath, we are hereby made the children of grace." The expression "children of wrath" is Biblical, and conies from Eph. ii. 3, t£kvo. opyijs, 2 5 374 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES and it has its power, which, in the form of concupiscence, draws us in the direction of evil. In baptism the guilt is pardoned. There is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized (" Eenatis et creden- tibus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio "J, 1 a state- ment for which ample support may be found in Holy Scripture (see Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16, etc.), and which will be further illustrated under Article XXVII. 2 But the power of sin, that appetite for corrupt pleasure which is the incentive to sin in us still remains. 3 This infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerate (etiam in renatis), whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek fypovwa rap/cos, 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. This is un- happily a truth of universal experience, for which scrip- tural proof is scarcely needed. All history and the facts of each man's own experience combine in testifying to the existence of the old nature even after baptism and the reception of Divine grace. The phrase p6prjfjLa (rap/cos, and the account given in the Article of this "lust of the flesh," is based on Eom. viii. 6, 7 : " For the mind of the flesh 4 (to p6vr)/jLa t?}? aapKosi) is death; 1 It should be noticed (1) that renatis in the Latin of the Article corre- sponds to "are baptized" in the English, thus marking the close connec- tion between regeneration and baptism ; and (2) that there is nothing in the English corresponding to propter Christum in the Latin. 2 The statement of the Article may be further illustrated from the Bap- tismal Offices in the Book of Common Prayer, in which remission of sins is throughout regarded as one of the blessings granted in baptism to infants as well as to those of riper years. 3 Compare Augustine, Depeccatorum meritis etremissione, Lib. II. c. iv. : 1 ' Concupiscentia . . . cum parvulis nascitur, in parvulis baptizatis a reati solvitur, ad agonem relinquitur. " 4 The Vulgate translates this phrase by prudentia in ver. 6, and sapientia carnis in ver. 7. The Geneva Version has " wisdom of the ARTICLE IX 375 but the mind of the spirit is life and peace : because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be." III. The Character of Coiiciqnseence. There remains the question, What is the character of this concupiscence which, as all agree, remains even in the regenerate ? Is it, before it positively breaks out into definite acts of sin, to be regarded as itself " true and proper sin," or is it merely to be reckoned as " an incentive to sin, arising from sin and inclining to it " ? The question was keenly debated in the sixteenth century, the Church of Rome and the followers of Calvin return- ing diametrically opposite answers to it. The Roman view of concupiscence is given in the decrees of the Council of Trent, at the fifth session of which the subject was discussed, a.d. 1546, some years, therefore, before the Anglican Article was drawn up. The Tridentine divines in this decree maintain the following posi- tions : — (i.) In baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted, and " all that has the true and proper nature of sin " is taken away (totum id quod veram et propriam peccati rationem habet). (ii.) There remains concupiscence, or an incentive to sin, which is left for us to strive against, but cannot injure those who consent not. (iii.) " This concupiscence, which the Apostle some- times calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in the regenerate, but because it ilesh " ; but in the Bishops' Bible there is the following note : " , they do by usage, and must from the nature of things signify to deem,, to account, to }rrovc, or to treat as worthy, holy, righteous." The Speaker's Commentary on 1 Cor. vi. 11, quoted in Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 30. 2 S. Matt. xi. 19, xii. 37 ; S. Luke vii. 29, 35, x. 29, xvi. 15, xviii. 14 ; Acts xiii. 39 ; S. James ii. 21, 24, 25. In Rev. xxii. 11, which is sometimes cited for the meaning of infusing righteousness, the reading is really SiKaiocrvvriv iroLrjcraTO}. 392 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES establish the meaning of the word outside S. Paul's writings. But as the phrase " to be justified by faith " is due to him, it becomes necessary to examine further into his usage of the word. It is employed in his Epistles altogether twenty-five times; 1 and while in some cases it is unambiguous and must mean treat as righteous, and so (in the case of the guilty) pardon and acquit, in no single instance can the meaning of " make righteous " be established for it. This statement is one that can easily be verified, and therefore only a few examples need be cited here. " To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness " (Eom. iv. 4, 5). " All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God : being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. iii. 23, 24). " With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment ; yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing against myself ; yet am I not hereby justified : but He that judgeth me is the Lord" (1 Cor. iv. 3, 4). In 1 Tim. iii. 16 the word is used of Christ, who was " manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit." From these examples the meaning of the word may be ascertained without difficulty. It is regularly employed of the sentence or verdict pronounced on a man by God, and does not in itself tell us whether the person over whom the sentence is pronounced is really righteous or not. When a man is justified he is "accounted righteous," or regarded as righteous. This leads to the inquiry, when is a man "justified " ? 1 Rom. ii. 13, iii. 4, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, iv. 2, 5, v. 1, 9, vi. 7, viii. 30, 33 ; 1 Cor. iv. 4, vi. 11 ; Gal. ii. 16, 17, iii. 8, 11, 24, v. 4 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Titus iii. 7. ARTICLE XI 393 And this raises the whole question of the relation of justification to sanctification. Sanctifico and sanctificatio are in the Vulgate the regular equivalent of dyid&iu and dyvl^eiv, and of ares. cap. 9 : " Etiam illi de justificatis perverse 446 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES " Our age also has some of the Anabaptists not very unlike the Novatians. For they pretend that the people of God are regenerated in baptism into a pure and angelical life. . . . But if any man fail after baptism, they leave nothing to him but the inexorable judgment of God." 1 Two main subjects appear to require consideration in this Article. 1. The fact that deadly sin is not unpardonable. 2. The possibility of falling from grace. I. The fact that deadly Sin is not Unpardonable. (a) Not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. The view of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is here rejected, appears to have been first propounded by Origen in the third century, 2 and was revived in the sixteenth by some among the Anabaptists. A brief examination of the passages of the New Testament which speak of the sin which "hath never forgiveness" will senthmt, qui credunt illos postquam justi semel facti sunt, in pecca- turn non posse incidere, aut si forte quicquain eorum faciunt, quae Dei legibus prohibentur, ea Deum pro peccatis non accipere. Quibus opinione contrarii, sed impietate pares sunt, qui quodcunque peccatum mortale, quod post baptismum a nobis susceptum voluntate nostra committitur, illud omne contra Spiritum Sanctum affirmant gestum esse et remitti non posse." 1 Institutes, IV. i. 23. 2 See Athanasius, Ep. ad. Serap. iv. § 10, where this view (which he also attributes to Theognostus) is considered and rejected. The view of Athanasius himself appears to be that whereas "blasphemy against the Son of Man " was to blaspheme against Him before the full revelation of His Divinity was made, " blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is to "ascribe the deeds of the Word to the devil," i.e. to blaspheme against Him after His eternal Godhead has been manifested. Cf. Orationes contra Arianos, I. § 50. ARTICLE XVI 447 show that whatever may be the precise nature of the irremissible sin, there is certainly no ground for main- taining that all deadly sin willingly committed after baptism should be regarded as unpardonable. The passages to be considered fall into two groups : (1) those in the Gospel in which our Lord speaks of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; (2) certain pas- sages in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of S. John. 1. In regard to the first class of passages (S. Matt, xii. 31-37; S. Mark iii. 28-30; S. Luke xii. 10), it must be noticed that our Lord never speaks in general terms of " sin against the Holy Ghost " as unpardonable. Of (me sin, which He terms " the blasphemy against the Spirit," He says, "it shall not be forgiven," and that the man who commits it " is guilty of an eternal sin " (eVo^o? icTTiv aicovlov dfiaprr/fiaTo^). 1 Now the fact that this sin is thus spoken of as " blasphemy " at once marks it out as a sin of a particular class, belonging to sins of the tongue, involving outward expression ; while the occasion on which our Lord warned His hearers against it ("because they said He had an unclean spirit ") throws light on its character. Whether the Pharisees had been actually guilty of it our Lord does not say, but they were clearly in danger of committing it ; and what they were doing was to ascribe manifestly Divine works to Satanic agency. To do this was in a very real sense to " blaspheme against the Holy Spirit," by whose agency the works were done. And it is quite clear that, whatever be the precise nature of the irre- 1 That this is the true reading in S. Mark iii. 30 is undoubted. The textus receptus has /cpi«Tti"f iv and wTiaixo$ were commonly applied to baptism from the time of Justin (Apol. i. 61, 65 ; cf. Dial. c. 122) downwards. And the Syrian versions give this sense here." — Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 148. 2 The Epistle to the Hebrews, additional note on vi. 1-S, p. 165. ARTICLE XVI 451 Here again it will be sufficient to note that the tense is present. " It must be observed that the sacrifice of Christ is finally rejected, and sin persisted in (dfiapra- vovtcov). The writer does not set limits to the efficacy of Christ's work for the penitent." 1 Ch. xii. 15-17: "Looking carefully lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God ; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled ; lest there be any fornica- tor, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright. For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected (for he found no place of repentance), though he sought it diligently with tears." It will be observed that the difficulty of this passage is far less when rendered (as above) as it is in the Eevised Version. Eeaders of the Authorised Version might naturally think that the writer denied that Esau found repentance, or a place of repentance. A reference to the Greek makes it clear that what Esau sought was not a " place of repentance " (tottov fieravola^), for the pronoun " it " is feminine {avrrjv). Grammatically it may refer either to " repentance " (/jLeravoLas) or to " the blessing " (evXoylav) ; but there can be little room for doubt that the Eevisers are right in referring it to the latter (cf. Gen. xxvii. 38). If this is so there is no ground for maintaining, on the strength of this passage, that a man may seek diligently to find repentance and fail to obtain it. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that when Esau " sought the blessing diligently with tears," his probation, so far as his birthright was con- cerned, was already over, for the award had been made, and the blessing actually given to another. His " repent- ance," therefore, is parallel to nothing on this side of the 1 Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 327. 452 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES grave. Thus, while all these passages are full of solemn warning on the terrible consequences of sin, and the danger of putting off repentance too late, it will be seen that when carefully considered they give no countenance to the opinion which is condemned in the Article as to the irremissible character of deadly sin willingly com- mitted after baptism. The same is true of the remaining passage in the First Epistle of S. John (1 John v. 16, 17): "If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death : not concerning this do I say that he should make request. All unrighteous- ness is sin : there is a sin not unto death." On this passage is based the distinction ordinarily drawn in the Church between " deadly " and " venial " sins. It will be noticed, however, that S. John does not define " sin unto death," nor, indeed, does he absolutely forbid intercession for it. He is dealing, as Bishop Westcott points out, with the prayers of Christians for Christians ; and after pointing out the efficacy of their prayers for one another, he indicates that there is a sin, the natural issue of which is death (7rpo? Odvarov). This excludes men from the Christian society, and he cannot enjoin prayer for it. 1 But there is no reason whatever for maintaining that the Apostle denies the possibility of forgiveness for such deadly sin, if the sin is forsaken and repented of. (b) Wherefore the grant of repentance (locus prenitentice) is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism. The statement of the Article would seem to follow naturally from the position just maintained. And it may be supported by a refer- 1 See Bishop Westcott's 1 1 additional note" in The Epistles of S. John, \>. 199. ARTICLE XVI 453 ence to S. Paul's treatment of the incestuous man at Corinth. Here was a man who had been guilty of a most deadly sin, and who had been by the Apostle's direction excluded from the fellowship of the faithful, and "delivered unto Satan" (1 Cor. v. 4, 5). But this " deliverance unto Satan " did not necessarily involve his final condemnation. On the contrary, its object is described as " the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may he saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" Moreover, if 2 Cor. ii. 5-11 refers (as is commonly thought) to the same case, then the Apostle distinctly contemplates the restoration of the offender upon his repentance to the communion of the Church, and charges the Cor- inthians to forgive him and reinstate him. And if for such a sinner a " locus pcenitentia? " was allowed, it is difficult to think that in other cases the Church would be right in refusing it. Consequently the Church has always resisted the demands made by some in the interests of purity that those who have fallen into a grievous sin should be excluded from communion for the remainder of their lives, and has never shrunk from proclaiming God's forgiveness to all penitent sinners. In some of the early controversies in regard to penitential discipline a distinction was drawn be- tween these two things, namely, God's willingness finally to forgive those who have been guilty of deadly sin after baptism, and the power of the Church to grant " pardon " to such. It was sometimes urged, as by the Novatianists, 1 that though God might in His 1 That this was the position maintained by Novatian seems to be shown by the words of S. Cyprian in Ep. lv. § 28 (al. li.), where he describes him as urging the lapsed to weep and mourn, and do all that is necessary for peace, though "peace" was refused them. Eusebius speaks as if all hope of salvation was denied to them (27". E. VI. xliii.). In this, however, he was probably mistaken as regards Novatian and his followers, though the statement would perhaps be true of the Montanists. See Tertullian, De 3° 454 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES infinite mercy forgive such at the last, yet the Church had no commission from Him to declare His forgive- ness, and therefore could hold out no " locus pceni- tentire" to the lapsed, although she might urge them to pray that they might finally receive pardon, and find a " place of forgiveness " (locus veniae). It would appear that this distinction was present to the Elizabethan revisers of the Articles (if not to their original compilers), for after saying that " the grant of repentance (locus poenitentise) is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism," the Article adds at the close the state- ment that (c) They are to be condemned which . . . deny the place of forgiveness (locus veniae) to such as truly repent. — That some distinction of meaning between the two phrases locus poenitentise and locus venise (and their English equivalents) is intended, is shown by the fact already noted, that originally the same phrase stood in both clauses of the Article. 1 The diversity of phraseology subsequently introduced must have had some definite intention, and it was in all probability that which has just been indicated. Thus the Article as a whole implies, not only that God is willing to forgive penitent sinners, but, further, that the Church has a commission to declare His pardon, and to grant recon- ciliation where there is true repentance. The phrase " locus poenitentiae " is almost a technical Pudicitia, c. xix.., where he says that there are some sins which admit of no pardon, namely, murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy, adultery, and fornication. "For these Christ will no longer plead" (Horum ultra exorator non erit Christus). He says, however, in the same chapter, of a grievous sinner: "Let her indeed repent, but in order to put an end to her adultery, not, however, in prospect of restoration to communion. For this will be a repentance (poenitentia) which we too acknowledge to be due much more than you do ; but concerning pardon (venia), we reserve it to God." 1 See above, p. 444. ARTICLE XVI 455 one for an opportunity of changing a former decision, so that the consequences no longer follow. It occurs in Latin writers, e.g. 4 Esdr. Lx. 12, as well as the Jurists 1 and others, being used in Pliny's famous letter to Trajan on the Christians, where he expresses a hope of their improvement if a u locus pcenitentia* " is granted to them. 2 The Greek equivalent, to7to? fieravolas, is also found in Wisd. xii. 10, as well as in early Christian writers, 3 by whom it was probably taken from Heb. xii. 17, where the Vulgate renders it by " locus poenitentiae." " Locus venia? " does not seem to be of such frequent occurrence. It is used, however, by Tertullian in Be Pvdicitia, c. xviii. II. TJie Possibility of Falling from Grace. On this subject the teaching of the Article is clear and decided. 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. These statements are primarily aimed against the teach- ing of the Anabaptists, who maintained that a man who is regenerate cannot sin. Such teaching is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. The Lord's Prayer, which was surely meant to be a prayer to be used by all men, recognises the need of forgiveness for all ; and the language of the Apostles addressed to believers through- out the Epistles assumes that all have sinned and come 1 Bishop Westcott (on Heb. xii. 17) quotes Ulpum, ap. Corp. J. C, Dig. XL. tit. vii. 3, § 13. 2 Pliny, Epp. x. 97. 3 E.g. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. I. vii.; Tatian, c\ Grac xv. ; Const. Aport. II. xxxviii., V. xix. 456 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES short of the glory of God. There are, however, some words in the First Epistle of S. John to which the Anabaptists and others who maintained a theory of per- fection could point in support of the statement that the regenerate cannot sin, namely, 1 John iii. 6,9: " Who- soever abideth in Him sinneth not : whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither knoweth Him. . . . Whoso- ever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because His seed abideth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God " (cf. also c. v. 18: " Whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not "). Strong as these words are, it must be remembered that the writer who uses them has already in an earlier passage of the same Epistle said emphatically : " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us ; but if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all un- righteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." These words are perfectly general, and seem quite incompatible with the notion that S. John teaches that any man can claim total immunity from sin and the possibility of sinning here on earth. How, then, is the later passage, previously cited, to be understood ? It must certainly be qualified by what has already been said by the writer, and therefore we need feel no hesitation in pressing the present tenses, ovk a/jbaprdvet, dfiaprlav ov iroiei, ov hvvarcu dfiaprdveiv, and saying that they refer to a habit and practice rather than to isolated acts. It is true that the believer often falls into sin, yet sin is not the ruling principle of his life, and in so far as he is really born of God and abides in Him, " he sinneth not." If it be urged that thus to interpret the words is to explain away the language of Scripture, it may fairly be replied that " the only possible escape from such modification is ARTICLE XVI 457 by asserting the possibility of sinlessness, which contra- dicts i. 8, or else by asserting that none of us have seen God, and none of us are children of God, which contradicts the wlvole Epistle " ; 1 and as there are no other passages of Scripture which give any countenance to the theory of sinless perfection in this life, the Article is perfectly justified in its assertions, that " after we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin," and that " they are to be condemned which say they can no more sin so long as they live here." It will be noticed that after laying down that we may depart from grace, the Article says further, "We may arise again and amend our lives." It is important to notice that the word is may, not must, for herein lies a marked difference between the teaching of the Church of England and the Calvinistic tenet of " indefectible grace " ; for Calvin and his followers, while rejecting the Ana- baptist notion that the " regenerate " cannot sin, never- theless taught that those who were once made Christ'6 own, though they might fall away for a time, could not permanently and finally lose His grace. 2 Thus the state- ment of our Article has always been a stumbling-block to them. So early as 1572 the authors of the Second 1 Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 434. See also "VVest- cott, Epistles of S. John, p. 101. " Sinneth not. The commentary on this phrase is found in ch. i. 6. It describes a character, 1 a prevailing habit,' and not primarily an act. Each separate sinful act does as such interrupt the fellowship ; and yet so far as it is foreign to the character of the man, and removed from him (ii. 1), it leaves his character unchanged." Reference may also be made to Dr. Plummer's note in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, p. 124. 2 See the fifth and sixth of the "Lambeth Articles." ''A true, living, and justifying faith — the Spirit of God sanctifying — is not extinguished, does not fall away, does not vanish in the elect either totally or finally." "A truly faithful man, that is, one endowed with justifying faith, is cer- tain by the full assurance of faith, of the remissiou of his .sins, and his eternal salvation through Christ." 458 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Admonition to Parliament were forced to admit that " the book of the articles of Christian religion speaketh very dangerously of falling from grace, which is to be reformed because it savoureth too much of error." And at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 a suggestion was made that after the statement that we " may depart from grace given," there should be added the qualifying words, " yet neither totally nor finally." 1 Happily no notice was taken of these criticisms, and the sober state- ment of the Article remained unqualified. The whole tenor of Scripture implies the possibility of falling from grace ; and if S. Paul had reason to fear lest, when he had preached to others, he himself " should be rejected " or "become reprobate" (aSo/a/w), 1 Cor. ix. 27, it is hard to understand how men can be found to deny the same possibility in the case of others. The subject is closely connected with the whole doctrine of Predestina- tion, and will therefore come before us again in connec- tion with the Seventeenth Article, where something will be said on the Calvinistic system in general. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the matter more fully here. 1 Sec vol. i. p. 53 seq. ARTICLE XVII Dc Prsedestinatione et Electione. Praedestinatio ad vitam, est seter- num Dei propositum, quo ante jacta mundi fundamenta, suo con- silio, nobis quideni 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 Chris- tum ad seternam salutem adducere : Unde qui tarn praeclaro Dei bene- ficio sunt donati, illi spiritu ejus opportuno tempore operante, secun- dum propositum ejus vocantur : vocationi per gratiam parent : jus- tificantur gratis : adoptantur in filios : unigeniti Jesu Christi ima- gini efficiuntur conformes : in bonis operibus sancte ambulant : et de- mum ex Dei misericordia pertingunt ad sempiternam felicitatem. Quemadmodum Prsedestinationis et Electionis nostrae in Christo pia consideratio, dulcis suavis et inef- fabilis consolationis plena est vere piis et his qui sentiunt in se vim Spiritus Christi, facta carnis et membra qua? adhuc sunt super terrain mortificantem, animumque ad ccelestia et superna rapientem, turn quia fidem nostram de seterna salute consequenda per Christum plurimum stabilit atque confirmat, turn quia amorem nostrum in Deum vehcmenter accendit : ita homini- es/' Predestination and Election. Predestination to life is the ever- lasting 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 damna- tion 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 pur- pose by His Spirit working in due season : they through grace obey the calling : they be justified freely : they be made sons of God by adop- tion : 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 them- selves 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, as well because it doth greatly establish and con- 460 THE THIRTY- NINE ARTICLES bus curiosis, carnalibus, et Spiritu Christi destitutes, ob oculos per- petuo versari Prsedestinationis Dei sententiam, perniciosissiuium est pnecipitium, unde illos Diabolus protrudit, vel in desperationem, vel in feque perniciosam impuris- simse vitse securitatem. Deinde promissiones divinas sic amplecti oportet, ut nobis in sacris Uteris generaliter propositi sunt : et Dei voluntas in nostris actioni- bus ea sequenda est, quam in verbo Dei habemus diserte revelatam. firm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God : so, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have con- tinually before their eyes the sen- tence 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 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 unto us in the Word of God. The changes which this Article has undergone since 1553 are very slight ; the words " in Christ " were added in the first paragraph in 1563, and at the same time " although the decrees of Predestination are unknown to us" were omitted at the commencement of paragraph the third. The object of the Article was evidently to allay the angry strifes on the subject of predestination, and while speaking in cautious terms on what was felt to be a deep mystery, to guard against the excesses and extravagances to which the doctrine had led. Thus, after describing what predestination is in the first paragraph, the whole of the rest of the Article is devoted to the practical conse- quences which follow from the doctrine, and to laying down rules which, when rightly understood, are distinctly aimed against that limitation of God's love and God's promises, which has been characteristic of so much pre- destinarian teaching. The need for such an Article as this is pointedly shown in the language of the section ARTICLE XVII 461 " De Praedestinatione " in the Reformatio Legum, which begins by calling attention to the terrible consequences, shown in the lives of many, springing from what can only be called a reckless and monstrous fatalism. The section is one which deserves careful study, and will be seen to throw not a little light on the meaning of the Article now under consideration. " Ad extremum in Ecclesia multi feris et dissolutis moribus vivunt, qui cum re ipsa curiosi sint, differti luxu, et a Christi spiritu prorsus alieni, semper pre- destination em et rejectionem, vel, ut usitate loquuntur, reprobationem in sermone jactant, ut cum aeterno con- silio Deus vel de salute vel de interitu aliquid certi constituent, hide latebram suis maleficiis et sceleribus, et omnis generis perversitati quadrant. Et cum pastores dissipatam illorum et fiagitiosam vitam coarguunt, in voluntatem Dei criminum suorum culpam conferunt, et hac defensione prolligatas admonitorum reprehensiones existimant : ac ita tandem, duce diabolo, vel in despera- tionis puteum abjiciuntur praecipites, vel ad solutam quandam et mollem vitae securitatem, sine aut pceni- tentia aut scelerum conscientia dilabuntur. Quae duo mala disparem naturam, sed finem videntur eundem habere. Nos vero sacris Scripturis eruditi, talem in hac re doctrinam ponimus, quod diligens et accurata cogitatio de praedestinatione nostra et electione suscepta (de quibus Dei voluntate determinatum fuit antequam mundi funda- menta jacerentur) ; haec itaque diligens et seria, quam diximus, his de rebus cogitatio, piorum hominum animos Spiritu Christi afflatos, et carnis et membrorum subjec- tionem persentiscentes, et ad coelestia sursum tendentes, dulcissima quadam et jucundissima consolatione per- mulcet, quoniam fidem nostram de perpetua salute per Christum ad nos perventura confirmat, vehementissimas charitatis in Deum flammas accendit, mirabiliter ad gratias 462 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES agendas exsuscitat, ad bona nos opera propinquissime adducit, et a peccatis longissime abducit, quoniam a Deo sumus electi, et filii ejus instituti. Quae singularis et eximia conditio summam a nobis salubritatem morum, et excellentissimam virtutis perfectionem requirit: denique nobis arrogantiam minuit, ne viribus nostris geri credamus, quae gratuita Dei beneficentia et infinita bonitate indul- gentur. Praeterea neminem ex hoc loco purgationem censemus vitiorum suorum afferre posse ; quia Deus nihil ulla in re injuste constituit, nec ad peccata volun- tates nostras unquam invitas trudit. Quapropter omnes nobis admonendi sunt, ut in actionibus suscipiendis ad decreta prsedestinationis se non referant, sed universam vitse SU83 rationem ad Dei leges accommodent ; cum et promissiones bonis et minas malis, in sacris Scripturis generaliter propositas contemplentur. Debemus enim ad Dei cultum viis illis ingredi, et in ilia Dei voluntate commorari, quam in sacris Scripturis patefactam esse videmus." 