GIFT OF *H* *-v AN EXPOSITION (t^T^j^^ .AftoM /fy&, ° f the /# ° /0Aka THIRTY-NINE ARTICLESf HISTORICAL AND DOCTRINAL. EDWARD HAROLD BROWNE, D. D. LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER. EDITED, WITH NOTES, BY THE RT. REV. J. WILLIAMS, D. D. BISHOP OF CONNECTICUT. NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY, 7 13 Broadway. 1874. h a. B T Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865, by H. B. Dukand, tat the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. RIVERSIDE, CAMI1RIDOB: STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BT h. o. HorroHTOH and pom pant. QW TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, CONNOP, Lord Bishop of Si. David's, and Visitor of St. David's Colleye, AFFECTIONATE GRATITUDE FOR UNSOUGHT AND UNEXPECTED KINDNESS, ANU WITH DEEP RESPECT FOR PROFOUND INTELLECT AND HIGH CHRISTIAN INTEGRITY, THE FOLLOWING PAGES &re BeHfcateB BY HIS LORDSHIP'S ATTACHED AND FAITHFUL SERVANT, THE AUTHOR l-i UilOfl Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/expositionofthirOObrowrich PREFATORY NOTE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. The Bishop of Ely having kindly given his assent to the pro- posal for a reprint of his admirable Lectures on the Articles, it has fallen to the lot of the American Editor to add a few notes, which, it is hoped, may prove useful. These are all placed in brackets, with the Editor's initials ; not because they are deemed to possess any special value, but, simply, to relieve the Author from any responsibility for them. The volume thus presented to American Students of Theology needs no words of commendation. The Editor has employed it, in instruction, for many years, with an ever-growing sense of its value. J. W. F'krkki.ky Divinity School, F"hruary, 1864. INTRODUCTION. rpHE Refoi'mation was not the work, either of a year, or of 3 * generation. Its foundation was laid both in the good and in the evil qualities of our nature. Love of truth, reverence for sacred things, a sense of personal responsibility, a desire for the possession of full spiritual privileges, cooperated with the pride of human reason, the natural impatience of restraint, and the envy and hatred inspired among the nobles by a rich and powerful hierarchy, to make the world weary of the Papal domination, and desirous of reform in things spiritual and ecclesiastical. Wickliffe in England, and Huss and Jerome of Prague in Germany, had long ago given utterance to a feeling which lay deep in the hearts and spread wide among the ranks of thinking men. It was said of Wickliffe, that half of the secular priests in England agreed with him ; and his followers long gave serious trouble both to Church and State. On the Continent, the Bohe- mian Church was rent by faction ; and even open war was the result of an obstinate denial of the Cup in the Lord's Supper to the lay-members of Christ's Church. The two great Councils of Constance (a. d. 1415) and Basle (a. d. 1431) were the results of the general call for a reformation of abuses : and they left them where they were, or aggravated and strengthened them. But there was a leaven which could not be prevented from working. The revival of letters and the art of printing taught men how to think, and how to communicate their thoughts. Men, whose character was almost purely literary, contributed not a little to pull down the system which threatened to stifle learning by confounding it with heresy. Amongst these, on every account, the most important and influential was Erasmus. It is thought by many that his Biblical criticism and his learned wit did more to rouse men to reform, than the honest but headlong zeal of Luther. At least, if there had been no Erasmus to precede him, Luther's voice, if it could not have been stilled, might soon have been stifled. He might not have found both learning and power 8 INTRODUCTION. zealous to protect him, so that he could defy and prove superior to the allied forces of the Emperor and the Pope. But Erasmus was himself alarmed at the spirit he had raised. He had been zealous for reformation ; but he dreaded destruction. And he was the type of many, more in earnest than himself. On both sides of the great controversy, which soon divided Europe into two hostile communities, were many who wished to have abuses eradicated, but who feared to see the fabric of ages shaken to its centre. Some, like Erasmus, remained in communion with Rome ; others, like Melancthon, joined the Reformation. The distance in point of sentiment between the more moderate men, thus by force of circumstances arrayed in opposition to each other, was probably but very small. But in the ranks of both parties there were many of a more impetuous and less compromising spirit ; and, as the voice of a community is generally expressed in the tones of its loudest speakers, we are apt to look on all the reformers as actuated by a violent animosity to all that was Roman, and on the adherents of Rome as unrelentingly bent to destroy and extermi- u.ite all that was Protestant. While this state of things was pending, and whilst the spirit of inquiry was at least as much alive in England as on the Continent, Henry VIII. was drawn into a difference with the Papal see on the subject of his divorce with Catharine of Aragon. The merits of the question may be debated elsewhere. This much alone we may observe, that Henry, if he acted from principle, not from passion, might have suffered his scruples to weigh with him when his wife was young and well-favoured, not when she had grown old and care-worn ; when she brought him a rich dowry, not when he had absorbed and spent it ; when he had hopes of a male heir to his throne, not when those hopes had been disappointed, the lady Mary being the sole issue of his alliance. But, whatever the moving cause, he was in hostility to the see of Rome ; and his only chance of making head against it was to call up and give strength to the spirit of reformation. Cranmer had been introduced to him by some casual observa- tions on the best way of settling the question of the divorce ; and Cranmer from that time forth Henry steadily favoured and pro- tected. In 1538, the king threw off the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and declared the independence of his kingdom and of its Church. But it has been said that he rejected the Pope, not the Papacy. The Church was to be independent of Rome, but not independent absolutely. For a spiritual, he substituted a temporal INTRODUCTION. • 9 head, ancl wished to confer on that temporal head — himself — all the ecclesiastical authority which had been enjoyed by the spir- itual. Cranmer was now Archbishop of Canterbury. His char- acter has been differently described by those who have taken their views of it from different sides of the question. His greatest enemies can scarcely deny him the virtues of mildness, moderation, and patience, nor the praise of learning and candor. 1 His greatest admirers can hardly affirm that he was free from weakness and timidity, and a too ready compliance with the whims and wishes of those in power. But he had a hard post to fill. Henry had thrown off the power of the Pope, and so had thrown himself into the party of the reformers ; but he had no mind to throw off all the errors of Popery, and to go all lengths with the Reformation. Cranmer had often to steer his course warily, lest his bark should make shipwreck altogether ; and over-zeal for his cause might provoke the hostility of one whose word was law, and whose vail would brook no restraint from an archbishop, when it had dethroned a Pope. During Henry's reign, several documents were put forth, vary- ing in their complexion, according as Cranmer had more or less influence with him. The Six Articles nearly swamped the Refor- mation, and endangered even the archbishop. The Bishops' Book, or the Institution of a Christian Man, was a confession of faith set forth when Cranmer and Ridley were in the ascendant. But it was succeeded by the King's Book, the Necessary Doctrine, which was the king's modification of the Bishops' Book, in which Gar- diner had greater influence, and which restored some of those doctrines of the Roman communion which the Bishops' Book had discarded. 2 Cranmer was himself not as yet fully settled in his views. He had early split with the Papacy, and convinced himself of the 1 His first Protestant successor in the atque placabilitate fuit ; ut nulla injuria archiepiscopal see has thus described aut contumelia ad iram aut vindictam him : Ut theologiam a barbarie vindica- provocari possit ; inimieissimosque, quo- ret, adjecit literas Graecas et Hebraicas ; rum vim ac potentiam etsi despexit quaruin sane post susceptum doctoratus ac leviter tulit, ab offensione tamen ad gradual constat eum perstudiosum fuisse. inimicitias deponendas atque gratiam Quibus perceptis antiquissimos tarn Grae- ineundam saspe humanitate duxit. Earn cos quam Latinos patres evolvit: concilia praeterea coustautiain, gravitatem ac omnia et antiquitatem ad ipsa Apostolo- moderationein pra3 se tulit, ut in omni rum tempora investigavit ; theologiam varietate rebusque, sive secunriis, sivc totam, detracta ilia quam sophistaa ob- adversis, nunquam turbari animum ex duxerant vitiata cute, ad vivurn rese- fronte vultuqce Colligeres. — Matt. 1'ar- cavit : quam tamen non doctrina magis ker, De Antic/. Brilann. Kales, p. 495 quam inoribus et vita expressit. Mira Lond. 1729. enim temperantia, mira animi lenitate - See Cardwell's Synodalia, p. 34, note 2 10 INTRODUCTION. need of reformation, and of the general defection from the fuitli of the Scriptures and the primitive Church. But he was some time before he gave up the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and other opinions in which lie had been educated. 1 The bishops and clergy in general were far less disposed to reformation than the king or the archbishop. It was rather by an exercise of regal prerogative than by the force of persuasion, that changes were effected, even to the extent which took place in Henry's reign. It was also not much to the taste of the clergy, that they should be forced to pay the same obedience to a temporal which they had hitherto paid to a spiritual head : especially when Henry seemed to claim, and Cranmer, at least for a time, to sanction, spiritual obedience to such a temporal authority ; and most of all when Henry had given marked indications, that, instead of mak- ing lighter the yoke which the Pope had put upon them, his little finger would be thicker than the Pope's loins. But neither clergy nor people were allowed to speak louder than the king chose to suffer. Convocation, both in this reign and the next, had little weight, and was not often consulted. However, in Henry's reign many important steps were taken. The Church was declared independent of Rome. The Bible was translated into English. So also were many portions of the Church service. Negotiations were opened with the German Re- formers, especially with Melancthon, whom Henry and Cranmer besought in vain to come over and help them. 2 And in 1538, in consequence of conferences between Cranmer and the German divines, a body of thirteen articles was drawn up, in great meas- ure agreeing with the Confession of Augsburg. 8 On the accession of Edward VI., who was himself a zealous partisan of the Reformation, greater changes were speedily made. In 1547 the first book of Homilies was put forth. In 1548 M The Archbishop of Canterbury with other learned and (fascreel bishops and divines" were appointed "by the king to draw an order of divine worship, having respect to the pure religion of Christ taught in the Scripture, and to the practice of the primitive 1 Kidley was converted from a belief - Melancthon seems to have known in Transubstantiation to believe in the Henry's character too well to wish to Spiritual Presence by reading Rnrramn'i beoaame his counsellor. See Laareace, book, and he was the means of bringing Bumt4m Ltrtwrm, p. 19ft. third edition, Offtr Cranmer, who in time brought Lat» London, 1S:;S; and Dr. Cardwatt't I'ref- mer to the same conviction. Sec Kid- OH '" I lie tux> Liturgies of Kim) h'dtrard ley's I. if,- of Ri.llni, p. 102. The date M- VI. Q*f 1888, p. iv. note 6. ' feigned to Ridley's conviction is 1545. * See Cranmcr's Work-*, by Jcnkyns, See also Soamcs's Hist, of Reformation, IT. p. 278. in. ch. it. p. 177. INTRODUCTION. H Church." This commission is said to have consisted of Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury; Day, Bishop of Chichester; Goodrich, Bishop of Ely ; Skip, Bishop of Hereford ; Holbeach, of Lincoln ; Ridley, of Rochester ; Thirlby, of Westminster ; May, Dean of St. Paul's ; Taylor, Dean of Lincoln ; Haynes, Dean of Exeter ; Robertson, Archdeacon of Leicester ; Redmayne, Master of Trin- ity College, Cambridge ; Cox, almoner to the king and Dean of Westminster and Christ Church. 1 These commissioners, or a portion of them, 2 drew up the first Service Book of Edward VI., which was approved by Convocation, and confirmed by both Houses of Parliament. The principal sources from which it was derived were the ancient offices of the Church of England, and with them very probably the Liturgy drawn up by Melancthon and Bucer, at the request of Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, for the use of his diocese, which had been principally derived from the ancient liturgy of Nuremberg. 3 The same year, Cranmer translated a Catechism written by Jus- tus Jonas, which he put forth with his own authority, and which is commonly called Cranmer's Catechism. The Calvinistic reform- ers of the Continent made many objections to the Liturgy as drawn up in 1548 ; and many English divines entertained similar scruples. It is probable that the clergy at large were not desirous of farther reformation. But the king and the archbishop were both anxious for a revision, which should do away with any appearance of giv- ing sanction to Roman superstitions. Accordingly an order was given to prepare a new Service Book. The king and his council were most zealous in favor of the change, and it is even said that the king declared, in a spirit like his father's, that, if the bishops would make the desired change, he would interpose his own su- preme authority to enforce its acceptance. The new Service Book was put forth in 1552, and, with few exceptions, although these few are very important, it is the same as that we now possess under the name of the Book of Common Prayer. 1 See Strype's Cranmer, p. 193. Rid- Ridley, Goodrich, Holbeach, May, Tay- ley's Life of Ridley, p. 221. Collier's lor, Haynes, and Cox. " If," he says, Eccl. Hist, ii. p. 252, &c. Downes's "it be true that Dr. Redmayn did not lives of the Compilers of the Liturgy, pre- cordially approve the new Liturgy, that fixed to Sparrow's Rationale. Soames's circumstance is to be regretted, for his Hist. Ref in. p. 352. The first Ser- age could boast of few men more erudite vice Book was attributed by his con- and honest." — III. p. 256. This wit- temporary Bale to Cranmer. On Cran- ness is true. mer's approbation of it, see Jenkyns's 3 See Cardwell's Preface to the two Cranmer, i. pp. liii. liv. Liturgies of Edward VI., p. xiii., and tin 2 Soames seems satisfied that the par- authorities there referred to. ties actually engaged were Cranmer, t-2 INTRODUCTION. The Convocation was not permitted to pass its judgment on it, because it would, in all probability, have thrown all possible diffi- culties in the way of its publication. It came forth with the au- thority of Parliament ; though the act which enjoined its accept- ance declared that the objections to the former book were rather curious than reasonable. 1 The same year saw the publication of the forty-two " Articles of Religion." They were framed by the archbishop at the king's command, and committed to certain bishops to be inspected and approved by them. They were then returned to the archbishop and amended by him ; he then sent them to Sir William Cecil and Sir John Cheke, who agreed that the archbishop should offer them to the king, which accordingly he did. They were then communicated to some other divines, and returned once more to the archbishop. The archbishop made his last remarks upon them, and so returned them again in three days to the council, beseeching them to prevail with the king to give authority to the bishops to cause their respective clergy to subscribe them. 2 It has been doubted whether these articles, thus drawn up, were ever sanctioned by Convocation. Dr. Cardwell, in his Synodalia, has given good reason to think that they received full synodical authority. It has been shown by Archbishop Laurence 8 and others, that the Lutheran Confessions of Faith, especially the Confession of Augsburg, were the chief sources to which Cranmer was indebted for the Articles of 1552. He did not servilely follow, but yet made copious use of them. The chief assistant to Cranmer, both in this labor and in the * Strype's Cranmer, pp. 210, 266, 289. ter Ridley, that of these Articles "the Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 883. Collier's archbishop was the penner, or at least the Eccl. Hist. ii. 309. Soames, in. ch. vi. great director, with the assistance, as is p. 592. " The prelates themselves appear very probable, of Bishop Ridley." Hid- to have considered the existing Liturgy ley's Life, p. 343. as sufficiently unexceptionable, for in the Mr. Soames says," Of the Articles now act authorizing the new one it was de- framed Abp. Cranmer must be considered clarcd that the former book contained as the sole compiler. . . . It seems likely nothing but what was agreeable to the that he consulted his friend Bidley, and word of God, and the primitive Church; that he obtained from him MM notes, and that such doubts as had been raised It is however certain, that the Bishop of in the use and exercise thereof proceeded London was not actually concerned in rather from the curiosity of the ministers preparing the Articles, as Cranmer, when and mistaken, than of any other worthy examined at Oxford, took upon himself cause." — Soames, in. p. 595. the whole responsibility of that work : " * Wake's Slate of the. Church, &c, p. 699. for which he quotes Foxe. 1704. Soames'i quoted by Cardwell, Synodalia, i. p. 8. Hist. Hef m. p. 048. See also Jenkyns's Cranmer, i. p. 867. :1 Bamfttm fsctmw, passim, especially It is assert. -d by Strype, in his Life p. 230. of Cranmer, and repeated by (Jlouces- INTRODUCTION. 13 translations and revisions of the Liturgy, was unquestionably his great friend and counsellor, Ridley. It is well known that he had material influence in inducing the archbishop to renounce the doctrine of Transubstantiation and to embrace that of the Spiritual Presence ; 1 and the Romanist party of the day asserted that Cranmer derived all his learning from Ridley. However untrue this may be, it is pretty certain that they always acted in concert. In the drawing up of the first Service Book, Ridley was one of the commissioners ; and no doubt, next to Cranmer, had a principal hand in compiling and afterwards revising it. Some of the com- missioners protested against the passing the act for authorizing the first book, inasmuch as it went beyond their views of liturgical reform. But Ridley showed the greatest zeal to induce conformity both to it, and to the Second Service Book, which was far more extensively reformed. And indeed throughout, Cranmer and he appear to have walked in the same course, and acted on the same principles. It is of consequence to remember these facts. For, if Cranmer and Ridley were the chief compilers both of the Prayer Book and of the Articles, although the Church is in no degree bound by their private opinions, yet, when there is a difficulty in understand- ing a clause either in the Articles or the Liturgy, which are the two standards of authority as regards the doctrine of the English Church, it cannot but be desirable to elucidate such difficulties by appealing to the writings and otherwise expressed opinions of these two reformers. It is true, both Liturgy and Articles have been altered since their time. Yet by far the larger portion of both remains just as they left them. The Convocation appears to have made little alteration in the Articles, and none in the Liturgy in Edward's reign ; for the Second Service Book was not submitted to it, and it has been even doubted whether the Articles were passed by it. The event which seemed to crush the Reformation in the bud, in fact gave it life. Neither clergy nor people appear to have been very hearty in its cause, when it came commended to them by the tyranny of Henry, or even by the somewhat arbitrary authority of Edward and the Protector Somerset. But when its martyrs bled at the stake, and when the royal prerogative was arrayed against it, it then became doubly endeared to the people, as the cause of liberty as well as of religion. Elizabeth, though not less a Tudor than her predecessors, was 1 Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 162, referred to above. 14 INTRODUCTION. wiser, if not better than they. She at once disclaimed the title of Supreme Head of the Church in such a sense as might make it appear that her authority was spiritual, or trenching on the prerogative and rights of the clergy. 1 She allowed the Convoca- tion to be consulted, both on the Liturgy and the Articles. And now both clergy and laity were more prepared to adopt the tenets and the worship of the Reformers. Men who did not wish to change their creed at the will of Henry, had learned to dread the despotism of Rome, as exhibited in the reign of Mary. There were yet many different sets of opinion in the country. A large number of clergy and laity were still for communion with Rome and for retaining the mass ; others had imbibed a love of the doctrine and discipline of Geneva, and viewed a surplice with horror and aversion ; others again leant to what were called Lutheran sentiments, and were viewed by one extreme as papists, by the other as heretics. Happily the leading divines in the Church, and especially Parker, the new archbishop, were imbued with moderate sentiments, and succeeded for a time in steering the Ark of the Church skilfully amid the fury of the contending elements. Their wise conduct and the gradual progress of opin- ions in the course of time appeased the vehemence of the Roman- ist party ; though it is painfiil to add, that measures of a most cruel character were too often adopted by the friends of the Reforma- tion, against the leading propagators of Romish doctrine : measures which stain the memory of Elizabeth's reign almost as deeply, and not so excusably, as the fires of Smithfield do that of Mary's. 2 But, though Romanism was then decaying, the opposite extreme party was gradually advancing ; and it advanced, till in the end it overthrew the altar and the throne. Its influence, however, was not great on the formularies of the Church. The Second Service Book of Edward VI. was restored in the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, with some alterations, principally the insertion of a few rubrics and passages from the First Service Book, and partly the omission of one or two sentences, which were thought need- lessly offensive, or doubtful in their orthodoxy. The Prayer Book underwent subsequent revisions in the reigns of James I. and Charles II., which reduced it to its present form. The alterations in the Articles have been fewer, and perhaps less important. Soon after his appointment to the primacy, which 1 In her Injunctions set forth in the a See Soames's ElizaWthan Religion* year 1669, referred to and confirmed in History, ch. v. the XXXVIIth Article of the Church. INTRODUCTION. 15 took place in 1559, Archbishop Parker set on foot various meas- ures for the regulation and government of the Church, now again under the care of a reforming sovereign, and with a reforming archbishop at its head. It appears that one of Parker's earliest labors was directed towards a recasting of the "Articles of Re- ligion." He expunged some parts of the original Articles, and added some others. In this work he was guided, like Cranmer, m a great degree bv Lutheran formularies. As Cranmer had derived much from the Confession of Augsburg, so he took several clauses from the Confession of Wurtemberg. 1 Both Houses of Convocation considered the draught of the Articles thus made by the archbishop, and by him committed to their inspection and revision. The Convocation, as appears from an original document in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, made several farther alterations, besides those which the archbishop had made. Especially, they erased the latter part of the original 3d Article, concerning the preaching to the spirits in prison, the whole of the 39th, 40th, and 42d, the archbishop having previously erased the 41st, thus reducing the whole number to 38. There was some little difference between the copy of the Articles thus submitted to and approved by the Convocation in 1562 and the copy afterwards published by the queen's command, and with her royal appro- bation. The latter omitted the 29th Article, whose title was t; Impii non manducant Corpus Christi in usu coense," and added the famous clause in the 20th Article, " Habet Ecclesia ritus statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis auctoritatem." Both altera- tions are believed to be due to the queen herself, in the exercise of what she considered her undoubted right. An English translation of these Articles was put forth soon af- ter by the authority of Convocation, not apparently of the queen. This translation does not contain the famous clause on Church authority, which the queen or her council had inserted, nor yet the Article " Impii non manducant," which the Convocation had authorized, but which the council had expunged. 2 In the year 1571 the Articles were again subscribed by both Houses of Convocation, and committed to the editorship of Bishop Jewell. They were then put forth in their present form, both in Latin and English ; and received, not only the sanction of Convo- cation, but also of Parliament. The Latin Articles, as published at this period, omitted the famous clause concerning Church authority ; 1 Laurence's Hampton Lectures, p. 233. 2 See Cardwell's Sjnodalia, p. 34. 16 INTRODUCTION. the English retained it. Both contained the 29th Article, con- cerning the wicked not eating the Body of Christ. The Articles, which were now 39 in number, making, with the Confirmation, 40, were thus set forth with the authority of the Queen, of the Convocation, and of the Parliament. The clause concerning Church authority was still, however, in a measure doubtful ; it being even to this day uncertain whether it received fully the sanction of Convocation. The bishops of both provinces soon after enacted canons, by which all members were bound to subscribe the Articles approved in the synod. 1 The mode in which the Articles, thus reduced to their present form, were drawn up and imposed upon the Church is a subject which may well admit of question and debate. The exercise of State authority, in the whole course of the Reformation, corre- sponds more with the notions of prerogative suited to those days, than with the feelings of modern times. 3 But whatever may be said on this head, one fact is plain, namely, that the Articles thus drawn up, subscribed, and authorized, have ever since been signed and assented to by all the clergy of the Church, and by every graduate of both Universities ; and have hence an authority far beyond that of any single Convocation or Parliament, namely, the unanimous and solemn assent of all the bishops and clergy of the Church, and of the two Universities for well-nigh three hundred years. In the interpretation of them, our best guides must be, first, their own natural, literal, grammatical meaning ; next to this, a knowledge of the controversies which had prevailed in the Church, .and made such Articles necessary; then, the other authorized formularies of the Church ; after them, the writings and known opinions of such men as Cranmer, Ridley, and Parker, who drew them up ; then, the doctrines of the primitive Church, which they professed to follow ; and, lastly, the general sentiments of the distinguished English divines, who have been content to subscribe the Articles, and have professed their agreement with them for now three hundred years. These are our best guides for their in • terpretation. Their authority is derivable from Scripture aU.ne. On the subject of subscription, of late so painfully agitated* 1 Cardwell's Syn<*lt. T^t/Z£<5ovra Qebv, fiiyav, the sun, and a ray from the sun, or light apfiporov, obpuviwva, vlov narpdc, m>ei>fta kindled from light. As the substance of tic irarpdc ticiTopevofievov, h> Ik rpiuv, Ka7 the light remains the same, though a rny el- hoc rpia. has been sent forth, or nnother light kin- * F.r/. Ado. Praxeam,c. m. "Itaqueduos died, "so what proOMdl from God is both et ties jam jnctitant a nobis pnedicari, se God and the Son of Cod, and both are vero unius Dei cultorespraasumunt, qua- one." Ap*I.O.xxi, See Hull, /'./>. n. 7 ; si non et unita.s inrationaliter collect! Hurton, p. Hl'J ; and Hp. Kaye's /'. rinllian, in fucint, et TrinttM rationailttf p- •"'• r > :! . where the ambiguity of some of eipensa veritatem constituat." Tertullian's language is fully considered Sec. I] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 27 this head. Bingham 1 has collected abundant proof, that the de- votions of the ancient Church were paid to every Person of the Blessed Trinity. Bishop Bull, in his Fidei Niccence Defensio, and Dr. Burton, in his Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, have given fully the testimonies of the fathers to the Godhead of Christ before the Council of Nice. To their works the student may refer for farther evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly and fully maintained by the early Christian writers from the first. 2 But, though the Church was thus sound at heart, it had been declared by the Apostle that " there must needs be heresies, that the approved might be made manifest ;" and we find, that, even during the lifetimes and labours of the Apostles themselves, " the mystery of iniquity did already work," which soon after was re- vealed in the monstrous forms of Gnosticism and other Antichris- tian heresies. It is plain from St. Paul's Epistles, that there were two evil elements, even then, at work, to corrupt the faith and divide the Church. Those elements were Judaism and Eastern Philosophy. The Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy, and the writings of St. John, abound with allusions to these dan- gers. The " Philosophy falsely so called " (yywo-is i/^uowj/u/aos), and the seeking justification by the Jewish Law, are the constant topics of the Apostle's warning. There are also two points de- serving of particular notice : first, that these warnings are especial- ly given to the Churches of Proconsular Asia ; 3 secondly, that St. Paul evidently connects with his warnings against both these errors earnest enforcement of the doctrine of Christ's Divinity. 4 Accordingly, in the early history of the Church, we find two classes of false opinions, the one derived from a mixture of the Gospel with Judaism, the other from a like mixture with Oriental or Platonic philosophy, and both tending to a denial of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the supreme Godhead of Jesus Christ. As was most probable, the Eastern rather than the Western Church, and especially, in the first instance, the Churches of Asia Minor, The use of the word Trinity, first to especially addresses the Churches of be found in Greek in Theophilus, and in Asia. Timothy was Bishop of Epliesus, Latin in Tertullian, received synodical and St. Paul's most marked allusions to authority in the Council of Alexandria, philosophical heresy are in the Epistles a. d. 317. to Timothy, the Ephesians, and the Co- 1 Eai. Antiq. Book xiii. ch. ir. lossians. 2 See also Bull's Primitiva Traditio ; * This may be especially seen in such Waterland, On the Trinity ; Faber's Apos- passages as Eph. i. 28 ; Col. i. 15, 19 ; ii. toliciti) of Trinitaruinism. 9; 1 Tim. iii. 16, compared with iv. 1, 2, 3 St. John lived latterly at Epliesus, and 3. 28 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Akt. L and afterwards the Church of Antioch, were the birthplaces of the heresiarchs and of their heresies. These Churches exhibited, in- dependently of distinct heresy, a considerable tendency to Judaism. The celebrated controversy about Easter first arose from the Churches of Proconsular Asia adopting the Jewish computation, in which they were followed by the Church of Antioch. 1 Again, in the East it was that the Judaical observance of the Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, prevailed ; which is first condemned by St. Paul, 2 then by Ignatius, 8 and afterwards by the Council of Laodicea. 4 The earliest heretics of whom we read are Simon Magus and the Nicolaitans, both mentioned in Scripture ; who adopted, ac- cording to Ecclesiastical history, the Gnostic philosophy, and endeavoured to combine it with the Gospel. Gnosticism, in its more developed form, seems to have taught, that the one Supreme Intelligence, dwelling in darkness unapproachable, gave existence to a line of ^Eons, or heavenly spirits, who were all, more or less, partakers of His nature, (i. e. of a nature specifically the same,) and included in His glory (7rA?/pw/«i), though individually separate from the Sovereign Deity. 5 Of these JEons, Christ or the Logos was the chief, — an emanation from God, therefore, but not God Himself, although dwelling in the Pleroma, the special habitation, and probably the Bosom of God. Here then we see, that the philosophic sects were likely to make our Lord but an emanation from God, not one with Him. Cerinthus, 6 a heretic of the first century, is by some considered more as a Judaizer, by others more as a Gnostic or philosophic heretic. It is probable that he combined both errors in one. But early in the second century we meet with the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who undoubtedly owed their origin to Judaism, although, like others, they may have introduced some admixture of phi- losophy into their creed. 7 All these held low opinions of the Person and nature of Christ. The Cerinthians are said to have held the common Gnostic doctrine, that Jesus was a mere man, with whom the .iEon Christ was united at baptism. The Nazarenes are supposed to have held the birth of a Virgin, and to have admitted that Jesus was in a certain manner united to the Divine Nature. The Ebionites, on the other hand, are accused of esteem- 1 See Newman's Ariana, ch. i. 6 1. 2 Col. ii. 16. 8 Ignnt. Ad Maqnes. xvm. i it * Can. xxix. See Suicer, n. p. 922. §§2, •Newman's Arians, ch. II. § 4, p. 206. hires, 9 See MoBheim, Cent. i. pt. n. ch. v. 16. 7 Mo8hcim, Cent. n. pt. II. ch. v. 2, 8. Sec also Burton's Bamtton Leo- p. 247. Sec. L] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 29 ing Christ the son of Joseph and Mary, though with a heavenly mission and some portion of Divinity. 1 Here we have almost, if not quite, in Apostolic times, the germ at least of all false doctrine on the subject of the Trinity. Such heretics, indeed, as have been mentioned were at once looked on as enemies to, not professors of, the Gospel ; and were esteemed, according to the strong language of St. John, not Christians but Antichrists. In the latter part of the second century, the Church of Rome, which had been peculiarly free from heresy, was troubled by the errors of Theodotus and Artemon. They are generally looked on as mere humanitarians ; but they probably held that Christ was a man endued with a certain Divine energy, or some portion of the Divine nature. 2 The end of the same century witnessed the rise of another heresy of no small consequence. Praxeas, of whose opinions we can form a more definite notion from Tertullian's treatise against him, asserted the doctrine that there was but one Person in the Godhead. That one Person he considered to be both Father and Son ; and was therefore charged with holding that the Father suffered, whence his followers were called Patripassians. 3 Noetus (a. d. 220) of Smyrna, and after him Sabellius of Pentapolis in Africa (a. d. 255), held a similar doctrine ; which has since acquired the name of Sabellianism. Its characteristic pecu- liarity is a denial of the three Persons in the Trinity, and the belief that the Person of the Father, who is one with the Son, was incarnate in Christ. But a more heretical and dangerous form of the doctrine made, not the Godhead, but an emanation only from the Godhead, to have dwelt in Jesus ; and thus what we may call the low Sabellians bordered on mere humanitarians, and also nearly symbolized on this important subject with Valentinus and other Gnostics, who looked on the supreme JEon, Christ or the Logos, as an emanation from God, which dwelt in Jesus, and returned from Jesus to the Pleroma of God. Beryllus, Bishop of Bozrah, seems to have taken up this form 1 Mosheira, Cent. n. pt. II. ch. t. Jesus. (See Burton's Bampton Lectures, § 21. p. 247.) This should seem to show that 2 Theodotus, having denied his faith Theodotus was a mere humanitarian. in persecution, excused himself by say- 8 See Tertullian, Adv. Praxeam ; also ing, that he had not denied God, but Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 526 ; Mosheim, man ; he, according to Eusebius, being Cent. II. pt. n. ch. v. § 20. Praxeas is the first who asserted that Jesus Christ placed a. d. 200. He propagated his was a mere man ; for all former heretics opinions at Rome, had admitted at least some Divinity in 30 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. 1. of Sabellianism. He was converted by the arguments of Origen. But, not long after, Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, the most important see in Asia, a man supported by the influence of the famous Zenobia, professed a creed which some have considered pure humanitarianism ; but which was evidently, more or less, what has been called the Emanative, in contradistinction to the Patripas- sian, form of Sabellianism. He held, " that the Son and the Holy Ghost exist in God, in the same manner as the faculties of reason and activity do in man ; 1 that Christ was a mere man ; but that the Reason or Wisdom of the Father descended into him, and by him wrought miracles upon earth, and instructed the nations ; and finally, that, on account of this union of the Divine Word with the man Jesus, Christ might, though improperly, be called God." Several councils were called in consequence of this spiritual wick- edness in high places ; and although the rhetoric and sophistry of Paulus for a time baffled his opponents, he was finally condemned by the Council of Antioch (a. d. 264),. and dispossessed of his bishopric by Aurelian (a. d. 272), after having held it, in spite of condemnation, by the aid of Zenobia. 2 The controversies which these various errors gave rise to, naturally tended to unsettle men's minds, and to introduce strife about words ; and so paved the way for the most formidable heresy that has probably ever disturbed the Christian Church. Arius, a native of Antioch, but a presbyter of Alexandria, began by charg- ing his bishop, Alexander, with Sabellianism. It is most probable, that, as his predecessor Dionysius, in his zeal against Sabellianism, had been betrayed into incautious expressions, seeming to derogate from the dignity of Christ's Divine nature ; so Alexander, in his zeal to maintain that dignity, may have used language not unlike the language of the Patripassians. There is no doubt, however, that he was a sound believer in the Trinity. Arius was, from this beginning, led on to propound, and mould into shape, his own dan- gerous heresy. It was unlike the heresy of any of his predecessors. For, though some of them may have been mere humanitarians, those who held that the Logos dwelt in Christ, held that Logos to be either God, or an emanation from God, and so in some sense co- 1 He spoke of the Son of God, as Routh, ReJiq. Sac. Tom. n. pp. 4G8, 469. being on unsuimsting knowledge or energy, Bull, Fid. Nic. Def. Lib. III. c. iv. Irrurrrifai avviroaraToc. In opposition to 2 See Mosheim* Cent. in. pt. n. Hi. v. which, the fathers of the Council of An- § 16 ; Newman's Arians; Burton's liump- tioch spenk of Him as faoav hepyeiav xal ton Lectures, note 108. twiroorciTov, a living and subsisting energy. Sec. L] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. ?,\ eternal and consubstantial. Arius and his followers, on the con- trary, held that there was a period 1 when the Son of God was not (^v 7t6t€ ore ovk ^v), and that He was created by God, of a substance which once was not (e£ ovk onw). They called Him by the name of God, and allowed to Him, in terms, all the attributes of God, but denied that He was homo-ousios, of one Substance with the Father, 2 or in any sense one with Him. The true Logos they esteemed to be merely the Wisdom, an attribute of God; but the Son they held to have been created before all worlds, and so far enlightened by the Wisdom of God, that He might, though improperly, be called the Logos, and that by Him God made the world* They said of Him, that, before He was created or begot- ten, He did not exist (irpiv yevvrjOy, ovk ^v), and they explained the title of ixovoy€vrjlii;iii;i' ecclesise episcopo, quos famous " Filioque. ' et Uvev/inroftuxovg Grseci dicunt, eo quod 8 Much information on the terms of de Spiritu Sancto litigent. Nam de the controversy may be found by turn- Patre et Filio recto sentiunt, quod unius ing to the words Tpuic, virotrrame, ovoia, sint ejusdemque substantia, vol essentia? : 6/ioovmoc, 'A/>«oc, 'Hfuapetot, Urev/ui (e), seddc Spiritu Snncto hoc nolunt credere, nvcvfiarofidxoc, &c, in Suicer's Thtsaurus. creaturam Eum esse dicentes." — S. Au- See also Bp. Kaye's Hittory of the Council gust. Ham. 62. See Pearson, On the of Nica-a. Creed, p. 816, note, Art. vm. * See Suicer, s. v. Tptdthat, and Met* heim, Cent vi. pt. n ch. v. § 10. Sec. I.