1 This section, it will be noticed, guards still more strongly than does the Article against the abuses of the doctrine, and points out very precisely the dangers then existing. It is also valuable as indicating with certainty the true interpretation of the last clause of the Article, which says that God's promises are to be received " in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture," — a subject on which something must be said later on. The sources of the Article, and of the section just quoted from the Reformatio Legum, are thought to lie to some extent in the writings of Luther, including both his letters and the Preface to the Epistle to the Komans ; 2 1 Reformatio Legum Eccl. , De Hceres. c. xxii. 2 See Bp. Short's History of the Church of England, c. x. App. C, where this is pointed out ; and see below, p. 485. ARTICLE XVII 463 and the language of the last paragraph has been traced by Archbishop Laurence to Melancthon. 1 Still more important, however, is it to notice that the description of predestination given in the first paragraph is to a very great extent couched in the actual words of Holy Scripture. The chief passages on which it is based are Rom. viii. and ix. and Eph. L, and the correspondence is even closer in the Latin than in the English. In writing to the Ephesians S. Paul blesses God, "who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ : even as He chose us in Him before tlie foundation of the world (sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem), that we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love : having foreordained us unto adoption as sons, through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will (qui praedestinavit nos in adoption em filiorum per Jesum Christum in ipsum secundum propositum voluntatis suae), to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved ... in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will (praedestinati secundum propositum ejus, qui opera tur omnia secundum consilium voluntatis suae)/' Eph. i. 3-11. Elsewhere he speaks of "vessels made to honour " (cf. " vasa in honorem efficta " with " an non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eadem massa facers aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam ? " Rom. ix. 21), while in Rom. viii. 28-30, he tells us that " to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren : and whom He fore- 1 Sec Archbp. Laurence, Bamptoa Lectures, p. 170. 464 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES ordained, tliem He also called : and vjhom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified" (Scinius autem quoniam diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum, iis qui secundum propositum vocati sunt sancti : Nam quos praescivit, et preedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Quos autem preedestinavit, hos et vocavit, et quos vocavit, hos et justificavit ; quos autem justificavit, illos et glorificavit). If these passages are carefully compared with the Article, it will easily be seen how closely it follows them : and hence it results that to one who has previously accepted Scripture as containing the word of God, the positive statements of the Article present no further difficulty. 1 They are evidently meant to be simply a reflection of the language of Scripture, and therefore whatever interpretation we are justified in putting upon the language of Scripture, the same we shall be justified in putting upon the corresponding language of the Article. This principle, when fully grasped, will be found to remove much of the difficulty which is sometimes felt in regard to sub- scription to this Seventeenth Article. It is only in the first and last paragraphs that any difficulty is found. The second paragraph, dealing with the practical con- sequences of the doctrine, contains nothing to which exception can be taken. The third paragraph will be explained and justified later on ; and if this first paragraph be taken, as it is surely meant to be taken, as a summary of Scripture statements rather than a definite interpretation of them, no difficulty whatever need be felt as to its acceptance. Coming now to the substance of the Article, the subjects treated of in it are the following : — 1 Cf. the passage from Mozley's Lectures and other llieological Papers (p. 220), quoted in vol. i. p. 352. ARTICLE XVII 465 1. The description of predestination. 2. The steps which accompany it. 3. The practical effect of the doctrine. 4. Two considerations calculated to guard the doctrine from abuses. L The Description of Predestination. Predestination to life is the everlasting pur- pose 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. There have been from time to time various theories held with regard to predestination, and various schemes and systems have been formed by Christians. Of these, the most important are the following, which it will be convenient to consider in the order in which they are here enumerated, rather than in accordance with a more strictly chronological arrangement : — (a) Ecclesiastical predestination. (b) The Arminian theory. (c) The Calvinistic theory. (d) The Augustinian theory. (a) Ecclesiastical Predestination. — According to this, predestination is not necessarily to life, but to privilege, i.e. to the opportunity of obtaining eternal life in the way of God's covenant. On this view, the " elect " are to be identified with the " called," and include all baptized persons. As Bishop Harold Browne puts it : " Some have held that as the Jews of old were God's chosen people, so now is the Christian Church : that 466 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES every baptized member of the Church is one of God's elect, and that this election is from God's irrespective and unsearchable decree. Here, therefore, election is to be baptismal privileges, not to final glory ; the elect are identical with the baptized, and the election constitutes the Church" 1 That this doctrine is taught in Holy Scripture admits of no doubt whatever. Throughout the Old Testament God is said to have " chosen " the whole people of the Jews, and not a select few out of their number. 2 The " children of Jacob " were His " chosen ones " or " elect " (Ps. cv. 6). 3 And when we pass from the Old Testament to the New, we find that the members of the Christian Church are regarded as having succeeded to the privileges of the Jews, and that the language used of the Israelites is applied by the Apostles to them. 4 So S. Paul, in writing to different Churches, addresses his readers indiscriminately as " called " (kXtjtol) ; 5 and S. Peter in a similar way writes to the " elect " (e/cXe/rrot) who are " sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, 1 On the Articles, p. 393. 2 'E/cX^et? is used frequently of this "choice." See, e.g., Deut. iv. 37, vii. 7, x. 15 ; xiv. 2, Ps. cxxxiv. (cxxxv.) 4, etc. 2 'E/c\eKr6s is used very widely in the LXX., and represents no fewer than twenty different Hebrew words. This is of itself significant, and should prevent us from attempting to fix too hard and fast a meaning upon it in the New Testament. It is used of the whole nation in Ps. civ. (cv.) 6, 43, cv. (cvi.) 5, and elsewhere; but also of individuals, as Moses, Ps. cv. (cvi.) 23 ; Joshua ; Num. xi. 28 ; and David, Ps. lxxxviii. (lxxxix.), 19. 4 With Ex, xix. 5, taeadt fioi Xabs irepioijo-ios dxb irdvruv tQv iQvuv ifril ydp i rrjs eKXoyrjs d£t'a yevo/xevrj ai'pecus re Kai v icropitvuv, Kai Karavoqaas poirrju tov es o\ot eavrous iiridibaovcri T

e Ecclesia' Autoritate. Habet Ecclesia ritus statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis autori- tatem, quamvis Ecclesia? non licet quicquani instituere, quod verbo Dei scripto adversetur, nec ununi Scriptune locum sic exponere potest, ut alteri contradicat, Quare licet Ecclesia sit divinorum librorum testis et conservatrix, attamen ut adversus eos nihil decernere, ita prater illos nihil credendum de necessitate salutis debet obtrudere. Of the Authority of the Church. 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 a 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. This Article, with the exception of the first or affirmative clause (The Church . . . controversies of faith), dates from 1553, and is almost identical with a passage in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum} It has not been traced to any earlier source, and there is nothiDg corresponding to it in the Confession of Augsburg. The affirmative clause first makes its appearance in 1563, and some doubt has been felt with regard to its source 1 Rtf. Leg. Feci., De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, e. xi. : " Quam- obrem non licet ecclesise quicquam constituere, quod verbo Dei scripto adversetur, neque potest sic unum locum exponere ut alteri contradicat. Quanqnam ergo divinorum librorum testis sit et custos et conservatrix Ecclesia, haec tamen prerogativa ei minime concedi debet, ut contra hos libros vel quicquam decernat. vel absque horum librorum testimoniis ullos fidei articulos condat, eosque populo Christiano credendos obtrudat." 511 512 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES and authority. It is not found in the Parker MS. signed by the members of the Upper House of Convocation on Jan. 29, 1563. Nor is it contained in an English " minute " of the Articles among the Elizabethan State Papers, dated January 31, 1563. 1 On the other hand, it is found in an undated Latin MS. in the State Papers, in which it has evidently been introduced after the original draft was made. 2 This is probably the earliest document to contain it, and Hardwick's theory 3 is likely to be true, that this is the actual MS. from which the first edition of the Elizabethan Articles was printed, viz. that published by Wolfe, the royal printer, under the direct authority of the Queen herself. Anyhow, this edition contains the clause in question ; 4 and though it is just possible that it was added by the Lower House of Convocation, to which the Articles were submitted after acceptance by the Upper House, yet there is a strong probability that it was inserted by the Queen herself in the exercise of her royal prerogative. However, it was undoubtedly deficient in full sy nodical authority, and, consequently, some MS. copies of the Articles, as well as some printed editions, omit it. 5 Of these the most important is the English edition printed by Jugge and Cawood in 1563, to which the Act of Parliament of 1571, requiring subscription to the Articles, made 1 "Domestic," vol. xxvii. 40. 2 lb. 41 A. "The disputed clause in Article XX., filling just one line and somewhat overcrowding the page, was clearly introduced in the same hand after the first draft was made." — Hard wick, p. 140. 3 Articles, p. 140. 4 Cf. vol. i. p. 31. 5 E.g. it is omitted (1) in an English draft of the Articles among the Mate Papers (" Domestic," 41), endorsed, "Articles of Religion agreed on, 1562, in the Convocation hous" ; (2) in an English MS. signed by the bishops in the Convocation of 1571 ; (3) in the English edition of Jugge and Cawood of 1563 alluded to in the text; and (4) in one Latin and one English edition of Jugge and Cawood in 1571. See Hardwick, p. 142. ARTICLE XX 513 reference. 1 It would appear certain, however, that at the final revision of 1571, if not earlier, the clause was ratified by Convocation ; 2 for when the charge was raised against Archbishop Laud at his trial, that he had himself added the clause to the Articles without the slightest authority, a transcript attested by a notary public from the original records of Convocation was produced, containing the words in question? The records of Con- vocation unfortunately perished in the great fire of London in 1666; but there is no possible room for doubting that this Article as found in them did contain the clause. As Hardwick says, " the testimony of that record was produced upon the trial of Archbishop Laud, in the most open and explicit manner, at a time when it was perfectly accessible to his accusers, or was rather in the hands of his infuriated enemies, and yet ' not one of them ever ventured to question the truth of the asser- tion, or attempted to invalidate the proofs on which his defence had rested.' " 4 The words of the disputed clause, it might be added, are (like so many of the additions of 1563) probably suggested by similar language used in the Confession of Wiirtemberg : " Credimus et confitemur quod . . . ha?c ecclesia habeat jus judicandi de omnibus doctrinis." 5 The object of the clause, and indeed of the whole Article, is to state definitely the powers and offices of the Church, with special reference to (a) the errors of 1 Cf. vol. i. p. 43. -At his trial Archbishop Laud stated publicly that "'tis plain that after the stir about subscription in the year 1571 the Articles were settled and subscribed unto at last, as in the year 1562, with this clause in them for the Church : for looking further into the records which are in mine own hands, I have found the book of 1563 subscribed by all the Lower House of Convocation in this very year of contradiction, 1571." — Laud's Works, vol. vi. p. 68 (A. C. Lib.). : ' Laud, op. cit. p. 66. 4 Articles, p. 144. 5 JPe Ecclesia. 514 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES the Puritan party, who were inclined to deny to the Church any right to enforce rites or ceremonies beyond those for which " Scripture proof " might be alleged ; and (b) the exaggerated view of the authority of the Church in doctrinal matters held by the Komanists, who denied that in the promulgation of necessary doctrine the Church was limited to what was contained in Scripture, or might be proved thereby. Three main subjects are brought before us in the Article, and require separate consideration — 1. The legislative power of the Church with regard to rites or ceremonies. 2. The judicial authority of the Church with regard to doctrine. 3. The office of the Church with regard to Holy Scripture. L The Legislative Power of the Church with regard to Bites or Ceremonies. The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, that is, she may from time to time make new ones, if she deem it expedient, or she may decree to retain old ones in the face of opposition, or change and abolish existing ones. This power may fairly be called " legislative," and it is analogous to the power exercised in the State by Crown and Parliament, which make new laws and abolish old ones. It was noticed under the last Article that the word " Church " was somewhat ambiguous, being sometimes used for the Church universal and sometimes for any particular or national Church ; and the question may be raised in which of these two senses is it here employed. The answer is found by a reference to the last clause of Article XXXIV., which (like the clause before us) was added ARTICLE XX 515 in 1563: " 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." This merely amplifies the clause now under consideration, and makes it clear that we are to understand it as referring to the power of national or particular Churches, and vindicating the right of the Church of England to such action as was taken from time to time in the revision of the services of the Church. As historical instances, then, of the exercise of this power, we may point to (a) the renewal of the baptismal vow prefixed to Confirmation, a new rite decreed for the first time in 1662; (b) the retention of the sign of the Cross, in face of much opposition, in 1604; and (c) the abolition of the " chrisom," or white vesture, given to the newly baptized in token of the innocency granted to them in baptism. This was retained in the first English Prayer Book in 1549, but dropped at the next revision in 1552. In each of these cases the local or national Church exercised the power inherently belonging to it. But the power is not unlimited ; and after stating what the power is, the Article proceeds to add two restraining clauses, keeping it within certain well-defined limits. (a) It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's word written. (b) It ought not to decree anything against the same. It will be noticed that the rites or ceremonies decreed need not receive any positive support from Scripture. All that is required is that there should be nothing in them that is opposed to or condemned by Scripture. An illustration may make this clear ; and a convenient one is furnished by Dean Goulbourn. The Church, in the exercise of her legislative power, might add to the 516 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Book of Common Prayer a new office of thanksgiving on the occasion of the harvest. No scriptural authority need be asked for. But if into such an office " it were proposed to insert some words of adoration to the holy angels as being very possibly the ministers of natural blessings to mankind, this would be a flagrant stretch of the Church's prerogative, since S. Paul condemns the worshipping of angels ; and when S. John fell down to worship at the feet of an angel, the being to whom the homage was offered replied, ' See thou do it not : for I am thy fellow-servant.' " 1 It was here that the Puritans went wrong, as they objected to many of the ceremonies of the Church, not because they were contrary to Scrip- ture, but simply because they were not based upon Scripture. To demand " Scripture proof," however, in such matters is seriously to mistake the purpose and object of the Scriptures. They were given " for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness" (2 Tim. iii. 16), i.e. for moral and doctrinal purposes, not as a guide or directory in matters of ritual. In these the Church possesses the power which is conceded to every society to make rules for the guidance of its own members. The existence of such a power is assumed throughout Scripture. It obviously belonged to the Jewish Church. Although there was an elaborate ritual and ceremonial law with stated feasts ordained by God Himself, yet the Jewish Church claimed and exercised the power to add other feasts, such as Purim and Dedication, to those of Divine appointment. Our Lord's words, " The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat : all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe " (S. Matt, xxiii. 2, 3), imply that power to make regulations still remained with the authorities ; and we see from the Acts and the Epistles 1 Goulbourn's Holy Catholic Church, p. 212. ARTICLE XX 517 that when the Christian Church was established, such powers were exercised from the first in it as occasion re- quired. Thus we find S. Paul incidentally laying down definite regulations in his Epistles on various details, e.g. that men are to worship with the head uncovered, women with the head covered (1 Cor. xL); on the conduct of public worship by the prophets (1 Cor. xiv. 27); that women are to keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. xiv. 34 ; cf. 1 Tim. ii. 12). He lays down the general principle, "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. xiv. 40), and appeals to the " custom " of the Churches as if it were final and decisive, and individuals ought to conform to it. " If any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God" (1 Cor. xi 16). These passages are sufficient to prove that it was understood from the first that such legislative power was vested in the Church ; and it would be superfluous to prove at length that it has in all ages been exercised by national Churches, and that different customs have been followed in different places. Three quotations may, how- ever, be appended in order to show how the matter was regarded in early times. In his famous " letter to Januarius," Augustine, after speaking of the sacraments, and some things " which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world," e.g. Good Friday, Easter Day, etc., proceeds as follows : — " There are other things, however, which are different in different places and countries, e.g. some fast on Satur- day, others do not ; some partake daily of the Body and Blood of Christ, others receive it on stated days ; in some places no day passes without the sacrifice being offered, in others it is only on Saturday and Sunday, or it may be only on Sunday. In regard to these and all other variable observances which may be met anywhere, one is 34 518 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES at liberty to comply with them or not as he chooses ; and there is no better rule for the wise and serious Christian in this matter than to conform to the practice which he finds prevailing in the Church to which it may be his lot to come. For such a custom, if it is clearly not contrary to the faith nor to sound morality, is to be held as a thing indifferent, and ought to be observed for the sake of fellow- ship with those among whom we live." He then goes on to describe his mother's perplexity when she first came to Milan and found that the Church there did not fast on Saturday ; and gives the advice of S. Ambrose, which, he says, " I have always esteemed, as if I had received it by an oracle from heaven " : " When I visit Eome I fast on Saturday ; when I am here I do not fast. On the same principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in whatever Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offence by your conduct nor to find cause of offence in another's." 1 Eather later than this the ecclesiastical historian Socrates set himself to catalogue as far as possible " the diversity of customs in the Churches," with regard not only to the Lenten fast, but also to the great " variation in the services performed in church," and other matters ; remarking in conclusion that " it would be difficult, if not impossible, to give a complete catalogue of all the various customs and ceremonial observances in use throughout every city and country." 2 Lastly, in answer to the question of Augustine of Canterbury, " Whereas the faith is one and the same, are there different customs in different Churches, and is one custom of Masses observed in the holy Eoman Church and another in the Gallican Church ? " Pope Gregory the Great replied as follows : " You know, my brother, the custom of the Eoman Church, in which you remember you 1 Ad inquisitiones Januarii, Ep. liv, 2 Socrates, H. E. V. c. xxii. ARTICLE XX 519 were bred up. But it pleases me, that if you have found anything either in the Eoman or in the Gallican or in any other Church, which may be more acceptable to Almighty God, you carefully make choice of the same, and sedulously teach the Church of the English, which is as yet new in the faith, whatsoever you can gather from the several Churches. For things are not to be loved for the sake of places, but places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from each Church those things that are pious, religious, and correct, and w T hen you have, as it were, made them up into one body, let the minds of the English be accustomed thereto." 1 It is clear from these citations that the English Church is in complete harmony with the Church of earlier days when she not only asserts that " the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies," but further maintains that " 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." 2 1 Breda, H. E. I. c. xxvii. 2 The theory, as stated in the Article, is perfectly clear, and represents the position from which the Church has never swerved. It is to the Church, not to the civil power, Parliament or Crown, that this "power" belongs. But in a Church by law established, it cannot be denied that there are grave practical difficulties in the way of exercising it. The Book of Common Prayer having been actually attached to an Act of Parliament, of which it forms a part, it is plain that, as a matter of fact, it cannot be in any way altered without the consent of that authority which gave coercive power to enforce its use. But it is equally clear that this authority, viz. Parliament, has no sort of moral right to attempt to alter it, except at the wish of the Church which first prepared and accepted it, and then presented it to Parliament to be attached to the Act of Uniformity ; and the constitutional method of proceeding in the case of any "rites or ceremonies" to be decreed, is very clearly laid down in "the Royal Declaration" still prefixed to the Articles. "If any differ- ence arise about the external policy concerning the Injunctions, Canons, and other Co?istitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under 520 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES II. The judicial Authority of the Church with regard to Doctrine. The Church . . . hath authority in contro- versies of faith. (a) This " authority " is altogether distinct in kind from the " power " which has just been considered. The " power " is legislative, and includes the right to make new ceremonies, to change and abolish old ones. The " authority " is judicial. It is the right not to make a single new Article of faith, but simply authority in a doctrinal controversy to pronounce what the true doctrine is. 1 And since, in the words of Article VI., " Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation ; so that what- soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be be- lieved as an Article of the faith, or be thought requisite necessary to salvation," it is clear that the words mean that to the Church belongs the function of interpreting the Scripture, and deciding what the true meaning of it may be. This is strictly " judicial " authority, analogous to the power vested in the judges of interpreting the laws of the country. While the laws are made by the Crown with assent of Parliament, yet, when once a law has been placed on the Statute Book, Parliament has no power whatever to say what it means. Indeed, the legislators may have intended one thing, but if they have our Broad Seal so to do ; and we approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions, providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land." 1 Cf. Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V. c. viii. § 2: "The Church hath authority to establish that for an order at one time which at another time it may abolish, and in both may do well. But that which in doctrine the Church doth now deliver as a truth, no man will say that it may hereafter recall, and as rightly avouch the contrary. Laws touch- ing matter of order are changeable by the power of the Church ; Articles concerning doctrine not so.' ARTICLE XX 521 expressed their meaning badly, it may turn out that they have passed something quite different, for to the judges alone belongs the power of interpreting the words of the statute and saying what they really involve. Just so, in the matter of necessary doctrine, the laws, so to speak, are contained in the written Scriptures ; but, as human language is never quite free from ambiguity, an inter- preter of them is required, and this is provided for us in " the Church," which " hath authority in controversies of faith." Instances of the exercise of this judicial authority are to be found in the dogmatic decisions of the General Councils defining the faith of the Church ; and no better example can be given to illustrate how the authority differs from the legislative power than what occurred at Nica?a. Two questions came before the assembled Fathers for decision: (1) the faith of the Church in our Lord's Divinity, and (2) the time for the celebration of the Easter festival. In regard to the former they simply claimed to lay down what the faith as contained in the Scriptures really was. They did not make a new doctrine. In regard to the latter, they laid down a new rule to govern the Church for the future. The distinction is pointed out by Athanasius himself in a well-known passage. " Without prefixing consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter : ' It seemed good as fol- lows ' : for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance in this matter. But concerning the faith they wrote not ' It seemed good,' but ' Thus the Catholic Church believes ' : and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own senti- ments were not novel but apostolical ; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but the same as was taught by the apostles." 1 (b) That this authority belongs to the Church would 1 Athaiiasius, De Synodic, % 5. 522 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES seem to follow of necessity from many passages of Scripture. Unless the Church possesses it, it would be impossible for her to exercise properly the function of teaching which is distinctly laid upon her. She is " the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15). The power of " binding and loosing " 1 was granted to her by the Lord Himself (S. Matt, xviii. 18). It was exercised at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.), when the question was raised whether circumcision was to be enforced upon Gentile converts, and the decision was arrived at under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (" it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," ver. 28) that there was no necessity for it. S. Paul charges Timothy to " hold the pattern of sound words " which he had received from him (2 Tim. i. 13); to "present himself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, hand- ling aright the word of truth" (ii. 15); to "shun vain babblings " ; to " charge others that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the subverting of them that hear them " (ib.) ; to " refuse ignorant and foolish questions " (ver. 23) ; to " reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffer- ing and teaching, for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine " (iv. 2). To Titus he writes that the bishop is to " hold the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convince the gain- sayers" (i. 9); vain talkers are to be "reproved sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men " (ver. 13); he is to " shun foolish questionings and genealogies " (iii. 1 J. Lightfoot (Horce Hebraicce on S. Matt. xvi. 19) shows very fully that to "bind" and "loose" were familiar Jewish expressions for to for- bid and allow. It is perhaps scarcely necessary to add that this power, given first to S. Peter in xvi. 19, but extended to the Church generally in xviii. 18, is entirely different from the power of retaining and remitting sins given in S. John xx. 23. ARTICLE XX 523 10), and to "reject a man that is heretical after the first and second admonition " (ib.). All such language as this plainly implies a power of discrimination, and authority to judge and decide between the truth and falsehood. Unless the Church and her representatives possess such authority, who is to say what is " the sound doctrine " which is to be taught ? or who can tell which is " the man that is heretical," and which the man that is orthodox ? (c) It was shown above that the " power to decree rites or ceremonies " might be exercised by national Churches, and that it is not necessary that ceremonies should be everywhere the same. With regard to this " authority in controversies of faith," the case is obviously different. Although " particular and national Churches " have frequently exercised this authority, yet it has always been subject to the judgment of the whole Church, and liable to revision by this. To the whole Church it is that the presence of Christ is pledged (S. Matt, xxviii. 