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 33 deraned by the Council of Soissons, a.d. 1092. A subsequent synod at the same place, a. d. 1121, condemned Abelard, another famous reasoner of the same school, for errors on the subject of the Trinity ; though what his errors were is a question of some difficulty. His great opponent, St. Bernard, charged him with nothing short of Arianism. 1 After the Reformation, when freedom of opinion was intro- duced, and an unsettled state of mind naturally sprang from vio- lent changes, several heretics arose, who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. Servetus, a Spaniard, in 1531, taught a doctrine like that of the low or emanative Sabellians ; that Christ, who was born of the Virgin, was united to one of the two personal representations or modes of existence, which God, before the world, had produced within Himself. He was apprehended by Calvin, on his way through Geneva, and put to death. 2 Several other sects of Arians and Anti-Trinitarians arose about this time ; some of which took refuge in Poland, as the country of most religious liberty. They called themselves Unitarians. In the Cracow Catechism, which they published as their confession of faith, they plainly deny the Divinity of the Son and of the Spirit, making Jesus Christ but a prophet of God. In the mean time, Laelius and Faustus Socinus constructed the system which bears their name. They were natives of Tuscany, which they left from hatred to Romanism ; and Faustus after his uncle's death joined the Unitarians of Poland, and there taught his doctrines, which soon spread into Hungary, Holland, and England. He professed that Luther had begun, but that he would perfect the Reformation ; which was incomplete whilst any doctrine which Rome had held remained to be believed. His fundamental error was, that Scripture should be received as truth, but be made to bend to reason. He taught, that Jesus was born of a virgin, and, having been translated to heaven, was instructed in God's will, and endued with that portion of the Divine power called the Holy Ghost. He then came down as a teacher of righteousness. Those who obey him shall be saved. The disobedient shall be tormented for a time, and then annihi- lated. In a certain sense, Socinus allowed Christ to be called God, and worshipped. But his followers have generally looked 1 " Cum de Trinitate loquitur, sapit din. Epist. 192 ; apud Cave, Hist. Lit. p. Arium ; cum de Gratia, sapit Pela- 652. gium; cum de Persona Christi, sapit 2 Mosheim, Cent. xvi. pt. n. ch. iv. Nestoriuni." — Bernard. Ad Guidon. Car- § 3. 5 34 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. TArt. I. on Him as a mere man ; following herein that sect of Socinians whose first leader was Budnaeus. 1 In the Reformed Church of England, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, Mr. Whiston, Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, adopted and maintained the Arian doctrine, or a slight modification of it. 2 And Dr. Samuel Clarke, a man of learning and unblemished character, maintained the subordination of the Persons in the Godhead in so objectionable a form as to lay himself open to the charge of Arianism, or semi-Arianism. The masterly works of Waterland on the Trinity were many of them called forth by the unsound views of Dr. Clarke. Later in the century, Priestley advocated with learning and skill, though without accuracy or caution, the far more heretical doctrines of the Socinians, or rather of the pure humanitarians. Those writings of Bishop Horsley are considered as of most value which are directed against Priestley. It has been observed, that the various bodies of Presbyterian Christians, both in Great Britain and on the Continent, have had a considerable tendency to lapse into Socinianism, with the ex- ception of the Kirk of Scotland, which has maintained a most honourable superiority to all other Presbyterians, partly, no doubt, because — unlike the generality of them — she strictly guards the Creeds of the Church, and other formularies of the faith. In Germany and Switzerland the rationalism which so gener- ally prevails among foreign Protestants has been favourable to Unitarian views of the Godhead, and humanitarian doctrines concerning Christ. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. "1TAVING thus far given a history of the doctrine contained in -*--*- this Article, I proceed to the proof from Scripture. So much of the subject may seem to belong to natural religion that we might easily be tempted to begin with proofs from reason alone. It appears to me, however, that, as a Christian Church presupposes acceptance of the Christian revelation, the proper way of treating the symbols and articles of a church is to prove them 1 Mo8heim, Cent. xvi. pt. n. oh. iv. a [See Johnson Grant's IliMory of tht 5 8; also Cent. xvn. pt. II. cli. vi. § 2. Church of En/lami, Iff. c. xvn. — X W.) Sec. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 35 from the authentic records of that revelation. The proofs from reason belong rather to the department of Christian evidences. Yet thus much perhaps it may be necessary to premise : that the mystery of the doctrines contained in this Article should be con- sidered as no argument against their truth. For, as, with all our study, we can scarce attain to any clear understanding of the mode in which we exist ourselves ; reason alone should teach us to look upon it as hardly likely, that, with any searching, we could find out God. The mode of His subsistence who is infinitely above us may probably enough be infinitely above our powers to com- prehend. According, then, to the division of the subject proposed above, we have to show, — First, in opposition to Anthropomorphites, that " God is a Spirit, without body, parts, or passions." Secondly, in opposition to Pantheists, that God is a personal, living Being, — "living and true, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invis- ible," " everlasting." Thirdly, in opposition to Tritheists, Arians, and every kind ! of Polytheists, that God is One. Fourthly, in opposition to Arians, Sabellians, Macedonians, Socinians, &c, that, " in the Unity of the Godhead there are three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, — the Father, the > Son, and the Holy Ghost." / I shall consider it sufficient to establish the doctrines contained in the first three of the foregoing propositions by simply referring to some of the many texts of Scripture by which they may be proved ; reserving for the fourth and last any more extended arguments. First, then, " God is a Spirit, without body, parts, or passions." Joh. iv. 24. Comp. Isai. xl. 18, 25. Deut. iv. 15. Luk. xxiv. 39. Joh. i. 18 ; v. 37. Acts xvii. 24, 28, 29. Rom. i. 20, 21. 1 Tim. i. 17 ; vi. 16. "Without passions" may be inferred from Num. xxiii. 19. Mai. hi. 6. Heb. vi. 17, 18. James i. 13, 17. It is perhaps hardly necessary to add, that, whereas God is often spoken of in terms which express bodily relations, it is that the Infinite may in some degree be made intelligible to the finite ; the Almighty having been pleased to condescend to our infirmities, and to deal with us, as parents do with their children, teaching them by such figures and modes of instruction as their tendeT minds will bear. 36 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. L Secondly. God is 1. " Living and true." Exod. iii. 6, 14, 15 ; vi. 2, 3. Num. xxvii. 16. Deut. v. 26. Josh. iii. 10. 1 Sam. xvii. 26. Ps. xlii. 2 ; lxxxiv. 2. Isai. xlii. 8. Jer. x. 10. Dan. vi. 26. Matt. xvi. 16. Joh. xvii. 3. Acts xiv. 15. Rom. ix. 26. 2 Cor. vi. 16. 1 Thess. i. 9. 1 Tim. iv. 10 ; vi. 17. Heb. x. 31. Rev. iv. 8 ; x. 5, 6. 2. " Of infinite power." Gen. xvii. 1 ; xviii. 14. Job xlii. 2. Jer. xxxii. 17, 27. Matt. xix. 26. Eph. iii. 20. Rev. iv. 11 ; xix. 6. 3. " Wisdom." Gen. xvi. 13. 1 Sam. ii. 3. 1 Kings viii. 39. Job xxvi. 6 ; xxviii. 10, 23, 24 ; xxxiv. 21. Psal. xliv. 21 ; xciv. 9 ; cxxxix. 4. Prov. xv. 3. Jer. xxiii. 23, 24. Dan. ii. 22, 28. Acts xv. 18. Rom. xi. 33 ; xvi. 27. Heb. iv. 13. 1 Joh. i. 5. Jude 25. 4. " Goodness." Ex. xv. 11 ; xxxiv. 6. Lev. xi. 44. Deut. iv. 31. 1 Sam. ii. 2. Psal. lxxxvi. 15 ; cxviii. 1 ; cxlv. 8. Isai. vi. 3. Dan. ix. 9. Joel ii. 13. Jonah iv. 2. Mic. vii. 18. Luke i. 77, 78. Rom. ii. 4. 2 Cor. i. 3. Eph. ii. 4. Heb. vi. 10. 2 Pet. iii. 15. 1 Joh. iv. 8. Rev. xv. 3. 5. "Maker of all things, visible and invisible." Gen. i. ii. 2 Kings xix. 15. Neh. ix. 6. Psal. xxxiii. 6 ; c. 3 ; cxxxv. 6. Acts xvii. 24. Eph. iii. 9. Col. i. 16. Heb. iii. 4. Rev. iv. 11 ; x. 6. 6. "Preserver of all things." Deut. xxxii. 39, &c. 1 Sam. ii. 6. 1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12. Job xii. 9. Psal. xxii. 28 ; lxxv. 6, 7 ; xc. 3 ; xcv. 3, 4, 5, 7. Isai. xiv. 27 ; xl. 11, 12, 13, 15, 22. Jer. v. 24 ; xviii. 6-9. Dan. v. 23. Matt. vi. 25-30 ; x. 29, 30. Rom. xi. 36. 7. " Everlasting." Gen. xxi. 33. Deut. xxxiii. 27. Psal. ix. 7 ; xc. 2, 4 ; cii. 12, 26, 27. Isai. xliv. 6 ; lvii. 15. Lam. v. 19. Rom. i. 20 ; xvi. 26. 1 Tim. i. 17. Rev. i. 8 ; v. 14 ; x. 6. Thirdly. We have to show, in opposition to Tritheists, Arians, and every kind of Polytheists, that " God is One." " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. vi. 4). "The Lord, He is God, there is none else beside Him " (Deut. iv. 35). " Thus saith the Lord . . . Beside Me there is no God " (Is. xliv. 6 ; comp. v. 8). " There is one God, and there is none other but He " (Mark xii. 32). " The only true God " (Joh. xvii. 3). " We know that there is none other God but One " (1 Cor. viii. 4). " God is One " (Gal. iii. 20). " There is One God, and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. Sec. IL] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 37 ii. 5). " Thou believest that there is one God ; thou doest well " (Jam. ii. 19). " Denying the only Lord God " (Jude 4). " The only wise God, our Saviour" (Jude 25). See also Ex. xx. 3. 2 Sam. xxii. 32. Psal. lxxxvi. 10. Isai. xxxvii. 16 ; xlii. 8. Mark xii. 29. 1 Cor. viii. 6. Eph. iv. 6. Fourthly. We have to show, in opposition to Sabellians, Arians, Macedonians, Socinians, &c, that " In the Unity of the Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." As regards this doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, we must not expect to find the same express declarations in Scripture that we find, for instance, of the facts, that " God is a Spirit," " God is a righteous God," or the like. But it by no means therefore fol- lows, that the one is less true than the other. It appears to have been far from the design of the Author of Holy Scripture to set down every article of Christian truth in the form of a distinct enunciation. Scripture is not a system of catechetical instruction, designed to lead us, step by step, to the knowledge of religious verities, and to place everything so clearly before us, that, if we will, we cannot mistake it. On the contrary, it is plainly intended, that, if we do not fear the Lord, we shall not be able to penetrate His secret, and that, unless our hearts are set to do His will, we shall not be able to know of His doctrine. If there were no other reason than this, we might see why many things in Scripture re- quire to be sought out. But, again, God has appointed various instruments for instruc- tion in His Church ; all, of course, in subordination to the teaching of His Holy Spirit. He has bestowed upon us, first, reason ; secondly, Scripture ; thirdly, the ministry of His word and Sacra- ments. If Scripture were a regular course of catechetical teach- ing, so plain that it could not be mistaken, the prophetic or didac- tic office of the Church and the ministry would be altogether superseded. Again, it is evidently desirable that our reason, enlightened by God's Spirit, should be exercised to the under- standing of His word ; and one great blessing derived from this appointment is, that so, whilst the ignorant may find enough to guide them safe, the most profound and acutest intellect may find abundance to employ its meditations, and exercise its thoughts. Else, what was suited for the one might pall upon the taste of the other. Believing, then, that we are not only permitted, but called upon, in humble dependence on the Divine guidance, to use our rea«c n, 88 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Abt. I. dispassionately but reverently, in order to understand what God has delivered to us, I shall endeavour to class together the various facts which Scripture has recorded concerning the nature of God, so far as they bear on this part of our subject ; and then, by the common process of induction, shall hope to arrive at a just con- clusion from a general view of them all. Now these different facts of Scripture may be classed under four heads. I. Scripture teaches, that there is One God. II. There is, nevertheless, clear intimation of some kind of plurality in the Godhead, even in the old Testament ; but in the new Testament there is a clear declaration that The Father is God, — the Son is God, — the Holy Ghost is God. III. This fact of the plurality is not in express terms a con- tradiction of the Unity ; such as would be the case, if in one passage it were said, " There is one God," and in another passage, " There are three Gods ; " for it appears from Scripture, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are but one and the same God. IV. Still, though Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are but one God, there is plain evidence from Scripture, that the Father is not the Son, nor is either of them the Holy Ghost ; but that they are clearly distinguished from one another, and distinguished, too, as Personal Agents, not merely as modes, operations, or attributes. If I find these four propositions clearly established in Scrip- ture, I do not know what more can be required to prove the doctrine of this Article, that " in the Unity of the Godhead there be three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; " and that these three Persons are " of one substance, power, and eternity." I. In the first place, then, Scripture teaches us, that there is but one God. This has been already shown in the Third prin- cipal division of the subject. It is revealed as the fundamental truth of all religion. Whatever contradicts this truth is evident falsehood. Therefore Tritheism, which speaks of the Father, Son, and Spirit as three Gods, is false. Therefore Arianism, which speaks of the Father as the supreme God, and of the Son as another inferior, subordinate God, is false. Therefore every kind of Polytheism is false ; for M there is one God, and there is none other but He." Mark xii. 32. Skc. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 39 II. But next, plain as is this doctrine of the Unity of the Godhead, there are (1) in the old Testament decided intimations of a plurality in the Godhead, and (2) in the new Testament express declarations, that The Father is God, — the Son is God, — and the Holy Ghost is God. (1) In the old Testament there are decided intimations of a plurality in the Godhead. The Jews indeed were placed in the midst of idolaters, them- selves easily tempted to idolatry ; and, being subjects of a carnal dispensation, were but little capable of embracing spiritual truth. It may therefore probably have been in mercy, to prevent the danger of Tritheism, that the doctrine of the Unity was so strongly insisted on, and so little said of a Trinity or plurality of Persons. Yet intimations are not w r anting. I do not insist on the plural form of the name of God, be- cause the Hebrews used plurals at times to express greatness or intensity ; and such may have been the force of the plural in the name Elohim. But, in the history of the Creation (Gen. i. 26, 27), it is certainly remarkable, that God said, " Let us make man in our image ; " and then it is added, " So God created man in His own image." This is the more remarkable, if we compare with it what is said by St. Paul (Col. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 2, &c), namely, that God made all things by His Son. The same plural expression occurs after the fall, when God says, " The man is become as one of us ; " and at the confusion of Babel, " Let us go down and confound their language." We cannot conceive the infinite Creator of all things thus coupling any finite creature with Himself. Again, in the old Testament there are various manifestations of God, which at one time are spoken of as manifestations of God Himself, at another as manifestations of a Messenger or Angel sent by God : as though God were at once the Sender and the Sent, — the God of Angels and the Angel of God. This may be observed of the wrestling of Jacob with the Angel (Gen. xxxii. 24). In Genesis it is said Jacob wrestled with a man ; but he called the place, " Peniel, because he had seen Grod face to face " — (ver. 30) ; and where the same is referred to by Hosea (xii. 3, 4), it is first said, '.' He had power with Grod" and then in the next verse, " He had power over the Angel, and pre- vailed." In Joshua (v. 14), one appears to Joshua, who calls Himself 40 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. I. '* the Captain of the Lord's host." Yet three verses further (ch. vi. 2), when the Captain of the Lord's host speaks to Joshua, the name by which He is called is the Lord (i. e. Jehovah). From this we infer, that He, who came as the Captain of Jehovah's host, was also Himself Jehovah. 1 In the second chapter of Judges, the Angel of the Lord appears to speak with full authority, as if He were the Lord Himself. " I made- you go out of Egypt." " I said, I will never break My covenant with you." Ver. 1. The history of Manoah and the Angel (Judg. xiii. comp. w. 20, 21, 22, 23) seems to teach the same thing. But not only is One, who is sent by the Lord as His Angel, called by the highest name of God, namely, Jehovah ; but also there is indication of the clearest kind in the old Testament, that One, who should be sent on earth by God, as a man, to suffer, and to deliver, is also the Fellow of God, and God Himself. Thus, in Jeremiah (xxiii. 6), the Messiah's name is called " Jehovah our Righteousness." In Isaiah (vii. 14), it is called " God with us." In Malachi (iii. 1), we are told, " The Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the Cove- nant whom ye delight in," — language clearly used of the Messiah, but as clearly most suitable to God. In Isaiah (ix. 6), the Child, who is to be born as a Redeemer, is expressly called " The Mighty God." In Zechariah (xiii. 7), in a prophecy of salvation by the Christ, we read, " Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and against the Man that is My Fellow (or Companion, WD37)> saith the Lord of hosts." I forbear to adduce such passages as those where the Wisdom, or the Word of God are spoken of with personal attributes {e.g. Prov. viii. ver. 22, 23, 24, 30, 31. Psal. xxxiii. 6. Isai. xlviii. 16) ; because we cannot be certain that in these cases personal attributes are not ascribed by the figure called PfroaopojHMfc. But it is hard to explain how God in creation can use the plural num- ber, speaking as to another, with whom He was, as it were, acting in concert, — how the same Person can be both Jehovah, and sent as Jehovah's Angel, Captain, or Messenger, — how the same person can be sent on earth as Messiah, and yet be the mighty God, — how God can speak of the Man, that is His Fellow, — without supposing, that some sort of plurality in the Godhead is implied. 1 Compare Ex. xxiii. 20, 21, where Israelites, seems plainly by ver. 21, to b« the Angel, whom God sends before the God. Sec. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 41 I conclude, therefore, that in the old Testament there are distinct intimations of a plurality in the Godhead. (2) But next, in the new Testament, there are not only inti- mations of a plurality (such as the very use of the names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and their conjunction in numerous pas- sages plainly imply), but farther, it is distinctly taught us 1. That the Father is God, — 2. That the Son is God, — 3. That the Holy Ghost is God. 1. That we are taught the Father is God, no one can doubt. So strong indeed are the expressions concerning the Father as God, that, if they stood alone, we should naturally conchtde, that the Father alone was God, and that, as there is but One God, so there was but one Person in the Godhead. Thus our Lord says (John viii. 54), " My Father, of , whom ye say that He is your God." Again, addressing the Father, He says, " This is Life eternal, to know Thee, the only true God " (John xvii. 3). St. Paul speaks (Eph. iv. 6) of * One God and Father of all." And again, " To us there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. viii. 6.) 1 2. We learn also from the teaching of the new Testament that the Son is God. And this fact we deduce both from reasonable inference, and from direct statement. Our reasonable inference is of the following kind. We often meet with passages in the old Testament, which speak plainly of the Most High God, applied as plainly in the new Tes- tament to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For example, in Isaiah xl. 3, it is said, that " the voice of one crying in the wilderness shall prepare the way of Jehovah, and make straight in the desert a highway for our God." But in each one of the Evangelists this passage is quoted. The " Voice " is said to be John the Baptist ; and He for whom he prepares the way is said to be Christ. 2 Is not the natural and necessary inference, that Christ is as much " our God " and " Jehovah, " as John was the voice in the wil- derness ? Again, in Zech. xii. 4, 10, if we compare the one verse with the other, we shall see that it is written, " In that day, saith Je- hovah . . . they shall look on Me whom they have pierced." But 1 The apparently exclusive appropri- toc, from whom eternally hoth the Son ation of the name of God to God the and Spirit derive the same Life and God- Father must be accounted for by the head. See below, pp. 65, 67. consideration that the Father is ever 2 Matt. iii. 3 ; Mark i. 3 ; Luke iii. 4 ; represented to us as the Fountain and John i. 23. Source of Life, the 'hpxv> or Uijyv -deoTTj- 42 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Aet. I. St. John (xix. 37) tells us, that this prophecy was concerning the piercing of Christ. Therefore we must conclude, that Christ is Jehovah. Once more, in Isaiah vi. the prophet sees the Lord sitting upon His throne, even " the King, Jehovah of hosts " (ver. 5). But St. John (compare xii. 87-41) says, that the Lord, whose glory Isaiah then saw, was Jesus Christ. Another reason why we infer that the Son is God, is that the worship clue to God is offered to Him, the peculiar attributes of God are ascribed to Him, and the power of God is exerted by Him. (1) He receives worship as God, and is prayed to. See Matt. ii. 11 ; viii. 2 ; ix. 18 ; xiv. 33 ; xv. 25 ; xx. 20 ; xxviii. 9. Mark v. 6 ; ix. 24. Luke xxiii. 42. John ix. 38. Acts vii. 59. 2 Cor. viii. 8, 9. 1 Thess. iii. 11. Heb. i. 6. Rev. v. 8, 12, 13. Whereas saints and angels universally refuse worship offered to them, and bid us worship none but God. Acts x. 26 ; xiv. 14, 15. Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 9. (2) The peculiar attributes of God are ascribed to Him. a. He is eternal, existing from everlasting to everlasting. Micah v. 2. John i. 1, 3 ; viii. 58. Col. i. 16, 17. Heb. i. 8, 10, 11, 12 ; vii. 3 ; xiii. 8. Rev. i. comp. vv. 8, 11, 12, 13, 18 (which comparison will show that the language is all used of Jesus Christ) ; xxii. 13. It may be added, that several of the above passages show, that He is not only eternal, but unchangeable, e. g. Heb. i. 10, 11 ; xiii. 8. /?. He knows the thoughts, yea, all things. Matt. ix. 4 ; xii. 25. Luke vi. 8 ; ix. 47 ; xi. 17. John i. 48 ; xvi. 30 ; xxi. 17. Col. ii. 3. Rev. ii. 23. Those of the above passages which show that Jesus Christ knew the thoughts of the heart, should be compared with such as the following: Jer. xvii. 10, "I the Lord search the heart. " Acts xv. 8, " God, which knoweth the hearts " (o KapSioryvwrrm ®«ds), and 1 Kings viii. 39, " Thou, even Thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men." 1 y. He is everywhere present. Matt, xviii. 20 ; xxviii. 20. John i. 48 ; iii. 13. 1 The objections to Christ's omni- Waterland, Afoyrr's Lecture, Serm. vn., science, taken from John viii. 28; Kev. Works, n. p. 100. See the latter pas- i. 1; Mark xiii. 82; are answered by sage considered below, under Art IT. Sec. II] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 43 The last passage especially shows that, whilst He was on earth, He was still in Heaven. 8. He is self-existent, like the Father, having derived from the Father the same eternal nature with Himself. John v. 26. Compare John xi. 25 ; xiv. 6. See also John i. 4 ; x. 30 ; xiv. 10. Phil. ii. 6. 1 (3) The power of God is exerted by Him. a. He is Lord of the Sabbath, which God ordained, and none but God can change. Comp. Gen. ii. 2, 3, with Mark ii. 28. Luke vi. 5. /3. He sends His Angels, as God. Matt. xiii. 41. Rev. i. 1 ; xxii. 6. y. He has power to forgive sins as God. Matt. ix. 2-6. Mark ii. 5, 7, 10. Luke v. 20-24 ; vii. 48. Whereas, when forgiveness is merely ministerial or ecclesiasti- cal, the power is conferred by Him, and exercised in His name. Comp. John xx. 23 with 2 Cor. ii. 10. 8. He shall judge the world. Job xix. 25. Matt. xiii. 41 ; xvi. 27 ; xxv. 31. John v. 22, 23. Acts x. 42. 2 Cor. v. 10. c. He created and preserves all things. 2 John i. 3, 10. Eph. iii. 9. Col. i. 16. Heb. i. 2, 3, 10, 11, 12. With these passages compare Isaiah xliv. 24, " Thus saith the Lord (i. e. Jehovah), I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself." £. He has all power in Heaven and earth. Matt, xxviii. 18. Mark i. 27. John iii. 31, 35 ; v. 19, 21 ; xvi. 15. Acts x. 36. Rom. xiv. 9. Eph. i. 20-23. Phil. ii. 10 ; iii. 21. Heb. vii. 25. 1 Pet. iii. 21, 22. Rev. i. 5, 8. Thus far, then, we have seen, that passages in the old Testa- ment, spoken of God, are in the new Testament applied to Christ, the Son of God : that the worship due to God is offered to the Son : that the peculiar attributes of God are ascribed to the Son : that the power of God is exerted by the Son. If we had nothing more than this, surely our natural and necessary inference must be, that the Son is God. But we are not left to the inference of our reason only on this i On Phil. ii. 6, see Pearson, On the p. 113; Waterland, Works (Oxf. 182:!), Creed, fol. p. 121. ii. 2d and 3d Sermons at Lady Mover's 2 On the proof of Christ's proper Deity Lecture, from creation, see Pearson, On the Creed, 44 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Abt. L momentous subject. We have also direct statement, and that many times repeated, that Christ, the Son of God, is God. And here we may recur, for a moment, to what was said con- cerning intimations of a plurality in the Godhead in the old Tes- tament. Some of the passages there referred to, when seen in the light cast upon them by the new Testament, become direct asser- tions of the Godhead of Christ. The prophecy in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, that a Virgin should bear a Son, whose name should be called Immanuel, i. e. God with us, is, in the first chapter of St. Matthew, distinctly interpreted of the birth of Jesus Christ. Therefore St. Matthew distinctly declares to us, that Jesus Christ is Emmanuel, God with us. Again, in the ninth chapter of Isaiah, which is a continuation of the prophecy in the seventh chapter, the child that was to be born is called " Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father." This prophecy, too, is by St. Mat- thew expressly interpreted of the Lord Jesus. (See Matt. iv. 16, which compare with Isai. ix. 1, 2.) We have then the express assurance of the Evangelist, that Jesus Christ was called in the old Testament, Immanuel, and the Mighty God. We might add to these examples the language of Zechariah (xiii. 7), where the Lord's "Shepherd" is called his "Fellow;" and that of Jeremiah (xxiii. 6), where the " Branch," that should be raised to David, is called " Jehovah our Righteousness ; " 1 be- cause both these passages are unquestionable prophecies of Christ, though not so distinctly referred to by the Evangelists. The first chapter of St. John begins with a declaration of the Divinity of the Son of God. From whatever source St. John derived the use of the term " the Word of God ; " whether he used language already familiar to the Jews, or, as is perhaps more probable, adopted the phrase of Platonizing heretics ; 2 it is quite plain, that by the " Word " he means the Son of God, who was incarnate in Jesus Christ. That is proved by Rev. xix. 13, where it is said of Jesus Christ that " His name is called the Word of God ; " and again, by the 14th verse of the first chapter of St. John's Gospel, where we read, " The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father." Of this Word of God then, who was the Only-begotten of the Father, and, when made flesh, was called Jesus Christ, we are told (John i. 1), " In the beginning 1 On this passage bcc Pearson, On the Creed, fol. p. 148, note. 8 Seo Sect. i. Historical View. Sec. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 45 was the Word, and the Word was witli God, and the Word was God." Language cannot more strongly express the Deity of the Son of God, the Word of God. Yet, lest mistake should occur, the Evangelist adds a sentence which at once declares that the Word was uncreated, and was Himself the Creator of all things, exercising that, the highest act of Almighty power. " All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." If no created thing was made but by Him ; then was He Himself uncreated, and so He must be the eternal, uncre- ated Maker of the universe. In the eighth chapter of the same Gospel, we find our Lord taking to Himself one of the most special names of God. God had first revealed Himself to Moses by the name " I am." Here, then, Christ having declared Himself the Son of God, having assured the Jews that Abraham had seen His day and rejoiced : when they doubted the possibility of His having seen Abraham, He adds, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am. " Had He merely spoken of His preexistence, the past tense would have seemed more natural. But He uses that tense which expresses the existence of none but God, — an unchanging present, which has no future nor past, — and so adopts, as His own, the name of the self-existent Jehovah. That the Jews so understood Him is apparent from the fact, that, though they bore with Him whilst He called Himself God's Son, as soon as he had uttered the words " Before Abraham was, I am," they took up stones to cast at Him. Again, (John xx. 28,) when Thomas is convinced of Christ's resurrection, he is therewith, though not till then, convinced of Christ's Divinity ; for he immediately " said unto Him, My Lord and My God." > Another important passage is that in the ninth chapter of Ro- mans, ver. 5 ; where St. Paul, speaking of the Jews, says that of them, " as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God, blessed forever." In this verse there is, as it were, proof upon proof, that Christ is God. First, the expression " as concerning the flesh," indicates that, according to something higher than the flesh, He had His Being elsewhere. Next He is said to be ctti 7rav- twv, "over all;" as John the Baptist said of Him (John iii. 31), " He that cometh from above is above all." The very same epi 1 The objections which have been On the Creed, p. 131 ; and Middleton, On made to the plain sense of this passage the Article, in loc. may be seen fully replied to, Pearson, 4C OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Akt. 1. thet (lir! irdvTwv') is applied, Eph. iv. 6, to God the Father ; nor can we conceive it to be of less significance than that similar title of God ("jvby, ityioros) "the Most High." Next comes the name (®e6s) God, which is in every manuscript and every version. Lastly, the whole is concluded by the words " Blessed forever : " a phrase which is a translation, or paraphrase of a well-known Jewish form used only in speaking of the Almighty: (wy(%7\ wn rpna). 1 Again, in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, ver. 9, St. Paul says of Christ, that " in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The Gnostics made a fulness (pleroma) of numerous JEons, or emanations from God, and one of these emanations they believed to dwell in Jesus. The Apostle says, however, that it was no single ^Eon, no mere emanation from God: but that the whole Pleroma, the fulness of God, dwelt in Him bodily. 2 The first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, besides ascribing Creation and Providence to the Son of God, besides saying that all the Angels should worship Him, distinctly applies to Him the name of God. It is thus the Apostle quotes the Psalms : " To the Son He saith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever." And again, " Thou, Lord, in the beginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth." Let us next take the important passage in the Epistle to the Philippians (ii. 5-9). The Apostle exhorts the Philippians to humility by the example of the incarnate Son of God. " Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." There are two ways in which this passage, or at least one phrase of it (ofy ap-rrayfiov ^y>jcraTo), may be translated : one, as in our version ; the other (as Origen, Novatian, and many after them have interpreted it), " did not 1 All MSS. nil VSS. have the verse terland, n. p. 133; Middleton, On the Ar- entire. All the Fathers have it, except tide, in loc. ; Mngee, On Atonement, III. p. thnt in Cyprian, Hilary, and Leo it is 91. The Arian interpretation, which referred to without 0cdf. Such an ex- would make the latter part of the verse a ception will be very far from invalidat- doxology to the Father, is considered and ing the reading; but Krasmus observes refuted very fully by Bp. Middleton. See that without Gfdc, the verse would still also Tholuck and Alford on this passage, prove the Divinity. See the passage a See Whitby on this passage. His fully considered, l'earson, p. 182; \Va- Notes on the Colossians are very good. Sec II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 47 pique Himself on this His dignity," or, " did not covet and ear- nestly desire to be so honoured." x It does not appear that one of these renderings is more calculated to weaken the force of the passage than the other. Both of them are intelligible, if we admit that St. Paul is speaking of Christ as God : both unintelligible on every other hypothesis. The Arians indeed interpret the "being in the form of God," not as though it meant being in the " nature of God," but as though it were intended to signify, that Christ, before His incar- nation, acted under the old Testament as God's Angel and Messenger, represented and personated God ; and so might be said to be in the form of God. They would therefore explain it, " that Christ, having been sent as God's messenger, and permitted to personate and represent God, yet did not arrogate to Himself to be equal with God." But it must be observed, that, if this were the right sense of the passage, then also the phrase " taking the form of a servant " should mean, not the becoming really man, but merely personating or appearing in the semblance of a man ; which sense of the passage might be correct, if the writer had been a Gnostic ; not, as it was St. Paul. But as the " taking on Him the form of a servant " must mean that He was truly man ; so the " being in the form of God " must mean that He was truly God. It must be observed again, that, as the Apostle distinctly tells us that Christ took the form of a servant by being made in the likeness of men, it is therefore quite plain that, 1 'Og bv fiopQfj Qeov VTTupxuv, ovx apnaypbv fiyr/oaTo to eivai loa 9ew, dAA' iavrov EKivuae, fioptyrjv 6ovh)v Xafiuv, kv dfioiufiaTL uv&p£muv ycvonevog, icai o~xy- uan Evpe&elg ug uvdpunog, ETh. 19, Chrysost, original. The MS', is greatly defaced in Theodoret, Damasc.,(Eium.,Tlu'ophyl., this passage ; and it is now extremely dif- read Geoc. Cyril. Alex., Theodor. Mop- ficult to decide what the reading original- suest., Epiphan , (Solas. (Cytic.). read of. ly was. There is no trace now of a line a Qrov is the reading of Cod. Vat. and either in or over the written in the orig- seventeen other MSS., two of the Pe- inal ink ; and from close inspection I am sliito, Vulg., -lEthiop., Athanasius, Ter- satisfied, that the tongue of the € in the tullian, &c. Kvpiov is the reading of Cod. pago on the other side of the leaf might Alex., Bezse, and fourteen others ; Copt., nave been seen through, awl have ap- Sahid., Armen., Eusebius, &c. The fa- peared like the stroke of the middle of G. thers' authority is greatly for the first Hut it is difficult to sny how far this set- The three readings Qcov, Ktpto*, and Kw- Sec. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 49 speak, and so plainly assert the Deity of Christ, that the fathers, as early as Ignatius, who was a contemporary of the Apostles, con- sidered themselves sanctioned by these words to use the remark- able expressions, "the Blood of God," and " the passion of God." 1 St. Peter (2 Pet. i. 1) speaks of " our God and Saviour Jesus Christ ; " St. Jude, of " our only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ," Jude 4. Compare Eph. v. 5 ; 2 Thess. i. 12 ; Tit. ii. 13. 2 Lastly, St. John (1 John v. 20) distinctly calls Jesus Christ " the true God." " We are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This (oSros) is the true God, and eternal life." The pronoun " this " (oSros), in all propriety of speech, should refer to the last antecedent, Jesus Christ. Hence, literally and grammati- cally, the passage teaches, that Christ is the true God. But also the context shows that it is of Him, and not of the Father, that St. John makes this statement. Our Lord is called by Himself, and by His Apostle St. John, " the Life," " the Life of men." Throughout the chapter, the Apostle has been urging, that eternal life is in the Son of God. Hence, when he has said all he has to say on the subject, he concludes with once more assuring us, that Jesus Christ is both " the true God and eternal Life." So cogent has this argument appeared, that some Arians have admitted that eternal life was meant of the Son, whilst the true God was meant of the Father. But it can never be denied that ovros, this, is equally the subject of both the predicates, true Grod, and eternal life. Therefore, if it be said, that Christ is eternal life, it is equally said, Christ is the true Grod. Lastly, there is no instance of the contrary interpretation in all antiquity, the objec- tions being all modern, and of no weight in themselves. 8 We may now then fairly conclude, that Scripture furnishes us, both by reasonable inference and by direct statement, with proof that the Son is God. 3. In the third place we learn also from Scripture that the Holy Ghost is God. Having found from the Scriptures that the Father is God, and that the Son is God, we shall need the less proof that He whose piov Kal Qeov, are nearly equally supported avat^irvprjaavTE^ fa alfiari Qeov. This pas- by MSS. The VSS. in number are near- sage is in Syriac. ly equal for Qeov and Kvplov ; those of a This is, of course, assuming Mr. greater authority favour Qeov. Granville Sharp's Canon on the Article The phrase 'EKKlrjaia roi> Qeov occurs to be established. See Middleton, pt. i. eleven times in St. Paul's writings; ch. in. Sect. iv. §2; and upon the five ^KKkqaia tov Kvpiov, never. See also Bp. passages quoted and referred to in the Middleton in loc. ; Burton's Testimonies text; also Waterland, n, p. 128. of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 15. 3 See Waterland, II. p. 123 1 Ignat. Ad Ephes. 1 . [ii/iyral ovtec Qeov, 7 50 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. L name is constantly joined with them is also God. Indeed, but few will deny the Divinity, though they may doubt the Personality of the Holy Ghost. Yet, since in old times Arians, Macedonians, and others appear to have held the strange notion that the Holy Spirit was a creature, it may be well to show briefly that Scrip- ture does speak of Him as God. As is the case as regards the Son, so to the Spirit are ascribed the power and the attributes of God. (1) He is the great Worker of Miracles. Matt. i. 20 ; xii 28. Luke iv. 1, 14. Acts ii. 4 ; x. 45. Rom. xv. 19. 1 Cor. xii. 4, 8. Heb. ii. 4. (2) He is the Inspirer of Prophets, and can teach all things. Mark xii. 36; xiii. 11. Luke i. 15-41; xii. 12. John xiv. 26; xvi. 13. Acts i. 8; viii. 29; x. 19, 20; xiii. 2; xxviii. 25. 1 Cor. ii. 13; xii. 11. Eph. iii. 5. Heb. iii. 7. 1 Pet. i. 11, 12. 2 Pet. i. 21. (3) He dwells in temples as God. 1 Cor. iii. 16 ; vi. 19. (4) He is the Source of all holiness. John iii. 5. Rom. i. 4, 5 ; viii. 9, 14. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Gal. v. 16, &c. Compare Matt. xix. 17. (5) He is Omnipresent and Omniscient. Ps. cxxxix. 7. 1 Cor. ii. 10. (6) He is represented as the Creator. Gen. i. 2. Job xxvi. 13 ; xxxiii. 4. Ps. civ. 30, with which compare Is. xliv. 24. Mai. ii. 10. (7) He is everlasting. Heb. ix. 14. (8) Sin against Him is so great, that, though blasphemy of all other kinds is pardonable, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable. Matt. xii. 31. Mark iii. 29. Luke xii. 10. Thus are attributes and powers ascribed to the Holy Ghost which can only be ascribed to God. But, moreover, He is expressly called God. In 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3, we read, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, And His Word was in my tongue, The God of Israel said. The Rock of Israel spake to me." According to the usage of Hebrew poetry, it is unquestionable that " the Spirit of the Lord " in the first verse is the same as "the God of Israel" in the third. In Matt. xii. 28, our Lord says, " If I with the Spirit of God Sec. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 51 cast out devils." The parallel passage, Luke xi. 20, has, " If I with the finger of God cast out devils;" where the word "fin- ger," like "hand" in the old Testament, simply signifies by or by means of. 1 So that here God and the Spirit of God are sy- nonymous. In Acts xxviii. 25, St. Paul quotes a passage thus, " Well spake the Holy Ghost by the prophet Esaias." The passage is from Isaiah vi. 9 : which, if we refer to it in Isaiah, we shall find to have been unquestionably spoken by God. In 1 Cor. hi. 16, we read, " Ye are the temple of God." In 1 Cor. vi. 19, the parallel passage, we find, "Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost." In Exod. xxxiv., it is related that, when Moses had gone up to talk with the Lord on Mount Sinai, the skin of his face shone so brightly, that, when he had spoken to the people, he put a veil over his face, so that they were not able to look upon him ; but, " when he went in before the Lord," (i. e. Jehovah,) " to speak with Him, he took the veil off until he came out," ver. 34. Now in 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17, St. Paul alludes to this history, and plainly referring to this very verse, he says, When the heart of the Israelites " shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away." He then adds, "Now the Lord" (i. e. the Lord, before whom Moses stood, and to whom the Israelites were to turn, i. e. Jehovah) "is that Spirit." In Acts v. 3, 4, when Ananias had denied the truth before the Apostles, Peter said to Ananias, " Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ? " And immediately after he adds, " Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Plainly, therefore^ the Holy Ghost is God. Such are some of the passages of Scripture from which we may infallibly conclude, that, As the Father is God, — And the Son is God, — So the Holy Ghost is God. III. Having shown that God is One, and yet, that, as regards the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is said of each that He is God; I propose next to show that these two truths are not direct contradictions to each other, as though it were said in one place, " there is One God, " and in another, " there are three Gods;" for it appears from Scripture that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are but one and the same God. 1. It appears from Scripture, that the Father is One with the 1 Thus nti7!!3 Til' " ^ tn e hand of Moses," means merely " by Moses." 52 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. t Son. This is expressly declared by our Lord (John x. 30), " I and My Father are One. " Again, He addresses the Father as being One with Him ; and prays that His Church may be one Church in God, as He and His Father are One : u that they all may be One, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us. " Again, that " they may be one, even as we are one " (John xvii. 21, 22). Therefore it is, that the Lord Jesus says of Himself, " He that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me," and in like manner He reproves His Apostle for asking to be shown the Father, saying, " Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip ? he that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father: and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" 1 2. That the Spirit of God is one with God the Father is shown by St. Paul, who compares the Spirit of God in God, to the spirit of man in man (1 Cor. ii. 10, 11) : " What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him ? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." The passage in 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3, quoted above, where " the Spirit of God spake by me " is synonymous with " the God of Israel said," is to the same effect. 3. That the Son and the Spirit are One may appear from the fact that St. John says (xii. 37, 41), that the Lord, whose glory Isaiah saw in the vision recorded in the sixth chapter, was the Son, Jesus Christ ; but St. Paul says (Acts xxviii. 25), that the Lord, who then spoke to Isaiah, was the Holy Ghost. Again (in Matt. xi. 27) we read, " No one knoweth the Father, but the Son." Whereas, in 1 Cor. ii. 11, we are told that " the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 4. Accordingly we find, that what the Father does, that the Son does, and that the Holy Ghost does ; where the Father is, there the Son is, and there the Holy Ghost is, e.g. The Father made the world. Heb. i. 2. 1 Cor. viii. 6. The Son made the world. John i. 3. Col. i. 16. Heb. i. 2. The Spirit made the world. Job xxvi. 13 ; xxxiii. 4. Again, The Father quickeneth. John v. 21. The Son quickeneth whom he will. John ▼. 21. It is the Spirit that quickeneth. John vi. 63. Again, God the Father spake by the prophets. Heb. i. 1. 1 John xir. 9 ; see also Matt. x. 40 ; Mark ix. 87. Sec. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 53 God the Son spake by the prophets. 2 Cor. xiii. 8. 1 Pet. i. 11. God the Holy Ghost spake by the prophets. Mark xiii. 11. 2 Pet. i. 21. Again, sanctification is ascribed To the Father. Jude 1. To the Son. Heb. ii. 11. To the Holy Ghost. Rom. xv. 16. 1 Ordination is ascribed To the Father. 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. To the Son. 1 Tim. i. 12. To the Holy Ghost. Acts xx. 28. Indwelling and presence in every Christian are ascribed To the Father. John xiv. 23. 1 Cor. xiv. 25. To the Son. John xiv. 23. 2 Cor. xiii. 5. To the Holy Ghost. John xiv. 17. From these considerations, and others like them, we naturally conclude, that, though the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet are they not three different Gods, but one and the same God. Those, indeed, who take the Arian view of the Scriptures, maintain that there is but one God, even the Father; but they add, that the Son also is God, yet not the same God, but an inferior God to the Father, and so not of the same nature and substance with the Father. This is both self- contradictory and contradictory to Holy Scripture. First, it is self-contradictory, for it teaches that there is but one God, and yet that there are two Gods. Secondly, it is contradictory to Scripture ; for it is opposed to the passages, which, as we have just seen, prove the Son to be one with the Father; and it is opposed most distinctly to such passages as teach that there is no God but the One Supreme Creator of the Universe. For example, we read, Isai. xliv. 8, " Is there a God beside Me ? Yea, there is no God, I know not any ; " and, Isai. xiv. 5, " I am the Lord, there is none else ; there is no God beside me." (So Deut. iv. 35, 39 : xxxii. 39. 2 Sam. xxii. 32.) Now, if the Arian hypothesis be true, there is another God, besides God the Father, even His Son Jesus Christ, who is not only another, but an inferior God to the Father. The only way, then, in which we can reconcile the two apparently contradictory truths, (1) that God is one, and (2) that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each said to be God, is by admitting, as the 1 See Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. 54 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. I. Scriptures also teach us, that " they are not three Gods, but One God. " i Thus far, then, we have proved, — I. The Unity of the Godhead, — II. That the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, — III. That these two truths are not direct contra- dictions to each other ; for that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are but One God, not three Gods. But if this were all that we could learn from Scripture, we might naturally conclude that the Sabellian was the correct hy- pothesis, and that the names of Father, Son, and Spirit were the names but of different modes, operations, or characters of the Deity : so that, perhaps, God might be called Father, when viewed as Crea- tor and Governor; Son, when viewed as Redeemer and Saviour; Spirit, when considered as Sanctitier and Teacher. Or perhaps we might suppose, that the Son and the Spirit were mere attributes of, or influences from God ; as, for instance, the Son, the Logos, might be esteemed but as the Reason of God ; the Spirit, as that Divine Influence by which He teaches the minds, and sanctifies the hearts of His servants. IV. It is therefore necessary to show that there is plain evi- dence from Scripture that the Father is not the Son, and that neither of them is the Holy Ghost ; but that they are plainly dis- tinguished from one another, and distinguished, too, as Personal Agents, not merely as modes, operations, or attributes. That there is some kind of distinction, must appear from the fact that the three, Father, Son, and Spirit, are so frequently men- tioned together in the same sentence ; especially in the forms of blessing and of baptism. (2 Cor. xiii. 14. Matt, xxviii. 19.) This alone might be sufficient to prove that these three sacred names were not names merely of different characters assumed by God at various times ; for it seems scarcely reasonable to suppose that the Apostles prayed for blessing from three characters assumed by God, instead of praying for blessing from the One God to whom all such characters belonged ; nor yet can we well believe that they should invoke blessing from the attributes of God, or baptize converts into a form of faith not in God alone, but in God, His attributes, and His influences. But, in order to establish more clearly the fact that the Father, 1 It may be observed, that, if this is Son, and the Holy Ghost bo but one God, true, then "the doctrine of the homo-owiion, the Son and the Spirit must be of one the consubstantiality of the Son and the nature and substance with the Father. Spirit is proved ; for if the Father, the Skc. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 55 the Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinguished as personal Agents, it will be necessary to bring passages from Scripture, in which they are represented to us as acting personal parts, and even in which all three are represented as acting three distmct parts. 1. The Father and the Son act distinct personal parts, and are therefore distinct Personal Agents. (1) The Father sends the Son ; whereas no one can be said to send himself. John v. 36, 37 ; vi. 38, 39. Acts hi. 20. Gal. iv. 4. 1 John iv. 9, &c. (2) The Son leaves the Father and returns to Him again. John viii. 42 ; ix. 4 ; xii. 49 ; xvi. 5, 28 ; xvii. 3. 1 John iv. 14. (•3) The Son offers Himself to the Father. Heb. ix. 14. (4) The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. John iii. 35 ; v. 20 ; xiv. 31 ; xv. 9 ; xvii. 24, 26. (5) The Son is said to make intercession with the Father. Heb. vii. 25. 1 John ii. 1. Comp. Heb. ix. 24. (6) The Son in His human nature prays to the Father. Luke xxii. 42 ; xxiii. 34. John xvii. (7) The Father hears and speaks to the Son. John xi. 42. Heb. v. 7. Matt. iii. 17 ; xvii. 5. Luke ix. 35. John xii. 28. 2. The Spirit acts distinct parts from either the Father or the Son. (1) The Father and the Son both send the Spirit. John xiv. 16, 26 ; xv. 26 ; xx. 22. Acts ii. 33. Gal. iv. 6. (2) The Spirit makes intercession with the Father, whereas no one can intercede with Himself. Rom. viii. 26. (3) The Son offers Himself to the Father through the Eternal Spirit. Heb. ix. 14. (4) Christ tells His disciples, that He must go away from them, and that then the Holy Spirit should come in His place ; that He would go to the Father ; and from the Father send the Comforter. John xiv. 16, 26 ; xvi. 7. (5) Christ says, that the Holy Spirit should not speak of Himself, but should receive of Christ's, and show to the Church. John xvi. 13, 14, 15. 3. We not only have the names of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit joined in blessing, and in the form of baptism, but we are told of a scene in which they all three acted jointly, yet separate parts. At the baptism of Christ, the Son was in the Man Christ Jesus baptized ; the Spirit in the shape of a dove descended on Him ; the Father, out of Heaven, pronounced Him His beloved Son. 56 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. L All these facts, put together, sufficiently demonstrate that there is a distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that a distinction of Personal Agents. Yet still, that we may leave no room -for objection, it may, perhaps, appear necessary to consider separately, and more at length, the Personality (i) of the Son, (ii) of the Spirit. (i) The general tone of Scripture so clearly indicates that God the Son is a Person, that, at first, it might appear that the Arian hypothesis, which makes the Son an inferior God to the Father, was the only one which could be at all maintained on Scriptural grounds ; except, of course, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. But as the Sabellian hypothesis is not without its advocates and its arguments, it deserves and requires to be con- sidered. The view which Sabellianism takes of the Son of God, is, as has been said before, twofold. Some Sabellians considered God the Son as altogether the same as God the Father, and as having no proper distinction from Him. These were, in the early ages, called Patripassians. Others, again, looked on God the Son as but an Emanation from the Father, not as a Person distinct, in any sense, from Him. These have been called Emanative Sabel- lians. Both forms have found advocates in some degree in later times. Patripassianism has been virtually held by some divines, who, in the main orthodox, have endeavoured too boldly to make the doctrine of the Trinity square exactly with human reason and philosophy. The emanative theory has been adopted, more or less, by some, who are in fact Socinians, to elude the force or explain the difficulty of such passages as John i. 1. Now, against both these hypotheses, the marked distinction which our Lord makes between Himself and the Father must be carefully noted. For example (John viii. 17, 18) : "It is written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true. I am ono that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me." Here is a distinct appeal to two distinct wit- nesses. As the Jewish Law required the evidence of two men ; so here the Lord Jesus appeals to the evidence lirst of Himself, secondly of His Father. Would this be much unlike equivocation, if the Father and the Son had no personal distinction? A pi in (John v. 17), our Lord says: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." And when the Jews ikvummI Him of blasphemy, for making God His Father, and so claiming equality with God, He does not deny the charge of making Himself equal with God, but Sec. II] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 57 still goes on to declare to them, that, notwithstanding His unity of nature with the Father, He, the Son, had a personal subordination to Him. " The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do : for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth." In this passage surely, where the Son claims, as the Jews rightly interpreted Him, to be the true Son of God, and so equal with God, He yet plainly sets forth the doctrine, that in His Person, though not in His Nature, He was subordinate to the Father, receiving of the Father, and doing the same things as the Father doeth. And so He goes on, " As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son." Again, "As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself:" that is, "the Father," unlike any creature, is self-existent, having " life in Himself," and so He hath given to the Son to be self-existent, and to " have life in Himself," — (language clearly spoken of the eternal Son, not merely of the Man Christ Jesus,) — "And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also ; because He is the Son of Man," i. e. because He is not only Son of God, but Son of man also, incarnate, and so the fitter agent to execute the wrath, as well as to show the mercy of God. But again, our Lord goes on, " I can of Mine own Self do nothing : as I hear I judge : and My judgment is just : because I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father, which hath sent Me." l Again, in the forty-third verse, " I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not : if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." The whole of this passage is one in which our Lord clearly spoke of Himself in His Divine nature, and of His relation to His Father in that nature, which He had in common with Him ; yet no language can more expressly mark a distinction of personal action, and personal attribute. Again, some of the passages which seem to have as their special object to set forth the glory of the Divine Being of the Son, are so worded as specially to show His distinction of Person from the Father. Thus in Coloss. i. 15, 16, where creation and providence are ascribed to Him in terms of peculiar grandeur, He is called " the Image of the Invisible God, the First Born of," or " Begotten before, every creature." Here He is both repre- 1 See John v. 17-30. 8 58 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. L sented as the Image of the Father, and as having before all crea- tion been begotten as His Son; both expressions markedly denoting personal difference. The same tiling is even more remarkable in the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is plain, from the language of the whole of the first chapter, that the subject is the Divine nature of the Son. Yet nothing can be more clear than the distinction which is made between the Father and the Son. First of all, God is said to have spoken in old times by the prophets, but in the latter days by His Son, " whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made .the worlds. Who being the brightness (the shining forth) of His glory, and the express Image of His Person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right Hand of the Majesty on High" (vv. 1, 2, 3). Now here God is said to have spoken by His Son, as He did by the prophets ; He is said to have appointed Him heir of all things ; (both marking distinctions of Person) ; then the Son is said to be " the express Image of the Person " of the Father. It may be a question, what is meant by the word twoo-rao-is, translated Person ; but there can be no question that the word x a P aKT VPi translated express Image, means that the vTroo-Tacris of the Son answers to that of the Father, as the impression on wax answers to the seal which made the impres- sion. Whether then vTro'orao-is means "Person," or whether it means " Mode of existence," we learn that, as the Son is the shining forth of the Father's glory, so His Person, or His mode of being, corresponds to that of the Father, (not only as a Son's to a Father's, but) as an impression on wax to the engraving on a seal. This indeed teaches us clearly, that the Son is of one glory, and so of one eternal essence with the Father ; but as the image on the wax is distinct from that upon the seal, so must there be a distinction between the Father and the Son, of which the distinction of the seal and the wax is a figure and similitude. The prayer of our Lord to His Father, in the seventeenth chapter of St. John, is another striking proof that the Son is indeed of one nature and substance, but not of one Person with the Father. No one can attentively peruse that prayer without seeing that our Lord speaks of Himself and His glory, as the Eternal Son, not merely as the Man Christ Jesus ; so that what- ever diversity we observe is not merely incident to our Lord's incarnation, but is also characteristic of Him in His uiu'ivated nature. When, therefore, He says (ver. 1), " Father, glorify Thy Sec. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 59 Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee," we may inquire, what sense the passage could bear, if the Father and the Son were per- sonally identical ? Again, the same question is suggested by the following : " And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory that I had with Thee before the world was" (ver. 5). And "I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me, and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me" (ver. 8). And again, "Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the world" (ver. 24). Does not all this necessarily prove that, before the world was created, the Person of the Son was different from the Person of the Father ? Perhaps the passage which most favours the Sabellian notions concerning the Person of the Son, is the important first chapter of St. John. That passage indeed distinctly asserts the Divinity of the Son ; but language is used which may be supposed to mean that He is, as regards His Divine nature, not to be distinguished from the Father, or at least to be distinguished only as an emana- tion or attribute. Plato had used the term Adyos ; but he did not probably intend to distinguish, by any personal distinction, the Adyos from God. The early heretics had mixed up the philosophy of Plato with the religion of Christ ; and they used of the Son of God the language which the Platonists had used of the Adyos. When, therefore, St. John came to use the same expression (adopted, as some think, on purpose to refute heretical teachers whilst using their own terms), it might be supposed that by the Adyos he meant no more than the Thought or Reason of God, which, whilst it remained in the bosom of God, was the Ao'yos evBidOeros, the inward Reason or Thought ; when it was exerted to create the world or reveal the will of God, it became the Adyos irpo^opiKo^ or, as it were, the outward Speech of God. This view of the passage may seem supported by the eighth chapter of Proverbs ; where the Wisdom of God is spoken of in terms so like St. John's language concerning the Logos, that the fathers, and many after them, have considered that Solomon must there have been writing of Christ. If this be the meaning of the Logos in St. John, we may paraphrase his words somewhat as follows : In the beginning was the Reason or Wisdom of God. That Wisdom was in God, nay, it was God (for as God is Love, so God is Wisdom). All things were made by the Reason or Wisdom of God, and without it was nothing made that was made. .... It was the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh 60 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Abt. L into the world And this wisdom was incarnate, or manifested in Christ, and so dwelt among us. I have endeavoured to put this argument in its strongest form, that I may give it all the weight which it deserves. I proceed to show wherein it is defective and unsound. In the first place, the later Platonists, and still more, the Platonizing and Gnostic heretics, had a notion of the Logos very different from Plato's, and far more personal. Again, the Gnos- tics, against whose opinions in all probability St. John directs many of his statements, considered the Pleroma or fulness of God to be made up of many JEons or Emanations from God, to which they gave the various names of Nus, Sophia, Dynamis, &c. The chief of these was the Logos, whom they believed to have de- scended on the man Jesus. It is probable that in the first chapter of his Gospel St. John uses the names of other ,/Eons besides the Logos. For example, whereas he first calls the Son of God the Logos, he also tells us, that in Him was Zoe (life), and the Zoe was the Phos (light) ; by which he has been supposed to mean, that the Logos, the Zoe, the Phos, were not different jEons, but that, as St. Paul informed the Colossians (ii. 9), the whole Pleroma of Godhead dwelt in Christ, bodily. Again, St. John tells us that by the Logos, who is also the Phos and the Zoe, the world was created. The Gnostics taught that the world was created by a fallen iEon, who was an enemy to God, and that the Logos came down to destroy his dominion among men. But St. John teaches that the Logos was Himself the Creator of the Universe, and that without Him nothing was made that was made. Once more, he explains (ver. 14), that the Logos was really made flesh and dwelt among us. The Gnostics did not believe the Logos to be really made flesh ; but they supposed, either that He only assumed the appearance of humanity, or that He descended, for a time, on the man Jesus, and then left him at his crucifixion. • Therefore St. John uses the strong expression o Aoyos aap£ iyevcro, " The Word was made flesh." Lastly, he says that " we beheld His glory, tlu* glory of the Monogenes (the Only-begotten) of the Father ; full of grace and truth." Monogenes (only-begotten) was the name of another iEon in the Gnostic Pleroma. St. John therefore adds to the other titles of the Son this title of Monogenes, to show still iiirther, that the Lord Jesus, the Son of the Father, combined in His own Person all the attributes which the Gnostics assigned to these various ./Eons, and was therefore not simply a single emana- tion from God, but, as St. Paul says, had in Him a fulness cf Sec. II.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 61 Deity, and was moreover the Creator of the universe, and not, as the Gnostics had it, one who was sent to overthrow the power of the Creator. Now, if this be the true explanation of St. John's language, it is vastly unlike the language assigned to him by the Sabellian hypothesis. For whilst St. John is ascribing to the Son supreme Divinity, he does so in a manner which essentially implies Person- ality too. But there are many other reasons why the word Loifos in the first chapter of St. John must be interpreted of a Person not of an attribute or quality, like Reason, or Wisdom. (1) The Word is said to be God. It is not said tha-t the Word is 0elos, divine, but ©eos, Grod. Now it may be pos?ibta improperly to say " God is wisdom," as the Apostle says, " God is love." But we cannot say, " God's wisdom is God," any more than " Man's wisdom or reason is man." (2) The Word is said to be " with God," not in God ; which implies personality. God's wisdom is in Him, not, properly speak- ing, with Him. (3) In ver. 11, the Word is said to have " come to His own ; " meaning, no doubt, His own creatures ; which again is personal. (4) In verse 14, He is called the Movoyenjs, the Only-begotten. But the idea of Sonship is personal. We cannot conceive of the Son of God, but as one in some personal sense distinct from him : just as the term son amongst men indicates one distinct from his father. And no doubt, as the term Logos is used to indicate that the Son from all eternity dwelt in the bosom of the Father, as the reason or wisdom dwells in the bosom of one endowed with such faculties ; so the word Son is used to indicate to our finite under- standings, that, notwithstanding such an intimate union, yet there is a distinction, such, in some degree, as the distinction of father and son. (5) He is said to have been " made flesh, and to have dwelt among us ; " and that, in opposition to the fancy of the Gnostics or Docetae, that the Christ or Logos only took a phantastic body. Accordingly, in Rev. xix. 13, St. John sees a vision of a Person, who is evidently Jesus Christ, and whose name, written on His thigh, is King of kings, and Lord of lords ; and he tells us that this Person is called " The Word of God." (6) In the eighth verse, John the Baptist is contrasted with Him, and declared not to be the Light or the Logos. Now, John the Baptist was undoubtedly a person. We must therefore con- C2 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. |Akt. l elude that He, with whom he is contrasted, and of whom the Evangelist had been speaking before, was a Person also. Thus, I trust, we may conclude that the testimony borne by St. John, in the first chapter of his Gospel, is a testimony to the doctrine of the distinct personality of the Son, not to Sabellianism. 1 And with this we may venture to leave the question of the Per- sonality of God the Son. (ii) We have next to show the Personality of the Spirit of God. Now, as we are baptized " in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : " as the Apostles bless in the name of Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost : and as on many occasions the Holy Spirit is joined with the Father and the Son ; we cannot but think it probable, at least, that as the Father is a Person, and the Son has just been shown to be a Person dis- tinct from the Father, so the Holy Ghost is a Person also distinct from either of them. But beyond this, we find distinctly that, in Holy Scripture, personal actions are ascribed to the Holy Ghost. (1) He makes intercession with God the Father, Rom. viii. 26. Now to make intercession is a personal act. (2) He testifies. John xv. 26. (3) He teaches. John xiv. 26. (4) He hears and speaks. John xvi. 13. (5) He gives spiritual gifts, dividing them according to His will. 1 Cor. xii. 8, 11. (6) He inhabits a temple, 1 Cor. iii. 16 ; vi. 19. This is the act of a Person, not of an attribute or influence. (7) He not only is represented as speaking generally, but we have speeches set down in Scripture, which the Holy Spirit is said to have uttered to peculiar persons, e. g. Acts x. 28 : " The Spirit said unto Peter, Behold, three men seek thee .... I have sent them." Acts xiii. 2 : " The Holy Spirit said, Separate me Bar- nabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them." (8) He is put in direct opposition to evil spirits, who are doubtless persons. 1 Sam. xvi. 14. 2 Chron. xviii. 20, 21. It has, however, been argued that those and similar personal actions, when ascribed to the Spirit, are the actions of the Father, who, when He does them Himself, is said to do them by His Spirit. In answer to this, it can plainly be shown that there are many personal actions ascribed to the Spirit which cannot be 1 On this subject see Waterland's first Sermon at Lady Moyer's Lecture, on John i. 1, ii. p. 1. Skc. II. J OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 1 13 ascribed to the Father. For instance, in Rom. viii. 26, as we have just seen, the Spirit intercedes with the Father for the saints. But it cannot be said that the Father intercedes with Himself. Here then we have an instance of the performance of a personal action by the Spirit, which cannot be performed by the Father. Again, Christ is said to send the Spirit (John xvi. 7). But it is never said of God the Father, that He is sent. He sends both the Son and the Spirit, but is never sent Himself. Moreover (in John xv. 26), our Lord promises " to send the Spirit from the Father." If the Spirit means here the Father, then Christ must send the Father from the Father. 1 Again (in chapter xvi. 13, 14), when our Lord promises to send the Paraclete, He says, that " He," the Paraclete, " shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak." " He shall glorify Me ; for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you." Now, it certainly cannot be said of God the Father (from whom eternally both Son and Spirit are derived), that He should not speak of Himself, but should speak what He heard only. Nothing which implies subor- dination is ever spoken of God the Father. We conclude, there- fore, that the Spirit (who is here represented as acting personal parts, and parts which cannot belong to the Person of the Father) is both a Person, and a Person distinct from the Father. The fact that the Spirit is called Paraclete, which means either Comforter or, more probably, Advocate? seems to imply distinct personality. The use of the masculine pronoun He, ckcivos, to designate the Holy Ghost, surely indicates, that reference is made to a personal Agent, not to an influence or attribute. This is observable espe- cially in John xvi. 13, where we have in immediate connection, " When He the Spirit of truth is come," eWvo?, to Tlvevfia rrjs aXrj- tfcias, a masculine pronoun, whilst to Uvev/xa is neuter. 3 From these, then, and similar reasons, we conclude that the Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son. Thus we have reached the conclusion of our reasoning on the subject of Personality, and so we believe our Fourth Proposition to be established: that although the Father, the Son, and the I Holy Ghost are but one God, yet are they clearly distinguished from One another, and distinguished as Personal Agents. Now this is the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, as held by the 1 See Hey, n. p. 443. 3 The Personality of the Holy Ghost 2 See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. vm. is fully and admirably treated by Bp. p. 329, note, fol. ; and Suicer, s. v. Pearson, Art. vm. p. 308, fol. Hapwcfai -of. 64 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. i. Catholic fathers, expressed in the Creeds of the Church, and ex- hibited in this first Article of the Reformed Church of England, namely, that " There is but one God," yet that " in the Unity of that Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This conclusion we deduce from the statements of Scripture. We do not pretend to explain the mystery, for it is, of course, above the reach of finite understanding. Yet we cannot doubt that, in the substance of it at least, our conclusions are legitimate. To explain the subject philosophically would be inconsistent with the purpose in hand, inconsistent with the assertion that it is a mystery (that is, a thing which human reason cannot fathom), and therefore impossible. It may not even be altogether possible to mark out accurately the exact distinctions between Tritheism and Trinitarianism on the one hand, between Trinitarianism and Sabel- lianism on the other. This, by the way, should make us not the less earnest to maintain the truth, nay ! the more earnest, because of the greater danger of error ; but yet the more tender, the more ready in meekness to instruct those who from the difficulty of apprehending have been led to doubt this great article of the faith. But, though all this is true, yet, thoughtfully considered, this doc- trine of the Trinity, though above our understanding, does not neces- sarily appear contrary to our reason. That reason may well teach us that it is likely God should subsist in a manner above what we can apprehend. That reason may teach us, that, though God's nature is infinite, and therefore cannot be multiplied ; yet, seeing that he has shown himself to be essentially loving, and loving to have partakers of His love, it is not impossible that there might exist, even in the divine Essence, something like a Personal di- versity, that so He, who, as regards the creature, dwells in light which is unapproachable, might have within Himself that which would be capable of receiving and imparting the love which can be perfect in God alone. Yet such a diversity existing in the God- head, which from its very perfection can admit neither multiplica- tion nor division, could not constitute a distinction of Deity, though it would constitute what, in the language of Theology, has been called a distinct Personality. The Fathers, who used the language which has been inserted in the Creeds and generally adopted in the Church, never thought, when they used to speak of three Persons in one God, of speaking of such three Persons as they would speak of persons and person- ality among created beings. They did not consider, for example. Sec. n] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 65 the persons of the Father and the Son as they would have done the persons of Abraham and Isaac, — the Persons of the Holy Trinity as they would have done the persons of Peter, Paul, and John, which are separate from one another, and do not in any way depend on each other for their essence. They held, that the Father is the Head and Fountain of Deity (Jlyyn ©cot-^tos), from whom the Son and Holy Spirit are from all eternity derived, but so derived as not to be divided from the Father ; but they are in the Father and the Father in them, by a certain Trepix^pw^ °r inhabitation. So then, though they acknowledged the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be really three Persons, yet they held " them to have no divided or separate existence, as three different men have, but to be intimately united and conjoined one to an- other, and to exist in each other, and by the said ineffable ■n-epLxuprjo-is or inhabitation to pervade or permeate one another." 1 1 Bull, Posth. Works, p. 1004, quoted by The term by which to designate what Waterland, Works, II. p. 211. " Patrera, we call person, was early a subject of Filium, et Spiritura Sanctum, cum revera dispute. The Greeks mostly used the tres sint Persons, nequaquam tamen ut word vnooTaoic, the Latins Persona. Yet tres homines seorsum et separatim ex- among the Greeks it was not uniformly istere, sed intime sibi invicem cohaerere agreed to speak of rpelg "YirooTaoeic and et conjunctos esse ; adeoque alterum in pia Ovaia. Some, on the contrary, iden- altero existere, atque, ut ita loquar, im- tilled vKoaramc with ovaia. and spoke of meare invicem et penetrare per ineffabi- pia "Ynooraaic. These differences in lan- lem quandam irepixupnoiv, quam circumin- guage led to the Council of Alexandria, sessionem Scholastici vocant." — Bull, Def. a. d. 362, at which Atlianasius was pres- old. Nic. ii. 9, 23 ; Works, iv. p. 363 ; ent, and at which this htyopaxia was see also Lib. iv. § 4 ; also Pearson, On condemned. the Creed, Art. II. p. 138, fol. See Atlianasius, Dial. n. Tom. n. p. On the meaning of the word Person, 159; Suicer, s. v. vnoaraaic ; and New- see Waterland, Works, in. p. 338. man's Hist, of Arians, ch. v. § 2. [Note. It may not be useless to the student in Theology, to become familiar with the following analysis of the Scriptural argument for the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity in Unity. I. God is one. II. The Old Testament contains intima- tions of a plurality in this One Godhead. III. The New Testament affords proof by (a) necessary inferences, and (b) express declarations : (1) that the Father is God ; (2) that the Son is God ; (3) that the Holy Ghost is God. IV. How are these phenomena to be reconciled 1 There are but three modes : (1) Tritheisra ; (2) Sabel- lianism ; (3) the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. The first of these modes de- stroys the Divine Unity. The second ignores all the personal characteristics and agencies attributed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Logically, then, the third remains. By bringing together the Scripture passages which belong to each of the above heads, and then, by studying out the exact way in which the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity harmonizes what the other two schemes reject, the student may thor- oughly appropriate and make his own the very valuable collections and arguments of the preceding pages. The fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Owen's Introduction, may be profitably read. — J. W.] ARTICLE n. Of llie Word or Son of God which was made very Man. The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be di- vided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man ; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men. Verbum Dei verum hominem esse factum. Filiub, qui est Verbum Patris, ab aeter- no a Patre genitus, verus et seternus Deu», ac Patri consubstantialis, in utero beatae Virginis, ex illius substantia naturam humanam assumpsit: ita ut duae naturae, divina et humana, integre atque perfecte in unitate persona? fuerint inseparabiliter conjunctas: ex quibus est unus Christus, verus Deus, et verus homo, qui vere passus est, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepul- tus, ut Patrem nobis roconciliaret, esset- que hostia, non tantum pro culpa origi- nis, verum etiam pro omnibus actualibus hominum peccatis. Section I. — HISTORY. fTTHIS Article evidently treats of three distinct points. I. The •*- Divine nature of the Son of God ; II. His incarnation ; ni. His sufferings, sacrifice, and propitiation. I. First, as regards the Divine nature of the Son of God : as it was shown under the first Article that He was of one substance and coeternal with the Father, so the history of the different opinions concerning His consubstantiality and co-eternity formed part of the history of that Article. It is not necessary to repeat either those arguments or that history here. I shall consider that I have said enough concerning the Divine nature of our blessed Lord, when, in addition to His consubstan- tiality and co-eternity before treated of, I have spoken concerning His generation from the Father, whereby He is the Begotten or Only-begotten Son of God. It has already been shown that the Arians and Eunomians held that the Son might be called /tovoyen/?, not as being the only- begotten of the Father, by a true and proper generation, but as Sec. I.] OF THE SON OF GOD. 67 having been begotten or created by the Father alone ; x and the Socinians have endeavoured to explain the word as though it meant no more than beloved, as Isaac was called the only son of Abraham, though Ishmael was his son also. It is hardly necessary to observe that the orthodox fathers held that the Son was begotten of the Father from all eternity, so be- fore all time deriving His Divine Essence from His Father (/xdVos Ik fiovov yeyeWryrat tov IlaTpos. Cyril. Alexandr. in Act. Concil. JSphet.') This eternal generation they held to be a proof that He was of one substance and eternity with the Father ; but the re- lation of Father to Son they held to constitute a priority of order, though not of nature or power. They held, that is, not that the Son was, in His nature as God, in any degree different from, or in- ferior to the Father ; but that, as the Father alone was the source and fountain (7^7777, a.px>j, an-ta) of Deity, the Son having been be- gotten, and the Spirit proceeding, so there was a subordination, without diversity, of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. 2 It may be difficult to conceive of priority of order, without being led to believe in superiority of nature. This seems to have been the cause whv Dr. Clarke and other high Ari- ans, perceiving the truth of the doctrine that there was a certain priority of order among the Persons of the undivided Trinity, and unable to distinguish between priority of order and superiority of nature, were led into an assertion of the heretical doctrine of the inferiority of the nature of the Son. II. The second part of the Article contains the doctrine of the Incarnation. Errors upon this doctrine were held by the Gnostics, or Docetoe, and the Manichees, who taught that our Lord's Body was but a phantom, and that He came not in the flesh, but in appearance only (ovk iv aapKt, dXXa So/ojVci) ; by those heretics, who denied the Divinity of our Lord, and therefore, of course, the union of the two natures in one Person ; and in short by all the Oriental and Judaiz- ing sects. But the most important controversies on this mystery arose from the errors of, 1, the Arians and Apollinarians ; 2, the Nestorians ; 3, the Eutychians ; 4, the Monothelites. 