19); and to this alone is the promise made that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it " (S. Matt. xvi. 18). Thus, while on various matters of doctrine the decision was made by local or provincial Councils, before ever the whole Church had an oppor- tunity of expressing her mind, 1 yet only so far as these local decisions have subsequently been found to be in accordance with the mind of the universal Church have 1 Thus the Council of Constantinople (381), which condemned Apol- linarianism and Macedonianism, was not apparently summoned as a General one, but has only come to be so regarded in consequence of its subsequent acceptance by the whole Church. Local Councils were naturally summoned to condemn Montanism (Eusebius, H. E. V. xvi.) ; for in the second century no others were possible. But even after the age of General Councils had begun, local ones frequently considered and decided on doctrinal questions, e.. 78, a valuable lecture on the "Teaching Power of the Church," by Professor W. E. Collins. ARTICLE XX 527 old " were committed the oracles of God " (Horn. iii. 2), so now that there is a " New Testament " as well as an " Old," the completed Canon is to be regarded as a treasure committed to the custody of the Church, who is respon- sible for preserving it entire, and free from admixture with other books, as well as for transmitting it and proclaiming it to each generation in turn. It is in these ways that the Church fulfils her office as " a witness and a keeper of holy writ," and from what has now been said the respective offices of the Church and Holy Scripture may be clearly seen. The Church is the ordained teacher of truth ; Holy Scripture is the criterion of truth by which the doctrines of the Church are proved and tested. To make Scripture, in the first instance, the teacher, is entirely to mistake its true office and function. The Gospels were written, not to convert unbelievers, but that those who had been already orally instructed {i.e. who had received the teaching of the Church) might know the certainty of those things which they had been taught. 1 So also the Epistles were addressed to regularly organised Churches, and were written to confirm those who had previously received apostolic teaching. Indeed, it is everywhere the case that " the Bible assumes the existence of a living instructor in the truth, who will indoctrinate us into the rudiments of it, and refer us to the Scriptures themselves for the proof of what he teaches. If the instructor is dispensed with, and the disciple thrown back merely on the Bible and his natural faculties, he will be very liable to stumble, and almost certain to do so as regards those more recondite definitions of doctrine which the Church's experience of heresies has shown her to be necessary, and has taught her to make." 2 These offices of " the 1 See S. Luke i. 1-4. 2 Goulbourn's Holy Catholic Church, p. 294. 528 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Church to teach, the Bible to prove," may be illustrated from the incident recorded in Acts viii. 26-40. The Ethiopian eunuch was " sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah." He was, then, in posses- sion of the Scriptures, and, according to the rather foolish saying, " the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants," these ought to have been sufficient for him. But plainly they were not; for in answer to Philip's question, " Understandest thou what thou readest ? " the answer is returned, " How can I, except someone should guide me ? " and this is followed by the further question, " Of whom speaketh the prophet this ? Of himself, or of some other ? " Something more was needed than the possession of the Scriptures, and that something was supplied by Philip, the representative of the ecclesia docens, who " opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture preached unto him Jesus." Here we see the Church at w r ork, and the right method to be followed, as it is seen throughout the Acts of the Apostles, where we everywhere find them stating the facts, and teaching with authority, while they prove their statements from the Scriptures, and refer their hearers to these as confirming them. 1 And if this method was employed when only the Old Testament was in existence, it seems natural to suppose that much more should it be followed now, when the fuller revelation is also committed to writing. 2 1 See Acts ii. 14-38, iii. 12-26, xiii. 16-42, xvii. 2, 3, 11, xviii. 28. 2 See on this subject Gore's Roman Catholic Claims, c. iii. and iv. ARTICLE XXI Dt auioritate Contiliorvm Generalium. Generalia Concilia sine jussu et vohmtate prineipum eongregari non possunt, et obi eonvenerint, quia ex hominibus constant, qui non onines spiritu et verbo Dei reguntur, et errare possunt, et interduni errarunt, etiam in his qua? ad normam pietatis pertinent : ideo qua; ab illis constituuntur, ut ad saluteni necessaria, neque robur habent, neque autoritatem, nisi ostendi possint e sacris Uteris esse desunipta. Of the authority of General Cov/iicils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered to- gether (forasmuch as they he an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of God) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. "Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor autho- rity, unless it ma} r be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture. Since the Forty-two Articles were first published in 1553 this Article has remained practically unchanged. 1 But before 'publication a clause had been wisely omitted from the close of it, which, as we find from the MS. signed by the six royal chaplains, 2 had stood in the original draft : " Possunt reges et pii magistratus, non expectata conciliorum generalium sententia aut convocatione, in 1 In the English edition of 1553 " not only in worldly matters, but also " stood before " in things pertaining unto God." There was nothing corre- sponding to these words in the Latin, and they were accordingly omitted in 1563. In the Latin " verbis Dei " stood in 1553 and 1563, being altered to the singular " verbo " in 1571. 1 State Papers, "Domestic," Edward VI. vol. xv. No. 28. Cf. vol. i. p. 14. and Hardwiok, p. 283. 529 530 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES republica sua juxta Dei verbum de rebus religionis constituere." The gravest objection might have been taken to such a clause, and we may be thankful that it was withdrawn before the Articles were published. Perhaps no Article gains more than this from being read in the light of the history of the time when it was drawn up, and from being illustrated by contemporary documents. Had we nothing but the bare letter of the Article itself to consider, it might be plausibly maintained that by saying that " General Councils have erred," it condemns those Councils which the whole Church has ever reverenced as truly general, and expressing her mind, such as Nicsea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451). Nothing, however, is more certain than the fact that no such sweeping condemnation is intended, for contemporary with the Forty-two Articles, and drawn up to a great extent by the very same men who are responsible for them, is the Reformatio Legum Ecclesi- asticarum) 1 and in this there is a remarkable section which runs parallel with the Article, amplifying its statements, and affording a practical exposition of it, and commentary upon its meaning. It runs as follows : — " De eonciliis quid sentiendum. "Jam vero eonciliis, potissimum generalibus, tametsi ingentem honorem libenter deferimus, ea tamen longe omnia infra Scripturarum canonicarum dignitatem ponenda judicamus : sed et inter ipsa concilia magnum discrimen ponimus. Nam qusedam illorum, qualia sunt praecipua ilia quatuor, Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum primum, Ephesinum, et Chalcedonense, magna cum reverentia amplectimur et suscipimus. Quod quidem judicium de 1 See vol. i. p. 28 seq. ARTICLE XXI 531 multis aliis quae postea celebrata sunt ferimus, in quibus videmus et confitemur sanctissimos patres de beata et summa Trinitate, 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. Itaque legantur concilia quidem cum honore atque Christiana reverentia, sed interim ad Scripturarum piam certain rectamque regulam examin- entur." 1 The Article must beyond question be interpreted by this longer statement. It is certain, therefore, that it does not intend to cast any slur upon those Councils which are received " magna cum reverentia," but that it uses the term " General Councils " in a loose and popular way, of Councils which claimed to be " general," as well as of those which are truly representative of the mind of the whole Church. The necessity for such an Article is seen in the circumstances of the time. From the early days of Luther, the Beformers, both on the Continent and in England, had persistently appealed to a free General Council, and finally the Pope (Paul III.) had been driven, in 1545, to summon a "General Council." But (1) it was called by the Pope alone, who claimed the right to cite to it, in person or by proxy, the king of England among other Christian princes; 2 and (2) it consisted only of bishops of the Boman obedience. It was therefore not such a Council as the Beformers could regard as truly " general," or feel themselves compelled 1 Ref. Lcgum Ecclcs., De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, c. xiv. - Cf. Dixon's History of the Church of England., vol. i. p. 425. 532 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES to accept. But in view of the fact that it was actually being held when the Articles were drawn up, and that its decrees were certain to be appealed to as authorita- tive by the opponents of the Reformation, it was import- ant that in the Anglican formulary a statement should be found, asserting, in terms such as would justify a refusal to be bound by the decisions of Trent, the abstract position maintained with regard to " the authority of General Councils." Three principal statements are made concerning them — 1. They may not be gathered together without the consent of princes. 2. They are liable to err. 3. As a matter of history they actually have erred. I. They may not he gathered together without the consent of Princes. General Councils may not (non possunt) be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. It is sometimes inferred from the Latin " non possunt " that what is here meant is that as a matter of fact they cannot be so gathered together. This appears doubtful, for it is more probable that " non possunt " means " cannot lawfully," i.e. " may not." 1 But, however this may be, either statement is true, for princes alone have it in their power to compel or to prohibit the attendance of their subjects, and therefore obviously have the right not only to be consulted as a matter of courtesy, but also to say 1 Cf. Article XX., where " nec exponere potest" is equivalent to "neither may it so expound," and XXXVII., where "Leges eiviles possunt," etc. can only mean as the English renders it, " the laws of the realm may punish," etc. ARTICLE XXI 533 whether a Council shall or shall not be held. 1 As a matter of history there is no question that all the early General Councils were summoned by the Emperor and not by the Pope. 2 Indeed, the idea of a General Council seems to have originated, not with the Church, but w T ith the Emperor ; 3 and although, after the decline of the Empire and the division of Europe into several kingdoms, since there was no longer any one supreme power, capable of commanding and enforcing the attend- ance of bishops from various countries, it was natural that the Pope, whose power was steadily growing, should not only preside at the Council when summoned, but actually issue the invitations to it ; yet it stands to reason that even so this could only be properly done with " the consent of princes." 4 1 As a matter of fact, even so late as 1870 the various Governments of modern Europe played an important part in determining whether or no the " Vatican Council " should be held. See Purcell's Life of Archbishop Manning, vol. ii. c. xvi. 8 That of Xiciea by Constantine I. ; Constantinople by Theodosius I. ; Ephesus by Theodosius II. ; Chalcedon, at the request and instigation of Pope Leo I., by Marcian. So the second Council of Constantinople (553) was summoned by the Emperor Justinian, and the third (680) by Con- stantine Pogonatus ; so also the Synod of Nictea (787), regarded by both the Greeks and Latins as the seventh General Council, was summoned by the Empress Irene. Thus every Council which has any fair claim to represent the undivided Church was called together "with the command- ment and will of princes." 3 " The conception of a General Council did not give rise to Nica?a, but vice versa," Robertson's Athanasius, p. lxxv., and there can be little doubt that the idea of the Council was due to Constantine himself. Cf. Church Historical Lectures, Series 2, p. 164. 4 So early as 1533 the question was raised in England in consequence of Henry VIII. 's appeal from the Pope to a General Council, and a declara- tion was put forth signed by nine bishops and four other divines to the effect that though in old times Councils were " called and gathered together by the Emperor's commandment. . . . Yet now, forasmuch that the empire of Rome and the monarchy of the same has no such general dominion, but that many princes have absolute power in their own realms, and a whole entire monarchy, no other prince may by his authority call a General 35 534 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES II. General Councils are liable to err. 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. On this matter the verdict of history is conclusive. Had we not the experience of the past to teach us, it might have seemed, a priori, probable that God would not have allowed a body that is summoned as representative of the whole Church to err. But as it is, there can be no question on the subject. The record of Councils, summoned as " General " ones and con- ducted with proper forms, is often a painful one to read ; and the exhibitions of human passion and pre- judice sometimes exhibited in them have certainly shown that all their members are not necessarily " governed by the spirit of God." Moreover, they have always been treated by the Church as liable to err, 1 for many of them have been reviewed by later Councils, and sometimes their verdicts have been reversed. 2 Council " (Collier, Records, xxxviii.). Three years later a more authorita- tive "judgment concerning General Councils " was put forth by Convoca- tion, in which the divines of both houses gave their opinion that " neither the Bishop of Rome ne any one prince, of what estate, degree, or pre- eminence soever he be, may, by his own authority, call, indict, or summon any General Council, without the express consent, assent, and agreement of the residue of Christian princes, and especially such as have within their own realms and seignories imperium merum, that is to say, of such as have the whole, entire, and supreme government and authority over all their subjects, without knowledging or recognising of any other supreme power or authority," Burnet, I. ii. p. 301 seq. 1 See the letter of Pope Julius in Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos, § 20-25. In this Julius says that it is unreasonable that what has been established by Councils should be set aside by "a few individuals," but treats the decision of Councils as liable to be reviewed by others, referring to the Council of Nicsea as having decided that this should be done (see Robertson's note, in loc. and p. lxxvi.). 2 Thus the " Latrocinium " was summoned as a General Council, but its decisions were reversed by the Council of Chalcedon, 451. So also in ARTICLE XXI 535 Thus the Article is perfectly justified, not only in its second statement, but also in its third. III. As a matter of History, General Councils have erred. That they sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God (etiam in his quae ad normam pietatis pertinent), is a matter which can easily be shown when it is remembered that the Article is referring to any Councils which claimed to be General. Thus Ariminum and Seleucia were summoned as General Councils representative of the whole Christian world, but they went fatally wrong " even in things pertaining to God." The same is true of many later Councils ; and if the position taken up in Articles VI. and XX. with regard to Holy Scripture is sound, there can be no doubt that the closing words of the Article now under consideration are justified, and that 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. The language of the Article itself and all that has here been said in the commentary upon it, is, of course, only one side of the whole truth about Councils, and that the least pleasant to dwell upon. It must never be forgotten that there is another side, and that the Church owes very much to the work of Councils which were truly " General " and representative. Nor has the Church of England been slow to acknowledge this. The language of the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum has the Iconoclastic Controversy, the seventh Council of Constantinople (754) condemned image-worship ; but its decrees were reversed by the second Council of Nicrea, which sanctioned the practice in 787. Frankfort (794) condemned the practice, but the eighth of Constantinople (869) sanctioned it. 536 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES been already cited. The Homily " Against peril of Idolatry " speaks of the six Councils which were allowed and received of all men ; and it may be added that by an Act of Parliament passed in the first year of Elizabeth's reign it was determined that " nothing is to be adjudged heresy, but that which heretofore has been so adjudged by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or the first four General Councils, or some other General Council, wherein the same has been declared heresy by the express word of Scripture." 1 The question remains, How is it to be known whether a Council is truly " General " and representative of the mind of the whole Church ? To this it is believed that no answer can be returned at the moment. However large may be the number of the bishops present, no guarantee is thereby afforded that they faithfully represent the mind of the universal Church. That which alone can show this, is the after -reception of the decisions of the Council by the different parts of the Church. Where the decisions win their way to uni- versal acceptance, there we have the needful guarantee that the Council has faithfully reflected the mind of the universal Church, and we may well be content to believe that the Council has not erred. But " the inerrancy of a Council can never be guaranteed at the moment. The test of the value of a Council is its after-reception by the Church." 2 1 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Some Anglican divines, as Hooker and Andrews, seem to recognise but four General Councils ; others, as Field and Hammond, recognise six. See Palmer's Treatise on the Church, part IV. c. ix. 2 Bishop Forbes On the Articles, p. 298. On this, which is some- times called the Gallican theory of the test of the authority of General Councils, see Sir W. Palmer's Treatise on the Church, part IV. c. vii. ; B. L. Ottley, Doctrine of the Incarnation, vol. i. p. 321 seq. ; and Church Historical Society Lectures, series 2, p. 147 seq. ARTICLE XXII Dc Purgatorio. Doctrina Romanensium de Pur- gatorio, de indulgentiis, de venera- tione et adoratione turn imaginum turn reliquiarum, nec non de invo- eatione sanctorum, res est f'utilis, inaniter conficta, et nullis Scrip- turarum testiiuoniis innititur, imo verbo Dei 1 contradicit. Of Purgatory. 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 Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. This Article differs in one important point from the original one as first published in 1553, for in that the teaching condemned was termed " the doctrine of school- authors " (doctrina scholasticorum). The effect of the substitution of " the Romish doctrine " (doctrina Roman- ensium) for this is to make the Article condemn a present current form of teaching rather than the formal system of doctors whose day was past. 2 There is another matter in the history of the Article which deserves to be noticed, viz. that in the Article as originally drafted was included a condemnation of the scholastic doctrine dc precatione pro defunct is. These words are found in the MS. signed by the six royal chaplains, 3 1 The edition of 1553 has " perniciose contradicit" ; but the adverb was struck out in 1563, there being nothing corresponding to it in the English Article. 2 "The words ' Romanenses 1 and { Romanistpe ' were already used as far hack as 1520 by Luther and Ullich von Hutten, to designate the extreme mediaeval party." — Hard wick, p. 410. ■ See above, p. 529, and vol. i. p. 13. 537 538 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES but they disappeared before the Article was published, — a fact which is highly significant, as it shows that the Church of England deliberately abstained from seeming to express any condemnation of the practice of praying for the departed, and that it is impossible to strain the words of this Article on Purgatory to indicate such a condemnation. 1 With regard to the doctrines here condemned, it is important to bear in mind that when the Article was originally drawn up, and even when it was revised and republished in 1563, none of them had been considered by the Council of Trent. The Article cannot, then, have been deliberately aimed at the formal decrees of that Council ; and, as a matter of fact, the decrees on these particular subjects, which were published during the last session of the Council in December 1563, were drawn up with studied moderation, and some of the strong language of our Article could hardly be truthfully said to apply to the doctrine as stated in them, though it certainly was not one whit too strong in its condemnation of the current practice and teaching which the Eeformers had before them. It will be convenient at this point to quote so much of the Tridentine decree as bears on the subject before us, as the language used in it bears striking testimony to the existence of the errors which called forth the vigorous protest of our own Eeformers. On Purgatory the decree simply lays down that " there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there retained' are relieved by the suffrages of the faithful, but chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." It then proceeds : " Among the uneducated vulgar, let the more difficult and subtle questions, and those which tend not to edifi- 1 It follows from this that the subject of prayer for the departed does not come before us for consideration here. Reference may, however, be made to an article on "the Church of England and Prayers for the Departed " in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. x. p. 1. ARTICLE XXII 539 cation, and seldom contribute aught towards piety, be kept back from popular discourses. Neither let them suffer the public mention and treatment of uncertain points, or such as look like falsehood. But those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful." 1 With regard to Pardons, it was stated that as the power of granting indulgences was granted by Christ to His Church, the use of them was to be retained ; and those were to be anathematised who either assert that they are useless, or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. " In granting them, how- ever, it desires that, according to the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed, lest by excessive facility ecclesiastical discipline be enervated. And desiring the amendment and correction of the abuses which have crept into these matters, and by occasion of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, it ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining of them, whence a most abundant cause of abuses among Christian people has been derived, be utterly abolished. But as regards other matters which have proceeded from super- stition, ignorance, irreverence, or from any other cause, 1 ' ' Cum Catholica Ecclesia . . . docuerit Purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas, fidelium suffragiis, potissimum vero acceptabili altaris sacri- ficio juvari ; prsecipit sancta Synodus Episcopis ut sanam de Purgatorio doctrinam, a Sanctis Patribus et sacris Conciliis traditam, a Christi fidelibus credi, teneri, doceri, et ubique prsedicari, diligenter studeant. Apud rudem vero plebem difficiliores ac subtiliores qugestiones, queeque ad sedifi- cationem non faciimt, 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, quse ad curiosi- tatem quamdam, aut superstitionem spectant, vel turpe lucrum sapiant, tanquam scandala, et fidelium offendicula prohibeant." — Cone. Trid., Sess. xxv., Dccretum de Purgatorio. 540 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are com- mitted, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited ; it commands all bishops diligently to collect all abuses of this nature, and report them in the first provincial synod," etc. 1 On the adoration of images and relics it says that due- honour and veneration is to be awarded to the images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints, " not that any virtue or divinity is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped ; or that anything is to be asked of them ; or that confidence is to be reposed in images, as was done of old by the heathen, who placed their hope in idols ; but because the honour which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent ; so that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head and prostrate our- selves, we adore Christ, and venerate the saints whose similitude they bear. . . . And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy 1 '"'Cum potestas conferendi Indulgentias a Christo ecclesiae eoncessa sit, atque hujusmodi potestate, divinitus sibi tradita, antiquissimis etiam temporibus ilia usa fuerit ; sacrosancta Synodus indulgentiarum usum, Christiano populo maxime salutarem et sacrorum Conciliorum auctoritatc probatum, in ecclesia retinendum esse docet, et praecipit, eosque anathe- mate daninat, qui aut inutiles esse asserunt, vel eas concedendi in ecclesia potestatem esse negant. In his tamen concedendis moderationem juxta veterem et probatam in ecelesia consuetudineni adhiberi eupit ; ne niniia facilitate ecclesiastica disciplina enervetur. Abusus vero, qui in his irrep- serunt, quorum occasione insigne hoc Indulgentiarum nomen ab hsereticis blasphematur, emendatos et correctos cupiens, praesenti decreto generaliter statuit pravos quaestus omnes pro his consequendis, unde plurima in Christiano populo abusuum causa fluxit, omnino obolendos esse. Caeteros vero, qui ex superstitione, ignorantia, irreverentia, aut aliunde quomodo- eumque provenerunt, cum ob multiplices locorum et provinciarum, apud quas hi committuntur, corruptelas commode nequeant specialiter prohiberi ; mandat omnibus Episcopis, ut diligenter quisque hujusmodi abusus eccle- siae suae colligat, eosque in prima synodo provinciali referat," etc. — Con- tinuatio Sessionis xxv., Decretum de Indulgentiis. ARTICLE XXII 541 Synod earnestly desires that they be utterly abolished : in such wise that no images conducive to false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the unedu- cated, be set up. . . . Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished, finally all lasciviousness be avoided : in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a wantonness of beauty, nor shall men pervert the celebration of the saints and the visitation of relics into revellings and drunkenness ; as if festivals were cele- brated to the honour of saints by luxury and wanton- ness." 1 So on the subject of invocation of saints the Council enjoins that the people be taught " that the saints reign- ing with Christ offer their prayers for men to God, and that it is good and useful to invoke them as suppliants, and to resort to their prayers, aid, and help for obtain- ing benefits from God through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Eedeemer and Saviour ; and that 1 " Imaginibus Christi, Deipar.v Virginia, et aliorum sanctorum in templis prajsertim habendas et retinendas, eisque debitum honorem et venerationem impertiendam. non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis Divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam suit colenda? : vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum ; vel quod liducia in imaginibus sit iigenda, veluti olim liebat a gentibus, qme in idolis spem suaru colloeabant; sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant : ita at per imagines qua 3 osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus et procum- bimus, Christum adoremus, et sanctos, quorum ilia? siniilitudinem gerunt veneremur. ... In has autem sanctas et salutares observationes, si qui abusus irrepseriut, eos prorsus aboleri saucta Synodus vehementer cupit, ita ut nulla? falsi dogmatis imagines, et rudibus periculosi erroris occa- sionem prrebentes, statuantur. . . . Omnia porro superstitio in sanctorum invocatione, Reliquiarum veneratione, et imaginum sacro usu tollatur, omnis turpis qusestus eliminetur, omnis denique lascivia vitetur, ita ut procaei venustate imagines non pingantur, nec ornentur, et sanctorum eelebratione, et reliquiarum visitatione homines ad comessationes atque ebrietates non abutantur. quasi festi dies in honorem sanctorum per luxum, ac lasciviam agantur." — Sess. xxv. De Invocations, etc. 542 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES they think impiously who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked ; or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocation of them to pray for each of us in particular is idolatry ; or that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to the honour of the one Mediator between God and men, Christ J esus ; or that it is a fond thing to supplicate orally or inwardly those who reign in heaven." 1 It is impossible to read these extracts without feeling how gross must have been the abuses which called forth such language, and it would be unfair to neglect to take into account the fact that our own Article was drawn up prior to these definitions and the practical reforms which the Council of Trent endeavoured to bring about. We proceed now to the consideration of the " Romish doctrines " condemned in the Article. Four of them are specified. 1. Purgatory. 2. Pardons. 3. Adoration of images and relics. 4. Invocation of saints. I. Purgatory. The Romish doctrine of Purgatory ... is a 1 . . . " Docentes eos, sanctos una cum Christo regnantes, orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre : bonura atque utile esse suppliciter eos invocare, et ob benefieia impetranda a Deo per filium ejus Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui solus noster Red emptor, 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 idolatriam, vel pugnare cum verbo Dei, adversarique honori unius mediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi ; vel stultum esse, in ccelo regnantibus voce vel mente supplicare, impie sentire," etc. — lb. ARTICLE XXII 543 fond thing yainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. It will be convenient to con- sider this subject under the two following heads : (a) the history of the doctrine ; (b) the scriptural arguments on the subject. (a) The History of the Doctrine. — During the first three centuries there are only to be found a few traces of a belief in anything like a purgatory between death and judgment. Three indications of such a belief are all that can fairly be claimed during this period, two of which come to us from the same quarter and from a Montanistic source. Tertullian in his treatise Be Anima, written after he had joined the Montanists, says that in Hades (penes inferos) there are rewards and punishments, as may be learnt from the parable of Dives and Lazarus ; and as he interprets the words, " Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing," to mean that " small offences must be expiated by delay of resurrec- tion," it is probable that he looked on the punishments as, at any rate, to some extent purgatorial. 1 To the same period belong the Acts of the martyr Perpetua and her companions, and in one of Perpetua's visions we have what is generally taken to be an indication of a belief in something like a purgatory. Perpetua in her vision sees her brother Dinocrates, who had died early from a gangrene in the face, in a dark place, hot and thirsty, dirty and pale, with the wound still in his face. He is trying in vain to get at the 1 Be Anima, c. lviii. : "In summa, cum carcerera ilium, quern evangelium demonstrat, inferos intellegimus, et novissimum quadrantem modicum quoque delictum mora resurrectionis illic luendum interpre- tamur, nemo dubitabit animam aliquid pensare penes inferos salva resurrectionis plenitudine per carnem quoque." Cf. c. xxxv. 544 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES water in a " piscina," the rim of which is above his head. Perpetua, grieving for her brother, prays much for him, and in a subsequent vision she sees him cleansed, well clothed, and refreshed. Only the scar remains where the wound was. The rim of the piscina is lowered to his waist ; he drinks out of a golden goblet that never fails, and departs to play after the manner of children with glee. " Then," she adds, " I understood that he was released from punishment." 1 This certainly looks very much like a belief in a purgatory, and it is so understood by Augustine. 2 But this interpretation of the vision is not unquestioned, as some take it to mean that Dinocrates had died un- baptized, and was therefore in a place of torment. 3 If, however, we admit what appears the more probable view, that it docs refer to a purgatory, a vision such as this must be allowed to be a very precarious ground on which to base the doctrine. The third passage is in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (200), where, in speaking of Hades, he says that " the punishments of God are saving and reformatory, and lead to repentance." 4 Beyond these it is thought that no passage can fairly be quoted as implying a belief in a purgatory between death and judgment till we come to the fourth century. For though Origen undoubtedly believed in temporary chastisements after death, and in a cleansing by fire,, yet this does not seem to have been placed by him before the judgment. Bather, it is the judgment, through which men have to pass, and by which those in need of 1 Passio S. Perpetuoc, cs. vii. viii. 2 DcAnimaad Penatum, I. x. 3 It is so taken by Prof. J. Armitage Robinson, Texts and Studies, I. p. 29. 4 Stromateis, VI. c. vi. § 46 : eirel aoorripioi kcli TrcudevrtKal at Ko\dcreis rod Qeou els iiuaTpcHpty dyovaai. ARTICLE XXII 545 purification are at once both chastened and healed. 1 But there can be no doubt, (1) that the whole Church from the very first practised and encouraged prayers for the departed ; and (2) that the judgment day was commonly regarded as a fiery ordeal, such as that spoken of by S. Paul in 1 Cor. iii. 13, through which all would have to pass, some passing through the fire unharmed, others suffering loss, but none failing who were built on the right foundation. This, however, is very different from purgatory. Not only is it placed at the judgment, whereas the purgatorial fire is regarded as cleansing those subjected to it before the final award is made at the judgment day, but, further, it is an ordeal through which all, the greatest saints and the greatest sinners, will have to pass, while purgatory is not for the saints, who are supposed to pass straight to the beatific vision, nor for those who die out of a state of grace, whose final condemnation is assured, but only for those who die in grace, but in a state of imperfect sanctification. Nor does prayer for the departed by any means involve of necessity a belief in purgatory. Indeed, many of the prayers of the early Christians are quite inconsistent with it, for they include petitions for the Blessed Virgin and other great saints, whom no one would venture to maintain were in purgatory. Passing on to the fourth century we still find but few traces of a belief in the doctrine in question, nor is there anything authoritative laid down concerning it. Indeed, the hesitating and varying language employed by S. Augustine early in the fifth century shows clearly that he did not regard it as a formal doctrine of the Church, but only at best as a " pious opinion." Thus in his Encheiridion, published in 416, he speaks of it as "not 1 See Bp. Westcott in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iv. p. 138. 546 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES incredible." 1 But in his great work, De Civitate Dei, issued a few years later (426), he speaks more strongly in favour of it, though even here his language is not altogether consistent. In Book xxi. c. xiii., after speaking of the opinion of some who " would have all punishments after death to be purgatorial," he says definitely that " temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then ; but all of them before the last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment ; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal judgment of the world to come." 2 But after speaking thus positively he elsewhere utters a note of hesitation on the subject, for in c. xxvi. of the same book he writes as follows : " If it be said that in the interval of time between the death of this body and that last day of judgment and retribution which shall follow the resurrection, the spirits of the dead shall be exposed to a fire of such a nature that it shall not affect those who have not in this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall be consumed like wood, hay, stubble, but shall affect those others who have carried with them structures of that kind — if it be said that such worldliness, being venial, shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation here 1 Encheiridion ad Laurent, c. Ixix. 2 "Sed temporarias pcenas alii in hac vita tantum, alii post mortem, alii et nunc et tunc, verumtamen ante judicium illud severissimum novis- simumque patiuntur. Non autem omnes veniunt in sempiternas poenas, qure post illud judicium sunt future, qui post mortem sustinent temporales. Nam quibusdam, quodin isto non remittitur, remitti in futuro sseculo, id est, ne futuri saeculi seterno supplicio puniantur, jam supra diximus." — De Civitate Dei, XXI. c. xiii. ARTICLE XXII 547 only, or here and hereafter both, or here that it may not be hereafter, I do not argue against it, for perhaps it is true." 1 Plainly there was no formal doctrine of the Church on the subject when a Father of the weight and learning of Augustine could write in this way ; and not till a century and a half after his death do we find anything approaching to an assertion with any claim to authority. At the close of the sixth century Gregory the Great, in his " Dialogues," lays down distinctly that " a purgatorial fire before the judgment for lighter faults is to be believed." 2 But even so this is only a passing statement by a single writer, however great his authority, and it would seem that there is nothing which can be regarded as in any way a judgment of the Church upon the subject till we come to the Council of Florence in 1439. At this Council the representatives of the Greeks were persuaded to admit that " the middle sort of souls were in a place of torment, but whether that were fire or darkness and tempest, or something else, they would not contend," 3 and accordingly, when the decree of union was drawn up, it was asserted in it that " if such as be truly penitent die in the grace of God before they have made satisfaction for their sins by 1 "Post istius sane corporis mortem, donee ad ilium veniatur, qui post resurrectionem corporum futurus est damnationis et remunerationis ultimus dies, si hoc temporis intervallo spiritus defunctorum ejusmodi ignem dicuntur perpeti, quern non sentiant illi qui non liabuerunt tales mores et amores in hujus corporis vita, ut eorum ligna, fcenum, stipula consumatur, alii vero sentiant qui ejusmodi secum redificia portaverunt, sive ibi tantum, sive et hie et ibi, sive ideo hie ut non ibi, ssecularia, quam- vis a damnatione yenalia, concremantem ignem transitoriaa tribulationis inveniant, non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est." — Op. cit. c. xxvi. 2 " Sed tamen de quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante judicium purga- torius ignis credendus est. Sed tamen hoc de parvis minimisque peccatis fieri posse credendum est ; sicut est assiduus otiosus sernio, immoderatus risus," etc.— Dial. IV. c. xxxix. 3 "At 8$ pAcai virdpxovai p.ev iv ^acraviaTtjpio} kclI eire wvp early, e'ire jo0os i> . . . Kai TaiWats denraa/xdv Kai Ttfxrp-iKijv TrpoaKvvrjaiw d7roveij.eiv ov fii)v tt\v Kara irio~Tiv r\ixQ}v d\y&tvi]v Xarpetav, ?) irpevei fxbvrj Trj dcla ei. — Labbe and Cossart, vol. iv. p. 456. The translation given above is in Milnian's Latin Christianity, vol. ii. p. 391. 560 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES opponents. From this time forward we hear but little of any opposition to image worship, 1 and the practice was generally accepted without question in both East 2 and West, until S. Thomas Aquinas lays down definitely 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 adora- tion of latria " ; and again, " the Cross is adored with the same adoration as Christ, that is, with the adoration of latria, and for that reason we address and supplicate the Cross just as we do the Crucified Himself." 3 In accord- ance with this we find in the Roman Missal an office for the adoration of the Cross on Good Friday, in which full directions are given for the adoration of the Cross, and an antiphon is sung, beginning, " Crucem tuam adoramus 1 The Council of Frankfort (794), however, rejected the second Council of Nicaea, and the Caroline books absolutely condemned any adoration or worship of images. See Palmer, Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 153 seq. 2 The Eastern Church, it should be mentioned, while it encourages the veneration of pictures, does not admit sculptured or hewn images. The "icons" of the East are really pictures. For the Greek teaching on the subject see Winer, Cmfcssions of Christendom, p. 76. One quotation may suffice here. 'H/tet? orav Ti/xQfxev ras eUbvas /ecu rets wpocrKwov/jLeu, 8ev irpoaKwodfiev ra xpufxara. ?) ra i~v\a. fxa tous dyiovs €Keivovs, tusv biroiwv eivat. ai eUoves, So^d^o/xeu /xe ir po 6vra rod Geou TTpoaKwov/JLev, rovs 5£ fidprvpas ws fj.a,d-r]Ta.$ /cat ^tUT/rds rod Kvplov ayairu>fiev d£tws £ve/cev evvoias ai>virepfi\rp-ov ttjs eis rbv tdiov ^aaCKia /cat 5t5dcr/ca\oj\ — Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part II. vol. ii. § ii. p. 979. 564 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES something stronger is adduced by our opponents, we may safely rest satisfied that nothing stronger can be found. III. The Invocation of Saints. Once more we must consider separately (a) the history of the practice, and (b) the Scriptural argument con- cerning it. (a) The history of the practice. — In tracing out the growth of the custom of invoking the saints at rest, it will be well to start from the fact that the early Church undoubtedly believed that they were still engaged in interceding for those whose warfare was not yet accom- plished, 1 and very generally prayed to God to be bene- fited by a share in the prayers of the saints. 2 But there can also be no doubt that the early Christians did not think it right directly to ask the saints to use those intercessions, in whose efficacy she yet believed. The only writer during the first three centuries who has been quoted in favour of direct invocation is Origen (220), and it seems almost certain that in the passage in question he is really referring, not to the saints at rest, but to those still on earth. His words are these : " It is not improper to offer supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving to saints : and two of these — I mean inter- cession and thanksgiving — not only to saints, • but to mere men ; but supplication to saints only, if any Peter or Paul can be found, that they may help us : making us worthy to enjoy the licence which was granted them of forgiving sins." 3 This passage, says Dean Luckock, 1 See Origen, In Jem Nave, Horn. xvi. c. 5 ; In Cant., Lib. iii. ; Ep. ad Rom., Comment, ii. 4; Cyprian, Ep. lx. ; De Mortalitate, ad fin. etc. ; and cf. Luckock, After Death, part II. c. i. 2 Such prayers are found in all the ancient Liturgies, in which there is no direct invocation of the saints themselves. 3 Atrjaiv fikv olv koX tvrev^iv /ecu evx^p^rlav ovk 8.toitov nal aylois irpoa- ARTICLE XXII 565 " seems to have been quite unjustly claimed in favour of addressing petitions to departed saints. It is next to certain, as the whole context shows, that he had in his mind none but living saints." 1 And this explanation is confirmed by words which he uses elsewhere, saying of the " ten thousand sacred powers " which men " have on their side when they pray to God," that uninvoked (a/cX^Tot), these pray with them and bring help to our perishable race, and, if I may so speak, take up arms alongside of it." 2 It is, then, only in the latter part of the fourth century that the evidence for direct invocation really begins. 3 The Fathers of this age who have been cited in favour of the practice are these : in the East, S. Basil the Great (370), Gregory Nazianzen (370) and Gregory ISTyssen (370), Ephraem the Syrian (370) and S. Chrysostom (390). In the West, S. Ambrose (380) and S. Augustine (400). Their testimony has been carefully examined by Dean Luckock in his volume After Death, and the conclusion at which he arrives is that " S. Chrysostom's contradictions are such as to invalidate his evidence, that S. Gregory Xazianzen speaks doubtfully, that S. Ambrose, in the little which he has said upon the subject, is inconsistent with himself; but that the testimony of SS. Basil, Gregory Xyssen, Ephraem, and Augustine remains so far unshaken." 4 Some of the evey<€tv dXXd rd fiev 5vo, Xtyw 5r) evrev^iv kcu evxa-picrrLav ot> fxdvov ayiois d\\d 57; nal dvdpuirois, ttjv 5£ derjcnv /xovov ayiois, et rts evpedei-rj IlaOXoj r) Uerpos 'Lv a uxpeXrjcrucnv 77/Aas d^iovs Troiovvres tov ri^etV rrjs 8edo/xtvr]S avrois efoi'o-tas irpbs rd dfiaprrifiaTa d eripuv eWoyifJLwv dvSpCov, avvev8oKt]o-do-T)s tt)s eKKXrjaias irdar^s, xal XeirovpyqcavTas afie/xTTTm tw Troi/xvly rod Xpicrrov . . . Tofirovs ov SikclIus vojxL^ojj.€v a7ropaXXc), may fairly be applied to the case of " evil ministers " in the Christian Church. When the Twelve were sent forth two and two, and given " power against unclean spirits to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease," the ministry of Judas must have been effectual like that of the rest of the Apostles, or suspicion would have been directed towards him. Again, our Lord lays down the rule with regard to " the Seventy " which must apply to Christian ministers also : " He that heareth you heareth Me ; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth Me ; and he that rejecteth Me, rejecteth Him that sent Me " (S. Luke x. 16); and S. Paul teaches that the minister is nothing. " What then is Apollos ? and what is Paul ? ministers through whom ye believed ; and each as the Lord gave to him. I planted, Apollos watered ; but God gave the increase " (1 Cor. iii. 5,6). Such passages when fairly considered seem sufficient to establish the position taken up in the Article, and to lead us to believe that even in an extreme case, when the eYil have chief authority in the ministration of 1 The doctrine of "Intention" is noticed in connection with the question of the validity of Anglican Orders in the Commentary on Article XXXVI. See below, p. 755. ARTICLE XXVI 619 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. At the same time, important as it is that this principle should be established, it is no less necessary that the Church should guard herself with the utmost care from any suspicion of indifference to the character of the lives of her ministers, whom she charges before their ordina- tion to the priesthood to " endeavour themselves to sanctify their lives, and to fashion them after the rule and doctrine of Christ, that they may be wholesome and godly examples and patterns for the people to follow " ; and, therefore, it is well that the statement already considered should be followed by that in the last para- graph of the Article, which must commend itself to everyone, and seems to require no formal proof. 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. ARTICLE XXVII De Baptismo. 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 baptismuni suscipientes, ecclesiae inseruntur, promissiones de remissione pecca- torum atque adoptione nostra in filios Dei, per Spiritum sanctum visibiliter obsignantur, fides con- firmatur, et vi divinse invocationis, gratia augetur. Baptismus parvulorum omnino in ecclesia retinendus est, ut qui cum Christi institutione optime con- gruat. Of Baptism. Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are dis- cerned from other that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an 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. This Article dates from 1553; but in the revision of Elizabeth's reign, ten years later, the last paragraph was rewritten, and the language on Infant Baptism was con- siderably strengthened. The earlier clause had simply stated that " the custom of the Church to christen young children is to be commended, and in any wise to be retained in the Church." 1 The language of the Article 1 It should be mentioned that though the words "per Spiritum Sanctum" stand in the Latin edition of 1553, there is nothing to corre- spond to them in the English. The omission was rectified in the English edition of Jugge and Cawood in 1563. 620 ARTICLE XXVII 621 has not been traced to any earlier source. There is nothing in the Confession of Augsburg 1 or in the Thir- teen Articles of 1538 suggesting its phraseology; nor is there any resemblance between its language and that of the Reformatio Leyum Ecclesiasticarum on the same subject. 2 The object of the Article is to state the Church's teaching on Holy Baptism, in view of the errors of the Anabaptists, who (1) maintained an utterly unspiritual view of the sacrament, and (2) denied that Baptism oucrht to be administered to infants and voiing children. 3 There are two main subjects which come before us for consideration — (1) The description of Baptism and its effects. (2) Infant Baptism. I. The Description of Baptism and its Effects. Each phrase in the description requires separate con- sideration. (a) Baptism is ... a sign of profession. So much was admitted by Zwingli and the Anabaptists, who regarded Baptism as little more than this. The expression used in the Article may be illustrated by the language of the closing exhortation in the Office for the Public Baptism of Infants in the Book of Common Prayer, where it is said that " Baptism doth represent unto us our profession ; which 1 The Article in the Confession of Augsburg (IX.) is this : <; De Bap- tismo docent, quod sit necessarius ad salutem, quodque per baptismum offeratur gratia Dei ; et quod pueri sint baptizandi, qui per baptismum oblati Deo recipiantur in gratiam Dei. Damnant Anabaptistas, qui im- probant baptismum puerorum, et affirmant pueros sine baptismo salvos fieri." a Ref. Legum Ecclcsiast., De Sacra mentis, cap. 3. 3 This, together with other errors on Baptism, is condemned in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. De Exres. cap. 18 ; and cf. Hermann's "Consultation," fol. cxlii. 622 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES is to follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and to be made like unto Him : that as He died and rose again for us, so should we who are baptized, die from sin and rise again unto righteousness ; continually mortifying all our evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living." 1 This view of Bap- tism is based directly on the language of S. Paul in Eom. vi. 4, " We were buried with Him through baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life " (cf. also Col. ii. 12, "Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead "). (b) It is a mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened (a non Christianis). Just as circumcision was a mark distinguishing the Jews from all others, so also Baptism distinguishes Christians from non-Christians. It is the initial rite by which a man is, so to speak, made a Christian. But Baptism is much more than this. It it is to be regarded not only as a badge or mark, for, 1 Cf. also the Collect for Easter Even (1662), "Grant, 0 Lord, that as we are baptized into the death of thy blessed Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, so by continually mortifying our corrupt affections we may be buried with him ; and that through the grave and gate of death we may pass to our joyful resurrection ; for His merits," etc. Expression is also given to the same thought in the Reformatio Legurn Ecclesiast., De Sacramentis, cap. 3 : "Dumautem in aqua demergimur et rursus ex ilia emergimus, Christi mors nobis primum et sepultura commendantur, deinde suscitatio quidem illius, et reditus ad vitam," etc. See also Bishop Lightfoot on Col. ii. 12: "Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins ; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. . . . Thus Baptism is an image of his participation both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ." It is obvious how much the dramatic impressiveness of Baptism and its representative force is increased where immersion is the method employed. ARTICLE XXVII 623 (t) It is also a sign of regeneration or new birth. Here it must be remembered that sacraments have been already defined in Article XXV. as " effectual signs of grace," and therefore, since " Regeneration " is the word which the Church has ever used to describe the grace of Baptism, and to sum up the blessings conveyed in it, we must interpret " sign " in this clause as an effectual sign ; and thus the whole expression will mean that in Baptism the blessings of regeneration are not only represented, but are also conveyed to the recipient. The word Regeneration is expanded in the Church Catechism into " a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness," and explained in the following words : " For being by nature born in sin and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace." It has been selected by the Church, not only because of its use by S. Paul, who speaks in Titus iii. 5 of a " laver of regeneration " {\ompov iraktrfyevea-uK), 1 in a connection in which it can only refer to Baptism, but also because, previously to this, expression had been given to the thought of a " new birth " as requisite by our Lord Himself in His conversation with Nicodemus, where, after saying, " Except a man be born anew (or from above, avwOev) he cannot see the kingdom of God," 2 He explains His words by adding the statement that a man must be 1 The only other passage in the New Testament in which the word TraXiyyej/eo-ia occurs is S. Matt. xix. 28, where it has no reference to Baptism. - Thus among the Greek Fathers dvay4w^ais occurs from the days of Justin Martyr onwards {Apol. I. lxi. : "Eretra Ayovrai va7raf). And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins : but He, when He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, 1 sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth ex- pecting till His enemies be made the footstool of His feet. For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." These passages are absolutely conclusive as to the perfection of the sacrifice once offered on Calvary. The language of the Article is entirely covered by them, and exception to this first clause in it could hardly be taken by any well-instructed Theologian. But if so much is admitted, an important consequence follows, for the words are entirely destructive of any notion that in the Eucharist there can be any sacrifice suppletory or additional to the sacrifice made " once for all " on the Cross. They prove, therefore, that (to borrow the words of a most careful Theologian) " the Eucharistic sacrifice, even in its highest aspect, must be put in one line (if we may so say), not with what Christ did once for all on the 1 On the punctuation of these words, see Bp. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 314. ARTICLE XXXI 691 Cross, but with what He is continually doing in heaven ; that as present naturally in heaven and sacramentally in the Holy Eucharist, the Lamb of God exhibits Himself to the Father and pleads the Atonement as once finished in act, but ever living in operation ; that in neither case does He repeat it or add to it." 1 But since the Article is not concerned with the state- ment of the true doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which has been called " commemorative, impetrative, applicative," 2 the subject need not be further considered here. We may therefore pass at once to the second part of the Article. II. The Condemnatio7i of " the Sacrifices of Masses" The sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said (vulgo dicebatur) that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blas- phemous fables, and dangerous deceits (blasphema figmenta sunt, et perniciosae importunae). Public attention has been recently directed to this statement, and an altogether unreasonable amount of importance has been attached to it in connection with controversies on the validity of Anglican Orders. A desperate attempt has been made in some quarters to represent it as a denial of the Eucharistic sacrifice, whereas the terms in which it is drawn ought to have made it clear to every reader that this could never have been its object. Had it been the intention of its com- pilers broadly to deny this doctrine, nothing would have been easier than for them to use words which would have conveyed their meaning without any ambiguity. 1 Bright's Ancient Collects, p. 144, note. 2 Archbp. Bramhall, Works (Anglo- Catholic Library), vol. i. p. 54. 692 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES As a matter of fact, however, it is not even " the sacrifice of the Mass " which is condemned, but the sacrifices of Masses (missarum sacrificia), and in connection with them a current theory (" in which it was commonly said," quibus vulgo dicebatur) rather than a formal state- ment of doctrine. What those who are responsible for the Article had before them was the whole system of private Masses, and the " opinion " which gave such disastrous encourage- ment to them (besides being the fruitful parent of other superstitions), that " Christ satisfied by His Passion for original sin, and instituted the Mass, in which might be made an oblation for daily sins, both mortal and veniaL" 1 Whether this dreadful perversion of the truth was ever authoritatively taught or seriously maintained by Theolo- gians of repute is not the question, though it has been attributed to more than one. 2 The words just cited from the Confession of Augsburg are fair evidence that the error was sufficiently widely spread to demand notice ; 3 and it alone will account for the emphasis 1 1 1 Accessit opinio quse auxit privates missas in infinitum, videlicet quod Christus sua passione satisfecerit pro peccato originis, et instituerit missam, in qua fieret oblatio pro quotidianis delictis, mortalibus et venialibus." — Conf. August. Pars II. art. iii. De missa. Sylloge Con- fessionum, p. 139. 2 E.g. a Spanish Theologian, Vasquez (1551-1604), attributes it to Catharinus, one of the Tridentine divines ; and, as was pointed out in the first volume of this work, p. 149, the error is contained in a series of sermons attributed to Albertus Magnus. It has been replied that Catharinus has been misrepresented (see the Tablet for 1895, referred to in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xlii. p. 41) ; and it now appears that the sermons De S. Eucharistice Sacramento are not the work of Albertus Magnus (see the references as above, and Vacant, Histoire de la Conception du Sacrifice de la Messe, p. 40). The authorship, however, of the sermons matters little. There they are ; and nothing could be plainer than their language on the subject, as quoted in vol. i. p. 149. It conveys proof positive that the error was taught ; and that is sufficient. 3 Cf. Gardiner's language, which can only have been called out by existing false teaching : 1 ' For when men add unto the Mass an opinion ARTICLE XXXI 693 which is laid twice over 1 in the Articles on the fact that the death of Christ is the perfect satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual. The Tridentine decrees upholding private Masses, and laying down that the sacrifice of the Mass is " truly propitiatory (vere propitiatorium) both for the living and the dead," 2 were certainly not present to the minds of of satisfaction or of a new redemption, then do they put it to another use than it was ordained for." — Dixon, vol. iii. p. 264 ; and cf. Latimer's Sermons, pp. 72, 73 (Parker Soc.) ; and the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiast., Be Harm. c. 10: " Quapropter alia conquirunt sacrificia, quibus per- purgari possint, et ad banc rem missas exhibent in quibus sacrificium Deo Patri credunt oblatum esse." 1 Cf. Article II. 2 Cone. Trident. Sess. xxii. cap. ii. : On these decrees see Mozley, Lectures and other Tlieological Papers, p. 216: "The popular belief of later times exaggerated the Eueharistic sacrifice till it became, to all intents and purposes, a real one, and ' the priest offered up Christ on the altar for quick and dead, to have remission of pain and guilt ' ; that is to say, offered Him up as a Victim in a sense which could not be dis- tinguished from that in which He was offered up by Himself on the Cross. It is true that the decree of the Council of Trent just saves itself by cautious, not to say dissembling language, from the extreme and monstrous conclusion that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same with that upon the Cross. It distinguishes between a bloody and an unbloody oblation ; and it states that the fruits or consequences of the bloody oblation or the sacrifice on the Cross are 1 received through the unbloody one ' (oblationis cruentae fructus per hanc incruentam percipiuntur) ; but at the same time it asserts that the sacrifice of the Mass is a really propitiatory sacrifice — vere propitiatorium. Now undoubtedly there are two senses in which an act may be said to be propitiatory. The act of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross had an original propitiatory power ; that is to say, it was the cause of any other act, or any act of man, or any rite being propitiatory, that is, appeasing God's anger, and reconciling Him to the agent. We may allow that in common language a man may do something which will reconcile God to Him, and restore him to God's favour ; but then all the power that any action of man can have for this end is a derived power, derived from Christ's sacrifice, from which any other sacrifice, the Eueharistic one included, borrows its virtue, and without which it would be wholly null and void. There is, then, an original propitiation and a borrowed propitiation, a first propitiation and a secondary one. Why then did the Fathers of Trent, when they had 45 694 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES those who formulated the Article, for they were not in existence, as the subject was only considered at Trent in the autumn of 1562, nearly ten years later. And it has been recently pointed out that these decrees are " the beginning, not the end, of a discussion which has been going on ever since," for " it is remarkable how little attempt there is in the Middle Ages to formulate the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and how little theological interest is spent upon it." 1 It was the popular teaching alone which the Eeformers had before them ; and no one who knows anything of the history of the Eeformation can doubt that the gravest abuses were connected with the whole system of private Masses, and that its " practical outcome . . . was to intensify the belief that Christ's once perfected oblation had to be reiterated and supplemented." 