1. Arius taught that the Son of God did not take human nature, 1 01 'Apeiavol teyovcrtv, in fiovoyevr/s 2 The statements of the Ante-Nicene teyerai, dton avrdc uovog yiyove KaX Iht'icSt) fathers on this subject are fully investi- imb Qeofi, rd. 6' u72a iruvra btf avrov. — gated by Bp. Bull, F. D. Sect. iv. De. Sub- Theophyl. in Joh. cap. iii. See Pearson, ordinatione Filii. See also Suicer, s. vv. On the Creed, p. 138; Suicer, 11. p. 375. atria, apm, nrjyij. 68 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Art. IL but a human body only, and that the Divine Word was in the place of the soul. 1 Apollinaris, who maintained against Anus the consubstantiality of the Son, agreed with him in a great measure concerning the mode of His incarnation, teaching that our Lord took a human body, and a sensitive or animal soul, but that the place of the rational soul was supplied by God the Word, thus distinguishing, according to a common notion of those times, between the rovs, or mens, and the tyvxn, or anima? 2. The Nestorian controversy arose as follows : The Greek fathers, justly esteeming that our Lord, from the moment that He was conceived in the womb of His mother, was not only man but God also, and maintaining that the union between His two natures was so perfect that it was right, for example, to say " God suffered," went so far as to call the Virgin Mary by the title ©cotoW, or Deipara. Nestorius declaimed strongly against this title, as indi- cating, according to his view of the subject, that God was liable to change, whereas God can neither be born nor die. He held that the Man Christ Jesus only could derive His birth from His earthly parent ; and that therefore the Virgin might be called X/)iototoko5, but not ©cord/cos. These statements were considered to involve a denial of the union of the two natures of God and man in the one Person of Christ. 3 Nestorius was accused of teaching that there were not only two natures, but two persons in Christ, namely, the Person of God the Son, and the person of the man Christ Jesus. For this doctrine (though he appears to have denied the inferences drawn from his statements) he was condemned in the Council of EpResus, a.d. 431, summoned by Theodosius the younger, and at which Cyril of Alexandria presided. This council determined that the true doctrine was that " Christ was but one Person, in whom two natures are intimately united, but not confounded." * The tenets of the Nestorians, however, spread rapidly and widely in the East. They were embraced by the school of Edessa, were eagerly propagated by Barsumas, who became Bishop of 1 See Pearson, On the Creed, p. 160. " In a Catholics dissenserunt, dicentes, sicut eo autem quod Christum sine anima so- Ariani, Deum Christum carncm sine lam carnem suscepisse arbitrantur minus anima suscepisse. In qua qusestione tes- noti sunt : . . . sed hoc verum esse et timoniis Evangelicis victi, mentem, qua Epiphanius non tacuit, et ego ex eorum rationalis est anima hominis, deiuisse an- (| iiilmsi bin script is et colloeutionibus cer- imse Christi, soil pro hao ipsum Verbum tiasimecomperi." — Augustin. Haeres. 49, in cofuissedixerunt." — Augustin. Htrra. Tom. viii. p. 18. 66, Tom. vm. p. 19. * Pearson, as above. Mosheim, Cent. s The technical term for this union iv. pt. ii. ch. v. § 17. Neander, C. H. was the tvuoic *a&' virooraotv — • hypo- iv. pp. 98-106. " Apollinaristns Apol- static union, linaris instituit, qui de anima Christi 4 Neander, iv. pp. 128-162. Sec. I] OF THE SON OF GOD. 69 Nisibis in 435, and by his influence took such root in Persia that a Nestorian Patriarch was established at Seleucia, to whose authority, even to modern times, the Nestorian churches have been subjected. Nestorianism took deep root in many soils ; and the Nestorians proved themselves zealous missionaries. Their opinions spread rapidly into Armenia, Chaldasa, Syria, Arabia, and India. 1 They afterwards extended the Christian faith among the Tartar tribes of Scythia ; and, in the thirteenth century, established their bishops and clergy even among the Chinese. In the eighth century, the sect called Adoptionists revived unconsciously a form of Nestori- anism in Spain. 2 And, in the twelfth century, the Nominalists were accused of Nestorianism, as well as Tritheism, by their ad- versaries 3. Eutyches, an abbot at Constantinople, from opposition to Nestorianism, was led into the other extreme. He asserted that the Divine and human natures of Christ were originally distinct, but that, after their union, they became but one nature, the human nature being transubstantiated into the Divine. Before the hypo- static union, he acknowledged two natures; but after that union he acknowledged but one. The Council of Chalcedon, which was summoned by Marcian in 451, and is reckoned the fourth general Council, condemned Eutyches, and declared the Catholic doctrine to be, that " in Christ two distinct natures are united in one Person, without any change, mixture, or confusion." 4 The Eutychian, or Monophysite doctrine, notwithstanding this condemnation, rapidly gained ground, principally through the zeal of Jacob Baradaeus, Bishop of Edessa, from whom the sect of the Eutychians are called Jacobites. It was established in Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Egypt, Abyssinia. The Eutychians be- came united under the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, and so continue to this day. They are now divided into three principal societies : the Oriental Monophysites, subject to the patriarch of Antioch ; the African Monophysites, subject to the patriarch of Alexandria, embracing the Copts and Abyssinians ; and thirdly, the Armenians, who, though agreeing with the other Monophysites concerning the. natures of Christ, are not united with them in other points of faith and discipline, and are subject to patriarchs of their own. 6 1 Suicer, 8. vv. Qeotokoc and Xptaro- 4 Suicer, s. v. wttyakoi. Pearson, p. rd/cof. Pearson, On the Creed, pp. 178, 162. Mosheim, Cent. v. pt. II. ch. v. 163. Mosheim, Cent. v. pt. n. ch. v. Neander, iv. pp. 203-231. Neander, C. H. iv. pp. 269-271. 6 Mosheim, Cent. iv. pt. n. ch. v. 2 Neander, v. pp. 216, seq. Cent. xvi. pt. I. § 3. Neander, iv. pp 8 See p. 33, note 1. 271-278. 70 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Akt. II. 4. In the seventh century a new controversy on this impor- tant subject arose ; and a more subtle question was mooted. This question was, whether in Christ there were two distinct wills, the Divine and the human, or but one, the Divine. Those who adopted the opinion that there was but one will in Christ, among whom was Honorius, Bishop of Rome, were called Monothelites, MopofleAiyTai, and were condemned in 680 by the sixth general Council, the third Constantinopolitan. Their doctrine was sup- posed to border too closely on that of the Monophysites. It appears, however, that they entirely disclaimed Monophysite errors ; and from the ambiguous manner in which their views were expressed, it has been questioned whether they held that the human will in Christ was wholly swallowed up in the Divine will, or only that it was so completely subservient to the Divine will as always to move in unison with it. 1 III. As to the third division of this Article, the terms of it probably had reference to the error of the Docetae, who denied that our Lord " truly " suffered, teaching either that He suffered only in appearance, or, as Basilides would have it, that Simon the Cyrenian was crucified in His place. Of course it may be added, that the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ is necessarily denied by all humanitarian heretics, and others, who nearly symbolize with them. The Swedenborgian? also of late times, though in some sense admitting the Atonement, appear to deny anything of the nature of a vicarious sacrifice, maintaining that redemption consists in the subduing of the powers of evil within the Christian, by virtue of union with the Redeemer in His human nature. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I. TTHE division of the subjects treated of in this Article, which -*- has been suggested above, leads us to consider in the first place the eternal generation of the Son of God. That the nature and being of the Son were from all eternity, and that He was of one substance with the Father, having been shown in the First Article, it is only necessary to prove here, that 1 Mosheim, Cent vn. pL n. ch. v. Sec. II.] OF THE SON OF GOD. 71 that nature, though eternal, is yet derived from the Father in such a manner that the relationship of the Father to the Son is best expressed to our understandings by the term, and under the notion of generation. In order to represent to us the mode of existence of the Second Person in the Trinity, and His relation to the First, Holy Scrip- ture has used various terms, drawn from human relations. The most common and important are the terms "Word" and "Son." The term "Word," or "Logos," is probably used to exhibit the intimate connection of the one Person with the other ; that, as reason dwells in man, so the Logos dwells in God, and that, as the word goeth forth from the heart and lips of man, so the Word is sent forth from God the Father. In like manner, we must conceive the term "Son" to indicate something definite concerning the relation of the Son to the Father ; the variety of terms being adopted, probably because no one term could sufficiently convey to our understanding just notions of -the nature and of the connection of the Persons in the Godhead. That God the Son is not the same Person with God the Father has already been shown. That He is called the "Word" and the " Son " of the Father, seems sufficiently to declare that He derives in some manner His Being from the Father, even as the word springs from him who thinks and speaks, as the son is derived from him who begets him. This is farther evident from express statements in Holy Scripture. For example, our Lord is distinctly said to be begotten of the Father. He is called the Begotten and " Only-begotten of the Father," John i. 14. The Psalmist, as explained by St. Paul, tells us that God said to our Saviour, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," Ps. ii. 7. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 5. And so He is spoken of as having been "begotten before every creature." (lipmroTOKos irdarj<; /crto-ew?, Col. i. 15.) In correspondence with this notion of Sonship, our Lord is constantly called "Heir of all things," and said to be Possessor of all things, by right of Sonship. (See Heb. i. 2, 3, 4 ; iii. 6. John xvi. 15.) Again, our Lord speaks of Himself as deriving His own eternal Being from God the Father. 1 "As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father" (John vi. 57), 1 In John v. 18, our Lord speaks of John vi. 46, 6 £>v napd. tov Qeov, He that God as His true and proper Father, t' the Apostle, Spiendor est ylorire Dai, dor ex luce proeedens, et illuminnns uni- t&ya : " Dens lux est, secundum Jonnnem. versa m erenturain." — De Piincipiis, Lib. Splendor ergo liiyus Lucis est Unigcnitus t. eh It. n. 7. Sec. II.] OF THE SON OF GOD. 73 generation, by which Christ is, and is called the true and proper Son of God." 1 This peculiar relation of the Father to the Son is that which has authorized the Church, while she confesses an equality of nature, to admit also a priority of order in the Persons of the Trinity. The Father hath this preeminence, that He is not only uncreated, but un begotten, too. He derives His essence from none, being Himself the Fountain of life and the Source of being. The Son, too, is uncreated, deriving His being, not by creation but by generation, from the Father. Yet in this He is subordinate to the Father ; not that His attributes are lower, or His nature in- ferior, but that both are derived. The Father begat ; the Son is begotten. The Father is Life, Christ too is Life ; but He con- fesses that He has life from the Father (John vii. 29), and that "He liveth by the Father" (John vi. 57). "The Father hath life in Himself: " so too has the Son. But the Father not only in Himself but from Himself. The Son in Himself, but from the Father (John v. 26) . 2 On this account, therefore, and in this sense, " the Father is greater than the Son " (John xiv. 28) ; greater as regards priority of order, not greater as regards infin- ity of nature. 3 II. The second part of the Article concerns the true doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God. It is thus expressed : " The Son .... took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and -manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very man." 1. The wording of this is very important. " The Son of God took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin." It appears directly from Holy Scripture, that the Being conceived by the 1 Pearson, On the Creed, Art. ft. p. 138, out of light) ; it followeth hereupon, that fol. So Hooker, JSecl. Pol. Bk. v. ch. whatsoever Christ hath common unto liv. 2. " By the gift of eternal genera- Him with His heavenly Father, the same tion, Christ hath received of the Father of necessity must be given Him, but nat one and in number the self-same sub- urally and eternally given ; not bestowed stance, which the Father hath of Him- by way of benevolence and favour, as self unreceived from any other. For the other gifts " (i. e. those of union and every 'beginning' (Eph. iii. 15) is a of unction) "both are." father unto that which cometh of it, and 2 " Pater vita in Semetipso, non every ' offspring ' is a son to that out of a Filio: Filius vita in Semetipso, sed which it groweth. Seeing therefore that a Patre." — Augustin. In Johan. Tract. the Father alone is originally that Deity, xix. Tom. m. par. n. p. 443. which Christ originally is not, (for Christ 3 See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. I. is God by being of God ; light by issuing p. 34 ; Bull, F. D. § 4. 10 74 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Art. IL Virgin was, from the moment of His conception, the Son of God (Luke i. 35, 43. Matt. i. 20, 23). Had the human nature of our Lord been conceived in the womb of the Virgin, and then united to the Divine nature ; it is clear that Christ would have consisted of two distinct persons : one person, the Son of God, the other person, that human being who had been conceived of the Virgin Mary. For if a human being had been first conceived of the Virgin, and then united to God, it is clear that that human being must have been a human person, previously to the union with the Divine Person ; and so the incarnation would have been the union of two persons, not the union of two natures. 1 It was from want of attention to this, that Nestorius was led into error. He denied that the Person, who was born of the Virgin, was God ; and said that He was only man. Hence he was obliged to divide Christ into two persons. " If," says Hooker, " the Son of God had taken to himself a man now made and already perfected, it would of necessity follow that there are in Christ two persons, the one assuming, the other assumed ; whereas the Son of God did not assume a man's person to His own, but a man's nature to His own Person ; and therefore took semen, the seed of Abraham, the very first original element of our nature, before it was come to have any personal human subsistence. The flesh, and the conjunction of the flesh with God, began both at one instant ; His making and taking to Him our flesh was but one act ; so that in Christ there is no personal subsistence but one, and that from everlasting. By taking only the nature of man, He still continueth one Person, and changeth but the manner of His subsisting, which was before in the mere glory of the Son of God, and is now in the habit of our flesh." 2 Thus it is said by St. John, " The Word was made flesh " (John i. 14) ; by St. Paul, " Forasmuch as the children are par- takers of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same " (Heb. ii. 14). " He took not the nature of angels, but He took the seed of Abraham " (Heb. ii. 16). It was " Emmanuel, God with us," who was born of the Virgin (Isai. vii. 14. Matt. i. 23) ; yea, " the Son of God" (Luke i. 32, 35). 8 1 "Primo illwl nos oportet scire, quod 44 ; ii. 11. The former passage is espe- aliud est in Christo Deitatis ejus natura, cially clear, showing thai Klisabeth by quod est Unigenitus Filius Patris ; etalia the Holy Ghost, and oven the yet unhorn humana natura quam in novissimis tern- "prophet of the Highest," acknowledged porilms pro dispensatione suscepit." — the presence of their " Lord," when He Origen. /Je Prmeifiiui, Lib. i. ch. n. n. 1. was yet in the womb of His mother. The Hooker, Keel. Pol. Bk. v. i.n. earliest fathers speak as plainly on the ■ The Scriptures clearly indicate this subject as if they had foreseen the heresy to have been the case. See Luke i. 89- of Nestorius :t.g.k ytip Qtdcifjujv Irjaovci Sec 1I.J OF THE SON OF GOD. 75 The fact, thus exhibited, that the Son of God took in the womb of the Virgin the nature of man, explains some of the most re- markable passages in the new Testament. As there is but one Person in Christ, and that the Person of the Son of God, it natu- rally follows, that even the actions proper to man will at times be attributed to God, and the actions proper to God will be attributed to the man Jesus. 1 Thus we understand the Scripture, when it says that men " crucified the Lord of glory " (1 Cor. ii. 8) ; when it says that " God purchased the Church with His own Blood " (Acts xx. 28) ; because, though God in His Divine Nature can- not be crucified, and has no blood to shed ; yet the Son of God, the Lord of Glory, took into His Person the nature of man, in which nature he could suffer, could shed his Blood, could be cruci- fied, could die. Thus again, we understand the Scripture, when it attributes to a man powers and attributes which belong only to God. Our Lord (John iii. 13) speaks of none having gone up to Heaven " but the Son of man, which is in Heaven " : yet the Son of man was then on earth. Omnipresence is an attribute of none but God. But the Son of man here spoken of was God, God having taken into His own Person man's nature. 2 And so " as oft as we attribute to God what the manhood of Christ claimeth, or to man what his Deity hath right unto, we understand by the name of God and the name of Man, neither the one nor the other nature, but the whole Person of Christ, in which both natures are." 3 Of that Person, then, we may say, that He reigns as God, that He was subject as man. Of that Person we may say, that He liveth forever, and yet that He suffered and died. Of that Person we may say, that He " was crucified through weakness," and yet that He hath " the Power of God." Of that Person we may say, that whilst He was bound down to live on earth, He yet filled Heaven with His presence and glory. 4 XpiOTbc kKvofyoprrdTi virb Mapiag /car' oIkovo- mortem utique recipere poterat : et filius fiiav Qeov, Ik amp/iaToc fxev Aa{3ld, Uvev/ia- hominis appellatur, qui venturus in Dei rog 6e ayiov. — Ignat. Ad Ephes. 18. Patris gloria cum Sanctis angelis pranli- 1 " Cum ergo in eo qusedam ita videa- catur." — Origen. De Principiis, Lib. n. mus humana ut nihil a communi morta- ch. vi. n. 2, 3. lium fragilitate distare videantur, quae- 2 Compare John i. 48 dam ita divina ut nulli alii nisi illi primae 3 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. liii. 4. et ineftabili naturae conveniant Deitatis, 4 'Enl y?/g fisv yap 6 Tldg kciI b Qedg haeret humani intellectus angustia, et Aoyog ^e^tjkel. ovpavov de tjkteto, /cot tantae admirationis stupore percussa quo ttuvtes ix&P°i ETrXrjpovvTO rr/g avrov dot-ric declinet, quid teneat, quo se convertat, ical h Mapia hvyxavs, nal uvdpuTtoc eye- ignorat. Si Deum sentiat, mortalem veto, ci/Uu rj) dvvufisi avrov tnTajpov tu videt : si liominem putet, devicto mortis av/nravra. — Epiphan. Hceies. lxix. Tom. imperio cum spoliis redeuntem a mortuis i. p. 788. Colon. cernit. . . . Nam et Filius Dei mortuus Hooker does not scruple to say : " The esBe dicitur, pro ea scilicet natura quae union of the flesh with Deity is to that 76 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Abt. IL 2. The Article, having expressed the truth that the Son of God took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance, adds, " So that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead, and Manhood, were joined together in one Person." Having already shown that there was but one Person with two natures, it is necessary farther to observe, that those two natures continued perfect and entire ; for though the Person vas but one, the Person of the eternal Son of God, yet we must not suppose that the verity of either of His natures was lost or ab- sorbed. ( 1 ) That He was perfect God appears by what was proved under the first Article ; and indeed His Divine nature could not cease to be Divine by his taking to Him the nature of man ; for God is not liable to change or to diminution. And though, by taking human nature, the Son of God was enabled to suffer, which to God simply would have been impossible, yet by taking human nature He did not change the nature of God. And this appears from plain passages of Scripture ; for where the Son of God is spoken of as God, it is constantly in those very passages where He is called by the name of Christ or of Jesus or of the Son of Man, or is spoken of as incarnate, e. g. John i. 14 ; iii. 13; viii. 58; x. 30. Acts xx. 28. Rom. ix. 5. Phil. ii. 5, 6. Col. i. 14, 15, &c. (2) That He was perfect Man will appear, if we can show that He had a human Body and a human Soul, both subject to human infirmities and invested with human attributes. That he had a human Body appears from His birth of the Virgin (Matt. i. 25. Luke i. 35 ; ii. 7) ; from His growth like other children (Luke ii. 52) ; from His liability to hunger (Luke iv. 2) ; to weariness (John iv. 6) ; to pain (Luke xxii. 44) ; to bleeding and bloody sweat (John xix. 34. Luke xxii. 44) ; to wounds and laceration (John xx. 27) ; from His possessing flesh and bones (Luke xxiv. 39, 40) ; from His crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection. That he had a perfect human Soul appears from His " increasing in wisdom " (Luke ii. 52) ; from the possibility of His being ig- norant (Mark xiii. 32), (which could not be true of Him con- flesh a gift of principal grace and favour : ing it Ilis own inseparable habitation, we for by virtue of this grace, wan w really cannot now conceive, how God should • made God, a creature is exulted above the without man either exercise Divine now- dignity of all creatures, and hath all crea- er, or receive the glory of Divine praise, tures else under it." And again, " Since for man is in both the associate of Deity.' God hath deified our nature, though not — Eccl. Pol. Bk. v. liv. by turning it into Himself, yet by male- Sec. II.] OF THE SON OF GOD. 77 sidered only in His Divine nature) ; from His being liable to temptation (Matt. iv. 1. Heb. iv. 15) ; from His feeling sorrow and sympathy (Luke xix. 41. John xi. 35. Matt, xxiii. 37, 38, &c.) ; from the separation of His Soul from His Body at death, the Soul descending to Hades, whilst the Body was laid in the grave (Acts ii. 27, 31). And as the nature of His Godhead was not changed (God not being capable of change) by union with His manhood ; so also the nature of His manhood was not changed by being taken into His Godhead, farther than that it was thereby exalted, ennobled, glorified. For the object of God's taking flesh was that He might take to Himself a nature like our own, in which He might be tempted with our temptations, liable to our sorrows and infirmities, and subject to our sufferings and death. The properties therefore of His human nature were not sunk nor absorbed in His Divine nature, any more than His Divine nature was altered or corrupted by His human nature. 3. That these two natures, thus united in the one Person of Christ, shall " never be divided," appears from the nature of the union, the object of that union, and the declaration of Scripture. 1 The nature of the union being that the Person of the Eternal Son took to Himself human nature, not a human person, it follows, that, if the two natures were divided at any time, either a new person would be brought into being, or else the human nature of Christ would utterly cease to exist. According to the latter sup- position, instead of being highly exalted and set above all His fellows, Christ's human Body and Soul would be annihilated and 1 One of the errors of the Photinians opposed that notion, this very passage was that they believed the kingdom of would of itself refute it. It is the Son Christ would wholly cease at the end of who is to be subject to the Father ; but the world, and that the Word would be the human nature of Christ, separated (if wholly resolved into the Father, and as a that were possible) from His Divine na- separate Person cease to exist. See Pear- ture, would not be the Son of God. The son, Art. vi. p. 284, note. The only text true interpretation of the passage is, that which can appear even for a moment to the Son, who, in His human nature and favour the notion that Christ shall ever touching His manhood, is inferior to the cease to be both perfect God and perfect Father, yet now seated on the throne of Man, is the remarkable passage 1 Cor. xv. His mediatorial kingdom, reigns supreme 24, 28, where it is said that Christ shall over men, angels, and devils. But at the deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and end, when the need of that mediatorial " the Son Himself shall be subject to Him reign has passed away, then the mediato- that did put all things under Him, that rial sceptre shall be laid down, Christ shall God may be all in all." We cannot, how- reign with God, upon His right hand; but ever, from this infer, that the Son of God as kot oUovofiiav, and in His human na- shall leave His human nature and be ab- ture, He is inferior to the Father, so then sorbed into the Person of the Father, and He shall be subject to the Father ; God that then the human nature of Christ shall be all in all. — See Pearson, On the divested of the Divine shall be subject to Creed, Art. vi. p. 283. God ; for, if no other passage in Scripture 78 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Abt. II. perish. Surely neither of these hypotheses is tenable. Again, the end and purpose of the union, whereby the Son of God took the nature of man, being that He might join together God and men, Himself both God and man, and the necessity of such conjunction never ceasing, it follows that the union of the natures shall never cease. It is through the instrumentality of Christ's humanity that man is united to God. When the union has been effected, we cannot suppose that the bond will be destroyed, the link anni- hilated. It is by virtue of incorporation into Christ's Body, that the saints shall rise and reign ; and we cannot suppose that Christ's Body shall cease to be one with the Son of God, when the saints, incorporated into It, reign because of It. And this farther appears from Scripture ; where we read, that " Christ ever liveth to make intercession for us " (Heb. vii. 25) ; that " He is a Priest forever "(Heb. vi. 20 ; vii. 21, 24), "consecrated for evermore " (Heb. vii. 28) ; that " He is set down at the right hand of God forever" (Heb. x. 12) ; that "His kingdom is an everlast- ing kingdom, and that He shall reign for ever and ever " (Dan. ii. 44 ; vii. 14, 18, 27. Luke i. 32, 33. Rev. xi. 15). III. The Article, thirdly, asserts that the Son of God, having thus taken man's nature, " truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." To enter at full length into each portion of this clause of the Article, would necessarily exceed our present limits. The student may be referred to the Fourth Article of Pearson, On the Creed. for a most able exposition of the doctrine of Scripture concerning our Lord's sufferings, crucifixion, death, and burial. 1. To show the reality of our Lord's sufferings and death, it is only necessary to read the last chapters of the four Gospels, which require no comment. If they did, such comment would be found in the prophecies of Christ's sufferings (e. g. Ps. xxii. Isai. liii.), and in the letters and discourses of the Apostles on them (e. g. Acts ii. 22, 23 ; iii. 15 ; x. 39 ; xiii. 29. Rom. v. 10 ; vi. 8. 1 Cor. xv. 16. 2 Cor. i. 5 ; iv. 10. Phil. ii. 8. Heb. ii. 9, 10 ; v. 7, 8 ; ix. 17-28 ; x. 10 ; xii. 2 ; xiii. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 21 ; iii. 18). The reality of the death, indeed, is a subject immediately connected with the reality of the human nature of Christ. The Docetaj, who denied the one, naturally and necessarily denied the other. It was against them that St. John appears to have writ t. mi many passages both in his Gospel and Epistles, as for example, Sec. II] OF THE SON OF GOD. 79 John xix. 34, 35. 1 John iv. 3 ; v. 6. 2 John 7. Errors, against which the words of Scripture are specially directed, cannot lightly be disregarded by the Church. But as such errors are not likely to prevail extensively now, it may be unnecessary to dwell at length upon their refutation. 2. One subject connected with the death and sufferings of our Saviour requires to be a little further considered. The Son of God by taking on Him human nature became truly man ; and one of the chief ends of His thus becoming man was, that He might die. But it may be asked still, Wherein did His death consist, and how did He suffer ? Man dies, when His soul leaves his body. Man suffers, because his whole nature is passible. But Jesus Christ was man ; yet not mere man. His Person consisted of the Eternal Son united to a human Body and a human Soul. How then did He suffer, and how die ? He suffered in His human nature, which, being a perfect human nature, was capable of suffering both in Soul and Body. We may not imagine, as has already been shown, that His human nature ceased to be human nature when it was taken by His God- head ; " that the properties of the weaker nature have vanished with the presence of the more glorious, and have been therein swallowed up as in a gulf." It is true, then, that the Son of God suffered ; but not in the Godhead. His Godhead could no more suffer than the Godhead of the Father. But He took human nature, that He might suffer, and in His manhood the Son of God was crucified, and suffered and died. And His death consisted, not in the separation of His Divine Being from either Body or Soul. Then would not the Son of God have died at all. Then Christ would have been divided into two separate Persons, by the Godhead leaving the manhood ; and the mystery and the blessing of the Incarnation would have been lost. The soul does not die by leaving the body, neither would the Son of God have died by leaving either Body or Soul. It was the Person of Christ that suffered death ; and as that Person was invested with the nature of man, death was to Him what death is to other men, namely, the separation of the human soul from the human body. The union of the Godhead with the manhood was not disturbed ; but the human Soul of Christ left His human Body. But even when the Soul forsook the Body, the Godhead forsook neither Body, nor Soul. 1 " If it had, then could we not truly hold 1 "Qare ovk uv&punog Qeov kxupi&ro, ytiro • ovte tj vinpuatg uKoxuprjaig Qeov, § oflrc Qeog npbg uvdpwnov eyicaTaAaipiv Sty- anb aufiarog ifi> fieTuoraoig, cM.u tyvxvi uird 80 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Art. EL cither that the Person of Christ was buried, or that the Person of Christ did raise up itself from the dead. For the Body separated from the Word can in no true sense be termed the Person of Christ, nor is it true to say that the Son of God, in raising up that Body, did raise up Himself, if the Body were not both with Him and of Him, even during the time it lay in the sepulchre. The like is also to be said of the Soul ; otherwise we are plainly and inevitably Nestorians. The very Person of Christ therefore, for- ever one and the self-same, was, only touching bodily substance, concluded within the grave ; His soul only from thence severed, but by personal unfon His Deity still inseparably joined with both." * 3. The conclusion of the Article concerns the end and object of our blessed Saviour's sufferings. The Socinians deny that there was any necessity for a pro- pitiatory sacrifice, or that God had need to be reconciled to man. Man, say they, was at enmity with God, not God with man. Man therefore needed to be reconciled, and so Christ came to call men to repentance and to move them to it by His precept and example, and so committed to his disciples the ministry of reconciliation. But to say that God needed to have blood shed, and that the blood of an innocent and holy Victim, in order to appease His wrath, is to make God a vindictive and implacable Being, not a God of love. The answer to this is twofold. (1) " A God all mercy is a God unjust: " Justice is an attri- bute of God as well as mercy. Justice therefore calling for wrath on man, and the love of God calling for mercy, it was necessary, in order to reconcile both these attributes of God, that some means should be devised for satisfying both. We do not say that God was tied to the means which He ordained ; but we learn, that His wisdom ordained the sacrifice of His Son, and in that sacrifice we perceive a manifestation of infinite justice and infinite love. ffw/iarof^upto/iof. — Athanasius, DeSalut. in unam Personam, ut ne morte quidera Advent. Jesu Christ. Tom. I. pp. 646, ipsius separari potuerint. Quod igitur 646. Patri suo moriendo commcndavit, id vcre Compare the passage from Fulgenhua erat spiritus humanus u corporu ipsius quoted in the exposition of the next Ar- egrediens ; at interim divinu natura sem- ticle : "Secundum Divinitatem suam, per humanuo (etiam in sepulcliro jacenti) quoe noc loco tenetur, nee fine concludi- conjuncta rcmnnsit : adeo ut Donas ipsa tur, totus f'uit in sepulcliro cum came, non irinus in ipso tunc fuorit, quam cum totus in inferno cum anima." — Fulgent, adhuc infans esset, ctsi exiguum ad tern- Ad Trasimund. Lib. in. ch. 84. pus non sese exerceret." — Sylloyt, p. 888. This is well expressed in some of the l Hooker, v. LI I. 4. The whole sub- Oalvinistic Confessions : e. y. Confessio ject is admirably treated by Hooker ; Belgica, Art. xix. : " Cajteruin duao iate and by Pearson, Art. iv. "Suffered," naturae ita sunt simul units et conjunctn " Dead." Sec. II.] OF THE SON OF GOD. 81 (2) But the same thing appears, too, from many passages in Scripture. There is some ambiguity in the words used in the new Testament for "reconciliation." The most learned critics have observed, that those words are used in a somewhat different sense from that in which the classical authors use them. But it is quite clear from the contexts that in some passages God is spoken of as needing to be reconciled to man. For example, in 2 Co". v. 19, where it is said that " God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself," there might be some ambiguity, if it were not added, "not imputing their trespasses unto them;" but these words clear up the doubt. Indeed the whole context speaks as of two offended parties, God and man. God is represented as giving up His wrath and being reconciled through Christ, and then as send- ing to man, to invite him to give up his enmity and be reconciled to God. 1 That the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against sinful man seems hardly necessary to be proved. The Article on Orig- inal Sin is the more proper place for proving it. It may be sufficient now to refer to such passages as the following : Rom. v. 9. Eph. ii. 3. 1 Thess. i. 10. Heb. x. 26, 27. Rev. vi. 16, 17. The Jewish sacrifices were expressly appointed to deliver from the wrath of God. 2 The Passover was appointed, that the wrath of God might be averted, when the first-born of Egypt were slain. In the 4th and 5th chapters of Leviticus, directions are given for the mode in which those who have sinned shall make atonement for their transgression. Whether it were priest, prince, or people, they were to bring a victim, to confess the sin upon the head of the victim, and then slay it as a sin-offering. The same is observ- able of the offerings on the day of expiation ; when the high- priest made atonement, first for himself, and then for the people ; and also of the scape-goat, which was offered at the same time, the sins of the people being confessed on his head (Lev. xvi.) The Jews looked on these sacrifices as strictly propitiatory. 3 The Gentiles, who imitated them, evidently had a similar notion of 1 See, at length, Magee, On Atonement, lieved, the truth, still it sprang from a i. p. 202, fifth edition, and the authors natural feeling of guilt, and the need of referred to there ; especially Hammond atonement, and was sanctioned by Al- and Whitby on Rom. v. 10, xi. 15 ; 2 Cor. mighty God and made a type of Christ, v. 18, 19, 20; Ephes. ii. 16; and Col. i. and rules were given for its observance, 20, 21. that the type might be more clear and 2 It is quite unnecessary to consider express. The argument in the text there- the question whether sacrifice was a rite fore would not be invalidated, even if the in the first instance divinely instituted, divine institution of sacrifice be denied. t»r devised by man. If the latter be, as 3 Magee, as above, Illustrations, No. some learned and pious authors have be- xxxm. 11 82 OF THE SON OF GOD. [Art. II. their offerings ; and those especially, who, in times of peculiar danger, had recourse to human sacrifice, appear to have enter- tained a strong feeling of the necessity of propitiating the gods with the noblest victims. That the legal sacrifices were types of the death of Christ, and therefore that Christ's death was a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men, appears plainly from the fact that the terms taken from the Jewish sacrifices are applied in Scripture to describe the death of Christ. Thus He is said to have been "led as a lamb to the slaughter" (see Isai. liii. 5-8). He is called "the Lamb slain" (Rev. v. 6, 12; xiii. 8). "A Lamb with- out blemish and spot "(1 Pet. i. 19) ; " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world " (John i. 29). St. Paul ex- pressly compares the priesthood of Aaron with the priesthood of Christ ; explaining to us that whereas the priest of old offered the blood of bulls and goats which could not take away sin, but availed only to a carnal purifying (Heb. ix. 13), so Christ offered, not the blood of others, but His own Blood — offered Himself to bear the sins of many ; and so put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. As under the Law, without shedding of blood was no remission, and ;ts the patterns of heavenly things were purified with the blood of sacrificed victims, so the heavenly things themselves were purified with better sacrifices, even Christ. (See Heb. ix. x.) 1 4. It may be well to observe one more expression, which occurs at the very end of the Article, namely, " to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men" It seems as if the reformers were anxious to meet a possible, perhaps an actual error, which, admitting the sacrifice of Christ for original sin, either denied remission to actual sins, or looked for pardon of them to something beside the propitiation offered on the cross. That actual, and not only original sin is pardoned for the sake of Christ, is taught repeatedly in the old Testament, as well as the new. Isaiah, besides saying that Christ " was wounded for our trans- gressions, and bruised for our iniquities," adds a passage expressly indicating actual sin : " All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isai. liii. 6). It is from "all iniquity" that " He gave Himself to redeem us " (Tit. ii. 14). It was when we were not only " alienated " by original guilt, but " enemies through wicked works" too, that Christ reconciled us (Col. i. 21). The persons whom the Apostle speaks of as not capable of being 1 On the whole subject consult Magee, the Illustrations at the end of Vol. I., and On Atonement and Sacrifice ; especially the authors there referred to. Sec. II.] OF THE SON OF GOD. 83 saved by the law, but " justified freely by God's grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," are described in the strongest terms as actual sinners (see Rom. iii. 12-26). And again (in 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 11) he paints the characters of some who had been "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus," as having been stained with the foulest vices and the deadliest sins. St. John (1 John ii. 1, 2) distinctly assures us that " if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and He is the propitiation for our sins." And that he meant actual sins is most apparent, because he begins the sentence with " My little children, these things I write unto you that ye sin not." We conclude, therefore, that the sacrifice of Christ, the Son of God, offered by Him upon the cross, whereon in His human nature He suffered and died, is a propitiation, not only for origi- nal guilt, but also for actual sins of men. [The following passage is worthy of consideration in more aspects than one. It is from the pen of the Abbe Guettee. " The existing Roman Church attacks [the doctrine of the Incarnation] indirectly, by the worship which it renders to the sacred heart of Jesus. In truth, worship is due only to the divine person of Jesus Christ; the human nature in Him shares in it only because of its hypostatical union with the divine nature. It is not permissible to offer worship to the human nature of Jesus Christ, in itself and separately considered, much less to a single organ of His body. The Roman Church excuses this worship by saying that it has relation to the person of Jesus Christ. But the greater part of its writers at this day teach, authoritatively, that the heart of Jesus is adorable by itself." Exp. de la Doctrine, p. 64. — J. W.] ARTICLE m. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. De descensu Christi ad Infarct. As Christ died for us, and was buried ; Qcbhadmodum Cliristus pro nobis so also it is to be believed that He went mortuus est, et sepultus, ita est etiam down into Hell. credendus ad inferos descendisse. rPO the understanding of this Article it seems desirable to inves- ■*• tigate, historically and from Scripture, First, What is meant by " Hell ; " Secondly, What is meant by Christ's descending into hell ; Thirdly, What was the purpose or object of that de- scent. I propose, therefore, to depart from the arrangement adopted in the two former Articles, and to examine the meaning of the word " Hell," first historically, and then scripturally, — and next to proceed in the same manner with the doctrine of our Lord's de- scent into hell; and thirdly, with the reason or object of his going thither. First. The word " Hell," as used in the Article, is plainly borrowed from the Apostles' Creed; for it appears that the first five Articles of the Church are little more than an amplification of the Articles of the Creed, intended to set forth, that the Church of England continued truly Catholic in its doctrines, whilst it was constrained to protest against the corruptions of some branches of the Church. In the Latin, the word used is either " irrferi " or " inferna." The Greek corresponding to this was either m Ka.TUTa.Ta or £St;s ; the former referring to Eph. iv. 9, the latter to Acts ii. 27. It has, however, generally been admitted, and may fairly be assumed, that the Greek word £6\/<> is the word of Scrip- ture, which both the Creed and the Article render infcri and hell ; and it has been observed, that, according to their derivatkma, these words answer to one another. "A8t;s is something unseen, from d and ttSov. Irtferi is the Latin from the Greek word frqam or ivFepoi, t. e. those beneath the earth, the Manes or Spirits of the Abt. III.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 85 dead. 1 Hell is from the same root as hole and hellier (i. e. a roofer, a coverer), and signifies the covered or hidden place, the Saxon root being helan, to cover. There is indeed another word in the new Testament often rendered in the English by hell. That word is yeWa ; and some confusion arises from this indiscriminate translation. As, however, neither the Creeds nor the Church have been wont to use yeWa, to express the place to which our Lord went after His death, we may lay aside the consideration of the word at present; merely observing that it is the proper term in the new Testament for the state or place of damned souls and apostate spirits. As regards, then, the signification of the word Hades, it will be well to consider the subject : — I. Historically. II. Scripturally. I. The history may be divided into (1) The use of the word among the Greeks ; (2) among the Jews ; (3) among the Christians. 1. It may be true that the Greeks sometimes used Hades to signify no more than the Grave ; but if so, it was by an improper and less common use of the word. According to them, Hades, or the abode of Hades, was that place to which the Ghosts or Manes of the dead went after their burial. The unburied were detained on this side the Styx ; the buried passed over, and mingled with the souls of men, which were there detained apart from the bodies they had left (el'SwAa kciju,6Vtwv). Hades himself was the deity who presided over these lower realms. In the abode of these disem- bodied souls were placed, on the one hand the happy fields of Elysium, on the other the gloomy realms of Tartarus. In the former, the souls of the virtuous enjoyed themselves, not however without regret for the loss of the body and the light of day. In the latter, the wicked, such as Ixion, Tantalus, the Danaids, and others, were tormented with various sorrows. This is known to every one who has read the Odyssey and the iEneid. 3 1 This seems a doubtful derivation, dee and Syriac K^M is, in sound as well Infer, Infra, Inferos, Inferior are obvi- ag fa itg radical {^ th& game ag the ously all connected. 1 hough this con- Greek . And „ . g remarkable that it nection does not make the derivation is uged ag a preposition t0 designate be- given in the text impossible. 1 he Greek , . 7 / .„ , . ? J ,,_ . low, y>», Infra. So tj»a p-jfcj, Infra te. epa is the same as the Hebrew V >N, in _,. . - . ' T , " • „ . 11ns may account for the force of the Chaldee and Syriac NflnK, in Arabic preposition infra, on the hypothesis that U*& The latter is the same as the the derivation given in the text is cor- w • rect. German Erde, English earth. The Chal- a See Horn. Od. xi. Virg. ^En. vi 86 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Art. III. 2. The Jews in like manner believed in a state of being after death, in which the soul existed previously to the final Resurrec- tion, apart from the body, yet in a state of consciousness, either of happiness or of misery. This state or place they called in Hebrew, Sheol (ViNEJ), m Greek, Hades (01817s). Its position, according to their notions and language, was underground. Thus Josephus says that the soul of Samuel, when he appeared to Saul, came up («£ a8ov) from Hades. 1 He tells us that the Sadducees u took away the rewards and punishments of the Soul in Hades." a Whereas he says of the Pharisees, that " they held the immortality of the Soul, and that men were punished or rewarded under the earth, according to their practice of virtue or wickedness in life." 8 Lightfoot has shown that the Jewish schools dispose of the souls of the righteous till the Resurrection, under the threefold phrase : (1) " the Garden of Eden," answering to the " Paradise " of the new Testament (Luke xxiii. 43). (2) " Under the throne of glory," being nearly parallel with the expression (in Rev. vi. 9) of souls crying "under the altar;" for the Jews conceived the altar to be the throne of the Divine Majesty. (3) " In Abraham's bosom," which is the expression adopted by our Lord in the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 22). 4 He shows that the abode of the wicked before the Judgment is placed by the same Rabbins within sight of the abode of the just, and so that the one can con- verse with the other, as Dives is by our Lord represented as con- versing with Abraham. 6 From these, and similar authorities, we may conclude that the Jews, like the heathens, looked for a state immediately after death, which in their popular language was said to be under ground, and in their ordinary phraseology was called The latter describes the two sides of uperf/e f/ kokioc tmri/ievaic h tu f3iu yiyove. Hades thus : — — See Pearson and King, as above. 4 See Lightfoot. Hone Jlebraica on Hie locus est partes ubi se via findit in am- Luke xvi. 22 ; and Luke xxiii. 48. bas: 6 Hone Iltbr. on Luke xvi. 23, 26. Dcxtera, qua; Ditis inagni sub mania ten- See also Bp. Hull, HVb, I. Disc. in. dit ! p. 69. Bp. Bull, p. 61, quota from the Hac iter Klysium nobis: at lreva malorum Chaldce Paraphnist on Cant. iv. 12. who, lucercet pcenas, et ad imp.a 1 artara mitt.t. 8peaking of t)ie ( ; ar( ] on „f ftfe, , t , mt ig jEn. vi. 540-543. Paradise), says that " thereinto no man hath the power of entering hut the just, 1 Joseph. Ant. Lib. vi. c. xv. See whose souls are carried thither by the Pearson, On the Creed, Art. v. p. 239. hands of impels." "If this," adds the 2 I)c Bell. Jud. Lib. II. c. vii. "¥vx>K learned writer, "had Oven an erroneous re rfjv dixifiovijv not rue nad' dihv rifiupiac opinion of the Jews, doubtless our Sav- nal npuc uvaipovat. — Pearson, as above ; iour would never have given any the King, On the Creed, p. 189. least countenance to it, much less would 8 Ant. Lib. xviii. c. ii. 'Aduvnrov re He have plainly confirmed it, by teach- loxdv Trite VW'C wtffTif abrolc elvat, xal ing the same thing in the jmrable of imb x& ot> b( tiuiaiuoetc re «ca2 Ttj«uf ol( Dives and Lazarus. ' Art. III.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 87 Sheol, Hades, Hell ; that in this state were both the just and the unjust : the latter in a state of misery, the former in blissful enjoy- ment, called sometimes " Paradise, the Garden of Eden," some- times " beneath the throne of glory," sometimes " in Abraham's bosom." 3. It is well known that the early Christians believed in an intermediate state of the soul between death and Judgment ; and this intermediate state they, too, like the Jews, called " Hades." Justin Martyr, speaking against some of the Gnostics who denied the Resurrection, and by consequence the intermediate state of the soul, says, " those who say that there is no Resurrection, but that immediately after death their souls are taken up to Heaven, these are not to be accounted either Christians or Jews." 1 He himself distinctly asserts that " no souls die (that would be a Godsend to the wicked) ; but the souls of good men remain in a better, of bad men in a worse place, awaiting the time of the Judgment." 2 Tertullian distinctly states his belief, that the souls of all men go to Hades (inferi) until the Resurrection, the souls of the just being in that part of Hades called the bosom of Abraham, or Paradise. 3 Irenaeus says, that the souls of Christ's disciples "go into the invisible place prepared for them, and there remain awaiting the Resurrection ; after which they shall receive their bodies again, and rise complete, that is, in the body, as the Lord arose, and so shall come to the vision of God." 4 Origen declares his belief, that " not even the Apostles have received their perfect bliss ; for the saints at their departure out of this life do not attain the full rewards of their labors ; but are 1 01 Kal teyovoi /iff elvat vsKpuv uva- et in ipsis visceribus ejus abstrusa pro- OTaow, u?&m u/j.a ry uKo&vr/oKtw Tag rpv- funditas." He then says, Christ went Xag avruy avalaiijiuvea&ai elg rdv ovpavbv, there, and his servants must not expect fa) VTToAup7]Te avTovg Xpioriavovg ■ uanep to be above their Lord, but will have to ovdk 'lovdaiovg. — Dial. p. 307. Paris, wait in Abraham's bosom for the resur- 1615. That the still earlier apostolical rection. " Nulli patet coelum, terra adhuc fathers held the same sentiments con- salva, ne dixerim clausa. Cum transac- cerning an intermediate state may be tione enim mundi reserabuntur regna seen from Clem. 1 Corinth, c. 60. Herm. caelorum. . . . Habes etiam de Paradiso in. Simi/. ix. 1(5. On the former pas- a nobis libellum, quo constituimus om- sage see Bull, Works, i. Serin, in. p. 63. nem animam apud inferos sequestrari in Both his Sermons on this subject are de- diem Domini." — Tertull. De Anima, cap. serving of all attention. 55. 2 'AXXu (irjv ovdk uTroSvrjaKeiv 7}fu naaag 4 At r/'t^at umpxovrai elr rdv [uoparov] rag ipvxur kyu ■ ep/xaiov yap tjv ug ufa/dug toitov rdv upia/uvov avraig unb tov Qeov, role naiiolg. 'AAAd t'l ; rag fiev tCiv evoefiuv kukei /i£XP L T K uvaaruatug Qoituoc, irepifd- kv Kpeirrovl ttoi ^upu jiEVEiv, rag 6e udUovg vovaai ttjv avaoTaoiv • Emcra uno'kafiovam kcu novr/pug kv x^ipovi, tuv rr/g npioEug in- rd awfiara, nal b"koiOtfipug uvaoTuoai, tovt- dExofiEvag xpovov tote. — Dialog, p. 2*22. eon ouftaTinwg, Kadug Kal 6 Kvpwg uvearri, 8 "Nobis inferi non nudacavositas, nee ovrug EAEvaovrai slg ttjv oipiv tov Qeov. — subdivalis aliqua mundi sentina credun- Irena:. v. 81. See also Beaven's Ac- tar; sed in fossa terne,et in alto vastitas, count of Irenaus, ch. xvni. 88 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Art. HI awaiting us, who still remain on earth, loitering though we be, and slack." I Lactantius is very express upon the same point. " Let no one," says he, " think that souls are judged immediately after death ; for they are all detained in the same common place of keeping, until the time come when the Supreme Judge shall inquire into their good or evil deeds." 2 Hilary says, that it is the " law of human necessity, that bodies should be buried, and souls descend to hell or Hades." And again, that " the faithful, who depart out of the body, are reserved in the safe keeping of the Lord for an entrance to the kingdom of Heaven, being in the mean time placed in Abraham's bosom, whither the wicked cannot enter on account of the great gulf fixed between them, until the time comes when they shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven." 3 Ambrose still more fully says, that, " while the fulness of time is expected, the souls await the reward which is in store for them. Some pain awaits, others glory. But in the mean time the former are not without trouble, nor are the latter without enjoyment." 4 Augustine writes, " The time between death and final resurrec- tion holds the souls in hidden receptacles, according as each soul is meet for rest or punishment." 6 II. We have now to consider what we learn from Scripture of the state of the departed, and of the meaning of Hades. 1. The soul, after it has left the body, is not represented as passing directly to its final reward. This will appear from the following considerations : — Our Lord distinctly assures us, that " no one hath ascended up 1 "Nondum receperunt laetitiam suam untes de corpore ad introitum ilium reg- no Apostoli quidem.sedetipsi exspectant, ni ccclestis per custodiam Domini fideles ut et ego lsetitise eorum particeps flam, omnes rescrvabuntur, in sinu scilicet in- Neque enim decodentes liinc sancti con- terim Abrahae collocati, qu6 adire impioa tinuo integra meritorum suorum pros- interjectnm chaos inhibet, quo usque in- mia consequuntur, sed exspectant etiam troeundi rursum in regnum ccelorum nos, licet morantes, licet desides." — Ori- tempus adveniat." — Hilar. In Pt. cxx. gen. Horn. vii. in Lev. num. ii. ; Usher's Edit. Benedict, col. 888. See Usher, and Answtr to a Jesuit, ch. vn. King, as above. 2 " Nee tamen quisquam putet animas * " Krgodumexspeetaturplenitudo tem- post mortem protinus judicari : omnes in poris, exspectant auimte remunerntionem una communique custodia detinentur, debitam. Alias mnnet poena, alius gloria: donee tempus adveni.it quo maximus et tamen nee Hue interim sine injuria, Judex meritorum faciat examen." — Lac- nee istaesino fVuctu sunt." — Ainbros. De tant. In8iitut. Divin. Lib. vn. c. 21 ; Usher, Bono Mortis, e. x. Usher, as above. as above; King, p. SOS. * "Tempus, quod inter bominis mortem • " Humana; ista lex necessitatis est, ut et ultimam resurrectionem intcrpositum consopultis COrporibot ad inferos animao est, animas ahditis reocptaeulis continet, descendant." — Hilar. In Pa. exxxviii. sicut unaqua?que digna est vel requie vel Edit. Benedict, col. 514. ssrumna." — Augustin. Kwhirid. ad Lau- " Futuri boni exspectatio est, cumcxe- rent. c. cix. Tom. vi. p. 286. Abt. III.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 89 to Heaven but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven " (John iii. 13). If then no one had then ascended up to Heaven, except the Lord Jesus, the saints departed could not have gone to their place of final and eternal bliss, which is always called Heaven. Again, our Lord promised the thief on the cross " that he should be with Him that day in Paradise " (Luke xxiii. 43). Now Christ did not go from the cross to Heaven, but, as will appeal hereafter, He went to hell or Hades, and did not go to Heaven till after His resurrection. Therefore Paradise, to which the thief went with Him that very day, was not Heaven. 1 Again, in the Revelation (vi. 9), " the souls of them that were slain for the word of God " are not represented as in Heaven, but they cry from under the altar ; and, though white robes are given them, they are bid "to rest for a little season, till their fellow- servants and their brethren should be fulfilled." Again, our Lord and His Apostles never comfort the Church concerning those who are asleep with the assurance that their souls are in Heaven, nor do they alarm the wicked with the fear that at the instant of death their souls will pass into a state of final punishment. It is ever to the Resurrection of the dead and the Judgment of the great day that the hopes of the pious and the fears of the ungodly are directed. This may be seen most plainly by referring to such passages as the following : Matt. xiii. 40 ; xvi. 27 ; xxv. 31-33. Mark viii. 38. Luke xiv. 14. John v. 28, 29. Acts xvii. 31. 1 Cor. xv. passim. 2 Cor. iv. 14 ; v. 10, 11. Phil. iii. 20, 21. Col. iii. 4. 1 Thess. iv. 13-17 ; v. 2, 3, 23. 2 Thess. i. 6-10. 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8. Heb. ix. 27, 28. Jas. v. 7, 8. 1 Pet. iv. 5 ; v. 4. 2 Pet. iii. 10-12. Rev. xx. 13-15. 2. But though the soul does not receive its final reward until the Resurrection and the Judgment, when it shall be united to the body, and receive the sentence of the Judge ; yet the soul does not die with the body, nor sleep in unconsciousness between death and Judgment. 2 This appears from the following. i " Si ergo secundum hominem quem land were so strongly of this opinion that Verbum Deus suseepit, putamus dictum they put forth the following in the reign esse, Hoilie umonn eris in parttdi**, non ex of Edward VI., as one of the Articles of his verbis in ccelo exittitnanduf t-st esse the Church : it is the 40th of the 42 paradisus : neque eniiu ipso die in coelo Articles of 1552 : — futurus erat homo Christus Jesus ; sed in " The souls of them that depart this life inferno secundum animam, in sepulchro do neither die with the bodies nor sleep autem secundum carnem." — August idly. Epist. lvii. ad Dardanum. Edit. Bene- " They which say that the souls ot diet. Ep. clxxxvii. Tom. ii. p. G79. such as depart hence do sleep, being 2 The reformers of the Church of Eng- without all sense, feeling, or perceiving, 12 90 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Art. IIL The soul of Samuel returned to earth after his body was in the grave (1 Sam. xxviii. 11, 14). This took place four years after Samuel's death. In the parable or history in Luke xvi., both Lazarus and Dives are represented as alive, one in torments and the other in Abraham's bosom ; and that all this took place before the Resurrection and the Judgment appears from this, that in vv. 27, 28, the brothers of the rich man were then alive on earth and in their state of probation, and Dives wished that Lazarus should be sent to them to bring them to repent. It is therefore quite clear that the present world was still in existence, and therefore Judgment yet future. The same observations apply in all partic- ulars to the account given of the souls beneath the altar, so often referred to in Rev. vi. 9-11. The promise also to the thief upon the cross, that he should be that day with Christ in Paradise (Luke xxiii. 43), must show that his soul would not be in a state of insensibility, but of bliss. The same may be inferred from the words of our Lord, " Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul " (Matt. x. 28). If death be, not only corruption of the body, but insensibility of the soul, then men can kill the soul, as much as they can kill the body ; for they cannot kill the body eternally, nor prevent its rising again. They can kill the body and reduce it to corruption now ; but the soul they cannot kill, neither now, nor ever. Again, the language used by our Lord and St. Stephen at the instant of death shows that the spirit would live : " Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit," said Christ (xxiii. 46). " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," said Stephen (Acts vii. 59). St. Paul speaks of the Church as, among other companies, having in it " the spirits of just men made perfect " (Heb. xii. 23) ; where the whole context shows that he refers to the present, not to the future state of Christian privilege and blessing. He declares of himself that he is in a strait between two, " having a desire to '.epart and to be with Christ, which is far better." But if death be annihilation, until the Resurrection wakes both body and soul, he could hardly have called death better than life, nor have spoken of it as " being with Christ " (Phil. i. 23). And again, the same Apostle, speaking of death, and calling the body a tabernacle of the soul (2 Cor. v. 1, 2), says, M Whilst we are at home in the until the day of Judgment, or affirm that do utterly dissent from the right belief the Bonis die with the bodies, and at the declared to us in Holy Scriptnrc. ' last day shall be raised up with the same, Art. in.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 91 body, we are absent from the Lord;" and then adds, "we are willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" (vv. 6-8). From all this we must conclude that the spirit still lives, when it has left the body, and that, though it loses the benefit of having a bodily tabernacle, yet, in the case of pious men, it is very vastly a gainer by death, inasmuch as, though absent from the body, it enjoys the presence of Christ. 3. Having thus seen that the disembodied soul neither sleeps nor enters into its final reward, we have only farther to show that the soul is in an intermediate state, called Sheol or Hades ; and that that state is a state of partial and expectant bliss to the right- eous, of partial and expectant misery to the wicked, preparatory to the final consummation of bliss or misery, to be assigned to each at the resurrection of the last day. It has been seen that this was the opinion of the Jews, and also that our Lord and the Apostles use the very expressions which Lightfoot has shown that the Jews used concerning the state of the departed, namely, " Paradise," " Abraham's bosom," and " beneath the altar," answering to " beneath the throne of glory." This would of itself imply that our Lord and His Apostles sanc- tioned the sentiments of the Jews upon the subject. The same has appeared concerning the Jewish use of the term Hades, which is a term frequently adopted by the writers of the new Testament. The various passages of Scripture already referred to fully con- firm this view of the case. For example, the souls beneath the altar (in Rev. vi.) are clothed in white robes, and comforted with hope, but plainly not in perfect consummation and bliss. St. Paul (in 2 Cor. v. 1-8), when looking forward to the hope of res- urrection, distinctly describes the state of the disembodied soul as imperfect ; and though he says, it is " better to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord " (ver. 8), he still says, that our earnest desire is for the resurrection of the body, which he calls being "clothed upon" (ver. 4). Again (Rom. viii. 19-23), he represents the whole creation as longing to be delivered from bond- age, and waiting for the redemption of the body. In Heb. xi. 40 he represents the saints departed as not " made perfect," until those who should succeed them were added to the number of the redeemed. To these passages we must add the promise to the thief upon the cross, that he should be in Paradise, a place evidently of bliss, yet, as has already been seen, not the same as Heaven. Lazarus 92 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Art. I1L is spoken of as comforted in Abraham's bosom ; an expression by no means answering to the glowing descriptions of the eternal Kingdom of God, though corresponding with the Jewish and early Christian ideas of the state of intermediate bliss. Dives, too, is represented as being in the same place with Lazarus, though sepa- rated by a great gulf from him, and, unlike him, suffering tor- ment ; and that place is expressly called Hades (Luke xvi. 23). In correspondence with all this, we find, in the old Testament, that Jacob expected " to go down to Sheol (i. e. Hades) unto his son " (Gen. xxxvii. 35). Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are said to go down " quick into Sheol " (Num. xvi. 30) ; and when the king of Babylon's fate is foretold by Isaiah, it is said that " Hades (or Sheol) from beneath shall be moved to meet him ; " which is explained by what follows, that the " mighty dead shall be stirred up " at his approach (Isai. xiv.) I think it hardly necessary to add more to show that on this point the opinion of the ancients is more correct than that of the modern popular creeds ; and that the Roman Catholic notions of purgatory, the common opinion that the soul at once passes to its final reward, and the belief that the soul sleeps from death to Judgment, are all without support from the Scriptures of God. Those Scriptures plainly speak of the final reward to be attained only at the Resurrection ; yet they show, too, that the soul is in a state of consciousness between death and Judgment. That state of consciousness is evidently a happy, though not a perfect state to the good, a suffering, though not a fully miserable state to the wicked. This state also is called at times by various names ; but its general designation, whether as regards the just or the unjust, is in the Hebrew Sheol, in the Greek Hades, and both these words (as well as others of a different sig- nification) are generally rendered by our English translators helL Our Second consideration is, What is meant by our Lord's descent to hell, — and what authority there is for the doctrine. I. Historically. T1.3 article, " He descended into hell," was not very anciently in the Creeds. The first place we find it used in, was the church of Aquileia, 1 about a. d. 400. Yet it is contained in a sort of exposition of the Christian faith given by Eusebius, which he trans- lated from the Syriac, and which he states to have been given by Tliaddams, the brother of the Apostle Thomas, to the people <»f > Pearson, p. 226. Art. III.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 93 Edessa. 1 It is not, however, in the Creeds of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, in the Creed of the Council of Nice, nor in the more ancient draughts of the Roman or Apostles' Creed. Still there can be no question of its very general acceptance, as an article of faith, by all the earlier fathers of the Church. Ignatius, Hernias, Justin M., Irenasus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, have all spoken clearly on this subject ; besides later fathers, such as Cyril, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Chry- sostom. It will be necessary to refer more particularly to the sen- timents of some of these fathers, when we come to our Third division, concerning the object of Christ's descent. At present let it suffice to quote a few of the more striking, as well as the best-known passages, from some of the earliest Christian writers. Irengeus says, that " our Lord was in the middle of the shadow of death, where are the souls of the dead, and after that rose again with His body." 2 Tertullian, in a chapter before quoted, says that " Christ, who is God, yet being man too, died according to the Scriptures, was buried, and went through the form of human death in Hades ; nor did He ascend into Heaven till He had gone down to the lower parts of the earth." 3 Cyprian shows that our Lord " was not to be overcome by death, nor to remain in hell." 4 Lord King says that in sundry places Athanasius shows, 5 " that, whilst Christ's Body lay buried in the grave, His Soul went into hell, to perform in that place those several actions, and operations, which were necessary for the complete redemption and salvation of man- kind ; that He performed after His death different actions by His two essential parts : by His Body He lay in the grave, by His Soul He went into hell and vanquished death." One principal reason why the fathers laid great stress on the belief in Christ's descent to Hades was this. The Arians and 1 Euseb. i. 13; Bingham, x. 4, 18; apud inferos remansurus esset." — Cyp. Hey, Bk. iv. Art. m. § 1 ; Hammond's Test. ado. Judas, lib. 2. c. 24. Pract. Catech. Bk. v. § 2. & King, p. 179. The words are Lord 2 Irenaj. v. 31. " Cum enim Dominus King's, not Athanasius's. Nevertheless, in medio vmbrce mortis abierit, ubi anirme Athanasius's language may justify Lord mortuorum erant, post deinde corporal- King's statement : . . . fir/re ttjc -deornToc iter resurrexit." — See Pearson, p. 237 ; tov aufiaroc kv rw tufto unoXifziravofievrie, and Beaven's Account of Irenaus, ch. (if/TE rtjg xpvxK bv t€> fidy x u P l C°f^ v VS- xviii. Tovto yup in to (yndlv dui t&v npoipriTuv ■ 8 DeAnima, e. lv. " Quod si Christus Ovk eyKaraXeiipEic tt/v ipvxvv fwv etc pdrjv, Deus, quia et homo, mortuus secundum ovde ouoelc tov bowv aov Ideiv foa sages which have been thrown into the notes. Another opinion, however, grew up also in the early ages, namely, that Christ not only translated the pious from Hades to more joyous abodes, but that even some of those who in old times had been disobedient, yet, on hearing Christ's preaching, believed, and so were saved and delivered from torment and hell. 8 This was called up by the witch of Endor, was in Hades ; so were the souls of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets ; none of them could pass the flaming sword, till Christ came to set them free. Therefore it was that Lazarus, though in Abraham's bosom, could see Dives, who was in tor- ments. But after Christ is come. Chris- tians can pass the flaming sword into Paradise without harm. Paradise, how- ever, was not in Heaven, according to Origen, but still an intermediate state, though better than Hades This appears from the following, if Rufiniis has rightly translated liim \ " Puto enim quod sancti quique diseedentes de hM vita permane- bunt in loco aliqiio in terra posito, quern Paradisum (licit Scripturadivinu, velutin quodam eruditionis loco, et, ut ita dix- erim, auditorio vel schola animarum, in quo de omnibus his qua? in terris viderant doceantur, indicia quoque quaedam aeci- piant etiam de consequentihus et futu- ris," &c. — De Pn'tuipiit, Lib. n.cap. xi. num. 6. Bp. Beveridge, on this Article, quotes a passage from Ignatius, which should show that that ancient father took the same view as Oritfen and others after him. The passage, however, is from an interpolated Epistle, ami therefore proves nothing. Ad Trail, ix. Coteler. II. p. 64. 1 "Dominusresurrectionissuaepignore vincula solvit inferni, et piorum animas elevavit."— Ambros. De Fide ad Gmtian. Lib. iv. c. 1. " Ante adventum Christi omnia ad in- feros pariter ducerentur. Unde et Jacob ad inferos descensurum sc dicit. Et Job pio8 et itnpios in inferno queritur reten- tari. Et Evangelium, chaos magnum inter- positum apud inferos, et Abraham cum Lazaro, et divitem in suppliciis, esse tes- tatum Et revera antequam flammeam il lam rotam, et igneam romphaeam, et Pa radisi fores Christus cum latrone resera- ret. clausa erant coelestia." — Hieron. Com. in Holes, c. in. Tom. II. col. 736. Edit. Bened. Quoted in part by King, p. '20ft See also Pearson, p. 250. a " Si enim n»n absurde credi videtur, antiquos etiam sanctos, qui venturi Chris- ti tenuerunt (idem, locis quidem a tor- mentis impiorum rcmotissimis, se•>', Lib. xx. c xv. Tom. vn. p. 593. Quoted in part by King, p. 212. See also Kput. ii.xiv. Tom. n. p. 575; Epist. clxxxvii. p. 67'.). :! " Expers peceati Christus, Cum ad Tartari ima deseenderet, seras inferni januasque eonfringens, vinetas peccato animus, mortis dominatione destrueta. e dialK)li faueibus levor.ivit ad vitam." — Ambros. / >• Ifyttrrio PoacM, c. 4. " Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. qui ad fornncem dcseendil inferni, in quo clauses et peccatoruin et justorum aniina? tenebnntur, ut absque exustione ct noxa sui eos, qui tcnehantur inclusi, mortis vinculis liberarei." — Hieron. In Daniel. c. iii. Tom. ill. col. 106ft. " Invocavit ergo redcmptoi noster no- Art. in.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 99 appears to have been the opinion of Augustine. He was evidently puzzled as to the meaning of the word Hades, and doubted whether it ever meant a place of rest and happiness (although at times he appears to have admitted that it did) ; and thinking it a place of torment, he thought Christ went thither to save some souls, which were in torment, from thence. 1 Some indeed went so far as to think that hell was cleared of all the souls that were there in torment, and that all were taken up with Christ, when He arose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven. But this was reckoned as a heresy. 2 Such were the principal varieties of opinion in early ages touch- ing the end of Christ's descent to hell. 3 In more modern times, many other sentiments have been adopted. Among the rest, the opinion held by Calvin 4 appears to have been, that our Lord's descent to hell means not His going to the place of spirits, but His suffering upon earth, in Gethsemane and on the cross, all the torments of hell, and the sufferings of damned souls. Dr. Hey thinks that the growing popularity of Calvin's views induced the reformers of Elizabeth's reign to omit the latter part of the Third Article as put forth in Edward's reign, because it was not acceptable to those who followed Calvin on this head. Others again have supposed that our Lord went down to hell, (taking hell in the sense of Gehenna, the place of the damned,) and that He went there in order to meet and confront Satan in his own abode, and as He had conquered him on earth, so finally to subdue him in hell. 5 men Domini de lacu novissimo, cum in virtute divinitatis descendit ad inferos, et destructis claustris Tartari, suos quos ibi reperit eruens, victor ad superos as- cendit." — Id. Lib. II. In Iximentat. c. iii. Tom. v. col. 829. The genuineness of this commentary is doubtful. " Nee ipsam tanien rerum partem nos- ter salvator mortuus pro nobis visitare contempsit, ut inde solveret quos esse 6olvendos secundum divinam secretam- que justitiam ignorare non potuit." — Augustin. De Genesi ad literam. Lib. xu. c. 66. Tom. in. p. 322. KareXduv yap etc adov, kcu toic kiceio£ 6iaicnpv£ac nvevpaaiv, uveig re role kutu tuc KEKkeia/xevac ttvTmc, not rdv un7jncnov rov davarov Kevuaag pvxbv, uveftio Tpir/pepog. — Cyril. Alex. Horn. Paschal, xi. azavhriTO tuv irvevparuv 6 &&nc. — Id. Horn. VI. See most of these and some other pas- sages referred to in Usher's Ansiver to a Jesuit, ch. vm. 1 See Augustin. Epist. clxiv. Tom. ii. p. 573. Pearson, p. 241, refers to it as Epist. xcix. Concerning Augustine's doubts on the nature of Hades, see Pear- son, p. 239 ; King, p. 210 ; and the places referred to copra note 3, pp. 124, 5. 2 Augustine, in his book De Hceresihus, reckons this as the seventy-ninth heresy. " Alia, descendente ad inferos Christo, credidisse incredulos, et omnes exinde ex- istimat liberatos." — Tom. vm. p. 23. See Pearson, p. 241, note. 8 Tertullian mentions, but does not approve of, an opinion in his day, that Christ went to Hades that we should not go thither : " Sed in hoc, inquiunt, Chris- tus inferos adiit, ne nos adiremus." — De Anima, c. 55. 4 See Calvin. Institut. Lib. n. c. 16, § 10 : quoted by Pearson, p. 230, where see Pearson's own observations on this notion. 6 On the other hand, Mede (Disc. iv. Works, p. 23, Lond. 1677) has made if 100 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Art. HL II. To pass from the Historical to the Scriptural consideration of the end of Christ's descent to Hades, we may observe : — 1. That it is plain He went thither that He might fulfil the conditions of death proper to human nature. When man dies, the spirit leaves the body, the body is buried, the spirit goes to the abode of the departed, where the souls of men await the Resur- rection of the dead. Christ fulfilled this twofold condition. His Body was buried, and His Soul passed into Hades or Paradise. This it is unnecessary to dwell upon, as it seems evident, that, as our Lord was perfect man, so it was His will, and the will of His Father, that He should undergo all the conditions of human nature, and especially that He should truly suffer death. Now death cannot be truly suffered, unless the soul leaves the body, and goes to the abode of departed spirits. 2. But it becomes necessary here to consider, whether the text 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, (which was so applied by all the fathers, and by the English reformers of the reign of Edward the Sixth,) gives us any farther account of the end and object of Christ's descent to Hades. Many divines of the English Church deny altogether its applicability to this question. Writers of no less name than Hammond, Pearson, Barrow, &c. contend that the only meaning of St. Peter's words is, that our Lord by His Holy Spirit, inspiring Noah, preached to the disobedient antediluvians, who are now for their disobedience imprisoned in hell. 1 This interpretation of the passage depends on the accuracy of the English version. That version reads in the eighteenth verse " quickened by the Spirit." It is to be noted, however, that all the ancient versions except one (the Ethiopic) seem to have understood it " quickened in spirit ; " and it is scarcely possible, upon any cor- rect principles of interpretation, to give any other translation to the words. 2 If, therefore, we follow the original, in preference to the most probable, if not certain, that Satan August. Epist. clxiv. See Usher's An- is not yet cast into hell, but that evil svoer to a Jesuit, ch. vm. spirits are allowed to walk to and fro on 2 The words in the Greek are tfavarc*- tho earth. So Satan is called the prince &elg fjiv oapid, ((MnoiTideig & r Trveih- of the powers of the air, and it is not till //an. The article ry before mci-part is the Judgment that he is to be cast into of so little authority, that Wetstein, Gries- hell. This, like most of J. Mede's learned bach, and Matthai have rejected it from discourses, is well worth reading. the text. Bishop Middleton has observed, 8ee also this view of the end and char- that in order to admit of the rendering acter of our Lord's descent into hell of the* English version, or to allow us to considered and disproved by Bp. Pear- understand by " spirit " here the Holy •on, p. 248. Spirit of God, it would be absolutely ne- 1 A question as to whether this might cessary that there should be not only an be the meaning of the passage had been article, but a preposition also before irvev- proposed by St Jerome and St. Augus- pari. If the article be not authentic, we tine. Hieron. Lib. xv. In AW. cap. liv. must render " dead carnally, but alive Art. HI.] OF THE DESCENT' INTO HmL. 101 English version, we must read the passage thus : " Christ suffered for us, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God ; being put to death in the flesh, but quick in His Spirit ; by which (or in which) He went and preached (or proclaimed) to the spirits in safe keeping," &c. There is, it will be observed, a marked an- tithesis between " flesh " and " spirit." In Christ's Flesh or Body He was put to death. Men were " able to kill the body," but they could not kill His soul. He was therefore alive in His Soul, 1 and in or by that He went to the souls who were in safe custody (cV v\a.Kfj') ; His Body was dead, but His Spirit, or Soul, went to their spirits or souls. This is the natural interpretation of the passage ; and if it ended here, it would contain no difficulty, and its sense would never have been doubted. It would have contained a simple assertion of our Lord's descent to the spirits of the dead. 2 But it is added, that He not only went to the spirits in safe keeping, but that He went and preached to them. Hence it has been inferred, that, if He preached, they had need of, and He offered to them, repentance. Hence the passage has appeared to savour of false doctrine, and hence its force has been explained away. But the word " preached," or " proclaimed," by no means necessarily infers that He preached either faith or repentance. Christ had just finished the work of salvation, had made an end of sin, and conquered hell. Even the angels seem not to be fully enlightened as to all the work of grace which God performs for man. It is not likely, then, that the souls of the departed patriarchs should have fully understood or known all that Christ had just accomplished for them. They indeed may have known, and no doubt did know, the great truth, that redemption was to be wrought for all men by the sufferings and death of the Messiah. But before the accomplishment of this great work, neither angels nor devils seem fully to have understood the mystery of it. If this be true, when the blessed Soul of our crucified Redeemer went among the souls of those whom He had just redeemed, what spiritually." If we admit the article, we 2 The expression h dvXaKrj by no must then translate, "dead in body, but means necessarily signifies a place of alive in His Spirit," i e. in His soul. The punishment. It may mean a place of ancient versions support this rendering, protection. It is simply in ward, in guar- and Michaelis and Rosenmiiller give a dianship. The rendering of the Syriac, similar interpretation. Bp. Middleton which from its antiquity is so important, refers with full approbation to Bp. Hors- . v,* • . TT , m , - „ ley's Sermon mentioned below. See Mid- IS ^<*»L-»^?i »« Hades. The following dleton, On the A Hide, in loc. is its rendering of the whole passage-: i (uoxouideig corresponds with the Hi- « He was dead in body, but alive in phil of n*"! - , which means " to keep spirit : and he preached to those soul* alive," as much as " to make alive." which were ke P t in Hades." 