2 The system had fallen, swept away by the Acts for the suppression of Chantries passed in 1545 and 1547. It only remained to guard against any revival of the erroneous teaching on which it largely rested, and this was effectually done by the promulgation of the Article which has now been con- sidered. all human language at their command, deliberately choose to call the sacrifice of the Mass vere propitiatorium ? They may have said that it was vere propitiatorium in the secondary sense ; but no one can fail to see the misleading effect of such language, and that nothing could have been easier to the divines of Trent, had they chosen, than to draw a far more clear distinction than they did between the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice on the Cross. It is evident that, as ecclesiastical statesmen, they were afraid of interfering with the broad popular established view of the Mass, while, as theologians, they just contrived to secure themselves from the responsibility of a monstrous dogmatic statement." 1 F. E. Brightman in Church Historical Society Lectures, Series i. pp. 193, 194. 2 Church Quarterly Review, vol. xlii. p. 45. The whole discussion of this Article in the Review (pp. 38-49) is well worth consulting. ARTICLE XXXII Be conjugio Sacerdotum. Episcopis, Presbyteris et Dia- conis, nullo mandato divino prse- ceptum est, ut aut ccelibatum voveant, aut a matrimonio abstin- eant. Licet igitur etiain ill is, ut cceteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc ad pietatem niagis facere judi- caverint, pro suo arbitratu matri- monium contrahere. Of the Marriage of Priests. 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. In its present form this Article only dates from 1563, when it was entirely rewritten by Parker. The corre- sponding Article in the series of 1553, as originally drafted, ran as follows : — " Ccelibatus ex verbo Dei prmcipitur nemini. " Episcopis, Presbyteris, et Diaconis non est man- datum ut ccelibatum voveant, neque jure divino coguntur matrimonio abstinere, si donum non habeant, tametsi voverint, quandoquidem hoc voti genus verbo Dei repugnat." It is found in this form in the MS. signed by the six royal chaplains ; but before publication the last clause (placed above in italics), with its deliberate encouragement to priests to break the vows which they had taken, was omitted, so that the Article in English was simply this : " The State of Single Life is commanded to no Man by the Word of God. " Bishops, priests, and deacons are not commanded to 695 696 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES vow the state of single life without marriage, neither by God's law are they compelled to abstain from matrimony." The language of the Article has not been traced to any earlier source, though there is a very lengthy Article on the same subject headed like our own, " De conjugio Sacerdotum," in the Confession of Augsburg ; 1 and the prohibition of matrimony to the clergy is condemned as a suggestion of the devil in the Reformatio Legum Eccle- siasticarum. 2 There are two main statements in the Article, each of which requires separate treatment. 1. There is no prohibition of the marriage of the clergy in Scripture. 2. It is lawful for the clergy to marry if they think it advisable. I. There is no Prohibition of the Marriage of the Clergy in Scripture. Bishops, priests, and deacons are not com- manded by God's law, either to yow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage. This subject admits of the briefest treatment, for the statement made in the Article will scarcely be denied by the most ardent advocate of the rule of clerical celibacy ; nor has the Eoman Church ever committed herself to the assertion that it is more than an ecclesiastical law. There is certainly no single passage of Holy Scripture which can be cited as containing any command to the clergy either to " yow the estate of single life," or to " abstain from marriage." On the contrary, the injunctions of S. Paul distinctly contemplate the ordina- tion of married men, and contain no hint that they are 1 Confessio Augustana, Pars II. art. ii. 2 Bef. Legum Ecclesiast., De Hares, c. 20. ARTICLE XXXII 697 expected to abstain from the use of marriage : " The bishop must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded," etc. (1 Tim. iii. 2). " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest . . . appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge : if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe," etc. (Titus i. 5, 6). "Let the deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well " (1 Tim. iii. 12). So elsewhere he claims for himself " the right " — although he was content to forego the exercise of it — " to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas" (1 Cor. ix. 5). These texts are conclusive. There is plainly nothing unscrip- tural in the existence of a married clergy ; and we may pass on to the consideration of the next subject. II. It is lawful for the Clergy to marry if they think it advisable. It is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discre- tion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness. For the existence in early days of a married clergy there is abundant evidence. But in considering it, two distinct questions present themselves which require separate treatment, (a) Was the use of marriage per- mitted to those clergy who had married before their ordination ? and (b) was marriage after ordination per- missible ? The two questions must be examined separ- ately ; for it is not fair to quote, as is sometimes done, passages which imply the existence of a married clergy, as if they necessarily involved the fact that marriage was per- mitted to those who had previously entered into holy orders. 698 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (a) There is no room whatever for doubting that during the first three centuries the use of marriage was freely allowed, and many allusions to the existence of a married clergy might be cited. E.g. Clement of Alex- andria says that S. Paul certainly admits the husband of one wife, " whether he be presbyter, or deacon, or lay- man, using marriage blamelessly " ; 1 and the sixth of the " Apostolical Canons " forbid bishops, presbyters, and deacons to separate from their wives upon the pretext of piety, on pain of excommunication and deposition. 2 In the fourth century, for the first time, we find objection to this raised in the West, especially in Spain, which has throughout taken the lead in advocating strictness. Thus, at the Council of Elvira, at which Hosius was present (a.d. 306), the clergy were positively forbidden to live in wedlock with their wives. 3 A canon enforcing the same prohibition was pressed (not improbably by Hosius himself) on the Council of Nicsea (325) for its acceptance as a rule of the universal Church. It was, however, rejected at the earnest entreaty of the Bishop Paphnutius, himself an unmarried man, and the stricter rule has never received the sanction of the whole Church. 4 In spite of this, we trace a growing feeling in various quarters against the ministrations of a married clergy. The Council of Gangra (350) endeavoured to check it by condemning those who held aloof from the ministra- tions of such. 5 But in the West the feeling made rapid progress, and before the close of the fourth century 1 NaJ [XTjv Kal rbv rrjs puas yvvat-Kbs dvdpa irdvv a.Trod^x €TaL K & v irpecrfSfrrepos rj kclv dio.Kovos K.av XaiKos dveTriXrjirTOJs ydfi^ xpw/iepos. — Stromateis, III. xii. 90. 2 Apost. Can. vi. : 'Uttlckottos ?*) Trpeo-fivrepos ?} diaKovos tt)v eavrov yvvalKa fir] e/c/SaXXerw irpo(pdo'ei ev\a(3elas' 4dv 5e iKfidWrj, dj, 6v€lSL? TTpecrPvTepovs) by the hand of Barnabas and Saul." This is the earliest mention of an order of ministers which we shall find appointed everywhere during the next period. Since its origin is nowhere related in the Acts (our sole authority for this period), it can only be a matter of conjecture. Possibly it was suggested to the Christian Church by the organisation of the Jewish communities, in which " the elders " occupied a recog- nised position.* 2 However this may be, the fact remains that in this first period we find something fairly corresponding to our three orders of ministers, viz. Apostles, with the oversight of the whole Church, and, 1 The reasons for maintaining that the appointment of the "seven" gives the origin of the diaconate are briefly these : (1) Although the title didicovos does not occur, yet the corresponding verb and substantive (8ia.Koveii> and 8ia.KovLa) are both used (vers. 1, 2). (2) The functions are substantially those exercised by the later deacons (cf. Lightfoot Chi Philipp. p. 186). (3) From the position of the narrative in the Acts and the emphasis laid on it by the writer, it is clear that he regarded it 1 ' not as an isolated incident, but as the establishment of a new order of things in the Church " (Lightfoot, v.bi supra). (4) Tradition is unanimous as to the identity of the two offices, and that from the earliest times. See further, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (ed. 2), vol. i. p. 739. 2 So Lightfoot On Philipp. p. 189, and cf. Gore, p. 399. But it is important to remember that, though the name was certainly borrowed from the synagogue, yet the functions of the Christian presbyters, as found in the writings of the New Testament and the earliest Fathers, mark out the office as really a new one of a spiritual character. For these functions see 1 Pet. v. 2 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 17 ; Titus i. 9 : S. James v. li ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. xliv. 734 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES locally, elders and deacons. Indeed, we may go a step further, and maintain that something approaching to the local Episcopate already obtained in Jerusalem ; for the message of S. Peter after his release from prison, when read in the light of later notices, is highly significant, " Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren " (Acts xii. 17). Why "unto James'"? The only explanation is that he already occupied the position which we find him holding at a later period, of president of the local Church (see Acts xv. 13-21, xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 9, 12), or, as the tradition of the Church has ever regarded him, first bishop of J erusalem. (ii.) The second period is that of the organisation and extension of the Church. In it the prominent figure is the Apostle Paul, whose missionary labours formed the main instrument for planting the Church in various regions. The period is perhaps best closed, not by the Apostle's death, but by the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. Our authorities for it are the narrative in Acts xiii.-xxviii. and the apostolic Epistles. In it we trace the extension of the different orders of ministers as new Churches are founded. For the diaconate we have the evidence of the Epistle to the Philippians (a.d. 60), which shows us two orders of resident ministers existing at Philippi, kiriGKoiroi ical hcdtcovoi (c. i. ver. 1). Still earlier (during S. Paul's second missionary journey), Rom. xvi. 1 shows us a woman deacon at Cenchrea? ; and at a later period, after the Apostle's first imprisonment, 1 Tim. iii. 8 seq., bears evidence of the extension of this order to the Church of Ephesus, though it is interesting to note that in the almost contemporary Epistle to Titus there is no mention of BidtcovoL It may, perhaps, be inferred from this that they were only appointed as the work grew, and the need for them was felt. In Ephesus, a Church which ARTICLE XXXVI 735 had existed for some years (cf. Acts xx. 17), they were required. In the newly-founded Church in Crete the necessity for their help would not exist. For the second order of the ministry as well the evidence during this period is full and complete. A representative passage is Acts xiv. 23: "When they had appointed for them elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed." This refers to S. Paul's first missionary journey, but it clearly indicates a custom which he followed everywhere. Only, having once stated it, S. Luke does not concern himself with recording it in other cases. In view, however, of such passages as Acts xv. 6 (Jerusalem), xx. 17 (Ephesus), Titus i. 5 (Crete), S. James v. 14, 1 Pet. v. 1, we are justified in assum- ing the existence of Trpeaftvrepoi everywhere as a permanent feature of ecclesiastical organisation, and Acts xx. 17 compared with ver. 28 ("he called to him the elders of the Church the flock in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, eTrlcrKOTroi), and Titus i. 5, 7 ("appoint elders in every city ... if any man is blameless . . . for the bishop, iirLcncoTros, must be blameless "), enable us to identify the irpea^vrepoi with the eiriaicoiTOL, whom we find mentioned, evidently as resident officers of the Church, in Phil. i. 1 and 1 Tim. iii l. 1 1 There has recently been a tendency in .some quarters to deny this identity, and maintain that the offices were distinct (So Reville, Les Origines de V Episcopat), but on quite insufficient grounds. It has not been thought necessary to enter into the questions which have been raised of late years with regard to the origin of the name iiriffKOTros, and the original character of the office, because throughout this work the genuine- ness of the whole of the New Testament is assumed, and if we admit as genuine the First Epistle of S. Peter, and the Pastoral Epistles, together with the discourse to the Ephesian ciders in Acts xx., it appears to me simply impossible to deny that (whatever may have suggested the name, which is really of a very general and indefinite character) the office was 736 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES With regard to the first order of the ministry, it is evident that a general superintendence of the affairs of the Church was exercised by the Apostles themselves. S. Paul " went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches" (Acts xv. 41). The "apostles and elders" were gathered together to consider the question of circumcision (Acts xv. 6). Letters of apostolic counsel and direction are written by them with superior authority, and by their hands ministers are set apart. But as the years passed Churches multiplied, and the original company of the Apostles became fewer in number, it became necessary to make provision for the future. Con- sequently, towards the close of this period we meet with men like Timothy and Titus exercising apostolic powers, commissioned to take the general oversight of Churches, to " set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint elders in every city " (Titus i. 5 ; cf. 1 Tim. i. 3). These men are plainly superior to the eirlcncoiToi or TrpeafivTepoi over whom they exercise authority, and they are empowered to ordain others, whereas we never read of any such power being given to the elders. 1 But it would seem to be inaccurate to speak of Timothy and Titus as bishops of Ephesus and Crete, for in each case the Apostle directs them to return to him when they have accomplished the work for which he left them in these places (see 2 Tim. iv. 9 ; Titus iii. 12, with which cf. 2 Tim. iv. 10, which shows that after Titus rejoined a spiritual one from the first. The use of the name in 1 Pet. ii. 25, as applied to Christ, "the shepherd and bishop of your souls," is surely decisive as to this. On the theories in question reference may be made to Gore, as above. 1 It is instructive to compare the address to the Ephesian elders in Acts xx. with the apostolic charges to Timothy in the two Epistles addressed to him. While to Timothy is given the power to ordain others, together with instructions concerning the qualifications of those on whom he shall " lay hands," there is no indication in the address to the elders that any such power had been intrusted to them. ARTICLE XXXVI 737 the Apostle, instead of returning to Crete he was sent elsewhere, to Dalmatia). All that can be claimed for them is a " moveable Episcopate "; 1 nor need we at this earl} T period expect to find more. Time was required for the full ecclesiastical system to grow up into its present form ; and the diocesan system, with its territorial bishops with definite regions assigned to each, was a later growth. In the period now under consideration we find no trace of it outside Jerusalem, where, as we have seen, it existed from the beginning. But the order of bishops as chief ministers of the Church may be distinctly traced to the Apostles. Men like Timothy and Titus form the link between the later regionary bishops and the Apostles themselves. It is probable also that with them we should include the " prophets " of the New Testa- ment as exercising similar powers, for not only are they mentioned in various places as occupying positions of importance, and sometimes joined very closely with the Apostles (see Acts xi. 27, xiii. 1, xv. 32, xxi. 10 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11) ; but also in the Athaxh TOiv Ba)SeKa a7ro(TT6\o)i', while the iirio-KOTTOL teal SidtcovoL are the two orders of resident ministers (exactly as in the New Testament), dirooioXoi koX irpo^Tai appear as itinerant ministers, exercising a general superintend- ence, and superseding the local officers from time to time. We may, then, sum up the results of our investiga- tions so far. At the close of the second period two orders of resident ministers (eViWo7rot or irpea^vrepoi and hicLKovoi) are found in fully organised Churches ; and superior to them are Apostles and apostolic men, who visit their Churches from time to time, set in order things that are wanting, and appoint local officers as they are needed. But so far the precedent set at 1 The phrase is due to Bishop Lightfoot. 738 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Jerusalem has not been followed elsewhere, and beyond this Church the diocesan system is not yet in existence. (hi.) The third period lasts from the fall of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) to the close of the century and the death of the last surviving Apostle, S. John (a.d. 100). For this period our authorities are much less full than for the period immediately preceding it. But sufficient remains to enable us without any hesitation to assign to this time the change from the general to the local ministry, with the introduction of an approximation to the diocesan system, if not everywhere, at least in some of the Gentile Churches ; and since the change falls in the lifetime of S. J ohn, there can be no doubt that it was made under his guiding influence. The proof that the change was made during these years may be put in this way. We have seen that in a.d. 70 there was no such thing as the diocesan system except in Jerusalem. At the beginning of the second century we find from the Epistles of Ignatius that this system is already in existence, and firmly planted in the Churches to which he writes. 1 This necessarily throws back its origination to the first century, and to the period subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 70. There are other slight indications which confirm this, and show us the change in progress. 2 1 Nothing can be stronger than the language of Ignatius on the position of the bishop as superior to the presbyters, and the necessity of doing nothing without him. There is scarcely one of his Epistles in which this is not insisted on. See Eph. i. ii. iv. ; Magn. ii. iii. iv. vi. vii. xiii. ; Trail, i. ii. iii. vii.; Philad. i. iii. iv. vii. viii. ; Smyrn. viii. ix. 2 No reference is made in the text to the "angels" of the seven Churches of Asia (Rev. i.-iii.), because of the uncertainty which there is concerning the meaning of the term. If the early date of the Apocalypse be accepted, it is scarcely possible to identify the "angels" with the "bishops." If, however, the later date be adopted, the objection against the identification falls to the ground. Cf. Lightfoot On Philipp. p. 197. ARTICLE XXXVI 739 (a) The AiBa^r] rcov BcoSefca airoaToXwv, which has been previously referred to, may perhaps belong to the early part of this period. 1 As has been already mentioned, it bears witness to the existence of the earlier state of things with two orders of resident ministers, kTrldKoizoi and Sid/covoi, and superior to them the airocrroXot, tcai 7rpot violation of God's ordinance. Works, vol. ix. p. 160. 746 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of Edward vi. (1549), and belong to a time when the question of Presbyterian orders had scarcely been seriously raised in this country. Had the question never been raised they might have been deemed sufficient. When, however, it had been raised, and attempts had been made by certain persons (as they were in Elizabeth's reign) to minister in the Church of England without an Episcopal commission, it was well that their right to do so should be more expressly denied, and this is what is done by the addition to the Preface of the words referred to above. Thus the Church of England, as judged by her formal documents, recognises none but Episcopal orders. But even so, it is interesting to notice how she treats the subject entirely from a practical point of view, pronouncing on it, not as an abstract theological question, but only as it concerns herself. She is not called upon to judge others. But her own position she is called upon to make clear : nor does she shrink from the responsibility. She sees that Episcopacy has been the Church's rule from the days of the Apostles. She in the providence of God has retained it, and it is her duty to hand it on without breach of continuity. It may be "charity to think well of our neighbours." It is certainly "good divinity to look well to ourselves " ; 1 and therefore she feels compelled to insist upon Episcopal ordination in every case, and can recognise no other. (b) The formula of Ordination. — Besides objecting to Episcopacy in itself, the Puritans denounced as super- stitious and ungodly the words used by the bishop in con- ferring the order of the priesthood : " Keceive the Holy Ghost [for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of 1 Archbishop Bramhall. So Thorndike "neither justifies nor con- demns " the orders of the foreign Protestants. See Haddan's Apostolical Succession, p. 168 seq. ARTICLE XXXVI 747 our hands]. 1 Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments ; in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." The words appeared to them "ridiculous and blasphemous," and they maintained that the bishop might "as well say to the sea, when it rageth and swelleth, Peace, be quiet, as say, Eeceive," etc. 2 Their objections led Eichard Hooker to consider the form very fully, and with his vindication of it we may well rest content. The main points in his defence of it are these : (1) The term " the Holy Ghost " is often used to signify the gifts of the Spirit as well as the Person of the Holy Ghost. (2) Authority and power for the ministry is a spiritual gift. (3) He, then, through whom the power is given may surely say, " Eeceive." (4) If our Lord, in ordaining, used the words (S. John xx. 22), why may not His ministers, seeing that the same power is now given ? (5) The use of the words teaches and acts as a constant reminder that, " as disposers of God's mysteries, our words, judgments, acts, and deeds are not ours, but the Holy Ghost's." 3 Of course, if it be held that no special spiritual power is given to Christ's ministers, and that they are not " sent " by Him, as He was " sent " by the Father, the words may well appear not only ridiculous, but blas- phemous. But by those who hold that such powers have been granted for the benefit of the Church, and transmitted in the line of the regular ministry, no serious 1 The words in brackets were only added in 1662. They were there- fore, as a matter of fact, not before the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign. 2 Admonition to Parliament, and "T.C." quoted in Hooker, V. lxxvii. 5. 3 Hooker, Eecl. Polity, Bk. V. c. lxxvii. 748 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES difficulty can be raised concerning the use of this par- ticular imperative form of words, although it cannot be considered as essential, since it is of comparatively late introduction into the Church, not being found in the older Pontificals and Ordination Services. 1 II. The Objections of the Romanists. The Roman objections to the validity of Anglican orders have been singularly varied ; those which at one time were most confidently relied on being at another quietly discarded in favour of fresh ones which a diligent search had been able to discover. They may be divided into two classes : (a) historical difficulties as to the succession ; and (b) alleged insufficiency of the form, and lack of " intention." Apparently at the present time the tendency is to rely exclusively on the latter. But the former have been urged with such per- sistency that it is necessary to recapitulate them here, and give a brief outline of the answer returned to them. (a) Historical difficulties as to the succession. — Shortly after the accession of Elizabeth, objections were taken by the Romanists to the legal status of the newly-consecrated bishops, partly in consequence of the fact that at Parker's consecration it had been found impossible to comply with the terms of an Act of Parliament of Henry vm/s reign, requiring a metropolitan to be consecrated by an arch- bishop and two bishops, or else by four bishops in the occupation of sees ; 2 partly because the Act of Mary's reign which repealed the Prayer Book had mentioned 1 See Martene, Be Antiquis Ecrf. Ritibus, vol. ii. p. 22 ; and cf. Maskea, Monumenta Ritualia, vol. ii. p. 231 (ed. 2). 2 25 Henr. VIII. c. 20. See the account of Bonner's objections to Horn's jurisdiction in Strype, Annals, i. p. 377 ; and cf. Denny and Lacey, Dc Hierarchies Amjlicana, p. 9. ARTICLE XXXVI 749 the Ordinal separately, whereas Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, which brought back the legal use of the Prayer Book, had not done so. 1 All such objections were, however, disposed of by Act of Parliament in 1566, 2 — an Act which is only referred to here because it has sometimes been alleged as if it involved a practical confession of the invalidity of our orders. More serious are the allegations subsequently raised, that the succes- sion of bishops really failed at the commencement of Elizabeth's reign. Shortly after her accession no fewer than ten of the twenty-seven sees were vacant by death, including Canterbury, and as fifteen bishops had been deprived, it is natural that this should appear the weakest point in the chain of our succession. Accord- ingly Eoman controversialists have strained their energies to the utmost to prove that the chain was broken, and that Parker, through whom the great majority of subse- quent English bishops have derived their orders, 3 was never validly consecrated. It is, however, a very remarkable fact that no such objection was ever heard of during his lifetime. The earliest rumour of it appears in 1604, forty-five years after Parker's consecration, and twenty-five after his death. In this year the notorious " Nag's Head fable " was set afloat by an exiled Eoman priest named Holywood, who asserted that Parker had been " consecrated " by a mock ceremony at the Nag's Head tavern. The story is so palpably ridiculous, and its falsehood so glaring, that it is now almost universally discredited, 4 and Eomans themselves have been forced to 1 Denny and Lacey, uU supra. - 8 Eliz. c. 1. 3 It must, however, be remembered that the Italian and Irish succes- sions also met in Laud, and that, therefore, the validity of our orders is not really entirely dependent on the due consecration of Parker. See Denny and Lacey, p. 6, and Appendix I. 4 Denny and Lacey, however, give instances where the story has been treated as true by recent Roman Catholic controversialists, see p. 215. 750 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES admit that; " it is so absurd on the face of it that it has led to the suspicion of Catholic theologians not being sincere in the objections they make to Anglican orders." 1 In refutation of it, it may be sufficient to point out the following facts : — (1) According to the original author of the story, it merely rested on hearsay, for Holywood asserted in 1604 that he had heard it from one Neal, one of Bonner's chaplains, who had died in 1590. (2) As Fuller quaintly puts it, " rich men do not steal." There was no possible reason for Parker to submit to such a ceremony. He was a man with a clear head, well aware of the difficulties of his position, and no possible motive can be suggested why he should have consented to be a party to such a transaction. (3) There is abundant contemporary evidence of his consecration in due form in diocesan registers, in con- temporary letters, in Machyn's Diary, in the diary of Parker himself, and in a MS. memorandum in the hand- writing of his own son. (4) The official records in the Registry of Canterbury, and MSS. given by Parker himself to Corpus Chris ti College, Cambridge, attest his consecration in due form at Lambeth (December 17, 1559) by Barlow (previously Bishop of Bath and Wells, and at that time elect to Chichester), assisted by Scory (late of Chichester), Coverdale (late of Exeter), and Hodgkins (suffragan of Bedford). 2 The lie, for it is nothing else, concerning the mock ceremony at the Nag's Head was nailed to the counter when it first appeared, and, finding that it was hopelessly 1 Estcourt, The Question of Anglican Ordinations discussed, p. 154. 2 For the full refutation of the story reference may be made to Lingard, vol. vi. note DD ; Haddan's Apostolical Succession in the Church of England, p. 180 seq. ; and Denny and Laeey, p. 211 seq. ARTICLE XXXVI 751 discredited, Roman Catholic controversialists very soon changed their ground, and in 1616 impugned the validity of Parker's consecration by raising the question whether Barlow, the principal consecrator, had ever been himself consecrated. The facts with regard to Barlow are these. He was nominated first to the see of S. Asaph in Henry vm.'s reign as early as 1536. In the same year to S. David's. In 1547 he was translated to Bath and Wells. In Mary's reign he was deprived, and at Elizabeth's accession appointed to Chichester. There are several documents which speak of his " election " and " confirmation." But the registers make no mention of his consecration ; and consequently it has been asserted that Barlow, whose views of the Episcopal office were certainly somewhat lax, had never submitted to it, and therefore was never really a bishop at all. Now, it must be noticed that even if Barlow had never been really consecrated, it would not affect the validity of Parker's consecration, and therefore of orders derived through him, because we are expressly told that all the four bishops said the words of consecration and laid their hands on Parker's head. 1 But, as a matter of fact, there is really no sort of reason for questioning Barlow's due consecration. Once more a bare summary of the argu- ment is all that can here be given. (1) The registrar during Cranmer's Episcopate has omitted eight other consecrations (which have never been doubted) out of a total of forty-five ; and the records of consecrations have been omitted or lost in other Archi- episcopates as well, in particular in Warham's just before, and Pole's just after Cranmer's. These facts show that the registers were very carelessly kept, and that there- fore no stress can be laid on the absence of the registra- tion in Barlow's case. 1 Cf. Brightman in Church Historical Society Lectures, vol. i. p. 171. 