102 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Abt. in. can be more probable than that He should have " proclaimed " (iKrjpvZtv) to them, that their redemption had been fully effected, that Satan had been conquered, that the great sacrifice had been offered up ? If angels joy over one sinner that repenteth, may we not suppose Paradise filled with rapture when the Soul of Jesus came among the souls of His redeemed, Himself the herald (>r>7pv£) of His own victory ? This is the view propounded by Bp. Horsley in his admirable sermon on this text. 1 It is perfectly unnecessary to suppose that the consequence of Christ's preaching in Hades, or Paradise, was similar to His or His Apostles' preaching on earth. Both indeed were preachings of glad tidings. But in this was the difference. Preaching on earth is to men, who need repentance, and whose repentance is acceptable. Preaching to the souls of the departed was a mere proclaiming of blessedness to men who had already repented when on earth, and had no need of repentance after death, when it never comes, and could not avail, even if it di 1 come. The only difficulty in this interpretation of this difficult pas- sage is in the fact that the preaching is specially said to have been addressed to those " who had once been disobedient in the days of Noah." That many who died in the flood may yet have been saved from final damnation seems highly probable, and has been the opinion of many learned divines. The flood was a great tem- poral judgment, and it follows not that " all who perished in the flood are to perish everlastingly in the lake of fire." But the real difficulty consists in the fact that the proclamation of the finish- ing of the great work of salvation is represented by St. Peter as having been addressed to these antediluvian penitents, and no mention is made of the penitents of later ages, who are equally interested in the tidings. It must be confessed that this is a knot which cannot easily be untied. Yet should not this induce us to reject the literal and grammatical interpretation of the passage, and to fall back upon those forced glosses which have been devised in order to avoid, instead of fairly meeting and endeavouring to solve, an acknowl- edged difficulty. Bishop Horsley says that he thinks he has " observed, in some parts of Scripture, an anxiety, if the expression may be allowed, of the sacred writers, to convey distinct intiina- tions that the antediluvian race is not uninterested in the redemp- tion and the final retribution." It may be conceived, too, he thinks, i Vol. i. Serm. xx. Art. III.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 103 that those who perished in the most awful of God's temporal judgments would, more than any, need and look for the comfort of Christ's presence, and that consolation which His preaching in the regions of the departed would afford " to those prisoners of hope." Whether or not such ideas give any clue to the solution of this difficulty it may be hard to say. But in the same author's words, " Is any difficulty that may present itself to the human mind, upon the circumstances of that preaching, of sufficient weight to make the thing unfit to be believed upon the word of the Apostle ? — or are we justified, if, for such difficulties, we abandon the plain sense of the Apostle's words, and impose upon them another meaning, not easily adapted to the words, though more proportioned to the capacity of our own understanding, especially when it is confirmed by other Scriptures that He went to that place ? In that place He could not but find the souls that are in it in safe keeping ; and in some way or other, it canno,t but be supposed, He would hold conference with them ; and a partic- ular conference with one class might be the means, and certainly could be no obstruction to a general communication with all. If the clear assertions of Holy Writ are to be discredited, on account of difficulties which may seem to the human mind to arise out of them, little will remain to be believed in revealed or even in what is called natural religion : we must immediately part with the doctrine of atonement, — of gratuitous redemption, — of justification by faith without the works of the law, — of sanctification by the influence of the Holy Spirit ; and we must part at once with the hope of the Resurrection." 1 1 P. 436. The whole Sermon deserves careful attention, and should be compared with Bishop Middleton, on 1 Pet. hi. 18. It is to be lamented that Bishop Pearson, in his most learned and elaborate article on the Descent into Hell, should have written less lucidly than is his wont. In more passages than one, unless I greatly misunderstand him, he has contradicted himself. At one time he defines hell as the place of departed spirits, and makes our Lord's descent thither no more than a passing into the state of the dead. At another time he argues as if hell meant the place of torment, and says that Christ went there to save us from going thither, for which he quotes Tertullian, who, how- ever, mentions the opinion only to con- demn it. See especially p. 251. [See also Bishop Hobart, On the Stale of the Departed; and Bishop Seabury's Sermon, The Descent of Christ into Hell. — /. w.\ ARTICLE IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ. De Resurrectione ChristL Christ did truly rise again from death, Chbistus vere a. mortuis resurrexit, and took again His body, with flesh, suumque corpus cum came, ossibus, om- bones, and all things appertaining to the nibusque ad integritatem humancc na- perfection of man's nature, wherewith turae pertinentibus recepit : cum quibus He ascended into Heaven, and there sit- in coclum ascendit, ibique residet, quoad teth, until He return to judge all men at extremo die ad judicandos homines re- the hist day. vers ur us sit. Section L — HISTORY. fPHE subjects treated of in this Article may be divided as -■- follows : — First, We must consider Christ's Resurrection with His human Body; Secondly, His Ascension, and Session at God's Right Hand ; Thirdly, His Return to Judgment. I— II. The first and second of these divisions may historically be considered together. Christ's Resurrection forms a part of all the ancient Creeds, and is followed by the Ascension, Session, and Judgment, as in this Article. The Sadducees, who denied all resurrection, of course would deny the resurrection of Christ. The Essenes also, though they believed the immortality of the soul, yet did not believe that the body would rise. We find, as early as Apostolic times, that some heretics had crept into the Christian Church, who said that " there was no resurrection of the dead " (1 Cor. xv. 12), and that * the resurrection was past already " (2 Tim. ii. 18). Whoever these heretics may have been, not long after them the Docetaj, denying the reality of Christ's flesh, and holding the doctrine of the general malignity of matter, of necessity disbelieved the truth of the res- urrection and ascension of Christ. Augustine tells us that the Corinthians held that Jesus, whom they took to be a mere man, Sec. I.] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 105 had not risen, but was yet to rise. 1 Apelles, a disciple of Mar- cion's, held that, when Christ came down from Heaven, He formed for Himself as He descended an airy and sidereal flesh, but when He arose and ascended into Heaven, He restored this body to its pristine elements, which being thus dispersed, His Spirit alone returned to Heaven. 2 Some of the earlier heretics, though otherwise connected with the Gnostics, did not absolutely deny either a body or a resurrec- tion to Christ, but invented strange fables concerning it. Thus, according to Theodoret, Hermogenes believed our Lord's Body to be placed in the Sun. 3 And Tertullian mentions certain heretics who taught, " that the flesh of Christ was in the heavens devoid of sense, as a scabbard or sheath, Christ being withdrawn from it." 4 The Manichees, like the Gnostics or Docetae, denying the reality of Christ's flesh, and believing matter to be evil, denied Christ's resurrection ; but as they seem to have identified Christ with Mithras (aethereal Light, the Sun), there may have been some connection between their belief and that of Hermogenes mentioned above. 5 The doctrine of Eutyches concerning the Person of Christ, as it was opposed to the verity of His Manhood, so it by implication opposed the A r erity of His resurrection ; and so Theodoret accuses him of considering that the Godhead only rose from the grave. 6 In later ages, when the controversies arose concerning the pres- ence of Christ in the Eucharist, it has been thought that divines of the Roman and Lutheran communions were led to use language concerning the glorified Body of our blessed Lord, and its ubiquity, which almost savoured of Eutychianism ; as though, after His ascension, His human nature had become so deified as to have lost the attributes of humanity, and have been transubstantiated into His Divinity. There is little doubt that the strong language of this Article was designed to oppose so exaggerated an opinion, ' * "Jesum liominem tantummodo fu- and Hermias. See Lardner, Hist, of isse, nee resurrexisse, sed resurrecturum Heretics, Book n. ch. xvm. sect. vm. asseverantes." — August. Hceres. vm. * "Adfirmant carnem in coelis vacuam Tom. vm. p. 7. sensu, ut vaginam, exempto Christo, se- 2 Tertullian. De Prescript, ado. Hcer. dere." — De Came Christi, c. 24. Pearson, c. 33. De Resurr. Carta*, c. 5. Epiphan. p. 272. King, p. 269. Hcer. xliv. August. Hares, xxm. Pear- 5 Me^pt or/uepov Mavixaloi 7ii yovot tbavra- son, On the Crod, p. 272. Lardner, Hist, aiudrj nai ovk aXrjd^ tov Sur^pof rfiv wo- of Heretics, Book ii. chap. xn. sect. x. oraaiv yeyovevai. — Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. King, On Creed, p. 261. xiv. Suicer, i. col. 311. 3 Theodoret. lionet. Fab. Lib. I. c. 19. 6 Theodoret [Hieret. Fab. Lib. iv. cap. Pearson, On the Creed, p. 273. King, p. xni.) says he asserted ttjv fleonjra rt} 263. Tiupo) napadodeloav Tervxriiiivai. ttjs uvaara Philaster and Augustine ascribe the oeuc. — See Suicer, i. col. 311. game opinion to the followers of Seleucus 14 10G OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. [Art. IV. if such really existed ; which may be the better seen by compar- ing the words of the Article with the rubric at the end of the Communion Service. 1 It is not to be concealed, that in later times some persons, of very sound opinions in the main, have been offended by the state- ment that our Lord took into Heaven " flesh, bones, and all things pertaining to man's nature ; " whereas they contend that our Lord's Body at His ascension, if not before, became a spiritual body, and a spiritual body cannot be said to have u flesh and bones," which pertain only to a natural body. This objection must be considered hereafter ; and in the mean time we have only to add, that the language of the Article corresponds with that of the early fathers. Ignatius says that " he knew and believed Him to be in the flesh after His resurrection." 2 Irenaeus, in one of his creeds, confesses his belief in " the reception of Jesus Christ into Heaven in the flesh." 3 In the Epistle of Damasus to Paulinus, the follow- ing anathema occurs amongst others, " If any one shall not ac- knowledge that Christ is set down at the right hand of the Father, in the same flesh which He took here, let him be anathema." 4 Augustine meets the objection which may be made to this doc- trine : " It offends some," he says, " that we believe an earthly Body to have been taken into Heaven ; they understand not how it is said in Scripture, It is sown a natural, it is raised a spiritual body." 5 To the like purpose writes Epiphanius : ¥ He ascended into Heaven, not divesting Himself of His holy Body, but uniting it to a spiritual one." 6 The fathers indeed held that Christ's Body, after His resurrec- tion, remained truly a human Body, and was not changed into a 1 The rubric, after explaining that by Smyrn. c. 8. Pearson, p. 255. Suicer, kneeling at the Communion no adoration i. col. 307. is intended either to the " Sacramental 3 r^v haapKOV eIc rode ovpavovc uvu?jp(>c¥ Bread and Wine, or unto any Corporal TovfiyaKr/ftevovXpiaTov'lrioov. — Lib. i.e. 2. Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and * Theodoret. Eccl. UUt. Lib. v. c. xi. Blood," adds, '' The natural Body and King, On Creed, p. 208. Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heav- 6 " Solet autem quosdam ofFendere, vel en, and not here; it being against the impios Gentiles vel ha>reiicos,quod ci eda- truthof Christ's natural Body to beat one mus assumptum terrenum corpus in coe- time in more places than one." This ru- lum. Sed Gentiles plerumque pliilosopho- brie was first inserted in the Second Ser- rum arguments nobiscum airere student, vice-Book of Edward VI. It was omit- ut dicant terrenum aliquid in ccelo esse ted in the Prayer- Book in Elizabeth's non posse. Nostras emm Si ripturns non reign, probably from a wish not to offend noverunt, nee sciunt quomodo dictum sit, the many persons of Lutheran sentiments Seminatur corpus annmlc. sun/it corpus $pi~ then in communion with the Church, ritmtle." — August. iJe Fide et Sgmbolo, It was restored in the last revision in the c. vi. Tom. vi. p. 167. reign of Charles II., at the request of the ° 'AveXduv eic oipnvovc, iaudiaev tv &£• Puritan Divines. t^TovUnrpoc evdofy, oiKUKodepnoc rduytm a 'RyCt yiip Kal/UTU ri/v uvuoraotv tv oap- autfia, uAXii avvcvuaac cif nvevpariKov. — Art- id airdv olda, icai nurrtiu ovra. — Epist. ad aceoh. Tom. u. p. 15U. Colon. King, p. 262 Sec. L] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 107 spirit, or absorbed into God. 1 Yet they held, that it was divested of all that was mortal, carnal, and corruptible, and became a spirit- ual Body, incorruptible, unchangeable, impassible. So Theophy- lact, " Did He lay aside His flesh ? God forbid ; for as He was taken up, so shall He come. But He was taken up in the flesh, and with a Body. Now Christ is said to have lived after the flesh, when He lived subject to natural and blameless affections and feelings, — hungering, thirsting, sleeping, working. But now He is no longer after the flesh, that is, He is freed from all such nat- ural and blameless affections, having a body impassible and incor- ruptible." 2 III. The third head concerns our Lord's return to Judg- ment. The Marcionites and other Gnostics are supposed to have denied a future Judgment. Their creed was, that God was of infinite grace and mercy ; that the Creator, whom they distinguished from God, was just ; not so God, or His Son Jesus Christ. They were also accused of holding that the actions of men in the body were indifferent ; and this tenet, by implication, is a denial of the Judgment. 3 The Manichees are charged, in like manner, with denying a Judgment, as they, no doubt, did deny a resurrection of the body. 4 One of the peculiar views of Emmanuel Swedenborg in modern times, and of his followers, who call themselves the Church of the New Jerusalem, was that the passages of Scripture concerning the Judgment are not to be literally interpreted. Swedenborg taught that all men are subject to two opposite influences, one from God and good spirits, the other from evil angels ; that according as they yield to one or the other influence, the soul rises or falls. Heaven and hell then are not the result of a Divine appointment, or of a 1 Ovkovv ovk elc deorqTog pEre(i'hi&Ti Xpiorbc /caru oupiia teyerai (rjocu, 5re w'^i ijwatv, uX?\.u Kill peril rrjv uvuaramv udu- ril Qvoiku ml uduififaiTa ira&ri efy, neivoiv, vcltov fdvet Kal ud&aprov, Kal Qeiac 66%7]C diipuv, vkvuv, kotuuv ■ vvv 6b, ointn /card fitorov aufj.n 6e o/jui, ttjv o'tKeiav e^ov tte- aupica' tovteoti, tovtuv tuv ijwaiKuv Kal piypaTfV. — Theodoret. Demonstr. per Syl- iidutllAqruv lna\Xku.yi\ y uTradig Kal uktj(mtov log. 'On aovy\vroc tj evuoic, Syl. IX. ati/ia exuv. Again : Ob fi.ETEfi\j)&i) elg nvev/m rb So Theodoret on the same passage : aufta • oa.pl; yup -qv, Kal baria, Kal xylose, H-ol Et yup Kal avrbg 6 deoirdnjc Xpiorbg nadr/- ■k66( c • roiyapovv Kal /isru rfjv uvaaraoiv rbv d%e rb acjjxa, uXKu jierh rb nudoc ufydap- atofia rb aiJua /i£/u:vr}KEV. — Ibid. Syl. X. rov rohro iteko'i.j)ke nal uduvarov. — See See Suicer, i. coll. 307, 308. Suicer as above. 2 Theophyl. ad 2 Cor. v. 16. a See King, On the deed, p. .74. T^v oupica uns&ero: jj.fi yevoiro- £>c yap * Hey's Lectures, 11. p. 390; nnd Lard- aveTJqfydri, oiiru Kal ktevoerai • uveXrj&r} ok ner as referred to there. ev caput ko) (ietu tov ouftaroc. . . . 'O di 108 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. [Akt. IV future Judgment, but the necessary conditions of a man, according as he is good or evil. The passages of Scripture concerning the last Judgment are to be understood of the end and consummation of the Church which now is, and the establishment of a purer and better Church, which is called the descent " of the New Jerusalem from God out of Heaven." Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. LAS regards the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, it requires "^ very little argument to prove that Scripture teaches the fact. The truth of such teaching must be here, as usual, assumed ; all argument on such subjects being referred to the head of evidence. The concluding chapters of the four Gospels, and the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, contain the fullest account of that miraculous event. They should be studied to- gether, and with such aids as have been furnished by writers on the harmony of the Gospels. 1 It is to be observed, however, that the Resurrection is in many respects the key-stone of the Christian Faith. On the truth of it depends the truth of the Gospel ; for it was to this great fact especially that the Apostles bore witness, and on its veracity they rested their claims to be heard and believed. Our Lord Himself continually foretold it, and so its occurrence became essential to the establishment of His truth. Accordingly we find, both before and after the event, most numerous allusions to it in the writings of the new Testament. For example, Matt. xvii. 9, 23. Mark viii. 31 ; ix. 31. John ii. 19 ; x. 17, 18. Acts i. 22 ; ii. 24, 36 ; xiii. 30-37. Rom. iv. 25 ; vi. 4. Eph. i. 20. Col. ii. 12 ; iii. 1, &c. &c. Yet the historical is scarcely greater than the doctrinal impor- tance of the Resurrection. In Scripture, the life of the Christian and of the Christian Church is represented as connected with, and depending on the life of Christ, who is the Head of the 1 Those most approved of in our own gdica, and his five volumes of Ditsertationg language are Lighttoot, Macknight, Gres- on the subject, should bo in every stu- Well, &c. Grcswell's Uurmonia Evan- dent's library. Sec. II.] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 109 Church and the Saviour of the Body. 1 The Christian therefore is said to die with Christ, and to rise again with Him. 2 And this connection of the Redeemer and His redeemed is spiritual here, and bodily and spiritual both hereafter. For here the union of the Christian with Christ is the cause of spiritual life ; hereafter the same union shall be the cause of resurrection to life eternal. The Apostle speaks of the power of Christ's resurrection as having been shown already, thus : " God who is rich in mercy . . . when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus," Eph. ii. 4, 5, 6 ; and again : " If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above," Col. iii. 1. But he also speaks of the power of the same resurrection as to be shown hereafter, not only in raising the soul from sin, but the body also from corruption. " If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit which dwelleth in you," Rom. viii. 11. And again, " He which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus," 2 Cor. iv. 14. And thus it is that by virtue of His own resurrection, or, as St. Paul calls it, " the power of His resurrection " (Phil. iii. 10), the Lord Jesus is to His disciples "the Resurrection and the Life" (John xi. 25). II. The second head of this article concerns the Ascension, and Session at God's Right Hand. 1. The Ascension into Heaven is related in Mark xvi. 19. Luke xxiv. 51. Acts i. 1-12. It had been predicted in the old Testament (especially Ps. Ixviii. 18, which is explained by the Apostle, Eph. iv. 8) ; it had been foretold by our Lord Himself (John vi. 62 ; xx. 17) ; and it finally took place in the presence of His chosen disciples. The importance of it to us was typified on the great day of atonement, when the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies once every year. The tabernacle, as is familiarly known, consisted of two principal parts. The first was called the Sanctuary or holy place, which typified the world, or more properly the Church on earth ; where daily the priesthood ministered, offering sacrifices for the people, and sending up incense, the symbol of prayer and 1 John xv. 1-7 ; xvii. 23. Rom. xii. 2 Rom. vi. 8. Eph. ii. 5, 6. Col. ii. 6. 1 Cor. vi. 15 ; xii. 27. Eph. i. 22, 12; iii. 1. 1 Pet. i. 3. 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11, 23; iv. 15, 16; v. 23. Col. i. 18, &c. 14. Rom. viii. 11. 1 Cor. vi. 14, &c. 110 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [Am. IV. praise. But within the veil, whither no common priest had access, was the Holy of Holies, or the Holiest of all. Into this, once every year, on the tenth day of Tisri, the Fast, or day of atone- ment, the High Priest alone entered. He had made atonement for himself, for the sanctuary, and for the people, by sacrificing a bullock, a ram, and a goat ; and dressed in the white robes com- mon to the priesthood, he went with blood of the victims into the most holy place, and sprinkled seven times before the mercy- seat the blood of the bullock and the goat (Levit. xvi.) That this all prefigured the entrance of Christ "into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us," we have the word of the Apostle in the ninth chapter of the Hebrews. As the High Priest was in the common white garments, not in the gorgeous robe of his high priesthood, so Christ went up in the likeness of sinful humanity, carrying our nature with Him, though pure from the sin of humanity, as the garment of the priest was holy and white (Lev. xvi. 4). As the priest took with him the blood of the sacrifice, so Christ offered His own Blood, and before the mercy- seat of God pleaded, and forever pleads, the merits of His Sacri- fice, " seeing that He ever liveth to make intercession for us." * 2. The Session at the Right Hand of God, foretold Ps. ex. 1 (comp. Luke xx. 42), and by our Lord, Matt xxvi. 64, Mark xiv. 62, Luke xxii. 69, is recorded, Mark xvi. 19, Acts ii. 34, Rom. viii. 34, Eph. i. 20, Col. iii. 1, Heb. i. 3, 13, 1 Pet iii. 22. It is hardly necessary to observe, that, when the Scriptures speak of the Right Hand of God, they mean thereby, not that God has hands like a man, but that as the right hand among men is the place of honour, of power, and of joy, 2 so to be by the Right Hand of God is to have the place of highest glory, power, and pleasure in the presence of God in Heaven ; and to sit has no reference to posture, but implies dignity, sovereignty, and judg- ment Christ has ascended into Heaven, and there He abides. He now occupies that Mediatorial throne, where He is to sit, till all enemies be made His footstool (Ps. ex. 1. 1 Cor. xv. 25). He had been anointed to His kingly office, when the Holy Glx»-t descended on Him at His baptism (Matt iii. 16. Acts x. 38). He vindicated His title to the throne, when by " death He ovei*- came him who had the power of death, even the devil." He made a farther advance to the assumption of His dominion, when 1 Heb. Tiii. ix. x. passim. * 1 King* ii. 19. Matt. xxvi. 64. Ps. xvi. 11. Sec. II] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. HI He rose victorious from the grave, and thereupon declared to His disciples, that " all power was given Him in Heaven and earth " (Matt, xxviii. 18). But it was not until His final exaltation, when God, having "raised Him from the dead, set Him at His own right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come," that "all things having been put under His feet," He was " given to be Head over all things to the Church " (Eph. i. 20, 21, 22) ; " set upon the throne of His father David " (Luke i. 32) ; and " there was given to Him dominion and glory and a kingdom," " an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and a kingdom which shall not be destroyed " (Dan. vii. 14). 3. The next point for our consideration is, that Christ is said " to have taken again His Body, with flesh, bones, and all things belonging to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith He as- cended into Heaven." It has been seen, in the former Section, what the fathers appear to have taught on this subject. That our Lord arose from the grave in the same Body in which He was buried, that the same Body, with flesh and bones, which was laid in the sepulchre a lifeless corpse, was reanimated and rose again to life on the third day, is plainly and unquestionably the statement of the Evange- lists. It was on this fact that their preaching and their faith /•ested. It was the assurance of this fact that convinced St. Thomas of the Divinity of Christ. He had declared that he would not believe the resurrection until he had seen in our Lord's hands the print of the nails, and had thrust his hand into His side (John xx. 25). That is to say, he required proof that our Lord's Body, which had risen, was the same Body which had been crucified ; and when our Lord vouchsafed him this proof, then, and not till then, he exclaimed, " My Lord and my God ! " (John xx. 25-28). But farther, when, on one occasion, the disciples were assem- bled, and our Lord suddenly appealed among them, "they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit ; but He said unto them, Why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle Me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have. And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet" (Luke xxiv. 36-40). Thus it is clear that our Lord's Body, after He rose from the 112 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. [Abt. IV. grave, was that Body in which He was buried, having hands and feet, and flesh and bones, capable of being handled, and in which He spoke and ate and drank (Luke xxiv. 42, 43). Moreover, it appears that our Lord thus showed His hands and feet to His disciples at that very interview with them in which He was parted from them and received up into Heaven. This will be seen by reading the last chapter of St. Luke, from verse 36 to the end, and comparing it with the first chapter of the Acts, ver. 4-9 ; especially comparing Luke xxiv. 49, 50, with Acts i. 4, 8, 9. In that Body, then, which the disciples felt and handled, and which was proved to them to have flesh and bones, these disciples saw our Lord ascend into Heaven ; and immediately after His ascent, angels came and declared to them, that that " same Jesus whom they had seen taken up into Heaven, should so come in like manner as they had seen Him go into Heaven " (Acts i. 11). All this connected together seems to prove the identity of our Lord's Body after His resurrection, at His ascension, and so on, even till His coming to Judgment, with the Body in which He suffered, and in which He was bui'ied ; and so fully justifies the language used in the Article of our Church. But because we maintain that the Body of Christ, even after His resurrection and ascension, is a true human Body, with all things pertaining to the perfection of man's nature (to deny which would be to deny the important truth that Christ is still perfect Man as well as perfect God) ; it by no means therefore follows that we should deny that His risen Body is now a glorified, and as St. Paul calls it, a spiritual Body. Nay I we have the strongest proofs that so it is. Even before His ascension, He is said to have come and stood in the midst of His disciples, where the doors were shut for fear of the Jews (John xx. 19). On another occasion, He is said to have vanished out of their sight (Luke xxiv. 31). Again, His appear- ing to them " in another form " (Mark xvi. 12), and the disciples going to Emmaus not at once knowing Him (Luke xxiv. 16), seem to show that there was some change in the appearance, as well as in the properties of His Body. Though His Body had not ceased to be the same Body which it was before His death, it yet appears to have received some degree of glorification, and to have been in- vested with some supernatural qualities But, after His ascension, we have St. Paul's distinct assurance that the Body of Christ is a glorious, is a spiritual Body. In 1 Cor. xv. we have St. Paul's assertion, that, in the resurrection of all Sec. II] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 113 men, the body shall rise again, but that it shall no longer be a nat- ural body, but a spiritual body ; no longer a corruptible and vile, but an incorruptible and glorious body. " It is sown in corruption ; it is raised in incorruption : it is sown in weakness ; it is raised in power : it is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." " Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery ; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." " For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality " (1 Cor. xv. 42-53). And this change of our bodies, from natural to spiritual, is expressly stated to be bearing the image of our glorified Lord, — the image of that heavenly man, the Lord from Heaven (vv. 47-49). So again, the glorified state of the saints' bodies after the Resurrection, which in 1 Cor. xv. had been called the receiving a spiritual body, is, in Phil. iii. 21, said to be a fashioning of their bodies to the likeness of Christ's glorious Body ; " who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious Body." 1 We must therefore conclude, that, though Christ rose with the same Body in which He died, and that Body neither did, nor shall cease to be a human Body, still it acquired, either at His Resurrection or at His Ascension, the qualities and attributes of a spiritual, as distinguished by the Apostle from a natural body, of an incorruptible as distinguished from a corruptible body. It is not perhaps given us to know the exact meaning of the term "a spiritual body." "We know not yet what we shall be; " and so we do not exactly know what He is, whom we shall be like. It may be better to leave in the obscurity in which Scripture has left it, this great and glorious mystery. And we shall err on neither side, if we maintain that our blessed Saviour still con- tinues our Mediator in Heaven, perfect in His nature of God, and perfect in His nature of Man ; but with His human nature, which on earth, though sinless, was mortal and corruptible, now raised to glory and immortality and incorruptibility ; His natural having become a spiritual, His corruptible an incorruptible body. 2 1 "Non ita dictum est, quasi corpus fragilitate ac labe terrena in ccelestem vertatur in spiritum, et spiritusfiat; quia puritatem et stabilitatera niutata atque et nunc corpus nostrum, quod animate conversa." — August. De Fide et Symbolo, dicitur, non in animam versum est et c. vi. Tom. vi. p. 157. anima factum. Sed spirituale corpus in- 2 There may be a difficulty in recon- telligitur, quod ita spiritui subditum est, ciling this doctrine, which is the plain ut ccelesti habitationi conveniat, omni doctrine of Scripture and the primitive 15 114 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. [Art IV III. The third head of the Article is on the Judgment ; in which we may consider, — 1. The Agent or Person who shall judge, Christ. 2. The object to be judged, namely, all men. 3. The action, judgment. 4. The time, the last day. 1. As regards the Agent ; it is, in the first place, clear that God shall be "the Judge of all the earth" (Gen. xviii. 25. Ps. lviii. 11). Hence the day of Judgment is called "the day of God" (2 Peter iii. 12), — "the great day of Almighty God" (Rev. xvi. 14). Daniel saw "the thrones cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit" (Dan. vii. 9) ; and St. John saw "the dead great and small stand before God," for judgment (Rev. xx. 12). Now, when God is thus generally spoken of, we must either understand God the Father, or the whole blessed Trinity. And in the general, it is true to say that God shall judge the earth, or, that God the Father shall judge the earth. But then, as God made the worlds, but it was by God the Son ; as God hath pur- chased the Church, but it was by the death of His Son ; so the Father Himself " judge th no man, but hath committed all judg- ment unto the Son" (John v. 22). "He hath given Him author- ity to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man " (John v. 27) ; "He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained " (Acts xvii. 31) ; " He will judge the secrets of all men by Jesus Christ" (Rom. ii. 16). Accordingly, the Judgment, when fully described, is ever repre- sented as the coming of the Lord Jesus. It is called the "day of Christ" (2 Thess. ii. 2).- "We must all appear before the judg- ment-seat of Christ" (2 Cor. v. 10). "The Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father, with His angels" (Matt. xvi. 27 ; xxiv. 37 ; xxv. 31 ; xxvi. 64). The " same Jesus which was taken up into Heaven, shall come again in like manner as he went Christians, with the language of the ru- must not consider the manhood of Christ brie at the end of the Communion Ser- changed into His Godhead. SoStAugus- vice quoted above. If they be at vari- tine : "Noli itaque dubitare ibi nunc esse ance, the language of a not very care- hominem Christum Jesum.undeven turns fully worded rubric, adopted not without est; .... in eadem carnis forma atque sub- some hesitation by the reformers, ought stantia ; cui profecto iramortalitatem de- not to be pressed ; but it is plain, that dit, naturam non abstulit. Secundum the writers of the rubric did not mean hanc formam non est putandus ubique by the words " natural body " to convey diffusus. Cavendum est enim, ne ita the same idea as St. Paul attaches to the divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veri- term in 1 Cor. xv. The doctrine which tatem corporis auferamus." — Ad Dard. they meant to teach was only, that we Epitt. 187. Tom. if. p. 681. Sec. II.] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 115 into Heaven" (Acts i. 11). "He has been ordained of God to be Judge of quick and dead" (Acts x. 42). He says of Himself, " Behold ! I come quickly, and my reward is with me " (Rev. xxii. 12). 2. The objects of the Judgment are all men, whether those living at the time of Christ's coming, or those already fallen asleep, — "the quick and the dead." In the first Epistle to the Thessalonians (iv. 15-17), the Apostle describes the awful scene of our Lord's coming to save His people : " The Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel and the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain " (i. e., whoever of Christ's servants may then remain alive on the earth) " shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." In the like manner, he says (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52), "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump. For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." Accordingly it is said (2 Tim. iv. 1) that "the Lord Jesus Christ shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing ; " that He " was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead" (Acts x. 42. Compare Matt, xxv. throughout, John v. 25, 28, &c.) 3. The Judgment itself, which is the action the great Judge is to perform, is fully described in several of the passages already quoted or referred to. The twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew especially, under a variety of images, sets forth the terrors of the great day of the Lord : the ten virgins that meet the Bride- groom — the servants with their various talents — the Lord with all nations brought before Him, dividing them as a Shepherd the sheep from the goats. In all these passages, and many besides, it is expressly said that the Judgment itself shall be "according to works." On this subject the following references may be consulted, and will be found full and express. Job xxxiv. 11. Ps. lxii. 12. Prov. xxiv. 12. Jer. xvii. 10 ; xxxii. 19. Matt. xvi. 27 ; xxv. 31-46. John v. 29. Rom. ii. 6. 2 Cor. v. 10. Col. iii. 24, 25. Rev. xx. 12 ; xxii. 12. It need only be added, that Judgment according to works is a doctrine of Scripture not opposed to justification by faith. That we cannot be justified by the merits of our own works is a plain 116 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. [Art. IV. statement of St. Paul (Rom. iii. 20 ; viii. 3. Gal. ii. 16. Eph. ii. 9, &c.) But if we be renewed by the Spirit of God, and transformed in the spirit of our minds ; if Christ be in us, and the Spirit of God dwell in our hearts ; then, being dead to sin, we can no longer live therein (Rom. vi. 2). Sin will not reign in our mortal bodies (Rom. vi. 12) ; but "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus will have made us free from that law of sin " (Rom. viii. 2) which would naturally reign in us ; and so " the righteous- ness of the law will be fulfilled in all who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. viii. 4). We are specially warned not to be deceived on this head ; for " he that doeth righteousness is righteous ; " and " he who committeth sin is of the devil." " He that doeth not righteousness is not of God" (1 John iii. 7-10). Thus, then, the mark of distinction between the children of God and the children of the devil is this, — that righteousness is prac- tised by the one party, sin by the other. And hence it is but likely that Judgment, which is to distinguish Christ's servants from His enemies, should be conducted according to the works of every man, which shall " be brought to light, whether they be good or evil." The just indeed shall be rewarded, not because of the merit of their works, but because of the atonement and right- eousness of Christ. Yet still their own good works will be the test of their sanctification, and the proof before men and angels that they are living members of Christ and regenerated by His Spirit ; whereas the wicked works of wicked men will justly con- sign them to death and damnation. 4. It remains but to speak of the time of Christ's coming to Judgment, — the last day. The general descriptions of the Judgment already referred to (e. g. Matt. xxv. Rev. xx. 11-13, &c.) sufficiently show that it will not take place until the time when all present things shall pass away. All mankind, quick and dead, are represented as brought before the judgment-seat, and the just are sent to an everlasting reward, the wicked to an everlasting punishment. Accordingly, St. Paul says it shall be "at the last trump" (1 Cor. xv. 52), and St. Peter represents "the heavens and the earth which are now " as " reserved unto fire against the day of Judg- ment." The heavens shall be dissolved, and the elements shall " melt with fervent heat ; " yet there shall be for the redeemed " a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness " (2 Pet. iii. 7-13). Sec. II.] OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 117 But though the time is thus accurately marked, as " the last day," the close and consummation of the present state of things, yet we are continually told that it is utterly impossible for us to know how soon that day may come or how long it may tarry. It was not for our Lord's most favoured disciples " to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power" (Acts i. 7). They and we are bid to "watch, for we know not what hour our Lord cometh " (Matt. xxiv. 42 : compare also Matt. xxv. 13. Mark xiii. 33. Luke xii. 40. 2 Pet. iii. 9-10). The disciples were taught to be constantly expecting our Lord ; and accordingly they spoke and wrote as though they thought that He might come at any time. (See Rom. xiii. 11. Phil. iv. 5. 1 Thess. iv. 15, 17. Heb. x. 25. James v. 7, 8, &c.) Yet still they were fully aware that He might delay His coming, they knew not how long ; and the importance of this uncertainty St. Paul earnestly impresses on the Thessalonians (2 Thess. ii. 1-3) ; and St. Peter still more fully inculcates on all men (2 Pet. iii. 4, 8-10). There is one passage, however, especially remarkable on this subject. After our Lord had foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and assured His disciples that the generation then alive should not pass away till that His prediction was accomplished (Matt, xxiv. 34. Mark xiii. 30), He goes on to tell them that though He thus gave them to know the time when He would execute His judgment on Jerusalem, yet the day of His final judgment (which they had confounded with the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt, xxiv. 36), was unknown to men and angels. Nay, according to the record of St. Mark, our Lord said, " Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark xiii. 32). It has been seen that in His human nature our Lord was capable of knowledge and of ignorance. He was perfect Man, as well as perfect God, and He grew in wisdom, as well as in stature (Luke ii. 52). In that nature, then, in which He was capable of ignorance, He, when He was on earth, knew not the coming of the day of God. Though He is Himself to come, yet as Man He knew not the day of His own coming. This is indeed a great mystery, that that Manhood, which is taken into one Person with the Godhead of the Son, should be capable of not knowing every- thing, seeing that God the Son is omniscient. But it is scarcely more inexplicable than that God the Son in His Manhood should 118 OF TllE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. [Art. IV. be weak, passible, and mortal, who in His Godhead is omnipotent, impassible, and immortal. 1 If we believe the one, we can admit the other. 1 The explanation of Mark xiii. 32, dpuiroc yeyovev, uq yeypanrai, avdpuiruv Si given in the text, is both consonant with Idtov rd uyvoelv, uanep ku.1 rb neivq,v, kuI tu sound principles of interpretation and aAAcr did, tovto nal r^v uyvocav tuv uvdpu- with sound theology, and has been the nuv, uc uvdpunoq yeyovuc, imieiKwrai • explanation of the most ancient Christian npurov piv, Iva foify, bn iifaidug uvdpinti- fathers. vov !*« aup,a, k. t. X. — Athanas. Epist. n. 'Av&pumvuc elpriKE • Kal rb alnov tov ov- ad Serapion. Tom. i. p. 172. See Suicer, rwf eioijKevai tyei rd eitoyov • tneiduv yap av- s. T. npioic. v. 4,/. [It seems desirable to add a few words concerning the difficulty spoken of in note 2, p. 113. The word used by St. Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. is tyvxut&v (soul-ish), and this can hardly be supposed to be the meaning of " natural," in the rubric at the end of the Communion Service. Had this latter word been written in Greek, it would have been a- aiv clvai. Epiphan. Hozr. lxix. 56, p. 778, Colon. ; Suicer, n. p. 775. A synod held under Damasus at Rome decreed el Ttq einoi to nvevfta rb uyiov Tzoirjfia fj 6iu roil Tlov y£yevrjo~&ai uvude/ia eotu. Apud Theodor. i. v. c. 11. See Pear- son, On the Creed, p. 316, note. Suicer, as above ; and the account given, Art. i. § i. See also Lardner's Works, iv. pp 113, 114. 120 OF THE HOLY GHOST. [Art. V. Macedonius especially was considered the head of the Pneumatn- machi, or impugners of the Divinity of the Spirit, being reckoned among the semi-Arians, orthodox about the person of the Son, but a believer in the creation of the Holy Ghost. He is said to have called the Holy Spirit the servant or minister of God. 1 This her- esy of Macedonius was condemned by the second general council held at Constantinople, a. d. 381, which added to the Nicene Creed after the words, " And in the Holy Ghost," the following, viz. : " The Lord, and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glo- rified, who spake by the prophets." Of the fathers, Origen and Lactantius have been charged with unsound doctrines concerning the Holy Ghost. It is not easy to arrive at a just conclusion concerning the statements of Origen, owing to the fierce disputes which arose concerning them, the obscurity, and the mutilated condition of his writings. He has been accused of questioning whether, as "all things were made by " the Son, so the Holy Spirit may have been included in " all things," and therefore created by the Son. The accusation, however, appears to be unjust, and to have been grounded on some inaccuracy of language and obscurity of rea- soning, not on really heretical statements. 2 Jerome more than once charges Lactantius with virtually deny- ing the Personality of the Holy Spirit by referring His operation, through a Jewish error, to the Person of the Father or of the Son ; 3 an heretical belief, which, he says, prevailed among many. 1 Suicer, n. p. 774. ficiavel inoperationes pervenire ad bonoa 2 The book in which Origen is espe- et malos, justos et injustos, praetulisse dally accused of having spoken bias- per hoc Patri et Filio Spiritum Sanctum, phemy concerning the Spirit of God is vel raajorem ejus per hoc asserere digni- the first book of the Tlepl 'Ap^wf (De tatem : quod utique valde inconsequens Principiis), iv ci Trfalora fiXaa^rifui, rbv est. Proprietatom namque gratia* ejus piv Tidv inb tov Ylurpbc iteiroif/otiai Tieyuv, operisque descripsimus. Porro autem rb (5t Ylvevpn imb tov Xioi. Photius, Bib- nihil in Trinitate majus minusvc dicen- lioth. cod. viij. We have this book only dum est, quum unius Divinitatis Pons in the translation of Kuflnus, who in his Verbo ac Ratione sua teneat universa, prologue to it says that he has omitted Spiritu vero oris sui quae digna sunt parts of the book, which had been foisted sanctificatione sanctificet, sicut in Psal- into it by heretics, and supplied the omis- mo Scriptum est Verbo Domini calijirmati sions from other portions of the genuine sunt et Spiritu Oris Ejus omnis virtus eorum." works of Origen. Jerome (Lib. i. Ado. — Origen. De Principiis, Lib. i. cap. 3, Rufinum) accuses Rufinus of having mis- num. 7. Comp. num. 2. translated Origen, and he himself under- a " Hoc ideo quia multi per imperitiam took to give a new translation. All but Seri ptUftrum , quod et Firmilianusin De- fragments of the latter are lost. If Ruf- tavo ad Demetrianum cpistolarum libro finus has given at all a fair rcpresenta- tacit, asscrunt Spiritum Sanctum stepe tion of his author, the following would Patrem saepe Filium nominari ; et cum show that Origen cannot have been perspicue in Trinitate credamus, tertiam very heretical concerning the Holy Personam auferentes non substantiam Ghost: " Ne quia sane existimot nos ex Ejusesse volunt, seil nomen." — Hieron. eoquod diximus Spiritum Sanctum solis In Kpist.ad Chtlatas, cap. iv. Tom. iv. part Sanctis pnestari, Patris vero et Filii bene- i. p. 268. See also Lardner, i v. p. 00. Sec. L] " OF THE HOLY GHOST. 121 One of the strange forms which heresy is said to have assumed was that which is attributed to Montanus, namely, that he gave himself out to be the Paraclete, i. e. the Spirit of God. Nay, it is even said that he had his disciples baptized in his own name, as the third Person of the blessed Trinity ; a though it appears to be doubtful whether Montanus really meant that he was an incar- nation of the Spirit, or only that the Spirit dwelt more fully in him than in any former man. 2 Indeed, to some it appears that the Montanists were in their creed Sabellians, and that they thought that the Spirit which animated Montanus was but an emanation from God. 3 A denial of the Personality of the Holy Ghost, and a belief that He was but an influence or energy, seem to have been gen- eral in later times with the Socinians, and may be considered as a necessary consequence of a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity in general. But the most celebrated controversy which has ever arisen concerning the Holy Ghost was that which had reference to His Procession, and which led to the famous schism between the Eastern and Western churches. The Council of Constantinople (a. d. 381) had inserted in the Creed of the Council of Nice (a. d. 325) the words " proceeding from the Father " (jb Ik tov non-po; iKTropevopevov) ; and the Council of Ephesus (a. d. 431) had decreed that no addition should be made to that creed thenceforth. Accordingly, the Greek fathers uniformly declared their belief in the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, having regard to those passages of Scripture which speak of the Spirit of Christ, and of the Spirit as sent by the Son, continually spoke of the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the Son. 4 The Greek fathers, indeed, were willing to use language approximating to the words of 1 See Bingham, E. A. Book xi. ch. m. cedit a Patre et Filio, non separatur a § 7. Patre, non separatur a Filio." — Ambros. 2 Mosheim, Cent. n. pt. n. ch. v. § 23 ; De Sp. S. c. x. " Non possumus dicere also, De Rebus ante Constantinum M. Sec. quod Spiritus Sanctus et a Filio non pro- 11. § 67 ; Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, 2d Edit, cedat, neque enira frustra Spiritus et p. 22; Lardner's Heretics, Book n. ch. Patriset Filii Spiritus dicitur." — August. 19. De Trin. Lib. iv. cap. 20. See Pearson, Manes, Mohammed, and others beside p. 324, note. St. Augustine, more clearly them, have professed to be the Paraclete and fully than any before him, asserted promised by Christ to His disciples, the procession from the Son. Hence the Whether by the Paraclete they meant modern Greeks charge him with having the Holy Ghost is questionable. invented it. See Waterland, Works, it. » See Bingham, as above. p. 246. Oxf. 1823. 4 " Spiritus quoque Sanctus cum pro- 16 122 OF THE HOLY GHOST. ' [Abt. V. the Latin Fathers, but shrank from directly asserting the procession from the Son. Thus they spoke of the Holy Ghost as " the Spirit of Christ, proceeding from the Father, and receiving of the Son." 1 And it has been inferred that many of the earlier Greek writers held, as did the Latins, a real procession from both the Father and the Son, although they were not willing to express themselves otherwise than in the words of the Creed. Theodoret, in the fifth century, appears to have been the first of the Greeks who brought the question out into bold relief ; for, taking offence at some expressions of Cyril, who speaking of the Spirit had used the words ?oW to Tlvevp.a tov Xpurrov, he declares, that, if by such an expression he meant " that the Spirit derived His Being either from or through the Son, then the saying was to be rejected as blasphemous and profane ; for we believe the Lord when He saith, 'the Spirit which proceedeth from the Father,' and we believe St. Paul in like manner saying, ' we have not re- ceived the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God.' " 2 St. Cyril, not directly replying to Theodoret, at least not entering fully upon the doctrine of the Procession, there appears to have been little controversy about it in the East, until attention was roused to the subject by the conduct of some portions of the West- ern Church. The question having been for some time discussed, whether or not the Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father, the Churches of France and Spain not only asserted such to be the case, but actually added to the Creed of Constanti- nople the words Filioque (" and the Son "), and so chanted the Creed in their Liturgies with the clause Credimus et in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum et vivificatorem, ex Patre Filioque procedentem. 8 In the early part of the ninth century Pope Leo III. was appeal- ed to, and decreed in a Synod held at Aquisgranum, that no 1 Uvevpa Xpurrov, Uvevpa Ylarpdc Iktco- a Pearson, On the Creed, p. 326, note. pevdpevov. Kal tov Ylov hapftavov. Epi- Suicer, i. 1070. phan. Hares, lxix. Tom. i. p. 788. 8 In very early Latin Councils this ad- Colon. 1682. See Suicer, i. 1070; Pear- dition of the Filioque is made : as in the son, p. 824, note. Similar or stronger first Council of Bracara, a. d. 411, and in language used on this subject may be the third Council of Toledo, a. d. 689, seen in the following : El toiwv napa tov where the Constantinopolitan Creed is Haradc iKiropeveTai nal tn tov tpov, (fym 6 recited. (Bingham, Bk. x. ch. it. § 16.) Kvpioc, M/ferai, 6v tooitov ovdeie tyvu rbv The Council of Toledo was that which Ilarepa el pi) 6 Tide, oiiik rdv Tldv el pi) 6 first ordered the Constantinopolitan Ilar^p • ovruc ToXpuai "keyeiv (f. toA//u 7 ayEwrjoia, Tiov 6s Greg. Naz. Orat. xxiii. Tom. 1. p. 422 il yewr/oic, YLvevpaTos 6s r/ tKKSfxft^. — Colon. Suicer, 1. p. 1069. 126 OF THE HOLY GHOST. [Art. V. the Son." And hence many of our divines, and even divines of the Church of Rome, have concluded that their difference on this point from the Western Church was but in modo hquendi, in man- ner of speech, not in fundamental truth. 1 (2) But, again, do we infer that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, because He is sent by the Father, and is breathed forth into the prophets by the Father? Still, in like manner, we read that the same Spirit is sent by the Son, and was by Him breathed upon His Apostles. Thus He says Himself, John xv. 26, " The Comforter, whom I will send unto you from the Father." John xvi. 7, " If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you." And in John xx. 22, after He had risen from the dead, " He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Now, our principal reasons for concluding that the Spirit of God proceeds from God the Father are these : namely, that He is called the Spirit of the Father ; that as the Father sends the Son, who is begotten of Him, so He sends the Spirit ; and that He sends Him especially in that manner which in Scripture is called inspiring or breathing forth. From all this we conclude that, like as the Son is begotten, so the Spirit proceedeth of the Father. Yet the Scriptures set forth the relation of the Spirit to the Son, in all these . respects, in the very same language in which they set forth the relation of the Spirit to the Father. Hence we conclude, that, as the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, so He proceeds from the Son. 2 And though we may question the wisdom of adding the words Filioque to a Creed drawn up by a General Council, without 1 Laud, Conference with Fisher, p. 19 discipulis suis, insufflavit et ait, Accipite (Oxf. 1839), Sect. 9, who quotes Damas- Spiritum Sanctum, ut Eum etiam de Se cene (Lib. i. Fid. Orth. c. 11) as saying, procedere ostenderet. Et ipsa est Virtus " Non ex Filio, sed Spiritum Filii esse quae de Mo exibat, sicut legitur in Evan- dicimus." gelio, et sanabat omnes." — Ibid. Lib. xv. 3 "Nee pos8umus dicere quod Spiritus cap. xxvi. p. 998. See also, De Cidtate Sanctus et a Filio non procedat : neque Dei, Lib. xi. c. xxiv. Tom. vn. p. 290 ; enim frustra idem Spiritus et Patris et where S. Augustine, showing that the Filii Spiritus dicitur. Nee video quid Holy Spirit is a Person, doubts if He can aliud significare voluerit, cum sufflans in be called the goodness of the Father and faciem discipulorum ait, Accipite Spiritum the Son ; but observing that the Father Sanctum. Neque enim flatus ille corpo- is a Spirit and holy, and the Son is a reus, cum sensu corporaliter tangendi Spirit and holy, and yet the Third Per- procedens ex corpore, substantia Spiritus son of the Trinity is called the Holy Sancti fuit, sed demonstrate per con- Spirit of the Father and of the Son, he gruam significationem, non tantum a supposes that that Third Person may be 1 'at re sed et a Filio procedere Spiritum called the Spirit both of the Father and Sanctum," &c. — August. De Trinitat. of the Son, and the Holiness both of the Lib. iv. cap. xx. Tom. vni. p. 829. "De Father and of the Son, but yet a sub- utroque autem procedere sic docetur, stantial Holiness, consubstantial with quia ipse Filius ait, De Patre procedit. Et both, cum resurrexit a mortuis et apparuisset Sec. II.]" OF THE HOLY GHOST. 127 the authority of a General Council; we yet do not question the truth of the doctrine conveyed by these words, and which, we believe, was implicitly held by the divines of the Eastern Church, though they shrank from explicit exposition of it in terms. 1 1 The great objection which the East- municated His own Godhead to His co- ern Church makes to the Filioque, is, eternal and consubstantial Son and Spirit, that it implies the existence of two apx a ^ This reasoning is generally true. But, in the Godhead : and, if we believe in 6vo as the doctrine of the Procession of the avapxoL, we, in effect, believe in two Spirit from the Father and the Son pre- Gods. The unity of the Godhead can supposes the eternal Generation of the only be maintained by acknowledging Son from the Father, it does not follow the Father to be the sole 'kpxft or Yltiyrj that that doctrine impugns the Catholic ^cor^TOf, who from all eternity has com- belief in the Mio 'Ap^. ARTICLE VL Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that whatso- ever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requi- site necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the old and new Testament of whose author- ity was never any doubt in the Church. Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books. Genesis. The Second Book Exodus. of Chronicles. Leviticus. The First Book of Numbers. Esdras. Deuteronomy. The Second Book Joshua. of Esdras. Judges. The Book of Es- Butli. ther. The First Book of The Book of Job. Samuel. The Psalms. The Second Book The Proverbs, of Samuel. Ecclesiastes, or The First Book of Preacher. Kings. Cantica, or Songs The Second Book of Solomon, of Kings. Four Prophets the The First Book of greater. Chronicles. Twelve Prophets the less. And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners ; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following : — The Third Book of Baruch the Proph- Esdras. et. The Fourth Book The of Esdras. The Book of To- bias. The Book of Ju- dith. The rest of the Book of Esther. The Book of Wis- dom. Jesus the Son of Sirach. Song of the Three Children. The Story of Su- sanna. Of Bel and the Dragon. The Prayer of Ma- nasses. The First Book of Maccabees. The Second Book of Maccabees. All the books of the new Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them Canonical. De Divinis Scripturis, quod sufficiant ad Salutem. Scriptcra sacra continet omnia, quae ad salutem sunt necessaria, ita, ut quic- quid in ea nee legitur, neque inde probari potest, non sit a quoquam exigendum, ut tanquam articulus Fidei credatur, aut ad salutis necessitatem requiri putetur. Sacrae Scriptural nomine, eos Canoni- cos libros veteris, et novi Testamenti in- telligimus, de quorum authoritate in Kc- clesia nunquam dubitatum est. De Nominibus et Numero librorum sacra Canonical Scripiuroz Veteris Testamenti. Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numeri. Deuteron. J08U83. Judicum. Ruth. Prior Liber Samu- elis. Secundus Liber Sa- muelis. Prior Liber Re gum. Secundus Liber Re- gum. Prior Liber Parali- pom. Secundus Liber Pa- ralipomen. Primus Liber Es- dras. Secundus Liber Es- drae. Liber Hester. Liber Job. Psalmi. Proverbia. Ecclesiastes vel Concionator. Cantica Salomonis. IV Prophetae ma- jores. XII Prophetae mi- nores. Alios autem libros (ut ait Hieronymus) legit quidem Ecclesia, ad exempla vitae, et formandos mores : illos tamen ad dog- mata confirmanda non adhibet, ut sunt. Tertius Liber Es- Baruch Propheta. lint-. Canticum trium Quart us Liber Es- Puerorum. lira-. Historia Susannae. Liber Tobiae. De Bel et Dracone. Liber Judith. Oratio Manasses. Reliquum Libri Prior Lib. Macha- Hester. beorum. Liber Sapientiae. Secundus Liber Ma- Liber Jesu fllii Si- ; chabeorum. rach. Novi Testamenti omnes libros (ut vul- go recepti sunt) recipimus, et habemua pro Canonicis. Abt. VI. J THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES. 129 HPHIS is the first Article of the Church which can be called *■ controversial. In some respects, it might have seemed natural to have put it as the first Article ; as in the Helvetic Confession the first Article is De Scriptura Sancta, vero Dei Verbo. But our reformers wisely put forth, in the beginning of their confession of faith, those doctrines on which the Church universal for fifteen centuries had agreed, and which are the foundations of the Chris- tian faith. Accordingly the first five Articles treat of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption of the world, the Sanctification of Christians, and the Judgment of all men. Unity on these points was of old times considered to constitute Catholic Christianity; and by declaring her orthodoxy on these Catholic doctrines, the Church of England, in the very front of her confessions, declares herself orthodox and Catholic. This done in the first five Articles, she, in the next three, treats of the Rule of Faith, the Scriptures, and the Creeds deduced from them. The present Article, as it stood in* the forty-two Articles of 1552, lacked all the concluding part concerning the Canon of Scripture and the Apocrypha, and treated only of the Sufficiency of Scripture for Salvation. The latter part was added in 1562. The original Article also contained a clause which was omitted in 1562. After the words, " whatsoever is neither read therein, nor may be proved thereby," the words were added, " although it be sometime received of the godly, and profitable for an order and come- liness, yet no man ought to be constrained to believe it as an article of faith," &c. As the Article now stands, it treats of several distinct points, namely, Scripture and Tradition, the Canon of Scripture, the Apoc- rypha. On all these points demonstration and history are inti- mately connected ; history in this case being a material part of demonstration. It will therefore be better not to separate them. In the following sections then I propose to consider, — First. The Sufficiency of Scripture for Salvation ; Secondly. The Canon of Scripture ; Thirdly. The true value of Tradition, and the reading of the Apocrypha. 17 130 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Akt. VL Section I. — THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE FOR SALVATION. rpHAT we may see the force of the words of the Article on this -*- important subject, it will be necessary to consider what opin- ions were opposed by it. Those opinions were the doctrines of the Church of Rome concerning Scripture and Tradition. It will be well therefore to begin by setting the statements of the Church of Rome and those of the Church of England one against the other ; and when we see wherein we differ, we may then pro- ceed to show which is in the right. Now the decrees of the Council of Trent sufficiently express the doctrines of the Church of Rome. In that Council certain Articles, professedly taken from the writings of the Lutheran divines on the subject of Scripture, were discussed in the third session. And first, the fathers of the Council agreed to condemn the opinion " that all articles of the Christian faith, necessary to be believed, are contained in the Holy Scriptures, and that it is sacrilege to hold the oral Tradition of the Church to be of equal authority with the old and new Testaments." * The formal decree of the Council was drawn up in the fourth session, in the year 1546, shortly after the death of Luther, and six years before the putting forth of the forty-two Articles of our own Church in 1552. This decree declares that " the truth is contained in the uritten books, and in the unwritten traditions, which, having been received by the Apostles, either from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the dictates of the Holy Spirit, were handed down even to us;" and that the Council " receives and venerates with equal feeling of piety and reverence all the books of the old and new Testament, since one God was the Author of them both, and also the tradi- tions, relating as well to faith as to morals, as having, either from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the dictation of the Holy Ghost, been preserved by continuous succession in the Catholic Church." 2 Exactly corresponding with this decree of the Council are the 1 Sarpi, Hist, of the Council of Trent, gclii in Ecclesia conservetur : quod translated by Brent. London, 1676, p. promissum ante per prophetas in Scrip- 141. turis Sanctis Dominus noster, Jesus 9 " Sacrosnncta occumenicaet generalis Christus, Dei Filius, proprio ore primum Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto promulgavit, deinde per suos Apostolos legitime congrcgata, pruesidentibus in ea tanquam foutem omnia salutaris veritatis eisdem tribus Apostoliese sedis legatis, et mortun diseiplime, omni ereatura: pras- hoc sibi perpetuo ante oeulos proponens, dicari jussit ; perspieiens banc veritatem ut sublatis erroribus, puritAs ipsa Evan- et diseiplinam contincri in libris $cripiuil Sec. I.] FOR SALVATION. 131 statements of the great Roman Catholic divines. For example, Bellarmine says, "The controversy between us and the heretics consists in two things. The first is, that we assert that in Scrip- ture is not expressly contained all necessary doctrine, whether concerning faith or morals, and therefore that, besides the written word of God, there is moreover needed the unwritten word, i. e. Divine and Apostolical Tradition. But they teach, that all things necessary for faith and morals are contained in the Scriptures, and that therefore there is no need of the unwritten word." 1 Now these statements are not easily misunderstood. The Church of Rome, both in her Council, and by the mouth of her most eminent divines, asserts that Scripture does not contain all that is necessary for faith and morals ; but that there is need of a traditional doctrine, an unwritten word, which is handed down by unbroken tradition in the Church, and which she, the Church of Rome, esteems with the same feelings of piety and reverence with which she receives the Holy Scriptures. It is not merely an Her- meneutical Tradition, i. e. certain doctrines handed down from early times, which are useful for clearing up and explaining obscu- rities in Holy Writ ; nor is it an Ecclesiastical Tradition, i. e. Tra- dition concerning Church discipline, rites and ceremonies ; but it is a traditional revelation concerning doctrine, in matters of faith and morals, which is not to be found in Scripture, and which is equally certain, equally Divine, and equally to be embraced and reverenced with Scripture itself. Scripture and tradition are parallel, equal, and equally venerable sources of doctrine ; and one without the other is not sufficient for salvation. Such being the statement of the Church of Rome, we may the better understand the statement of the Church of England. Her statement is, as expressed in the Article of 1552, that, how- ever traditions may be " sometimes received by the faithful as godly, and profitable for order and comeliness," yet " Scripture sine scripto traditionibus, quae ab ipsius * Bellarmin. De Verbo Dei non Scripto, Christi ore et Apostolis acceptae, Spiritu Lib. iv. cap. ill. " Controversia igitur in- Sancto dictante, quasi permanus traditae ter nos et hereticos in duobus consistit. ad nos usque pervenerunt ; Orthodoxo- Primum est, quod nos nsserimus, in rum patrura exempla secuta, omnes li- Scripturis non confined expresse totam bros tam veteris quam novi Testamenti, doctrinam necessariam sive de fide sive cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nee- de moribus ; et proinde praeter Verbum non traditiones ipsas, turn ad fidem, turn ad Dei scriptum, requiri etiam Verbum mores pertinentes.tamquam vel ore tenus Dei non scriptum, id est, divinas et Apos- a Christo vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et tolicas traditiones. At ipsi docent, in continua successione i?i Ecclesia Catholica Scripturis omnia contineri ad fide met conservatas, pari pietatis affectu a<: reverentia mores necessaria, et proinde non esse suscipit ac veneratur." — Sess. iv. Can. i. opus ullo Verbo non scripto." Cone. xiv. 746. 132 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VL containeth all things necessary to salvation ; " and no man ought " to be constrained to believe as an article of faith, or repute requi- site to the necessity of salvation, whatever is neither read therein, nor may be proved thereby." The degree of value which the Church of England has assigned to Tradition, which, she said, in the forty-two Articles, was " some- times received by the faithful as godly, and profitable for order," we shall see in the third section. Here we have to show, that, as regards articles of faith, and as to necessity of salvation, nothing ought to be required of any man " which is not read in Scrip- ture, nor may be proved thereby." Scripture, according to the Church of England, rightly inter- preted, contains all that is necessary to save the soul. From it, by fair and logical inference, may be deduced everything which ought to be imposed as an article of faith. It will be seen, here- after, that she does not despise nor underrate the light of learning, nor the light of antiquity, but that, as the ground of appeal, she maintains the supremacy, and the sole supremacy, of the written word of God. 1 Now in proving the soundness of the Anglican, in opposition to the Romish position, we may proceed in the following order. We may prove — I. That Scripture is in favour of it ; — II. That Reason is in favour of it ; — III. That the Primitive Fathers are in favour of it. I. Scripture is in favour of the doctrine of the Anglican Church, namely, that the written word of God is sufficient for salvation, containing all necessary articles of faith, and rules of life. On most questions this argument is the most conclusive that can be brought; but on the Sufficiency of Scripture we are not so likely to find Scripture speaking plainly, as on many other points. It does indeed bear witness to itself, and yet its witness is true. But though both parties have appealed to it, yet neither party have been satisfied, that, on this particular point, its high authority will exhaust the subject. 1. To take, first of all, the arguments which have been alleged from Scripture, as against its own sufficiency : we read, that our 1 " Unto a Christian man there can be truth nor doctrine necessary for our jus- nothing either more necessary or profit- tiflcation and everlasting salvation, but able than the knowledge of Holy Scrip- that is, or may be, drawn out of that foun- ture, forasmuch as in it is contained tain and well of truth." — Beginning of God's true Word, setting forth His glory the Homily on Holy Scripture. and also man's duty, and there is no Sec. L] FOR SALVATION. 133 Lord said to His disciples (John xvi. 12) : " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Therefore it is inferred that there was need of further instruction, orally delivered to the Church, and handed down by tradition, beyond what our Lord revealed, whilst on earth. But the true meaning of the passage is explained by the next verse, which promises that, " when the Spirit of truth was come, He should guide them into all truth." It was to the teaching of the Spirit, by whom the Apostles were afterwards inspired, that our Lord bade them look forward, for the filling up of what His own personal teaching had left deficient. The substance of that teaching of the Spirit, we believe, is preserved to us in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles. and the Apocalypse ; not in unwritten tradition. Again, it is said, u There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, even the world could not contain the books that should be written " (John xxi. 25). Therefore Jesus taught many things not set down in Scripture : we cannot believe that He taught anything super- fluous : therefore there must be something necessary, besides what we read in Scripture. Where are we to seek for this ? Of course, in unwritten tradition. To this we reply, that doubtless every word spoken by our blessed Lord was most valuable. Many of those words indeed are not in Scripture ; no ! nor yet in tradition : for it never yet was pretended that oral tradition had preserved every word our Saviour uttered. So that, if this argument proves anything, it proves too much ; for it proves, not only the insufficiency of Scripture, but the insufficiency of Scripture and tradition together. What we say is simply, that so much of Christ's divine teaching, and of the teaching of the Spirit to the Apostles, is set down in Scrip- ture, as is necessary for salvation, and for the proving of all neces- sary articles of faith. It is no argument against this, to say that many things, which our Saviour said, are not in Scripture. The same answer may be given to the argument drawn from the fact, that, during the forty days between His resurrection and His ascension, our Lord " spake of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God " (Acts i. 3). We know, indeed, that His speeches then are not set down in Scripture. But we equally know that they are not to be found in any other tradition. And we do not know that there was anything spoken by Him then, which it is necessary to our salvation that we should know, over and above what we have recorded in Scripture. 134 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VL It is further urged, that St. Paul cuts short a controversy, not by reference to Scripture, but by appeal to the customs of the Church (1 Cor. xi. 16) : " If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God." It was a matter of ceremony, namely, that a woman's head should be cov- ered in the house of God ; and assuredly the Church of England fully admits that " the Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies " (Art. xx.), and that " whosoever, through his private judgment, breaks the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, ought to be rebuked openly " (Art. xxxiv.) But this is no proof that doctrines of the faith rest on an authority not written. It should be sufficient to satisfy any caviller concerning forms, that the Churches of God have, or have not, a custom or a form. But it is not likely that the Apostle would for doctrine refer to the Church's customs, when he himself was infallibly guided by "the Spirit of God. But St. Paul, it is said, actually does refer to ordinances and traditions, and forms of words, and a depositum to be guarded ; all which are evidently oral traditions of the Church. " Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you," 1 Cor. xi. 2. " O Tim- othy, keep that which is committed to thy trust," 1 Tim. vi. 20. " Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing, which was committed unto thee, (W/v KaXrjv TrapaKaTaB-qKqv) keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us," 2 Tim. i. 13, 14. " The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," 2 Tim. ii. 2. From all this it is urged, that the Church and the bishops had ordinances intrusted to them, and doctrines committed to them, which they were to watch and guard, and hand down carefully to others. But all this we readily admit. Timothy was taught by St. Paul : and the doctrine which he had so learned was a sacred deposit which he had carefully to guard, and to teach to those committed to his care ; especially to the clergy under him, and the bishops who were to succeed him. Be- fore the Scriptures of the new Testament had been written, or at least collected, this must have been a most important principle ; for so only could the torch of truth be kept alight. And even after the new Testament had been written, and was in the hands of all men, it was doubtless most important that bishops and Churches should be rightly and soundly instructed in the truth Sec. L] FOR SALVATION. 135 and right meaning of the Scriptures, and should guard themselves and their flocks against perverting the truth and falling into error. But there is not therefore any reason to apprehend, that Timothy or the Church had learned any other doctrines besides those con- tained in the holy Scriptures, or that the sacred deposit committed to their charge was any other than the aggregate of Christian doc- trine, which they had been taught catechetically, and which they were to keep from defilement and error by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. We well know that the possession of the Scrip- tures, as a source of truth and as a final appeal, does not supersede the necessity of Christian education, and sound oral instruction in the faith : and to every person, nowadays, instructed by Creeds and Catechisms in the true doctrine of Christ, it might be said, " Keep that good thing which was committed unto you ; " " Hold fast the form of sound words." Yet all this instruction and this sacred deposit may be deducible from Scripture, and virtually contained in it. But further, it is said that the Thessalonians are actually bid- den to " stand fast and hold . the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle," 2 Thess. ii. 15. There- fore the Apostle bids them attend, not only to Scripture, but to tradition also. But the word tradition means properly nothing more than something delivered, the doctrine of our faith delivered to us. And there being two ways of delivering doctrines to us, either by writing or by word of mouth, it signifies either of them indifferently. " ' 7rapa6Wis, tradition, is the same with Soy/xa, doc- trine, and 7rapaSiSdj/er (Acts xx. 7), and collected alms for the poor (1 Cor. xvi. 2). So the Apos- tle St. John " was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day "(Rev. i. 10). But " Sabbath-days " are enumerated as one of the " shadows of things to come," which belonged to the old dispensation, and so were not binding on Christians (Col. ii. 16, 17). Hence, the new Testament gives us good reason to believe that the obligation to keep the seventh day of the week had passed away, and that the weekly festival of the Christian Church was not Saturday, but Sunday. If it be not conceded that such Scriptural authority be sufficient to satisfy us, we may reply, that the keeping of the Lord's Day is not a question essential to our salvation, like the great doctrines of our faith ; and that, therefore, even if we require historical or traditional evidence concerning it, in addition to Scrip- ture, that will not be a case to interfere with this Article of our Church which speaks only of articles of faith, and things necessary to salvation. (6) Lastly, it is said, Scripture is in many things so obscure, that tradition is necessary to explain its meaning. To this we reply, that there is, at times, no doubt, some diffi- culty. The Church of England does not reject the use of all proper aids for the explanation of Scripture. She encourages recourse to human learning, in order to elucidate the language of Holy Writ. She does by no means reject any light, which may be derived from primitive antiquity, and she is anxious to cherish a learned clergy for the instruction of her poorer and more ignorant Sec. I] FOR SALVATION. 147 members. Her rule too concerning Scripture is not, that every uneducated person ought to take the Scriptures in hand, and search out for himself a system of theology. She teaches her children by catechisms and other simple steps to knowledge of the truth. All that she maintains is, that, as a final court of appeal, Scripture is perfect and sufficient. Her children may, by intel- ligent and humble study of the Scriptures, find in them full authority for all she teaches, and do not require a second, inde- pendent authority. The fathers acknowledge the Scripture to be sufficiently plain, if expounded by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Irenaeus tells us to solve the more difficult parts of Scripture by having recourse to those which are easy. 1 And Chrysostom says, " Look for no other teacher ; thou hast the oracles of God ; none teaches thee like these." 2 *' There is no question, but there are many places in the Divine Scriptures, mysterious, intricate, and secret : but these are for the learned, not for the ignorant : for the curious and inquisitive, not for the busied and employed and simple : they are not repositories of salvation, but instances of labour, and occasions of humility, and arguments of forbearance and mutual toleration, and an en- dearment of reverence and adoration. But all that by which God brings us to Himself is easy and plain." 3 III. We have, lastly, to prove, that the testimony of the primitive fathers is in favour of the Anglican rule, and not of the Roman. 1. Irenaeus says : " We know that the Scriptures are perfect, as being spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit." 4 Again : " We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others but those by whom the Gospel came to us ; which they then preached, and afterwards by God's will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith." 5 1 Omnis autem quaestio non per aliud nos fecit, rectissime scientes quia Scrip- qucd quaeritur habobit resolutionem, nee turae quidem perfectse sunt, quippe a ambiguitas per aliam ambiguitatem solve- Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictce. — Lib. tur apud eos qui sensum habent, aut n. c. 47. aenigmata per aliud majusaenigma, sedea s Non enim per alios dispositionem quae sunt talia ex manifestis et conso- salutis nostrse cognovimus, quam per eos nantibus et Claris accipiunt solutionem. — per quos Evangelium pervenit ad no8 : Lib. ii. 10. See Beaven's Account of quod quidem tunc praseoniaverunt, post- Trenceus, p. 138. ea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scriptu- 2 Homil. ix. in Ep. Coloss. ris nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et 3 Jer. Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery, columnam fidei nostrse futurum. — Lib. Part ii. Bk. i. § 2. m. c. 1. * Cedere haec talia deberaus Deo qui et 148 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VL Tertullian says : " I adore the perfection of Scripture, which declares to me the Creator and His Works Whether all things were made of preexistent matter, I have as yet nowhere read. Let the school of Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is not written, let them fear the woe which is destined for them who add to or take away." 1 Origen says : " The two Testaments .... in which every word that appertains to God may be sought out and discussed, and frcni them all knowledge of things may be understood. If anything remain, which Holy Scripture doth not determine, no third Scrip- ture ought to be had recourse to ... . but that which remaineth we must commit to the fire, i. e., reserve it unto God. For God would not have us know all things in this world." 2 Hippolytus writes : " There is one God, whom we do not other- wise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers, ao whosoever will exercise piety towards God can learn it nowhere but from the Holy Scriptures." 3 Athanasius : " The holy and divinely-inspired Scriptures are of themselves sufficient to the enunciation of truth." 4 Again: " These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the doctrine of salvation is contained. Let no man add to, or take from them." 6 Cyril of Jerusalem says, that, " Concerning the divine and holy 1 Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem qua vita Deus scire nos omnia voluit. — Ori- raihi et Factorem manifestat et facta, gen. Homil. v. in Levit. In Evangelic- vero amplius et ministrum 8 Elg Qeb(, bv oi>K uXtodev brcytvuoKOftev, et arbitrum Rectoris invenio, Sermonem. udeXfol, f) in tuv ayiuv ypafuv. *Ov yap An autem de aliqua subjacenti materia rponov eav tic (3ov\ti&ti Tqv oofiav rov aiu- fiiota Hint omnia, misquam adhuc legi. vof tovtov uokciv, oiic uAA«f dwifoerai rov- Scrip turn esse doceat Hermogenis offi- rov rvxdv tdv ft)) Aoyjtaoi fduoooQuv t vrvxy, cina. Si non est scriptum, timeat vce rbv airbv 6% rpoirov boot Qewrifaiav uoneiv illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus desti- (lov%6fic&a, ovk uX?u>dev uai^aofiev ti U tuv natum. — Adv. Hermoqenem, c. 22. See toyiuvrovQeov. — Hippolyt. Contra Hart- also Apolog. c. 47. De Prascript. c. 6, aim Noeti, c. 9. &c. * AtrapAcwf piv yap eloiv ol iyiat xal * In hoc biduo puto duo Testamenta fteoirvevoTot ypafal wpbc t^v T^f itkndtiac posse intclligi, in quibus liceat omne unayyehiav. — Athanas. Contra Gentes, verbum quod ad Deum pertinet (hoc Tom. i. p. 1. enim est sacriflcium) requiri et discuti, 6 Tavra Tnjyal rov ovrnpioy, bore rbv atquo ex ipsis omnem rerum scientiam dixpuvra tpdopda&at tuv kv Toirroic "koyiuv • oapi. Si quid autem superfuerit, quod kv rovrotf povov to r^f cioejieiac dt&aona- non divina Scriptura decernat, nullara Tielov cvayyeTd^crai- pn6rtc tovtoic brip^aX- aliam tertiam Scripturam debere ad auo- Xiru, fit) de tovtuv ufaipeicdu. — Ex Fet- toritatem scientin suscipi. . . . Sed igni tali Epistola xxxix. Tom n. p. 89. Edit tradamus quod superest, id est, Deo Colon, recervemus. Nequc enim in prsesenti Sbc. I.] FOR SALVATION. 149 mysteries of the faith, even the most casual remark ought not to be delivered without the sacred Scriptures." ] Basil : " Believe those things which are written , the things which are not written seek not." 2 "It is a manifest defection from the faith, and a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not." 3 Ambrose : " How can we use those things, which we find not in the Scriptures!" 4 Jerome : " We deny not those things which are written, so we refuse those which are not written. That God was born of a Virgin we believe, because we read ; that Mary married after she gave birth to Him, we believe not, because we read not." 5 Augustine : " In those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found which embrace faith and morals." 6 Vincentius Lirinensis begins with the admission, that, " The Canon of Scripture is perfect, and most abundantly sufficient for all things." 7 Theodoret : " Bring not human reasonings and syllogisms ; I rely on Scripture." 8 John Damascene : M All things that are delivered to us by the Law, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Evangelists, we receive, acknowledge, and reverence, seeking for nothing beyond these." 9 It can scarcely be necessary to bring more or stronger proofs that the fathers with one voice affirm the perfection and sufficiency 1 Aet yup nepl ruv delwv nal ayitov rr)g moreug ftvarr/piuv /jr/dk rb rixov uvev ruv ■deiuv wapudidoo&ai ypatyuv. — Cyril. Hie- rosol. Catech. iv. 12. 2 Tolg yEypa/x/isvotg marevE, ra fir/ ye- ypafijieva fir/ tyrsc. — Basil. Horn. xxix. ado. CalumniaiUes S. Trin. 3 $ai>Epu EKTCTuaig matsug Kal vnEprjtya- viag KaTTjyopia r) o&eteIv n ruv ysypafi/is- vuv r) ETzeiouyscv ruv fir) yEypa(ifj£vuv. — Basil. De Fide, c. 1. * Qua? in Scripturis Sanctis non re- perimus, ea quemadmodura usurpare possuraus. — Ambros. Offic. Lib. i. c. 23. 5 Ut hacc quae scripta sunt non nega- mus, ita ca quae non scripta sunt renu- imus. Natum Deum de Virgine credi- mus, quia legimus. Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus, quia non legimus. — Hieron. Ado. Helvidium juxta finem, Tom. iv. part II. p. 141, edit. Benedict. 6 In iis quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia quae conti- nent fidem moresque vivendi. — August. De Doctrina Christ. Lib. ir. c. 9, Tom. m. p. 24. In like manner: — Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacumque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitanique vestram, non dicam nos, nequa- quam comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet si nos : sed oninino quod secutus adjecit, Si angelus de ccelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus et evangelicis accepistis anathema sit. — Aug. font. Petitium, Lib. lit. c. 6, Tom. ix. p. 301. 7 Cum sit perfectus Scripturarum Ca non, sibique ad omnia sati* superque sut- ficiat. — Vincent. Lirin. Commonitor. c. 2. 8 Mi) fioi hoyiofwvg Kal ovfthoycafiovg uvdpumvovg irpoaEviyK^g ■ syu yup fiavrj nEi&opai Ty -&£ia ypatyrj. — Theodoret. Dial. I. 'ArpnrT. 9 TLuvra tu irapaSido/isva r)yZv 6ia re vouov, Kal irpoT)TtJv Kal uitootoXuv Kal EvayyEJuoruv dsxoue&a Kal yivuaKOfisv Kal osftofXEV, ovdsv TTepaiTEpio TOVTUV SnlljjTOVV- reg. — Damascen. Lib. i. De Orthodox- Fide, c. 1. 150 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VL of the written word, for the end for which it was written, t. e., for a rule of faith, and for a rule of life. 1 2. (1) But an objection will be urged to these arguments from the fathers, that some of them, and those of no mean im- portance, clearly speak of a rule of faith which is distinct from the Scriptures ; it is therefore evident that they do not appeal to Scripture alone as supreme, perfect, and sufficient. Thus, without question, Irenaeus spoke of a Kavwv t?/s aXrjOcias, " a rule of truth," according to whicli he considered that the Scriptures ought to be interpreted. 2 In the same manner Tertullian appeals to a Regida Fidei, " a rule of faith," by which he was guided in interpreting Scripture. 3 Here are two of the earliest fathers appealing to an authority which is certainly not Scripture ; and therefore they must have held that something besides Scripture was necessary, and that all things needful for faith and practice were not contained in Scripture. If, however, we consult the contexts, we shall find that the rule spoken of in both these fathers is the baptismal Creed. Irenaeus expressly says that the Canon of Truth, which each one was to keep, was that which was received by him at his baptism ; 4 and in the next chapter recites a form or profession of faith, which is very nearly the same as the Apostles' Creed, and which he speaks of as that " faith which the Church scattered through- out the world diligently keeps." 6 In the very same manner Tertullian writes, " Now we have a rule of faith, which teaches us what we are to defend and main- tain, and by that very rule we believe, that there is One God," &c. ; he goes on reciting the various articles of the Creed. 6 Here then we see, that the rules of faith of Irenaeus and Tertullian were not some independent tradition, teaching doctrines not to be found in Scripture, but the Creeds taught to the Christians, and confessed by them at their baptism, which were in fact epitomes of important Scriptural doctrine, founded on Scripture, and fully according with 1 Divines of the English Church have nal tuc Ai£«f ital tuc napajioXuc tiriyvij- collected many other passages to the oerai. — I rente, i. 9. same purpose. See Laud wjainst Fisher, s H»c Regula a Christo, ut probabi- § 1G; Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, eh. 2; tur, instituta, nullas hnbet quivstiones, Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive from Popery, Part nisi quas hsereses inferunt, et qu» hte- ii. Bk. i. ch. 2; Rule of Conscience, Book reticos faciunt. — Tertull. De Fncsatpt. ii. ch. ii. Rule xiv. From some of which Haret. c. 14. works I have taken the above passages, Adversus Regulam nihil scire omnia .(with one or two exceptions.) merely scire. — Ibid. verifying the quotations. 4 See the last note but one. 2 OSrw tie Kal 6 rbv Kuvova tjk uXr/Seiac 6 Lib. I. 10. akhvfi tv eavry xar^wv, bv titu Panriopa- • De Pratcript. Haret. c 18. roc elfaife, rit fdv tx tuv ypatytiv bvopara Sec. L] FOR SALVATION. 151 it. This is a widely different thing from the Doctrina tradita of the Church of Rome. Reliance on the latter is opposed to the sufficiency of Scripture ; but the rule of Irenaeus and Tertullian was based upon Scripture, and in all respects accordant with it. Clement of Alexandria also, who is almost as early a witness as Tertullian, speaks, like Irenaeus, of a ko.vuv t>)? dAi^eias, " a rule of truth," which he also calls navvy eK/cA^o-iao-uKo?. But this rule, so far from being something apart from, and of parallel authority with Scripture, is, according to Clement, founded on a harmony of the old Testament with the new. " The ecclesiasti- cal rule," says he, "is the harmony of the Law and the Prophets with the Covenant delivered by the Lord during His presence on earth." x A like sense we must attach to the language of the later fathers, when we find them speaking of a Regula Fidei. They considered the fundamental doctrines of the faith, those, that is* contained in the Creeds, to be the great guide for Christians in interpreting Scriptures. Whosoever erred from these erred from the truth ; and, in explaining obscure passages, they held that it was very needful to keep in view the necessity of not deviating from the great lines of truth marked out in the baptismal Creeds. This was not to add to Scripture, but to guard it against being wrested to destruction. 2 (2) But, it may be said, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others, not only appealed to tradition, but even preferred arguing from tra- dition to arguing from Scripture. Tertullian especially says : " No appeal must be made to the Scriptures, no contest must be founded on them, in which victory is uncertain The grand question is, to whom the Faith itself belongs ; in whose hands were the Scriptures deposited .... to whom that doctrine was first committed, whereby we are made Christians ? For wherever this true doctrine and discipline shall appear to be, there the truth of the Scripture and of the inter- pretation of it will be, and of Christian tradition." 8 The meaning, however, of this appeal to tradition in preference to Scripture, both by Irenseus and Tertullian, is this: both were reasoning against heretics. Those heretics mutilated Scripture, 1 Kaviiv tie EKKlrjaiaariKbg q awcidia ml of the Bible, Lect. xi. ; Bp. Kaye's Ter- ti av/iduvia vofiov re ical -koo^tuv rrj Kara iullian, p. 290, &c ; Bp. Kaye's Clement r^v tov Kvpiov napovaiav napadidofdvr) 6ia- of Alexamiria, p. 366 ; Beaven's Irenceus, ^tjkj). — Strom. Lib. vi. c. 15, ed. Potter, ch. vm. p. 803. » De Praescript. Hceret. c. 19. 2 See Bp. Marsh, On the Interpretation 152 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI. and perverted it. When, therefore, the fathers found their appeal to Scripture of no effect, partly because the heretics were ready to deny that what they quoted was Scripture, and partly because they were ready to evade its force by false glosses and perverted inter- pretations ; then the fathers saw that to reason from Scripture was not convincing to their opponents, and therefore they had recourse to the doctrine preserved by the Apostolical Churches, which, they maintained, were not likely to have lost or to have corrupted the truth first intrusted to them. It was not, that they themselves doubted the sufficiency of Scripture, but that they found other weapons useful against the gainsayers, and therefore brought tra- dition, not to add to, but to confirm Scripture. 1 The same may be said concerning the famous work of Vincen- tius Lirinensis. He begins by admitting that " Scripture is perfect and abundantly of itself sufficient for all things." But because various heretics have misinterpreted it, Novatian expounding it one way, Photinus in another, Sabellius in another, and so on : " there- fore," he says, " very necessary it is for the avoiding of such turn- ings and twinings of error, that the line of interpreting the Proph- ets and Apostles be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense." 2 This is not to introduce a new rule inde- pendent of Scripture. It is at most a Traditio Hermeneutica, a rule for the interpreting of Scripture. It still leaves Scripture, as the fountain of truth ; though it guards against using its streams for other than legitimate purposes. Finally, we have seen the concurrent testimony of the fathers to be in favour of the sufficiency of Scripture. If, here and there, a single passage be apparently unfavourable to this testimony, we must hold it to be a private opinion of an individual father, and therefore not worthy of being esteemed in comparison with their general consent. For it is a rule of Vincentius himself, that " Whatsoever any, although a learned man, a bishop, a martyr, or a confessor holds, otherwise than all, or against all, this must be put aside from the authority of the general judgment, and be reputed merely his own private opinion." 3 1 See Heaven's lreruvus, p. 136 ; Bp. 8 Commonilor. c. 28. On the true sense llmye's Tertnllinn, p. 297, note. of the perfection of Scripture, see Hooker, * Commonilor. c. 2. E. P. I. xiii. xiv. II. viii. 6. Sec. II.] FOR SALVATION. 153 Section II. — ON THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 1 AS Scripture is determined by our Church to be the final appeal and only infallible authority concerning matters of faith and practice, it becomes next a subject of the deepest importance to determine, what is Scripture, and what is not. And, as this subject is so important, we naturally look for an authority of the highest kind to settle and determine it. "We value, indeed, the decisions of antiquity, we respect the judgment of the primitive Church. , But on the question, What is the Word of God ? we would, if possible, have an authority as infallible as the word of God ; and, if we can have such authority, we can be satisfied with nothing less. Now such an authority we believe that we possess ; and that we possess it in this way : Christ Himself gave His own Divine sanction to the Jewish Canon of the old Testament ; and He gave His own authority to His Apostles to write the new. If this statement be once admitted, we have only to investigate histori- cally, what was the Jewish Canon, and what were the books writ- ten by the Apostles. We need search no farther ; we shall greatly confirm our faith by the witness of fathers and councils ; but, if Christ has spoken, we need no other, as we can have no higher warrant. I. Now, first, we have to consider the question of the old Testament; and our inquiry is, Has our Lord Himself stamped with His authority certain books, and left others unauthorized? The answer is, He has. We must not, indeed, argue from the fact of His quoting a certain number of books and leaving a cer- tain number unquoted ; for there are six books which can be proved to be Canonical, which the writers of the new Testament never quote ; namely, Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesias- tes, Solomon's Song. The fact that these books are not quoted will not destroy their authority ; for we have no reason to say that our Lord or His Apostles quoted systematically from all the Ca- 1 The word kuvuv signifies a line, or the Scriptures, because they have ever rule, — a standard, therefore, by which been esteemed in the Church " the inM other things are to be judged of. It is lible rule of our faith, and the perfect applied to the tongue of a balance, or that square of our actions, in all tilings that small part of the scales which by its per- are in any way needful for our eternal pendicular situation determines the even salvation." — Cosin's Scholastical Hist, of poise or weight, or by its inclination the Canon, ch. I. ; Jones, On the Canon, either way the uneven poise of the ch. i. things that are weighed. It is applied to 9.0 154 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Abt. VI nonical books, in order to establish their canonicity. But the way in which our Lord has given His own sanction to a certain definite number of books, is this : in speaking to the Jews, both He and His Apostles constantly address them as having the Scriptures, — Scriptures of Divine authority, and able to make them wise unto salvation. They never hint that the Jewish Canon is imperfect or excessive ; and hence they plainly show that the Scriptures which the Jews possessed and acknowledged, were the truly Canonical Scriptures of the old Testament. Our Lord bids them. " Search the Scriptures," and adds, " they are they which testify of Me " (John v. 39). St. Paul says, that the greatest .privilege of the Jews was that " unto them were committed the Oracles of God " (Rom. iii. 2) ; and tells Timothy, that " from a child he had known the Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation " (2 Tim. iii. 16). Accordingly, our Lord constantly appeals to those Scriptures as well-known and universally received books among the Jews, to whom He spoke, quoting them as, " It is written," or asking concerning them, " How readest thou ? " Though the Jews are charged with many errors, with corrupting the truth by tradition, and adding to it the commandments of men ; yet nowhere are they charged with corrupting Scripture, with having rejected some, or added other books to the Canon. But it is over plainly implied that the Canon which they then possessed, was the true Canon of the old Testament. Thus, then, by quoting, referring to, or arguing from the old Testament, as it was then received by the Jews, our Lord stamps with His own supreme authority the Jewish Canon of the old Testament Scrip- tures. We have only further to determine from history what the Jewish Canon, at the time of our Saviour's teaching, was, and we have all that we can need. If history will satisfy us of this, we have no more to ask. Now the only difficulty lies here. There appear to be two different books claiming to be the Jewish Scriptures ; namely, the Hebrew Bible, now in the hands both of Jews and Christians, and the Septuagint. The latter contains all the books contained in the former, with the addition of the books commonly called the Apocrypha. Let us first observe, that the ni-'dern Jews universally acknowl- edge no other Canon but the Hebrew ; which corresponds accu- rately with the Canon of the English Church. Those who know the fidelity with which for centuries the Jews have guarded their text, will consider tins alone to be a strong argument that the Sec. II.] FOR SALVATION. 155 Hebrew Canon is the same as that cited by our Lord. Every verse, every word, every letter, of Scripture is numbered by them. Every large and every small letter, every letter irregularly written, above the line or below the line, is taken notice of and scrupu- lously preserved. But we can go back to more ancient times, and show that the Canon of the Jews has always been the same. The Babylonian Talmud recounts the same books that we have now ; namely, in the Law, the five books of Moses ; among the Prophets, Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the twelve minor prophets ; in the Chethubim, Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles. This was the Canon of the Jewish Church about a. d. 550. 1 But one hundred and fifty years earlier than this, Jerome under- took the task of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin. Theretofore all the Latin translations had been from the Septua- gint, and therefore contained all the Apocryphal books. Jerome, the first of the Latin fathers who could read Hebrew, when under- taking this important labour, was naturally led to examine into the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. He informs us, that the Jews had two-and-twenty books in their Bible, corresponding with the two-and-twenty Hebrew letters. This number they made by classing two books together as one ; thus, the two books of Samuel were one, the two books of Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Judges and Ruth, respectively, were considered as one each. The books were divided into three classes, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. The first contained the five books of Moses ; the second contained Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets ; the third contained Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther, Chronicles. The Law, therefore, contained five books, the Prophets eight, the Hagiographa nine. 2 To go still farther back, Origen, who was born a. d. 184 and who died a. d. 255, and who, like Jerome, was learned in Hebrew and gave great attention to the Hebrew text, (as is well known from his famous work, the Hexapla,*) enumerates the same books 1 Baba Bathra, fol. 14, col. 2. The Chethubim, i. e. The Scriptures or Writ- books of Moses are called n"11D ^^ e in S s - _. A , , x . , . , T 2 Hieron. Prdoqus Galeatus, Op. Tom. Law; the prophetical books D^23 i. p. 318. Ed. Bened. The Prophets ; the other books Q^yiS 156 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI that Jerome does, except that he adds after all the rest, that there was the book Maccabees apart or distinct from the others. 1 Still earlier, Melito, bishop of Sardis, made a journey into the East, for the sake of inquiring what were the books held canonical there, and, in a letter to Onesimus, gives a catalogue of these books, precisely corresponding with the present Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, except that he classes Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, under the common name of Esdras. 2 This father lived about the year 160. We next come to Josephus. He flourished at the time of the siege of Jerusalem, and was therefore contemporary with the Apostles. In the first place, we find in his writings the same threefold division which occurs in Jerome, and has ever since been common with the Jews ; namely, the Law, the Prophets, and other books, which he characterizes as " Hymns and Instructions for Men's Lives." A similar division exists in Philo. 8 But Jose- phus, moreover, divides the Scriptures, as Jerome testifies that the Jews did in his time, into twenty-two books.* The only difference between the divisions of Josephus and Jerome is, that, whereas Jerome says there were eight in the Prophets and nine in the Hagiographa, Josephus assigns thirteen to the Prophets, and four to the Hagiographa. We know, however, that the Jews have gradually been augmenting the number of the books in the Hagiographa and diminishing the number in the Prophets, so that there is no great wonder, if between the first and the fourth cen- tury there was such a change in their mode of reckoning, that in the first they reckoned thirteen, in the fourth but eight among prophetical books. Thus then, since we find that Josephus gives the same three- fold division which we find afterwards given by Jerome, and also that he gives the same total number of books, namely, twenty- two, though somewhat difFerentl}' distributed, we might at once naturally conclude that the Jewish Canon in the time of Josephus was the same with the Jewish Canon in the time of Jerome. That is to say, we might conclude that it embraced the books now in the Hebrew Bibles and in the Canon of the English Church, and that it excluded the Apocryphal books, which the English i Ap. Euseb. //. E. vi. 25 : 'E$u 6k a Euseb. H. E. iv. 26. See Bp. Cosin Toinuv tori tu tAanKaliaiKU, ujrcp tntyi- as above, ch. iv. ypanrcu lapli^H lapSavtiX. Bishop Cosin 8 Oe Vita Contemplatioa, Tom. n. p. interprets tins, as meaning that the 475 ; Marsh, On the Authority of the old Books of Maccabees were "out of the Tettatnent, Lect. xxxn. Canon." — History of the Canon, ch. ▼. * Contra Apion. i. § 8 ; Euseb. H. E. hi. 10. Sec. II] FOR SALVATION. 157 Church excludes. But, if we could doubt that this was the case, his own words might- set us at rest, for he tells us that the books belonging to the second class (i. e. to the Prophets) were written previously to the reign (or to the death) of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and that, though books were written after that time, "they were not esteemed worthy of the same credit with those before them, because there was no longer the exact succession of the Prophets." 1 It was during the reign of Artaxerxes Longi- manus that the book of Esther was written, Artaxerxes being, according to Josephus, the Ahasuerus of that book. 2 This would therefore be the last book of his Canon. All the Apocryphal books must have been written long after that reign, and therefore cannot be included in his twenty-two books, compared with which they were not thought worthy of equal credit. It is plain, there- fore, that the Canon of Josephus must be the same with that of Jerome. Now, in the short time which elapsed between our Saviour's earthly ministry and Josephus, no alteration can have taken place in the Canon. Josephus himself tells us, that a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures was preserved in the Temple. 3 And therefore, until the destruction of the Temple, when Josephus was thirty- three years old, that Temple copy existed, and was a protection against all change. He would have had easy access to that Temple copy, and hence is a fully competent witness to its contents. Nay, even without the existence of that copy, which was an invaluable security, we learn from Philo, that in his time the Jews had the same intense veneration for the words of Scripture which we know them to have had afterwards ; so that nothing could induce them "to alter one word, and that they would rather die ten thousand deaths than suffer any alteration in their laws and statutes." * We now are arrived at the period when the books of the new Testament were written. Philo and Josephus were in fact con- temporaries of Christ and His Apostles. We have already seen, 1 'knb 6e 'Apra^ep^ov fiEXP 1 T °v *<*&' fiovov tuv viz' avrov yeypa/Mfievuv Kiv^aai, 7]jj.ac xpovov, yeyparrrcu pzv HnaoTa • niOTeug cMa Kpv yvpiamg avTOvg airo-&avelv vnofiel- Je ovx bjioiag 'n^iurai Tolg npb ovtuv, 6lu rb vai iMrrov rolg kneivov vofiotg kcu edeotv firj yeviodai ttjv tuv ■koo^tituv uKpipij 6ia- hvavria iteiodrivai. — See Cosin, On the doxhv. — Contra Apionem, i. § 8 ; Euseb. Canon, ch. n. H. E. m. 10. So Josephus : AqXov 6' larcv epyu iruc 2 Antiq. Lib. xi. cap. 6. Vf^C T0 'f Wtotf ypafi/iaoi nemoTevnauev ' 8 brfkovTai did. tuv uvanEi/ievuv kv tu tooovtov yup aiuvog f)br\ izapuxWKOTOQ oire iepuypap.yLu.Tuv. — Antiq. Lib. v. cap. 17. irpoodelvai Tig ovdev, ovte abe'Xuv avruv, * Philo - Judaeus Ap. Euseb. Prcepar. ovte fieTa&eivai TeroXfinicsv. — Contra Apio- Evangel. Lib. vm. § 6 : M^ p"r)p.a y' abrovc nem, I. § 8 ; Euseb. H. E. in. 10. 158 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI that our Lord and the Apostles quote the Scriptures as well known and universally received, and never iiint at their corruption. Our Lord indeed divides them (as we see they were divided by Jerome and the Jews ever since) into three distinct classes, which our Lord calls the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, 1 in which " the Psalms " is put for the whole Hagiographa, either because the Psalms stood first among the books of the Hagiographa, or because the Hagiographa may be said to consist chiefly of hymns and poems, which might well be called Psalms. 2 We have to add to this, that in the new Testament every book of the Jewish Canon is distinctly quoted with the exception of six, and those perhaps the six least likely to have furnished passages for quotation ; but not one quotation occurs from any one of those books which form a part of what is now called the Apocrypha. 3 If we could carry the evidence no farther, we might rest satis- fied here, that our Lord gave His sanction to the Hebrew, not to the Septuagint Canon. But we can go one step farther, and it is this : one hundred and thirty years before our Lord's birth, the Prologue of the Book of Ecclesiasticus was written, which classes the Hebrew Scriptures into the same three classes, " the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of the fathers." This is a ground for believing that the Jewish Scriptures were the same in number then that they were found to be afterwards. Again, what is not a little important, Targums, 4 some of which are as old as, or older than the Christian era, were made from all the books of the old Testament, but none are to be found of the Apocryphal books. We have Targums of the Law, Targums of the Prophets, Tar- gums of the Chethubim, but no Targums of the Apocrypha. Our evidence is now pretty nearly complete ; we may recapitu- late it thus. We have the threefold division of the Scriptures mentioned — in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, by Philo, by our blessed Lord, by Josephus ; and the same we find in the time of Jerome, and among all the Jews from that time to this. 1 " That all things must be fulfilled, 8 See this proved, — Cosin, Hist, of which were written in the Law of Mo- Canon, eh. lit. 8PB, and in the Prophets, and in the 4 The Targums were translations or Psalms." — Luke xxiv. 44. paraphrases of the Scriptures, made from 2 According to the division which ex- the original Hebrew into Chaldee, when isted in our Saviour's time, which proba- Hebrew had become a dead language, bly was the same as that in the time of which was the case soon after the return Josephus, there would have been but four from captivity. They were read in the books in the Chethubim or Hagiographa, synagogues, and formed the ordinary in- namely, Psalms, Proverbs, Kcclesiastes, strunu-nts for instruction of the Jews of Solomon's Song. Palestine in the Scriptures. Sfc. II.] for salvation. 159 We know, that the number of books contained in these three classes was, in the time of Josephus, twenty-two. The same number we find recounted by Origen and Jerome, as belonging to the Jewish Canon, and Origen and Jerome give us their names, which are the names of the books in the present Jewish Canon. The Canon in the time of Josephus, who was born a. d. 37, must have been the same as that in the time of Christ: as its security was guaranteed by the existence of the Temple copy, to say nothing of the scrupulous fidelity of the Jews, who, as Philo tells us, would have died ten thousand times rather than alter one word. The Targums, which are paraphrases of the books in the pres- ent Hebrew Canon, confirm the same inference ; and some of them are as old as the time of our Lord. Now we know exactly how the threefold division embraced the books of the Hebrew Canon. We know how, in Origen's time and in Jerome's time, the twenty-two books (which was also the number in Josephus's time) embraced the books of the Hebrew Canon. We know, too, that Melito, less than one hun- dred years after Josephus, gave, as the books received in the East, a catalogue corresponding exactly with the same Hebrew Canon. But no imaginable ingenuity can ever make the books of the Apocrypha fit into any of these divisions, or agree with any of these lists. When we add to this, that our Lord and His Apostles, when they gave the sanction of Divine authority to the Jewish Scrip- tures, quote perpetually nearly all the books of the Hebrew Canon, and quote none besides, no link in the chain seems wanting to prove, that the Jewish Canon is that to which Christ appealed, and which He has commended to us, as the Word of God. The history of the Septuagint explains the only difficulty in the question. It is briefly as follows : — In the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus this version was made at Alexandria. It is impossible, that it could have then contained the books of the Apocrypha, inasmuch as these books were not written till after the date when the Septuagint version was made ; none of them probably having been in existence till about two centuries before the Christian era. At what exact time the Apocryphal books were written respectively, it is not easy to determine. None of them could have been written in Hebrew, which had then become a dead language ; though some may have 160 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI been composed in Ghaldee or Syriac, languages which in the new Testament and in other writings are frequently called Hebrew. 1 However, when these Apocryphal books were written, if in Greek, the originals, if in Chaldee, the Greek translations, were, in all probability, inserted into the Septuagint, along with the still more sacred books of Scripture, by the Alexandrian Jews, who, in their state of dispersion, were naturally zealous about all that concerned their religion and the history of their race. The places which they assigned to the various books, were dependent either on the subject or on the supposed author. Thus the Song of the three Children, the Story of Susanna, and the History of Bel and the Dragon, seemed connected with, and were therefore added to, the book of Daniel. The Greek Esdras seemed naturally to be con- nected with the Greek translation of the book of Ezra. The Book of Wisdom, being called the Wisdom of Solomon, was added to the Song of Solomon ; and the book of Ecclesiasticus, called the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, was placed after the Wisdom of Solomon. No doubt, the Alexandrian Jews ascribed great importance to the books which they thus inserted in the Septuagint version ; but Philo, who was an Alexandrian Jew, and who was a contemporary of our Lord's, never quotes them for the purpose of establishing any doctrine ; and it is certain that none of them ever got into the Hebrew Canon ; nor were they ever received by the Jews of Palestine, amongst whom our blessed Saviour taught, and to whose Canon, therefore, He gave the sanction of His Divine authority. Now the fathers of the Christian Church for the first three centuries were, with the exception of Origen, profoundly ignorant of Hebrew. It was natural, therefore, that they should have adopted the Greek version as their old Testament; and, accord- ingly, it formed the original of their Latin version. Hence the books of the old Testament current in the Church were, in Greek the Septuagint, in Latin a translation from the Greek Septuagint ; 1 The Book of Ecclesiasticus appears xxii. 1. It is also said that the first book from ch. L. 27 to have been written by of Maccabees was written in Hebrew ; " Jesus the Son of Sirach of Jerusalem ; " but as some of the events recorded in it and in the Prologue of his grandson the happened within one hundred and fifty words of the book are said to have been years from the birth of Christ, it must 'EflpatoTt Xeyofieva, written in Hebrew, have been the same Chaldee. Tobitalso However, Hebrew was then a dead Ian- and Judith are said by Jerome, in his guage, and the Jews spoke Syro-Chaldee, Prefaces to these books, to have been which was what St. Paul spoke when he written Chaldceo sermone, though it baa addressed his countrymen "in the He- been thought the Chaldee was only a brew dialect," kv 'Eppatdi AaAi/cry, Act* translation. Sec. II.] FOR SALVATION. 161 both therefore containing the Apocryphal books. It was not till the time of Jerome, that a translation was made from the Hebrew ; and hence, in the eyes of many, the whole collection of books con- tained in the Septuagint and the old Latin translation was natu- rally viewed with the respect due to Scripture. Many indeed of the fathers, as we shall soon see, knew the difference between the books of the Hebrew Canon and those of the Apocrypha, and knew that the former were Divine, the latter of inferior authority. But still many quoted almost indiscriminately from both ; and espe- cially St. Augustine is appealed to, as having given a Catalogue of the old Testament Scriptures, which contained the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Maccabees. 1 In the Latin Church the name of Augustine stood deservedly high. Though Jerome's labours showed the fallacy of Augustine's opinion, though the Greek fathers never received the Apocryphal books so carelessly as the Latin fathers had done, and though even Augustine himself was aware of the difference between them and the books of the Hebrew Canon ; yet the Apocryphal books still kept their place in the Latin Vulgate, and were ultimately adopted by the Council of Trent, as part of the Canon of Scrip- ture. Yet as we can thus easily trace the origin of the mistake, and thereby see that it was a mistake, we need not be led away with it. This, necessarily very brief, sketch of the grounds on which we believe the present Hebrew Canon to be that to which our Lord gave His sanction, may be sufficient to show on what we rest our belief concerning the sacred books of the old Testament. From such historical evidence we know, that the Scriptures which the Lord Jesus appealed to, authorized, and confirmed, were the books contained in our Hebrew Bibles. 2 We ask no more, and we can receive no more. On such a matter the appeal to such an author- ity must be final. Fathers and Councils, nay, " the holy Church throughout all the world," would be as nothing, if their voice could be against their Lord's. We are not, however, in this or in any other question, insen- sible to the value of the opinions of the fathers, still less of the consent of the early Church. And though we can plainly see what, in this case, may have led some of the fathers into error, we rejoice in being able to show, that, in the main, their testimony 1 Augustin. De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. are such as Matt. v. 18. Luke xvi. 29; ii. c. 8 ; Opera, Tom. in. pt. i. p. 23. xxiv. 27, 44. John v. 39. Rom. iii. 1, 2; 2 Passages of the new Testament, ix. 4. 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. where such authority is given to the old, 21 162 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Abt. VI. is decisive for what we have already, on other grounds, shown to be the truth. Now in the second century, a. d. 147, Justin Martyr, himself a native of Palestine, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, though he reproves him for many other things, never reproaches him for rejecting any of the Canonical Scriptures. 1 Melito, a. d. 160, we have already seen, went to Palestine to be satisfied concerning the Canon of the old Testament, and reports that it contained, accord- ing to the Christians of that country, the books of our Hebrew Bible. 2 Origen, a. d. 220, the most learned of the early fathers, the famous compiler of the Hexapla, himself a native of and resi- dent at Alexandria, where the Septuagint version was made and received, gives us the same account as Melito. 3 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, a. d. 340, gives a perfect catalogue of the books of Scripture, enumerating the books of the old Testament just as the English Church receives them now, and mentioning as not canonical 4 the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther (i. e. the Apocryphal book of Esther), Judith, and Tobit. 5 Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, in France, a. d. 350, numbers the books of the old Testament as twenty-two, and gives the names of the very books of the Hebrew Bible used in the English Church, saying that some persons had added to this number Tobit and Judith, to make up twenty-four, the number of the Greek letters, instead of twenty-two, the number of the Hebrew. 6 Cyril of Jerusalem, a. d. 360, in his Catechetical Lectures, exhorts the catechumens to abstain from the Apocryphal, and to read only the Canonical books of Scripture, giving as the reason, " Why shouldest thou, who knowest not those which are acknowl- edged by all, take needless trouble about those which are ques- tioned ? " He makes the number of the books twenty-two, and 1 Cosin, On the Canon, ch. iv. more is meant than what is inserted in 2 Euseb. //. E, iv. 26. the book of Jeremiah concerning Ba- 1 Euseb. //. E. vi. 25. ruch, and the Epistle contained in the 4 'Erepa {HfiTua tovtuv £%u&ev • oit «a- twenty-ninth chapter of the prophecy vovdfifuva fdv, rnvnufiiva 6e napu ruv of Jeremiah, — not the apocryphal books narepuv. of these names. See Cosin, ch. vi. 6 Festal. Epist. XXXIX. Op. Tom. II. • Hilar. Piolrfi. in I. drum Psalmorum, I). 961, edit. Betted. Tom. n. p. 38. Co- § 15, edit. Hencdict. p. 9. His Cata- on. 1686. loguc is Five books of Moses, 5. Joshua, The only thing to be observed in the 1. Judges and Ruth, 1. Samuel, 1. catalogue of Athanasius is, that he joins Kings, 1. Chronicles, 1. Ezra (including Baruch and the Epistle with Jeremiah ; Nehemiah), 1. Psalms,!, Proverbs, 1. into which mistake many of the fathers Ecclesiastes, 1. Song of Songs, 1. Minor fell, from the connection which was made Prophets, 1. Isaiah, 1. Jeremiah (with between those books in the LXX. and lamentations and Epistle), 1. Daniel, 1. Latin ; though some think, that nothing Erekiel, 1. Job, 1. Esther, 1. In all, 22 Sec. II. J FOR SALVATION. 163 gives the same list as Athanasius, i. e. the same as the English Canon, with the addition of Baruch and the Epistle to the book of Jeremiah. 1 The Council of Laodicea, held about a. d. 364, in its fifty-ninth Canon, gives exactly the same list as Athanasius and Cyril. The Canons of this Council were approved by name in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo. 2 Epiphanius, Bishop of Constance, in Cyprus, a. d. 375, three times numbers the books of the old Testament as we do, and mentions the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as " doubtful writings," and not counted as among the sacred books " because they were never laid up in the Ark of the covenant." 3 Gregory Nazianzen, a. d. 376, gives a catalogue, which is the same as the Canon of the English Church, except that he does not mention Esther, which he probably includes in Ezra. 4 Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia, a. d. 398, numbers the books of the old Testament as the English Church does at present. 5 Jerome, the contemporary and friend of Rufinus, gives us, as we have seen, the same catalogue as the Church of England now receives, and enumerates Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, as Apocryphal books. 6 We have now arrived at the close of the fourth century, and have found that the whole chain of evidence up to that period is in favour, and most, decidedly in favour, of the Canon of the English Church. It will be no argument against such testimony, that many of the fathers quote the Apocryphal books, or even quote them as of authority. We have already seen what circumstances led the early Christians, and especially those of the Latin Church, into a somewhat excessive respect for the Apocryphal writings con- tained in the Septuagint and the ancient Latin Versions. At the end of the fourth century, and contemporary with Je- rome, lived Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. In his book De Doetrina Christiana^ he enumerates the books of the " whole Canon of Scripture." He reckons in this Canon the books of Tobit, Judith, two books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecolesiasticus. The au- thority of Augustine is very great. Yet is it not for a moment to be weighed against the testimony of the four preceding cen- turies, even if his testimony was undoubted and uniform. Yet 1 Cyril. Hieros. Catech. iv. § 35. 5 Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, 2 Concil. Laodicen. Can. lix. Concil. § 36, ad calrem Oper. Ci/priin. Quinisext. Can. n. 6 In Prologo Oaleato, Tom. i. r>. 322. 8 Ado. Hceres. v. lxxvi. De Mensuris Ed. Bened. tt Ponderibus, Tom. n. pp. 162, 180. 7 Lib. II. c. 8, edit. Benedict Tom * Greg. Nazianz. Carm. xxxm. in. p. 23. 164 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLT SCRIPTURES [Art. VI this is by no means the case. In the very passage above referred to, he speaks of a diversity of opinion concerning the sacred books, and advises, that those should be preferred which were received by all the Churches; that, of those not always received, those which the greater number and more important Churches received should be preferred before those which were sanctioned by fewer arid less authoritative Churches. 1 But moreover, passages from his other writings tell strongly against the canonicity of the books commonly called the Apocrypha. Thus he speaks of the