752 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (2) By law, consecration was to follow confirmation within twenty days, under penalty of praemunire. For what possible reason could Barlow have subjected him- self to the risk of incurring such a penalty ? (3) There is abundant evidence that he was regarded as a bishop by his contemporaries ; even Gardiner styles him " bishop," and his " brother of S. David's." (4) He acted in various ways which of necessity pre- suppose consecration, e.g. he sat in the House of Lords and the Upper House of Convocation, assisted at the consecration of other bishops, and administered his diocese for years without a single person demurring to his juris- diction. (5) Not the smallest doubt was thrown upon his con- secration until forty-eight years after his death (1616), when the Nag's Head fable had broken down. 1 These are the only instances in which it has been possible for the most vigilant eyes to detect any possi- bility of doubting the succession of Anglican orders ; and the attack seems only to have brought out the strength of our case. In the latest Eoman Catholic utterance this seems tacitly admitted, for all such objections, which for more than two centuries and a half had been so persistently urged, are quietly ignored. Not a word is said of them in the Papal Bull, Apostolical Curai (1896); and we may therefore hope that we have heard the last of them. There remains the second class of objections previously referred, on which the whole case against our orders appears to be based at present, viz. — (b) Alleged insufficiency of form, and lack of " inten- tion." In regard to the " form " of ordination, the grounds of complaint have varied from time to time. At one time it was asserted that Anglican orders were invalid because 1 See Denny and Lacey, p. 26 mq. ARTICLE XXXVI 753 of the disuse of the ceremony of the porreetio instrumen- torum, or delivery of the sacred vessels to all who are consecrated to the priesthood. 1 It is well known that Pope Eugenius IV., in his decree to the Armenians (1439), made the "form" of the Sacrament of Orders consist in this ceremony ; 2 and if the Pope was right in this, there can be no question that not only Anglican orders are invalid, but also the orders of the whole Church, for it is absolutely certain that this ceremony did not exist till after many centuries of Christianity had elapsed. This is abundantly proved by Morinus, who shows that the ceremony is wanting in all the older ordination services of the Church ; 3 and consequently the objection at the present day takes a somewhat different shape. It is no longer said that the ceremony in itself is essential ; but that the form is inadequate and insufficient because everything which implies the sacerdotium, and the power of offering sacrifice, has been eliminated from the rite. The special omissions which are said to establish this are two. Firstly, from 1550 up to the last revision of the Ordinal in 1662 there was no special mention in the formula of ordination of the office for which the aid of the Holy Ghost was sought. The form was simply this : " Eeceive the Holy Ghost : whose sins thou dost forgive," etc. ; and for the consecra- tion of a bishop : " Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, by 1 In the first reformed English Ordinal the ceremony was retained, though the words referring to the power of sacrificing were omitted. "The bishop shall deliver to every one of them the Bible in the one hand, and the chalice or cup with the bread in the other hand, and say : Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and /to minister the holy sacrament in this congregation." The words placed in italics were, how- ever, entirely omitted in 1552. 2 Labbe, Concilia, vol. ix. p. 434. 3 Morinus, Be Ordination. Pars III. exercit. vii. ; cf. Denny and Lacey, p. 107. 754 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES imposition of hands : for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and love, and of soberness." Not till 1662 were the words " for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands," and the corre- sponding words in the consecration of a bishop, " for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee," etc., inserted. Secondly, when the English Ordinal was put forth in 1550, the words which definitely speak of the power of sacrificing were dropped : " Accipe potestatem offere sacrificium Deo tarn pro vivis quam pro defunctis." It is said that these omissions involve an entire change in the whole conception of orders, and thus invalidate the form. In answer to this, it may be pointed out that the words omitted are con- fessedly of late introduction, and therefore cannot be regarded as essential. 1 What was done in 1550 was to revert to a scriptural formula in each case, and to say that to do this invalidates the form is to prove too much. In the case of priests, the form used is the very one used by our Lord Himself, and therefore must be suffi- cient to confer whatever powers were conferred by it in the first instance ; and we ask to confer no more. In the case of bishops, the words of S. Paul referring to the consecration of Timothy (2 Tim. i. 7) are employed, and the whole context makes it perfectly clear that it is for the office and work of a bishop that the gift of the Holy Ghost is sought. Moreover, in this case the correspond- ing form in the Latin Pontifical is equally indeterminate, as there, too, there is no specific mention of the office and work of a bishop. Further, with regard to the omission of the words which confer the power of sacri- ficing, it must be remembered that the formula of ordination as used in the Church of England includes, 1 See further, Denny and Laccy, p. 72 seq. ARTICLE XXXVI 755 and has always included, a commission to minister the sacraments ; and this must necessarily include a commis- sion to " offer " the Eucharistic sacrifice, in whatever sense the Eucharist be a sacrifice. It has been truly said that " the sacrifice of the Eucharist is not something superadded to the sacrament. It cannot be more than is included in 1 Do this in remembrance of me.' What- ever it is or is not, it cannot be more than is covered by 1 the perpetual memory of that His precious death until His coming again.' In conferring the authority to cele- brate the Eucharist, the Church cannot help conferring the power of sacrifice, even if she would." 1 But, as was shown under Article XXXI., there is not the slightest ground for thinking that the Church of Eng- land ever wished to deny the Eucharistic sacrifice when rightly understood. " The Sacrifices of Masses," as often taught in the sixteenth century, she was rightly con- cerned to deny. And in her desire to repudiate what was false and heretical, it may be that she went further than was necessary in omitting reference to the Euchar- istic sacrifice. But this is the utmost that can be fairly said ; and it is a simple matter of fact that the commis- sion to offer the Eucharist must be included in the " authority ... to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation," which is given to every Anglican priest at the time of his ordination. There remains the objection that our orders are invalid through lack of " intention." It has been said that " the Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is by its nature internal ; but in so far as it is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concern- ing it. When any one has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effect- ing or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by the 1 Brightman in Church Historical Society Lectures, vol. i. p. 189. 756 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed." 1 This utter- ance of the highest authority in the Eoman Church relieves us from the necessity of considering the private opinions of Barlow or Cranmer, or any others. If the due form be rightly and seriously made use of, that is all that is required. A parody or unseemly jest would not be a valid sacrament, even if the proper matter and form of words were used, because the lack of intention would be " externally manifest " ; but where the cere- mony is performed as a Church ceremony, there the intention of the Church is present, even if the minister be himself heretical. As Hooker puts it : " Inasmuch as sacraments are actions religious and mystical, which nature they have not unless they proceed from a serious meaning, and what every man's private mind is, as we cannot know, so neither are we bound to examine ; therefore in these cases the known intent of the Church generally doth suffice, and where the contrary is not manifest, we may presume that he which outwardly doth the work hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God." 2 That then with which we are concerned is not the " private mind " of any of the Eeformers, but the form of the rite as expressing the mind of the Church of England ; and if it could be proved that the rite was changed " with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of reject- ing what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, 3 then, 1 The Papal Bull, Apostolicce CuroB. 2 Hooker's EcdesioMical Polity, Bk. V. c. lviii. 3. 3 The Papal Bull, Apostolicce Curce. ARTICLE XXXVI 757 indeed, it might be fairly held that defect of intention was established. But, as a matter of fact, the Church of England has been particularly careful to express her intention, and to make it perfectly clear that it was no new rite which she introduced in the sixteenth century, but that her intention was to continue the ancient orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, which had conie to her from the days of the Apostles themselves. En witness to this, appeal may be made to the Preface, which since 1550 has stood in the forefront of the Ordinal. 1 It is there stated that " it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there hath been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church — bishops, priests, and deacons, which offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation, that no man by his own private authority might presume to execute any of them except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as were requisite for the same ; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, approved and admitted thereunto. And therefore, to the intent tluse orders should be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, it is requis- ite that no man (not being at this present bishop, priest, nor deacon) shall execute any of them, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted, according to the form hereafter following." It is hard to conceive what more could be asked for, since it would be difficult to frame words which should express with greater clearness that the intention of the Church was not to make a new ministry, but to continue that which already existed. But if further proof of the mind of the Church be demanded, it may be found not only in the form of 1 A few verbal changes were introduced in 1662, as may be seen by comparing the Preface as it stands in a modern Prayer Book with the form here given in the text. 49 758 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES service used which throughout speaks of " priests " and " bishops," but also in the fact that the Church of Eng- land recognises the priesthood of the Church of Kome ; and while she takes the utmost care to guard her altars from unauthorised ministrations, yet whenever a Roman priest joins the Anglican Communion, he is recognised as a priest at once, and is in virtue of his ordination in the Church of Rome admitted to celebrate the sacra- ments. This could not be, unless the office were intended to be the same as that which he had already received. We conclude, then, that the objection on the score of defect of intention fails, as the other objections previously enumerated have failed ; and that there is nothing to make us feel a shadow of doubt as to the validity of our orders, or as to the statement of the Article, that the Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons . . . doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering . . . and therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book ... all such [are] rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered. 1 1 It has been impossible in the space available to give more than the briefest outline of the objections that have been raised against the validity of Anglican Orders, and of the answers returned to them. Fuller information must be sought in some of the many excellent treatises which exist upon the subject. Among older books, A. W. Haddan's Apostolical Succession in the Church of England may be mentioned ; and reference should also be made to Denny and Lacey, De Eierarchia Anglicana, which brings the subject fully up to date, and considers the objections in the latest form in which they have been presented. See also The Bull Apostolicas Curse and the Edwardine Ordinal, by F. W. Puller ; and for the practice of the Roman Church as to the reordination in Mary's reign of those who had been ordained according to the Edwardian Ordinal, see W. H. Frere, The Marian Reaction in its relation to the English Clergy. ARTICLE XXXVII Dc civilibus Magistratibus. Regia Majestas in hoc Auglice regno ac caeteris ejus dominiis sum- mam habet potestatem, ad quam omnium statuum lmjus regni sive illi ecclesiastici sunt sive non, in omnibus causis suprema gubernatio pertinet, et nulli externae jurisdic- tioni est subjecta, nec esse debet. Cum Regias Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus, quibus titulis intelligimus animos quorun- dam calumniatorum offendi : non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut sacramentorum adminis- trationem, quod etiam Injunc- tiones ab Elizabetha Regina nostra nuper aeditae, assertissime testantur : sed earn tantum praerogativam, quam in sacris Scripturis a Deo ipso omnibus piis principibus, vide- mus semper fuisse attributam, hoe 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 co- erceant. Romanus Pontifex nullam habet jurisdictionem in hoc regno Angliae. lieges civiles possunt Christianos propter capitalia et gravia crimina morte punire. Christianis licet et ex mandato Of the Civil Magistrates. The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of Eng- land, 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 govern- ment, by which titles we under- stand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended : we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's words or of sacra- ments, the which thing the Injunc- tions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify : But that only pre- rogative, 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 Kome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of Eng- land. The laws of the realm may 7G0 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Magistratus arnia portare et justa 1 bella administrare. punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences. It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magis- trate, to wear weapons and serve in the wars. Very important alterations were made in this Article in 1563, when the first paragraph was entirely rewritten, and the second, referring to Elizabeth's Injunctions, intro- duced for the first time. Instead of the very careful and guarded statement of the Eoyal supremacy now contained in these two paragraphs, the Edwardian Article had bluntly stated that " the King of England is supreme head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and Ireland/' It also contained a clause (omitted in 1563) after that referring to the Bishop of Eome, stating in Scriptural language that " the civil magistrate is ordained and allowed of God : wherefore we must obey him, not only for fear of punishment, but also for conscience' sake " (cf. Eom. xiii. 1, 5). The object of the Article is (1) to explain and justify the tenet of the Eoyal supremacy, (2) to assert formally the repudiation of the jurisdiction of the Pope, and (3) to condemn the attitude of the Anabaptists with regard to the obedience due to the magistrate, and the lawfulness of capital punishment and of serving in war. With regard to this last point it may be noted that so formidable was the spread of the Anabaptists, that they were expressly excluded from the pardon granted by Henry vni. in 1540; and among their errors the following are particularly mentioned : " That it is not lawful for a Christian man to bear office or rule in the Common- 1 It is not easy to say why there is nothing corresponding to this word in the English. In the series of 1553 "justa bella" was represented by "lawful wars." ARTICLE XXXVII 761 wealth," 1 and " that no man's laws ought to be obeyed." 2 The subjects brought before us in this Article may best be treated of under the following heads : — 1. The Eoyal supremacy. 2. The Papal claims. o. The lawfulness of capital punishment, 4. The lawfulness of war. I. The Royal Supremacy. 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. 1 Cf. the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiastic* rum, Dc H&res. e. 13. - 32 Henr. vm. c. 49, § 11. See Wilkins, Concilia, vol. iii. p. S43, and cf. the Confession of Augsburg, Art. XVI.: : ' Dc rchts cirilibv.?. De rebus civilibus doeent, quod legitiniie ordinationes civiles sint bona opera Dei, quod Christianis liceat gerere magistratus, exercere judicia, judicare res ex imperatoriis, et aliis prresentibus legibus, supplicia jure eonstituere, jure bellare, militare, lege eontrahere, tenere proprium, jusjurandum postulantibus magistratibus dare, ducere uxorem, nubere. Damnant Anabaptistas, qui interdieunt htec civilia officia Christianis," etc. To the same effect, the twelfth of the Thirteen Articles of 153S : " Licet insuper Christianis universis ut singuli quique pro suo gradu ac conditione juxta divinas ac principum leges et honestas singularum regiouum consuetudines. talia munia atque officia obeant et exerceant, quibus mortalis hsec vita vel indiget, vel ornatur, vel conservatur. Xempe ut victum quierant ex honestis artibus. negocientur, faciant contractus, possideant proprium, res suas jure postulent, niilitent, eopulentur legitimo matriruonio, pnestent jusjurandum et hujusniodi ; ' ; and in Hermann's Consultation, among the errors of the Anabaptists the following is noted : "That to administre the comon weale, to exercise comon iugementes, to puuishe yll doers, be offices and workes contrarie to the preceptes of Christe, whiche a Christian man ought not to do." — English translation (1548), fol. oxL 762 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES In considering the history of the formal assertion of the Royal supremacy, it will be well to mark out clearly two stages — (a) the recognition of the Sovereign as " Supreme Head," and (b) his recognition as " Supreme Governor." (a) The formal recognition of the Sovereign as "Supreme Head" begins in the year 1531. In this year Henry VIII., who was now bent upon obtaining his divorce, with a view to obtaining the ready submission of the clergy when the question should be brought before them, insisted on the introduction of a new form of the king's title into the preamble of an Act of Convocation by which a grant of money was to be made to the Crown. As originally presented to the Convocation, the form of the title spoke of " the English Church and clergy, of which the king alone is protector and supreme head." It was, however, only accepted by the clergy with the qualifying clause, " as far as the law of Christ permits." 1 The following year was marked by the " submission of the clergy," whereby the Convocation formally acknow- ledged that the Royal licence was necessary for Convoca- tion to meet, and to make Canons, and also agreed that the existing Canon Law should be reviewed by a Com- mission appointed by the Crown. 2 Meanwhile Parliament had begun to pass a series of 1 "Ecclesise, et cleri Anglicani, cujus singulareni protectorem unicum et supremum dominum, et quantum per Christi legem licet, etiam supremuni caput ipsius majestatem recognoscimus. " For the history of this see Dixon, History of the Church of England, vol. i. p. 62 seq. The text of this and the other formal Acts by which the Royal supremacy was recognised are conveniently collected together in the Report of the Ecclesi- astical Courts Commission, vol. i. p. 70. - Dixon, vol. i. p. 110, Eccl. Courts Commission, p. 71. It was this agreement that the Canon Law should be reviewed which led to the appointment of the various Commissions from which the Reformatio Leytim Ecclesiastical' um emanated. As, however, was mentioned in vol. i. p. 28, it never received any authority whatever. ARTICLE XXXVII 763 Acts to restrain the Papal jurisdiction in this country, such as the Act for restraint of Appeals (1533), and thus to secure the supremacy of the Crown over all persons and causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil; and in 1534, not only was the submission of the clergy embodied in an Act of Parliament, 1 but an Act was passed asserting the sup- reme headship of the Crown, and defining its character. 2 In this it was stated that, " albeit the king's majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in their Convocations, yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate errors, heresies, and other enormities, and abuses heretofore used in the same : be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the king our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and stile thereof as all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdic- tions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining ; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they may be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought or may lawfully be reformed, 1 25 Heur. VIIT. c. 19. 2 26 Henr. vin. c. 1. See Ecch Courts Commission , p. 72. 764 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquillity of this realm, any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding." The title " supreme head " was thus formally taken by Henry viii. Its use was continued by Edward VI., and (at her accession) by Mary, who used it in the early proclamations of her reign. 1 She, however, is the last English sovereign who has ever claimed it. It was dropped by her on her marriage with Philip of Spain in 1554. The " Supreme Head Act," cited above, was legally repealed, and has never been re-enacted. But for twenty years, from 1534 to 1554, the "supreme head- ship " was a tremendous reality. It " involved a claim on the part of the Crown to exercise spiritual jurisdic- tion, 2 and not merely to see that the spiritual authorities exercised their jurisdiction, and was a wholly new and unprecedented claim." " For twenty years the independ- ent jurisdiction of the Church, exercised by her own officers — the ordinaries — and in her own courts accord- ing to her own law, was superseded by the authority of the Crown, and the ordinaries became only the officers of the Government, in virtue of the powers said to be vested in the Crown by the recognition of its supreme headship." 3 1 Jewel makes good use of this fact as against the Romanists more than once. See his Works (Parker Society ed.), vol. i. p. 61, and iv. p. 974. 2 Henry VIII. actually claimed to delegate the exercise of this spiritual jurisdiction to whomsoever he would, and in 1535 appointed Thomas Cromwell to be his vicegerent in ecclesiastical matters. 3 "Wakeman, Introduction to the History of the Church of England, pp. 318, 320, where there is an admirable sketch of the whole subject. ARTICLE XXXVII 765 The Church, it must be admitted, after her first protest, acquiesced in and submitted to this tyranny, and during this period many utterly irregular and un- constitutional things were done. Happily the period of the supreme headship was of no long duration, and there is no need to enter further into the history of it here. (b) On the accession of Elizabeth in 1558, Mary's Act abolishing the old Act of Supremacy remained unrepealed ; but a new Act was passed, claiming for the Crown the title of " supreme governor " instead of " supreme head." 1 And although the Act of Parliament conceded to the Crown large powers, and claimed for it, as Henry's Act did, spiritual jurisdiction, yet, when some of the clergy scrupled to take the oath enjoined by the Act, the sovereign put forth an explanation of it in " an Admonition to simple men deceived by malicious," which was appended to the Injunctions of 1559. This ex- planation is not altogether consistent with itself, for it claims the authority challenged and used by Henry vni., but then proceeds at once to define and very materially limit its meaning, describing it as " of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this realm, that is, under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of 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." And it is added that " if any person, that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said oath, shall accept the same oath with this interpretation, sense, or meaning : Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the 1 Eliz. c. 1. See Eccl. Courts Commission, p. 73. 766 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES said Act against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same oath." 1 The explanation thus given is of the utmost import- ance. It forms an authoritative commentary upon and interpretation of the Act of Parliament, and, taken in connection with the alteration of style and the adoption of the title of " supreme governor " in place of that of " supreme head," 2 it indicates a real and substantial change in the conception of the Royal supremacy. It reduces it within reasonable limits, and gives it a far more constitutional character, and one more in accord- ance with ancient precedents, than could be claimed for the form it had assumed under Henry vm. Further, it should be noted that Elizabeth's acts entirely bore out the interpretation which she gave in her Injunctions. Her government of the Church was a very real thing, but she was most careful to maintain that it is " the Church," and not the Crown, which " hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and hath authority in controversies of faith ; " and the powers which she claimed and exercised were visitorial and corrective, a right of supervision rather than of ordinary administration such as Henry VHT. and Edward VI. with his Council had exercised. It is, then, in this limited and qualified sense that the Royal supremacy was accepted by the Church at the accession of Elizabeth, and all subsequent documents that can claim to speak with any authority whatever upon the subject concur in regarding it in this light. Ignorant people have often spoken of the sovereign as " head " of the Church, but entirely without warrant. 1 See Cardwell's Documentary Annals, vol. i. p. 232. 2 "The Queen is unwilling to be addressed, either byword 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." — Jewel to Bullinger, Zurich Letters, vol. i. p. 33. ARTICLE XXXVII 767 " Concerning the title of 1 supreme head of the Church/ we need not to search for Scripture to excuse it. For, first, we devised it not ; secondly, we use it not ; thirdly, our princes at this present claim it not." So wrote Jewel in 1567, 1 and his words remain true still. The interpretation given in the Injunctions was expressly referred to in the Articles of 1563, so that, after claiming for the sovereign the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, the Article proceeds to explain with great care in what this consists. Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which titles we under- stand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended : we give not to our princes the minis- tering 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. To the same effect in the proclamation issued on the occasion of the northern rebellion in 1569, Elizabeth expressly declared that she pretended " no right to define Articles of faith, to change ancient ceremonies formerly adopted by the Catholic and Apostolic Church, or to minister the word or the sacraments of God ; but that she conceived it her duty to take care that all estates under her rule should live in the faith and obedience 1 Defence of t lie Apology, Works, vol. iv. p. 974. 768 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of the Christian religion ; to see all laws ordained for that end duly observed ; and to provide that the Church be governed and taught by archbishops, bishops, and ministers." 1 Once more, in the " Eoyal Declaration " prefixed to the Articles in 1628, the sovereign is made to say that — " Being at God's ordinance, according to our just title, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these our Dominions, we hold it most agreeable to this our kingly office, and our own religious zeal, to con- serve and maintain the Church committed to our charge in unity of true religion, and in the bond of peace ; and not to suffer unnecessary disputations, altercations, or questions to be raised, which may nourish faction both in the Church and Commonwealth. We have therefore, upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of so many of our bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this declaration following : " That we are Supreme Governor of the Church of England : and that if any difference arise about the external policy, concerning the Injunctions, Canons, and other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy in their Convocations is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our broad seal so to do : and we approving their said ordinances and consti- tutions, providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land." These documents are all-important ones, as showing- how the supremacy was explained to and accepted by the Church. Something more, however, may here be added in justification of it. The Article claims that it is only the " prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly 1 Quoted in Hook's Lives of the Archbisho]^, vol. vi. p. 55. ARTICLE XXXVII 769 princes in hoi)' Scriptures by God Himself." This is the view of it which was strongly pressed in the six- teenth century, when an appeal was frequently made to the position occupied by the head of the State in the system of the Jews under the Old Covenant. So Jewel writes that " Queen Elizabeth doth as did Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Josias, Jehoshaphat." 1 But the position of the Jewish Commonwealth was so peculiar that it may be doubted whether the appeal was altogether a fair one, or whether the position of the sovereign is per- fectly analogous to that occupied by the Hebrew monarchs. It is better to refer rather to those passages of the Xew Testament which support the claims of established authority to loyal obedience, as Eom. xiii. and 1 Pet. iL 13-17. The Church, it must be remem- bered, exists as a spiritual society under the conditions of civil life. Its members must therefore be sub- ject to the law of the State as to conduct and the enjoyment of the civil rights. Thus in very early days appeals were made even to heathen emperors by the Church where cases of property and civil rights were concerned." 2 And if Cranmer was right in asserting that no more is given to the sovereign by the assertion of the Eoyal supremacy than was conceded to Xero, who was " head " of the Church in S. Paul's day, or might be con- ceded to the Grand Turk, who in the same way is ■ head " of the Church in his dominions, 3 certainly 1 Jewel, Works, vol. iv. p. 1145. 1 E.g. in the case of Paul of Samosata, who refused to give up the bishop's house after his deposition by the Council of Anrioch in 269. After the defeat of Zenobia, the aid of Aurelian was invoked to give effect to the sentence of the Synod, and in 272, by the help of the civil power, Paul was ejected. See Eusebius, H. E. VII. xxx. 3 1 : Every king in his own realm and dominion is supreme head. . . . Xero was head of the Church, that is, in worldly respect of the temporal bodies of men. of whom the Church consisteth ; for so he beheaded Peter 770 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES nothing more than a general reference to the language of the Apostles on the obedience due to constituted authority is required to justify it. It cannot, however, be seriously maintained that this is all that is intended by it. The conversion of the empire introduced a new state of things, and put the emperor into a new relation towards the Church. From this time forward a vague authority in the affairs of the Church was considered to be vested in him over and above his ordinary jurisdic- tion over all men. He was supposed to be in perfect harmony with the Church. His duty was to see its laws carried out ; and to him it appertained to summon General Councils. 1 In later days, under the " Holy Roman Empire," the same thing is seen. It may be seen in the laws of Charles the Great, which " illustrate the action of a strong monarch. "When a case could not be settled before the bishop or the metropolitan, he directed that it should be brought finally before him- self. The Synods referred their decisions to him that they might be supplemented, amended, and confirmed. He claimed for himself the right and the duty of follow- ing the example of Josiah in endeavouring to bring back to God the kingdom committed to him, by visitation, correction, admonition, in virtue of his royal office." 2 It is something of the same position and power which has been conceded to the sovereign in the Church of England ; and the formal documents of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which claim it as the " ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical," 3 are perfectly and the Apostles. And the Turk, too, is head of the Church of Turkey." — Examination at Oxford, 1555 ; Remains, p. 219. 1 Cf. Ecclesiastical Courts Commission, p. xv. 8 lb. p. xvi., where see references. 3 Canon 1 of 1604. In the third Canon it is maintained that the sove- reign has " the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the godly kings had amongst the Jews, and Christian emperors of the primitive Church." ARTICLE XXXVII 771 justified iu their claim. " The early English laws prove that similar powers [to those claimed by Charles the Great] were exerted by the sovereigns before the Con- quest ; and throughout the medieval period the English king never surrendered his supreme visitorial power, the power of determining finally, on his own responsibility and at his own discretion, the ecclesiastical relations of his subjects." 1 Or, as Mr. Wakeman puts it, " the con- stitutional character of the supremacy of the Crown . . . does not differ in principle from that exercised by William i. or Edward L, being in its essence the right of supervision over the administration of the Church, vested in the Crown as the champion of the Church, in order that the religious welfare of its subjects may be duly provided for." 2 Thus we maintain that, while its formal assertion in the sixteenth century grew out of the neces- sity for national resistance to foreign claims, yet the supremacy itself was no new thing. Questions of the utmost importance and delicacy may, of course, arise in connection with it ; and in the present day, when the powers formerly exercised by the Crown have so largely passed from the personal control of the sovereign to the Parliament, a wholly new state of things has arisen. This has been greatly complicated by the unfortunate Act of 1833 (to say nothing of later legislation), which abol- ished the ancient Court of Delegates, in which the Crown appointed the members of the final Court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes, and transferred its powers to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But into the vexed question of the Ecclesiastical Courts there is no necessity to enter here. All that we are at present concerned with is this, viz. that since the Eoyal supremacy as explained to and accepted by the Church 1 Ecclesiastical Courts Commission, ubi supra. 2 Introduction to the History of the Church of England, p. 321. 772 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES is for all practical purposes identical with that anciently- enjoyed by the Crown in this country, there is no sort of reason why its formal assertion in and since the six- teenth century should be thought to cause a difficulty to loyal Churchmen. The " supreme headship " is not claimed. The extraordinary powers exercised by Henry viii. and Edward VI. are no longer in force. These the Church repudiates as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The supreme governorship, as defined and limited in the formal documents cited above, she loyally accepts. 1 II. The Papal Claims. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England. The statement of the Article sums up as briefly as possible the position taken up by the Church of England in the sixteenth century. It is, of course, well known that during the previous centuries, although a Papal jurisdiction was freely admitted, yet resistance to the claims of Eome was not infrequent, and various Acts were passed to limit the powers of the Pope in this country. But the summary rejection of Papal jurisdic- tion, as a whole, belongs to the sixteenth century. The account of the steps taken by the Church and State, including the formal declaration by Convocation in 1534, that " the Pope of Eome hath no greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in holy Scripture, in this 1 It has been impossible to do more than give the briefest outline in regard to the' very important subject discussed in this section. Refer- ence has been frequently made in the notes to the Report of the Ecclesi- astical Courts Commission, as well as to Mr. Wakeman's valuable note on the subject. To these the reader is referred for fuller details ; and with them mention should be made of Mr. Gladstone's famous letter to Bishop Blomfield, 1 1 The Royal Supremacy as it is defined by reason, history, and the Constitution^' ARTICLE XXXVII 773 kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop," 1 belongs to the province of ecclesiastical history, and there is no need to summarise the details here. What is required is to show that the action of the Church of England can be justified, and that the statement of the Article is true. If it be a fact that our Lord conferred upon S. Peter a position and power superior to that of the other Apostles, and that this has been transmitted to his successors in the see of Eome, so that the Pope is by Divine appointment head of the universal Church, then clearly the Church of England was in the wrong in asserting her freedom from his jurisdiction. What is necessary for us here, then, is to consider (a) the Scrip- tural grounds on which the Papal claims are based, and (b) the evidence from the early Church concerning these claims ; for if it can be established that no position of " supremacy " involving universal jurisdiction was granted by our Lord to S. Peter, and no such position conceded to the bishops of Eome in primitive times, then it would seem to follow that the assertion of the Papal claims in later days was an unwarrantable usurpa- tion, and that the Church of England was perfectly justified in the formal repudiation of them which it made in the sixteenth century. 2 (a) The Scriptural grounds on which the Papal claims arc based. Three passages of the New Testament are quoted by 1 See Dixon's History of the Church of England, vol. i. pp. 227, 238. "The decree of the Vatican Council (1870), " Pastor .5£ternus, " is so drawn as really to put out of court any appeal to theories of "develop- ment " in connection with the Roman claims, for it boldly asserts that the tradition received a fidei Christiana; exordio attests (1) the right of the bishop of Rome to a universal jurisdiction, plenary, supreme, ordi- nary, and immediate ; and (2) his infallibility when defining ex cathedra a doctrine on faith and conduct as to be held by the Church universal. Cf. Bright's Roman Sec in the Early Church, p. 2. 50 774 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES modern Papalists — (1) the promise to S. Peter in S Matthew xvi. ; (2) our Lord's words to him in S. Luke xxii. 32 ; and (3) the threefold commission in S. John xxi. Of these the first is far the most important. " I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church ; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." In considering this passage, it should be noticed that the words concerning " binding " and " loosing," here addressed to S. Peter, are afterwards spoken to the Apostles generally (c. xviii. 18). Consequently what- ever power was conferred by them upon S. Peter was afterwards granted equally to the others. But the earlier part of the promise refers to S. Peter alone. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument that the " rock " is Peter himself, yet it still remains that the promise appears to be a strictly personal one. There is no indication whatever in it of any headship capable of transmission to a series of successors in his see. It is far more natural to take the words as referring by anticipation to the historical position taken by S. Peter in the foundation of the Church, and to see its fulfilment in the early chapters of the Acts, where S. Peter takes the lead throughout, but nowhere claims for himself any powers not enjoyed by the other Apostles, nor acts apart from them. In order to establish the Roman interpretation of the passage, which is certainly not suggested by its terms, it would be necessary to show that from the very first there had existed a strong tradi- tion in the Church thus interpreting it, and referring to it as establishing the Papal claims to headship. But ARTICLE XXXVII 775 this is absolutely wanting. 1 And if this passage breaks down it will scarcely be contended that anything can be proved in favour of the Papacy from S. Luke xxii. 32, or from S. John xxi. The former of these (" I have made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not ; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren ") is apparently never applied in favour of the Papal claims before the seventh century ; 2 and when the threefold denial of S. Peter is remembered, the threefold commission of S. John xxi. (" Feed My lambs . . . Feed My sheep . . . Feed My sheep ") becomes at once his natural restoration to his office, and cannot be regarded as investing him with any position of superiority to the other Apostles. 3 But if the appeal is made to Scripture, we must not be content with the consideration of these three passages alone. There are other passages besides these which really bear on the question of the Papal claims, for the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles show us the real position historically occupied by the Apostle, and make it clear it was very far from being one of " headship " in the sense of authority over the whole Church. Certainly in the early chapters of the Acts S. Peter takes the lead in action. But to take the lead in action is one thing; to claim to be supreme head is quite another. And against the notion that his posi- tion was one of such authority must be set such facts as these. His conduct is called in question by others, and he vindicates it before the Church (Acts xi. 1-4). S. Paul on one occasion does not hesitate to " resist him to the face, because he stood condemned" (Gal. ii. 11). He is " sent " together with J ohn by the Apostles to Samaria 1 See Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, p. 327 scq., where the passage is fully considered ; and cf. Lightfoot's S. Clement of Rome, vol. ii. p. 481 scq. - Salmon, op. cit. p. 336. 3 lb. p. 339. 776 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (Acts viii. 14). At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.) he is not even president : this position being occupied by S. James, who sums up the debate and gives his decision (Sto iyco KpLva), ver. 19). This of itself seems conclusive, for it is inconceivable that if our Lord had invested S. Peter with any such authority as that now claimed by the Pope as his successor, any but he could have presided on such an occasion. We may, then, safely say that, while a primacy of repute and honour may be rightly conceded to S. Peter among the Twelve, 1 there is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament that he was ever more than primus inter pares, or that even this primacy was capable of being transmitted to others. 2 (b) The evidence of the early Church concerning the Papal claims. — Let it be admitted that the evidence for S. Peter's visit to Rome, and for regarding him as co- founder with S. Paul of the Church there, is sufficient ; and that the succession of bishops in that see may be traced back to him. Yet it does not follow that S. Peter was ever " bishop " of Rome in the modern sense, any more than S. Paul was " bishop " of the various Churches which he founded, or, indeed, of Rome itself. But even if his Episcopate could be proved, we should still be 1 The position of S. Peter's name as standing first in all the lists of the Apostles given in the New Testament, together with the fact that in the list in the Gospel according to S. Matthew the word -rrp&Tos is attached to it (c. x. 2), would seem to point to something like a primacy belonging to him. But primacy is not supremacy. 2 It must be remembered that we have S. Peter's own Epistles, as well as the accounts of his proceedings and speeches in the Acts ; and it is a simple factthat nowhere does he give "the faintest hint of any conscious- ness of such office as Papalism assigns to him. This is not a mere argu- ment e.v silentio ; if S. Peter had been, by Christ's commission, His unique A r icar, the monarch and oracle of the growing Church, a polity so simple and intelligible must have found expression in Apostolic writings, and could not have been ignored by the ' Vicar' himself." — Bright's Roman Sec in the Early Church, p. 8. ARTICLE XXXVII 777 justified in asking for evidence that subsequent bishops inherited from him a position of headship involving universal jurisdiction. And this is just what is not forthcoming. While in later times there is abundant evidence of lofty claims made by the Popes, and (some- times) admitted by others, in the earlier centuries such language is markedly absent. Attention has recently been drawn to this part of our subject, and the question lias been investigated afresh with the greatest care, with the result that it has been conclusively shown, in Dr. Bright's Roman See in the Early Church, and in the Rev. F. W. Puller's Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, that during the early centuries nothing whatever was known of the claims made for the Papacy in later times. From the first the Eoman Church was invested with a position of great importance in Christendom. Borne was the capital of the world. It was the meeting place for Chris- tians of different nationalities. To it, as to a natural centre, men gravitated from all countries. 1 And thus its bishop came to occupy a position of ever-increasing importance. But history shows us quite clearly that in 1 Something of this kind is evidently intended by Irenseus in the famous passage in his works (unfortunately only existing in the Latin translation). "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem (v.l. potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique con- servata est ea quse est ab apostolis traditio " (III. iii.). Irenjeus does not mean that every Church "must" as a matter of duty "agree with" the Roman Church on account of its " potentior principalitas " ; but that the faithful from all parts "'are sure to" (necesse est, it is a matter of course) "come together" there. "It is inevitable, S. Irena?us means, that Christians from all other parts of the empire should, from time to time, for various reasons, visit the Church in the great centre of the empire : this is a process which is always going on, which cannot but go on " (Bright, Roman See, p. 32). The "superior pre-eminence" belongs, it will be noticed, not to the bishop, but to the Church, or possibly to the city. See Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, p. 375 seq. (c. xx.), and Puller's Primitive Saints, p. 31 seq., and cf. Bright, as above. 778 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES the second century it was the Church, not the "bishop, to which a kind of primacy was given. The Papal theory inverts this, and makes the importance of the Church depend upon that of the bishop. 1 It is only towards the close of the second century that for the first time we meet with an attempt on the part of a bishop of Eome to assert his authority outside his own proper sphere. 2 This, however, altogether failed. The action of Victor in attempting to procure a general excommunication of the Quartodeciman Churches of Asia did not commend itself to the other bishops of the West, who (we are told) " rather sharply rebuked him," 3 an expression which could not by any possibility have been used by the historian had the notion of the Papal headship been then in existence. In the third century the correspondence of S. Cyprian and the history of the controversies in which he was engaged afford us considerable insight into the position then occupied by the bishop of Eome. There is no question that S. Cyprian regarded the see of Eome as the symbol and centre of unity ; but his actions, 4 as well as his words, 5 make it clear that in his view " the function 1 The well-known decree of Constantinople (381), which raised the see of that city to the second place in Christendom ' ' because it is the new Rome," shows very plainly the origin of the importance of the bishop of Rome. The canon was confirmed at Chalcedon (451), when it was laid down that the first place belonged to the see of Rome ' ' because that is the imperial city." On the protests of the Roman legates, and the refusal of Leo i. to recognise this, see Salmon's Infallibility, p. 416. 2 The account is given in Eusebius, V. xxiv. xxv. 3 <&£povTai de Kal ai toijtiou (pwval, 7r\r)KTiKWTepov KadairTOfitvuv tov JSiKTopos, Euseb. I.e. 4 Mention' may be made of (1) his persistent opposition to the Roman view of the validity of heretical baptism, and (2) his attitude in regard to appeals, as shown in the case of the Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martial, where he set aside altogether the judgment of Pope Stephen, JSp. lxvii. 5 For Cyprian's view of S. Peter's position reference should be made to Epp. xxxiii., xlv. 1, xlviii. 3, Kx. 14, lxx. 3, lxxiii. 7 ; and De ARTICLE XXXVII 779 of the Eoman see in relation to unity was ideal and typical ; it carried with it no jurisdiction, no right to dictate." 1 During the early years of the fourth century the history of the Donatist schism supplies an incidental witness that Koine was not the final authority, for, after the question had been referred by the emperor to Melchiades, bishop of Eome, with a few others, the decision of the Council held by him was reviewed by a larger Council held at Aries, in order that a more authoritative settlement of the question might be arrived at. 2 Not until we come to the Council of Sardica, in 343, do we find any legal rights beyond those of other bishops granted to the bishops of Eome ; and even then the right of hearing appeals in certain cases was a strictly limited one, and was granted by the Council as a new thing, as a matter of ecclesiastical order, and not based on any Divine right or inherent authority of the see of Eome. 3 In after years the canon was frequently, though wrongly, appealed to as " Nicene," 4 and the confusion was undoubtedly advantageous to the interests of Eome. To this canon may be traced the beginning of whatever legal rights of jurisdiction over other Churches were afterwards acquired by the see of Unit. iv. Cf. Blight's Roman See, p. 39 seq. ; and for the famous inter- polation in the last of these passages see The Pope and the Council, by "Janus," p. 127. 1 Robertson in Church Historical Society Lectures, vol. ii. p. 230. 2 " On papal principles [the Emperor] ought, of course, to have upheld, as by Divine right final, a judgment affirmed by the Roman see. But nothing of the kind occurred to him, or to any one else at the time." — Bright, p. 63, where see the whole account of the incident. 3 The canon in question (Canon iii. ) may be seen in Hefele, Councils, vol. ii. p. 112 ; and on it see Bright, p. 85 seq., and Puller, p. 148 seq. 4 They were so quoted by Zosimus in the case of Apiarius (Bright, p. 136\ as also by Leo I. and others. 780 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Kome. In earlier days, while there is ample evidence of the importance of the Church, and of the growing influence of the bishop, it is only moral influence, and not legal right of jurisdiction, that can be found. Into the history of the extension of the legal jurisdiction, and the growth of the temporal power (resting largely on forgeries 1 ), there is no necessity to enter here. In what has been already said it has been sufficiently indicated how there is a complete lack of evidence in the early centuries for the claims subsequently made, and how the power was a matter of gradual growth. The barest outline of the argument has been all that space permitted. Details must be sought in the able works referred to in the text and the footnotes. III. The Lawfulness of Capital Punishment. The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences. This subject admits of the briefest treatment. No question can be raised as to the lawfulness of capital punishment under the Old Covenant. Not only was it expressly commanded in various cases under the Mosaic law : but even before the law was given, it was laid down by Divine command that " whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Gen. ix. 6). The New Testament nowhere contains an express reversal of this rule. Consequently it can scarcely be maintained that capital punishment is forbidden by the law of God : and no more than this is required. All that the Article asserts is that " the laws of the realm may punish Christian men with 1 On the "false decretals" and the "donation of Constantine," see The Pope and the Council, pp. 94 and 131. ARTICLE XXXVII 781 death " in certain cases. Into the question whether capital punishment is advisable or not there is no need to enter. That is a matter on which opinions may differ, and with which we are not here concerned, for subscription to this statement of the Article will remain unaffected, however it be decided. IV. The Lawfulness of War. It is lawful for Christian men, at the com- mand of the Magistrate, to wear weapons and serve in the wars (justa bella administrare). Once more brevity must be studied, although the question now before us is involved in much greater perplexity than that which has just been considered. All that can here be said is this. Christianity accepted society and social institutions as it found them ; but laid down principles which were intended gradually to alter and abolish what was wrong in them. So slavery was accepted by the gospel. There is not one word in the New Testament which directly condemns it. But the principle of brotherhood was proclaimed, and this has so wrought in the hearts of men that it has at length brought about the abolition of slavery in Christian communities. In the same way Christianity accepted war. Our Lord and His Apostles never urged soldiers to give up their calling. 1 But it is hard to resist the conclusion that the principles which are laid down in the gospel ought, if they had honestly been applied on a wide scale, to have led long ago to the disuse of war, at least between Christian nations. What is required is that the principles of Christianity should so leaven society that war should become an impossibility. But 1 See also the directions of the Baptist to the "men on the march" who asked him what they should do, in S. Luke iii. 14. 782 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES until this happy result is brought about, in the face of the absence of any directions in the New Testament to soldiers requiring them to forsake their calling, it can scarcely be maintained that it is not " lawful for Christian men to wear weapons and serve in the wars." It may be added that the numerous allusions to the military life as affording instructive lessons and analogies to the life of the Christian, appears not only to be based on the supposition that the life thus referred to is in itself a lawful one, but also to indicate that it is especially favourable to the development of certain very essential moral qualities. 1 1 Reference should be made to the masterly sermon on "War" in Mozley 's University Sermons, No. V. , as well as to the late Aubrey Moore's paper on the same subject in the Report of the Portsmouth Church Congress. | ARTICLE XXXVIII De illiclta bonorum Communica- tione. Facilitates et bona Chi istianorum non sunt communia quoad jus et possessionem, ut quidam Ana- baptistae falso jactant. Debet tamen quisque de his qua? possidet. pro facultatum ratione, pauperibus eleeiuosynas benigne distribuere. Of Christian Mens Goods which are not common. Tbe 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. There has been no alteration whatever in this Article (except in the form of the title : ) since it was first drawn up in 1553. The error of the Anabaptists condemned in it is described more fully in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, from which we learn that the opinion of the community of goods was in some cases pushed to such an extent that it was made to include and justify a community of wives. 2 1 Christianorum bona non sunt communia. Christian men's goods are not common. 1553 and 1563. ' De Hares, c. 14 : " De communitate bonorum et uxorum. Excludatur etiam ab eisdem Anabaptistis inducta bonorum et possessionum com- munitas, quam tantopere urgent, ut nemini quicquam relinquant proprium et suum. In quo mirabiliter loquuntur, cum furta prohiberi divina Scriptura cernant, et eleemosynas in utroque Testamento laudari videant, quas ex propriis facultatibus nostris elargimur ; quorum sane neutrum consistere posset, nisi Christianis proprietas bonorum et possessionum suarum relinqueretur. Emergunt etiam ex Anabaptistarum lacunis quidam Nicolaitae, inquinatissimi sane homines, qui fceminarum, imo et uxorum disputant usum per omnes promiscue pervagari debere. 783 784 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES The two subjects of which the Article speaks are these — 1. The community of goods. 2. The duty of almsgiving. I. The Community of Goods. The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and pos- session of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. The notion of the Anabaptists here condemned probably originated in a misunderstanding of S. Luke's words in the Acts of the Apostles. Two passages have often been cited in proof of the assertion that Com- munism proper was the system that originally prevailed in the Apostolic Church, and from them it has been concluded that the same system ought to be practised now, and that consequently the possession of private property by individuals is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. The passages in question are the following : — Acts ii. 44, 45 : " All that believed were together, and had all things common ; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need." C. iv. 32 : "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul ; and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own ; but they had all things common " (f/v avrols airavra kolvo). Qua; l'ceda illorum et conseelerata libido prinium pictati eontraria est et sacris literis, deinde cum universa civili honestate, et naturali ilia incorruptaquc in mentibus nostris accensa luce vehementur pugnat." Cf. also the quotations given above on p. 761 ; and see Hermann's Con- sultation (Eng. tr.), fol. cxl. ARTICLE XXXVIII 785 These passages, however, do not stand alone ; and a careful consideration of the whole account given by S. Luke of the early Church in Jerusalem, shows conclus- ively that what he is here describing is not so much an institution as a temper and spirit. Most certainly the rights of private property were not superseded. Mary the mother of John Mark still retained her own house (Acts xii. 12); while the words of S. Peter to Ananias prove that no necessity was laid upon him to sell his property, " Whilst it remained, did it not remain thine own ? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power ? " Moreover, as will be shown below, there are various injunctions to liberality in almsgiving in the Apostolic Epistles which are incompatible with Communism, for where a strict system of this kind is practised, and the rights of property are superseded, personal almsgiving becomes an impossibility. There are no " rich " to be charged to be " ready to give and glad to distribute." It may be added, that while there there is no trace elsewhere of any system of Communism adopted by the Church, yet expressions are used by later writers 1 which afford striking parallels to those employed by S. Luke, and show us that no violence is done to his words if they are understood of the eager, enthusiastic spirit of love which so prevailed among the early Christians as to lead them to regard whatever they possessed as at the disposal 1 Thus in the Aidaxv rw 5a'5eva airoaroXwv we read : "If thou have in thine hands, thou shalt give for ransom of thy sins. Thou shalt not hesitate to give, neither shalt thou grudge when thou givest : for thou shalt know who is the recompenser of the reward. Thou shalt not turn aside from him that needeth, but shalt share all things xcith thy brother, and shalt iiot say that they are th ine own ; for if ye are fellow-sharers in that which is imperishable, how much more in the things that are perish- able," c. iv. Tertullian also writes as follows : "One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things an: common among us, but our wives," Apol. xxxix. 786 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of their brethren ; and not of any formal or systematic plan of Communism. 1 II. The Duty of Almsgiving. Every man ought of such things as he pos- sesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability. That almsgiving is a Christian duty scarcely needs formal proof. It is sufficient to refer to — (1) Our Lord's words in the Sermon on the Mount, where He does not command it, but rather takes for granted that His followers will practise it, and gives directions concerning the manner of doing it, as He does also with regard to the two other duties of prayer and fasting (S. Matthew vL 1 sea. ; cf. also S. Luke xii. 33). (2) The directions concerning it in the Apostolic Epistles, 2 e.g. " Charge them that are rich in this present world . . . that they do good, that they be rich in good works, that they be ready to distribute, willing to com- municate ; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed," 1 Tim. vi. 17-19. 1 On the position of some modem Communists, who affirm that Com- munism was the natural outcome of the Law of Equality implied in Christ's teaching, and maintain that "Jesus Christ Himself not only proclaimed, preached, and prescribed Communism as a consequence of fraternity, but practised it with His Apostles " (Cabet, Voyage en Icarie, p. 567) ; see Kaufmann's Socialism and Communism, c. i. ; and on the relation between Religion and Socialism, see Flint's Socialism, c. xi. 2 The Second Book of the Homilies contains a plain Homily on the subject of "alnisdeeds and mercifulness towards the poor and needy," in which the Scriptural directions on the subject from the Old Testament (including the Apocrypha), as well as from the New, are collected to- gether, p. 406 (S.P.C.K.). ARTICLE XXXVIII 787 " To do good and to communicate forget not : for with such sacrifices God is well pleased," Heb. xiii. 16. Cf . also Rom. xii. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 2 ; 2 Cor. ix. 7 ; 1 John iii. 17, etc. AKTICLE XXXIX Be Jurejurando. Queniadmodum juramentum va- num et temerarium a Domino nostro Jesu Christo et Apostolo ejus Jacobo Christianis hominibus indicturn esse fatemur : ita Christianam religi- onem minime prohibere censemus, quia jubente Magistratu, in causa fidei et charitatis, jurare liceat, modo id fiat juxta Prophetae doc- trinam, in justitia, in judicio, et veritate. Of a Christian Man's Oath. 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 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. Like the one just considered, this Article, which has remained without change since 1553, is aimed against a tenet of the Anabaptists, which is also condemned in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. "Prseterea nec juramentorum Anabaptistas legitimum relinquunt usum, in quo contra Scripturarum sententiam et veteris Testamenti patrum exempla, Pauli etiam apos- toli, imo Christi, imo Dei Patris procedunt ; quorum juramenta saepe sunt in sacris Uteris repetita," etc. 1 There are two passages of the New Testament which have appeared to others besides the Anabaptists to forbid the taking of an oath in any case. 2 They are (a) our Lord's, teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, and (b) the very similar words of S. James. 1 De Henres. c. 15. De juramentis et participatione dominicce Ccenai, and of. the quotations given above under Art. XXXVII. p 761. 2 Not only the Quakers of later days, but some among the Christian Fathers took this view. 788 ARTICLE XXXIX 789 (a) S. Matt. v. 33-37 : "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thy- self, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths : but I say unto you, Swear not at all ; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God ; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet ; nor by J erusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay ; and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one." (b) S. James v. 12: " Above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath ; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay (or, 1 let yours be the yea, yea, and the nay, nay/ RV. marg.) ; that ye fall not under judgment." These are evidently the passages to which the Article alludes, when it says that we confess that Yain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle. Ajid it is tolerably clear that in neither passage is the formal tendering of oaths in a law court under considera- tion. Such a solemn act is referred to in the Epistle to the Hebrews in terms which conclusively indicate that the writer of the Epistle saw nothing wrong in it. " Men swear by the greater : and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation " (Heb. vi. 16). So S. Paul, several times in the course of his Epistles, makes a solemn appeal to God, which is a form of oath (2 Cor. i. 23, xi. 10, 31, xii. 19; Gal. i. 20; Phil. i. 8), and in one instance uses the expression vrj ttjv vfierepav Kav^cnv^ 1 Cor. xv. 31. And there are references to God as swearing by Himself, which it would be difficult to recon- cile with the idea that there is anything essentially wrong in a solemn asseveration or oath, in order to gain credence for a statement (Heb. iii. 11, vi. 16, 17). But, 5i 790 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES further, what seems quite decisive is the fact that when our Lord was solemnly adjured by the high priest, i.e. put on His oath, He did not refuse to answer. See S. Matt. xxvi. 62-64, "And the high priest stood up, and said unto Him, Answerest Thou nothing ? What is it which these witness against Thee ? But Jesus held His peace. And the high priest said unto Him, I adjure Thee by the living God (ifppicftjto ere kclto, tov Qeov rov £wz;to?) that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God ? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said : nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." In this case, as in others, our Lord's actions form the best commentary upon the meaning of His words, and prove decisively that the reference in the Sermon on the Mount is, as the Article takes it, to "vain and rash swearing." S. James' words are apparently directly founded on our Lord's, 1 and there is nothing in them to lead us to think that he is contemplating anything more than ordinary conversa- tion and the use of oaths in it. We conclude, therefore, that there is nothing in Holy Scripture which need raise any scruple in the minds of Christians as to the lawful- ness of acquiescing when solemnly put upon their oath. Whether the use of oaths by the Legislature is advisable is another matter, on which we are not called upon to offer an opinion. A man may regret the custom, and feel that it brings with it grave dangers of the profanation of sacred things, and encourages the false idea of a double standard, of truthfulness, and yet hold 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 1 This is made very plain if the marginal rendering of the Revised Version be adopted. ARTICLE XXXIX 791 the prophet's teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth. The " prophet," whose " teaching " is here referred to, is the prophet Jeremiah, who says (iv. 2), " Thou shalt swear, As the Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness"; 1 and if judicial oaths are permissible at all, it can only be on these conditions. 1 " Et jurabis : Vivit Domiuus in veritate, et in judicio, et in jus- titia" (Vulgate). The passage is quoted in the Homily "Against Swearing and Perjury" (p. 73, S.P.C.K.), where the whole question of the lawfulness of oaths is also argued. INDEX Aachen, Council of, 222. Abbot, Archbishop, 48. Abelard, 111. Addis and Arnold, 472, 553, 659. Admonition to Parliament, 53, 458, 747. Adoration, Eucharistic, 667. A Lasco, John, 28, 643. Albertus Magnus, 149, 435, 692. Alexander, Archbishop, 591. Alexander of Hales, 435. Alexandria, Church of, 507. Alexandria, Council of, 109. Alley, Bishop, on the descent into hell, 160 ; on the Old Testament, 281. Almsgiving, teaching of Scripture on, 786. Ambrose, 219, 314, 360, 426. Amphilochius, 249, 265. Anabaptists, 22, 24, 125, 282, 358, 386, 398, 441, 455, 574, 588, 616, 760, 783, 788. Ancyra, Council of, 700, 711. Andrewes, Bishop, 47, 554, 660, 663. Anselm, 155, 701. Antioch, Church of, 507 ; Council of, 769. Apiarius, the case of, 779. Apocrypha, 274 ; Jerome on, 276 ; Hooker on, 278. Apollinaris, heresy of, 135. Apostles' Creed, history of, 305 ; origin of name, 313 ; text of, 315. Apostolical succession, 577, 740. Apostolicce Curce, the Papal Bull, 752. Aquinas, 171, 406, 435, 560, 598, 609, 670, 678. Aristides, 140, 299. Arminianism, 470. Arnold, T., 490. Artemon, heresy of, 105. Arundel, Archbishop, Constitutions of, 561. Ascension of Christ, 189. Assembly of Divines, 370, 376. Athanasian Creed, not the work of Athanasius, 329 ; a Latin Creed, 329 ; origin of name, 330 ; con- troversy on date, 331 ; internal evidence of date, 332 ; external evidence, 333 ; MSS. of, 336 ; contained in early collections of canons, 338 ; commentaries on, 339 ; used by early writers, 340 ; probable date of, 343 ; use made of, by the Church of England, 344 ; contents of, 345 ; objections to, 346 ; mistranslations in, 347 ; text of, 353. Athanasius, use of Hypostasis, 107 ; on the Monarchia, 116 ; on Homoousios, 126 ; on Sabell- ianism, 206 ; on the sufficiency of Scripture, 242 ; on the Canon of Scripture, 256 ; on blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 446 ; on the powers of the Church, 521 ; on Councils, 534. Athenagoras, 105, 205. Atonement, doctrine of, 150 ; theories of, 154 ; reveals the Father's love, 154 ; a mystery, 157 ; complete and sufficient, 688. Cf. 439. Augsburg, Confession of. See Con- fession. Augustine, on the Trinity, 101, 111, 112 ; on eternal generation, 794 INDEX 123 ; on the divinity of Christ, 129 ; on the descent into hell, 167, 171 ; on the presence of Christ as man, 196 ; on the Macedonians, 208 ; on the pro- cession of the Holy Spirit, 219 ; on the sufficiency of Scripture, 242 ; on the Canon of Scripture, 250, 256 ; on the Creed, 300 ; coincidences with the Athanasian Creed, 332, 345 ; on original sin, 360, 371 ; on grace, 383 ; on justification, 393 ; on good works, 410 ; on works before justifica- tion, 423 ; on predestination, 478 ; on ceremonies, 517 ; on purgatory, 545 ; on miracles, 558 ; on invocation of saints, 566 ; on sacraments, 596 ; on the Eucharist, 671. Augustine of Canterbury, 518. Autun, Council of, 333. Bancroft, Bishop, 482. Baptism, effect of, in removing orig- inal sin, 373 ; lay, 505 ; Zwinglian and Anabaptist teaching on, 621 ; teaching of the Church on, 623 ; blessings of, 623 ; relation to confirmation, 630 ; of infants, Scriptural arguments for, 635 ; patristic evidence for, 637. See also Regeneration. Barlow, Bishop, consecration of, 751. Barnabas, Epistle of, 270. Basil, 206, 565, 566. Baxter, R., 56. Bede, 171. Bellarmine, 549, 613. Bengel, 115, 147. Beringar, 650. Bigg, C, 108. Blackburne, Archdeacon, 63. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 447. Bona, Cardinal, 677. Bonaventura, 435, 567. Boniface VIII,, 432. Boxley, Rood of, 561. Braga, Council of, 713. Bramhall, Archbishop, 660, 746. Bright, W., 773, 776. Brightman, F. E., 694, 755. Browne, Bishop H., on the Articles, 144, 172, 242, 244, 330, 465, 607, 632, 660. Bull, Bishop, 365, 413, 416. Burke, Edmund, 63. Burnet, Bishop, 18, 47, 660. Butler, Bishop, on the Atonement, 157. Cjesakea, Baptismal Creed of, 316. Csesarius of Aries, 309, 342. Cajetan, Cardinal, 572. Calvin, 385, 446, 474, 590. Canon of Scripture, meaning of the term, 248 ; method of determin- ing, 250 ; difference between England and Rome on, 252 ; evidence on which the Canon of the New Testament rests, 261. Capital punishment, 780. Carthage, Council of. 257, 699. Cassian, 304. Celibacy of the clergy, history of, 696. Ceremonial Law of Moses not bind- ing on Christians, 294. Cerinthus, 711. Chalcedon, Council of, 533. Charisius of Philadelphia, 225. Charlemagne, 221, 313, 337. Charles the Bald, 337. Cheke, Sir J., 13, 19, 654. Chrysostom, 192, 214, 471. Church, use of the word in Scrip- ture, 497 ; the visible, 498 ; invisible, meaning of phrase, 499 ; Scripture proof of visibility of, 500 ; notes of, 502 ; legislative power of, 514 ; judicial power of, 520 ; a witness and keeper of Scripture, 526; particular or national, 717. Church authority, in relation to private judgment, 525. , Church, Dean, 371. Clarke, Dr. S., 111. Clement of Alexandria, 171, 248, 275, 366, 471, 544, 698, 741. Clement of Rome, 104, 205, 248, 270, 467, 578, 739. Clermont, Council of, 430, 678. Clovesho, Council of, 567. Communicatio idiomatum, 138. Communion of Saints, 311. Community of goods, 784. Concomitance, doctrine of, 683. INDEX 795 Concupiscence, 375, 377. Confessio Basiliensis, 9. Confessio Belgica, 10. Confessio Gallicana, 10, 376. Confessio Helvetica, 10, 369. Confession of Augsburg, 8, 90, 120, 198, 232, 358, 388, 445, 493, 573, 587, 592, 616, 642, 680, 692, 761. Confession of Wiirtemberg, 9, 120, 198, 232, 378, 388, 410, 513, 587. Confirmation, 604, 630. Constance, Council of, 431, 679. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 559. Constantinople, first Council of, 215, 533 ; second Council of, 533 ; third Council of, 533 ; seventh Council of, 559 ; eighth Council of, 559. Constantinople, Creed of, 324. Convocation, were the Forty -Two Articles submitted to it ? 15. Corpus Christi, Festival of, 666. Cosin, Bishop, 49. Councils. See General Councils. Counsels and precepts, 437. Cranmer, Archbishop, prepares the Forty-Two Articles, 12 ; his ac- counts of the title to them, 17 ; on the Eucharist, 642-674 ; his marriage, 702 ; on the Royal Supremacy, 769. See also 5, 7, 28, 258. Creeds, origin of, 297 ; indications of, in New Testament, 297 ; early forms of, 298 ; interrogative forms of, 300 ; introduced into the liturgy, 300 ; used as tests of orthodoxy, 301 ; difference be- tween Eastern and Western, 302. Creightou, Bishop, 435, 556. Cup, denial of, to the laity, 506 ; condemned by early writers, 677 ; gradual growth of the practice, 679 ; rejected by the Church of England, 680 ; grounds of the rejection, 681. Curteis, Canon, 68. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 105, 307, 360, 427, 453, 555, 595, 639, 711, 778. Cyprian, Bishop of Toulon, 309. Cyril of Alexandria, 216. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechetical lectures of, 207, 300; on the Canon, 255, 265 ; on the term Apocryphal, 276 ; creed of, 321 ; on the administration of the Eucharist, 677. Cyril Lucar, Confession of, 259. Dale, R. W., 147, 148. Decentius of Eugubium, 606. Deity, properties of, 139. Denebert, Bishop, 341. Denny and Lacey, 749. Descent into hell, change in the Article on, 160. See also Hell, descent into. Diaconate, origin of, 733. Diatessaron of Tatian, 269. Diocesan System, origin of, 738. Diogenes of Cyzicus, 322. Dionysius of Alexandria, 107. Dionysius of Rome, 107. Dionysius the Areopagite, 597. Divinity of the Son, proved from Scripture, 127 ; of the Spirit, 199. Dixon, Canon R. W., 3, 5, 12, 13, 14, 17, 29, 561. Docetism, 145. Donatism, 779. Double procession, the doctrine of, 211 ; objections to, 224. Driver, Dr., 164, 286. 291, 292. Election, 466 seq. Elvira, Council of, 558, 698. Enoch, Book of, 164, 287. Ephesus, seventh canon of the Council of, 225 ; ratifies the Creed of Nicaia, 324. Cf. 530, 523. Ephraem the Syrian, 565. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, on Montanism, 205 ; creeds given by, 319. Cf. 208, 215, 324, 557. Episcopacy, history of, 731 ; how far necessary, 744. Episcopal succession, Church of England, Roman objections to, 748. Erasmus, 568. Estcourt, 750. Eternal generation of the Son, 123. Eucharist, changes in the Article on, 644 ; teaching on, 647 ; adop- tion of, 667 ; elevation of, 666 ; reservation of, 666. 796 INDEX Eusebius of Csesarea on the Canon of the New Testament, 266 ; on the Creed of Nicfea, 316. Eutyches, heresy of, 136. Excommunication, Jewish, 706 ; Christian, 707; Scriptural grounds of, 708 ; history of, 710 ; canons concerning, 713. Extreme Unction, 605. Faith, use of the word in Scripture, 399 ; why the instrument of justi- fication, 404. See also Justifica- tion. Fall, the, effect of, 367 ; Scripture proof of, 370. Farrar, Dean, 457. Fides infirmis and formata, 406. Field, Dean, 570. Flesh and bones, meaning of the term, 188. Florence, Council of, 547, 598. Forbes, Bishop A., 481, 591. Forbes, Bishop W., 422, 568, 572. Formula Concordias, 369. Fortunatus, commentary of, on the Athanasian Creed, 334. Forty-Two Articles, history of their preparation, 12 ; had they the authority of Convocation, 15 ; their substance and object, 20 ; not intended to be a permanent test, 25 ; their sources, 26 ; how far dependent on the Confession of Augsburg, 26 ; their test, 70. Francis a Sancta Clara, 440, 617. Frankfort, Council of, 222, 560. Freeman, Archdeacon, 203. Freeman, E. A., 701, 702. Freewill, teaching of the Article on, 379 ; Council of Trent on, 380. Fuller, Church History, 15, 750. Fust, Sir H. J., 728. Future life, doctrine of, in the Old Testament, 287. Gallican additions to the creed, 309. Gangra, Council of, 698. Gardiner, S. R., 48. Gascoigne, Liber Veritotum, 433,702. Gelasius, 678. General Councils, may not be gathered together without the consent of princes, 532 ; may err, 534 ; have erred, 535 ; their authority, 536 ; recognised by the Church of England, 536. Generaliter, meaning of the word, 486. Good works, 404; teaching of the Article on, 412 ; follow after justification, 413. Gore, C, 98, 103, 125, 130, 144, 473, 659, 732. Gottschale, 475. Goulbourn, Dean, 515, 527. Grace, teaching of the Articles on, 380 ; teaching of Scripture on, 382 ; teaching of the Prayer Book on, 382; preventing and co-operat- ing, 382 ; de congruo and de con- digno, 418. Gregory the Great, 518, 547. Gregory VII., 701. Gregory Nazianzen, 210, 256, 265, 565, 566. Gregory Nyssen, 565. Gregory of Bergamo, 597. Guest, Bishop, share in the pre- paration of the Articles, 30 ; suggests further changes, 45 ; on Article XVII., 487 ; on Article XXVIII. , 646, 662; on Article XXIX. , 45, 669. Hades, 163. See also Hell. Hadrian I., 221, 337. Hadrian n., 337. Haimo of Halberstadt, 650. Hall, Bishop, 745. Hamant, Matthew, 120, 490. Hampton Court Conference, 54, 482. Hard wick on the Articles, 19, 25, 31, 39, 46, 51, 281, 386, 417, 512, 717. | Hatfield, Council of, 220. Hebrews, Epistle to, hard passages in, 449. Hefele, Bishop, 256, 258. Hell, meaning of the word, 163. Hell, descent into, Scriptural grounds of doctrine, 166 ; object of, 169 ; early belief in, 175 ; history of the Article of the Creed on, 177 ; criticism of Pearson on, 179. Hermann, Archbishop, consultation of, 398, 575, 589, 761. Hernias, 205, 270. Heurtley, Professor, 177, 310, 322. INDEX 797 Heylin, 15. Hilary of Aries, 332. Hilary of Poictiers, 110, 218, 256. Hildebert of Tours, 684. Hincmar, 650. Hippolytus, 108. Holy Communion. See Eucharist. Holy Ghost, addition of Article on, 198 ; Divinity of, 199 ; distinct personality of, 201 ; history of the doctrine of, 204 ; procession of, 209 ; blasphemy against, 446 seq. Holy Scripture, changes in the Article on, 231 ; sufficient for salvation, 234 ; decree of the Council of Trent on, 235 ; the Fathers on, 242 ; the Canon of, 248. Holywood, 749. Homilies, History of, 723 ; authors of, 724, 726 ; nature of assent to, 726 ; on the doctrine of a future life, 293 ; on justification, 407 ; on the Church, 494 ; on Councils, 536 ; on adoration of images, 561 ; on invocation of saints, 568 ; on the sacraments, 592, 600 ; on almsgiving, 786 ; on oaths, 791. Homoousios, meaning of the term, 125 ; adopted at Nicjea, 125 ; objections to, 126. Hooker, R., Ecclesiastical Polity of, 47 ; on the Incarnation, 136, 143 ; on the communicatio idiamatum, 138 ; on the gift of unction, 142 ; on the presence of Christ as man, 194 ; on the sufficiency of Scrip- ture, 251 ; on the Apocrypha, 278; on preaching, 503 ; on the Church of Rome, 509 ; on the authority of the Church, 520 ; on Baptism, 624 ; on the Eucharist, 659, 663 ; on ceremonies, 720 ; on the minis- try, 745 ; on the formula of or- dination, 747 ; on intention, 756. Hooper, Bishop, on the Articles, 13 ; on the Anabaptists, 22, 145, 441, 486, 490 ; on the descent into hell, 162 ; on the Church, 499. Horsley, Bishop, 165, 173. Hort, F. J. A., on Genesis i.-iii., 363; on Article XIII., 422; on Article XXII., 553. Humanity of Christ, perfect, 141 ; sinless, 442. Humphrey, 41, 646. Hypostasis, history of the word, 107. Hypostatic union, the, 137. Iconoclastic controversy, the, 558. Ignatius, 104, 140, 175, 205, 210, 270, 467, 738. Illingworth's Bampton Lectures, 103. Images, adoration of, 557 seq. Immaculate conception, the, 440. Imparted righteousness, 405. Incarnation, doctrine of, 137 seq. Indefective grace, 457. Indulgences, 426 seq., 554 seq. Inferi and Infema, 163. Innocent I., 606, 701. Innocent in. , 652. Institution of a Christian man, 5, 372, 508, 599, 609. J Intention, doctrine of, 755 seq. ! Invocation of saints, the, 564 seq. Ilrenaeus, 140, 153, 175, 241, 269, 275, 298, 303, 470, 557, 638, 777. Irresistible grace, 477. James, on justification, 401 ; bishop of Jerusalem, 734. Jerome on the word hypostasis, 111 ; on the Apocrypha, 232, 256 ; on the term Canonical, 250, 275 ; on the Creed, 307, 314 ; on worship, 583. Jerusalem, Church of, 507. Jesus Christ. See Son of God. Jewel, Bishop, 44, 195, 764, 766, 769. John viii., 430. Josephus, 253. Judgment, the last, 196. Julius, Pope, 534. Justification, use of the word in Scripture, 390 ; meaning of, 392 ; distinction from sanctification, 395 ; meritorious cause of, 397 ; instrument of, 398 ; by faith only, 400 ; works before, 415. Justin Martyr, 104, 140, 175, 204, 269, 271, 299, 470, 637, 677. Kate, Bishop, 246, 470. Kirkpatrick, Professor, 289. 798 INDEX Knox, A., 661. Knox, John, 14, 730. Lacey. See Denny. Lambeth Articles, the, 53, 457, 475. Lanfranc, 701. Laodicaea, Council of, 256. Laud, Archbishop, advises Charles I. to prefix declaration to the Articles, 49 ; on Canon V., 67 ; on Article XX., 513. Leicester, Earl of, 64. Leo i., 677. Leo in., 223. Leo the Armenian, 559. Liberius, Pope, 526. Liddon, H. P., 113, 117, 123, 125, 130, 144, 480. Lightfoot, Bishop, 270, 327, 400, 551, 733. Locus pcenitentiee, 452 ; venue, 454. Logos, doctrine of the, 122. Lord's Supper. See Eucharist. Luckock, Dean, 565. Lumby, J. R., 335. Luther on the Canon of the New Testament, 272 ; on the slavery of the will, 385 ; on justification by faith, 401 ; on good works, 411 ; on predestination, 484 ; on the effect of sacraments, 591. Macedonius, heresy of, 207. Marcellus of Ancyra, heresy of, 321 ; creed of, 306. Martensen, Bishop, 191. Mason, A. J., 604. Masses, the sacrifices of ; meaning of the phrase, 691 ; medieval teaching on, 692. Matrimony, Holy, 605. Maurice, F. D., 292. Medd, P. G., 96. Mediation of Christ, 152. Medieval errors condemned in the Articles, 2i. Melancthon, 463, 590. Melchiades, 779. Melito of Sardis, 255. Messianic hope in the Old Testa- ment, 285. Micronius, Martin, 23, 161. Mill, W. H., 246. Milligan, Professor, 189. Milman, Dean, 483. Ministry, the threefold, 731 seq. Moberly, Bishop, 663. Moehler, 237. Monarchia, doctrine of the, 115. Montague, Bishop, 48, 49, 570, 727. Montanism, 205, 449. Moral law binding on Christians, 294. Mozley, J. B., 352, 478, 671, 693. Muratori, 333. Muratorian fragment on the Canon, 267. Nag's Head fable, the, 749. Neal, D., 55. Necessary doctrine and erudition for any Christian man. 5, 380, 641, 702. Neo-Csesarea, Council of, 700, 711. Nestorius, heresy of, 136. New Testament, Canon of, 261 ; MSS. of, 261 ; versions of, 263 ; catalogues of, 265 ; citations of, 268 ; language of Article VI. on, 271. Newdigate, Sir E., 63. Newman, J. H., 114, 237, 274. NicEea, Council of, 124, 520, 533, 698. Nicrea, Second Council of, 533, 559. Nicene Creed, original form of, 316 ; enlarged form of, 318 ; date and object of the enlargement, 321 ; possibly sanctioned at Constanti- nople, 324 ; not noticed at Ephesus, 324 ; sanctioned at Chalcedon, 324 ; additions at Toledo, 215 ; Latin version of, 327 ; English translation of, 327. Nicholas I., Pope, 224. Nicholas III., Pope, 228. Norris, Archdeacon, 153, 155, 348. Novatianism, 449. Oaths, Article on, 788 ; teaching of Scripture on, 789. Old Testament, Canon of the, 252 ; changes in the Article on, 280 ; not contrary to the New, 283. Ommanney, Preb., 339. Opus opcratum, meaning of the phrase, 612. INDEX 799 Orders, Holy, 605. Ordinal, objections of the Puritans to, 731 ; objections of the Roman- ists to, 748 ; validity of the Anglican, 753. Ordination, formula of, 746 ; objec- tions of the Puritans to, 747 ; objections of the Romanists to, 753. Origen, his use of Ousia and Hy- postasis, 107, 108 ; on eternal generation, 123 ; uses the term Homoousios, 126 ; on 1 Pet. iii. 18, 171 ; on the term Canonical, 249; on the Canon of Scripture, 255 ; on predestination, 471 ; wrongly quoted for invocation of saints, 564 ; on worship, 583 ; on the baptism of infants, 638. Original sin, Article on, 357 ; its object, 358 ; origin of the phrase, 360 ; Scriptural teaching on, 362. Original righteousness, 364 ; teach- ing of the Fathers on, 366. Ousia, history of the term, 107. Oxenham, H. N., 155. Palmer, Sir W., 241, 242, 244, 536. Papal claims, growth of, 776. Papal jurisdiction, evidence of Scripture concerning, 773. Papias, 269. Paradise, 166. Pardons. See Iindulgences. Parker, Archbishop, prepares the Thirty-Eight Articles, 30, 32 ; suggests clause in Art. XXVIII., 36 ; change made by him, 120, 160, 198, 259, 378; on the descent into hell, 161 ; on Art. XXIX., 669 ; consecration of, 748. Particular Redemption, 477, 487. Pascal ii., 678. Paschasius Radbert, 597, 650. Paul ofSamosata, 127, 769. Pearson, Bishop, on the position of the Articles, 39 ; on the unity of God, 91 ; on the Trinity, 116 ; on the Son of God, 121 ; on the descent into hell, 169, 171, 189 ; on the Macedonian heresy, 199 ; j on the Divinity of the Holy| Ghost, 201 ; on the procession of the Holy Ghost, 211. Pelagianism, 360. Penance, 604. Penitential discipline of the Church, 711. Perichoresis, doctrine of the, 117. Perpetua, acts of, 543. Perrone, 237, 659. Person, history of the term, 105 ; explanation of, 112. Peter, Gospel of, 176. Peter Damien, 652. Peter Lombard, 571, 597, 654. Philo, 254. Philpot, Archdeacon, his explana- tion of the title of the Articles, 17. Photius, 224. Pirminius on the Creed, 310. Pius iv., Pope, 11, 12. Pliny, 594. Plumptre, Dean, 171, 180, 436. Pneumatomachi, the, 208. Polycarp, 270 ; martyrdom of, 563. Praxeas, 106. Prayers for the departed not con- demned in the Articles, 537. Predestination, Article on, 459 ; based on Scripture, 463 ; Ecclesi- astical theory of, 465 ; Arminian theory of, 470 ; Roman teaching on, 471 ; Calvinistic theory of, 474 ; Augustinian theory of, 477 ; how to be understood, 479 ; Scriptural teaching on, 479. Presence of Christ as Man, nature of the, 193. Priesthood, origin of, 733. Procession of the Holy Ghost, doctrine of the, 209. Prophets in the New Testament, 737. Prosper, 475. Prynne, W., 49. Puller, F. W., 777. Purgatory, history of the doctrine of, 543 ; Romish doctrine of, 548 ; teaching of the Greek Church on, 548 ; evidence of Scripture on, 548. Pusey, E. B., 218, 219, 234, 438. Ransom, Christ's death a, 155. Ratramn, 642, 650. 800 INDEX Reccared, 215. Reconciliation of God to man, 146. Redditio Symboli, 300. Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, 28, 90, 120', 182, 198, 232, 259, 359, 373, 379, 424, 441, 445, 461, 488, 494, 511, 530, 533, 574, 589, 599, 616, 645, 783, 788. Regeneration, meaning of the word, 623 ; Greek words for, 623 ; blessings of, 624 ; distinction from conversion, 632. Regula fidei, 305. Relics, adoration of, 557. Reprobation, 477. Resurrection of Christ, evidence for the, 183. Resurrection body, nature of the, 186. Resurrection of the flesh, 311. Reynolds, Dr., 54. Rhabanus Maurus, 597. Ridley, Bishop, 642, 674, 719. Robertson, A., 779. Rogers on the Articles, 616. Roman Creed, early, 306. Rome, Church of, 506 seq. Roscellinus, 111. Row, Prebendary, 186. Royal Declaration prefixed to the Articles, 47. Royal Supremacy. See Supremacy. Rufinus on the Creed, 178, 304 seq., 314 ; on the Canon of Scripture, 249, 256, 265, 275. Sabellianism, 106, 206. Sacraments. Zwinglian views of, 588 ; teaching of the Article on, 588 ; Anabaptist view of, 588 ; Calvinistic view of, 590 ; number of, 593 ; history of the word, 594 ; teaching of the Greek Church on, 598 ; difference be- tween England and Rome on, 601. Sacrifice, Christ's death a, 148. Sacrifice of Masses. See Masses. Salmon, Dr., 778. Salvus, meaning of the word, 347. Sampson, 41. Sanctification, meaning of, 393. Sanday, Professor, 148, 269, 271, 363, 396, 400, 469. Sardica, Council of, 779. Scarapsus, 310. Schoolmen, the, 368, 418. Session at the right hand of God, meaning of the expression, 192 ; evidence for, 192. Sheol, Hebrew conception of, 163. Sherlock, Dean, 111. Socrates, 177, 324, 518, 699. Son, meaning of ths term, 122. Son of God, eternal generation of, 122 seq. ; incarnation of, 135 seq. ; union of two natures in one person, 137 ; atonement of, 145 seq. South, Dr., 111. Stephen of Autun, 652. Subscription to the Articles required by Parliament, 43 ; required by Convocation, 57 ; form of, modi- fied, 63 ; not required from the laity, 64 ; history of, at the universities, 64. Substance, history of the term, 107. Supererogation, works of, Article on, 424; history of the word, 425. Supremacy, Royal, history of, 761 seq. ; meaning of, 765 seq. Swainson, Professor, 335. Swete, Professor, 104, 177, 205, 208, 213, 310 seq. Symbolum, meaning of the term, 304. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constanti- nople, 221. Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, 242. Ten Articles of 1536, the, 3. Tertullian, 105, 107, 108, 140, 166, 176, 213, 241, 248, 269, 275, 298, 303, 311, 453, 455, 543, 555, 557, 595, 638, 785. Theodore of Mopsuestia, 216, 225. Theodore of Tarsus, 220. Theodoret, 216, 324. Theodotus, 105. Theophilus of Antioch, 105, 204, 366. Theotocos, title of, 136. Thesaurus ecclesiae, 434. Thirlwall, Bishop, 659. Thirteen Articles of 1538, 7. Thirty-Eight Articles of 1563, his- tory of the, 30 ; compared with the Forty - Two Articles, 38 ; INDEX 801 indebted to the Confession of Wurtemberg, 38 ; submitted to Convocation, 30 ; changes intro- duced by the Queen, 31. Thirty-Nine Articles, revision of 1571, 42 ; their true character, 38, 52 ; Latin and English both authoritative, 46 ; Royal declara- tion prefixed to, 50 ; Puritan objections to, 51 seq. ; subscrip- tion to. See Subscription. Toledo, third Council of, 215. TradUio Symboli, 300. Tradition and Scripture, 236 seq. Traditions, Article on, 717. Cf. 514 seq. Transubstantiation, history of the doctrine, 649 ; meaning of the word, 653 ; how far accepted by the Greeks, 653 ; why condemned, 656. Trench, Archbishop, 418. Trent, Council of, 10 ; on the authority of Scripture, 235 ; on the Canon of the Old Testament, 252 ; on original sin, 375 ; on justification, 394, 405; on good works, 411 ; on predestination, 487 ; on purgatory, 538 ; on pardons, 539 ; on adoration of images and relics, 540 ; on in- vocation of saints, 541 ; on the use of Latin in the Mass, 584 ; on sacraments, 598 ; on the sacrifice of the Mass, 693 ; on Extreme Unction, 60S ; on grace ex opere operato, 612 ; on transubstantia- tion, 655 ; on the Eucharist, 664, 674 ; on concomitance, 680 ; on clerical celibacy, 704. Trinity, the Holy, preparation for the doctrine in the Old Testa- ment, 93 ; revelation of, in the New Testament, 98 ; the doctrine agreeable to reason, 101 ; first occurrence of the word, 104 ; meaning of the doctrine, 114 ; priority of order in the, 116. Trullo, Council in, 699. UNCTION of the sick, history of, 605. See also Extreme Unetion. Unction, gift of, 142. Usher, Archbishop, 333, 567. Utrecht Psalter, the, 334. VARIATIONS in Church Services, 719. Vasquez, 6S5, 692. Vatican Council, the, 773. Vaughan, Dean, 134, 204. Venantius Fortunatus, 178, 334, Victor, Pope, 778. Vincent of Lerins, 242, 343. Virgin, Christ born of a, 140 ; immaculate conception of the, 440. Wakkman, H. O., 764, 771. "War, lawfulness of, 781. Waterland, D., on the Articles, 46 ; on subscription, 62 ; vindica- tion of the doctrine of the Trinity, 111 ; on the Athanasian Creed, 331 seq. ; on good works, 413 seq. ; on blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 448. Watson, Bishop, 676. Westcott, Bishop, 97, 117, 122, 130, 134, 156, 169, 1S4, 185, 186, 188, 191, 211, 250, 256, 258, 302, 450 seq., 558, 676. "Westminster Assembly of Divines, 55, 376. Westminster Confession, the, 369. Westminster, Council of, 701. Whitaker, Professor, 54. Whitgift, Archbishop, three Articles of, 58 ; subscription to them required by the Canons of 1604, 59. William of Occam, 526. Winchester, Council of, 701. Wiseman, Cardinal, 237. Witmund, 673. Woolton, 422. Wurtemberg, Confession of. See Confession. Zosimus, Pope, 507, 779. PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH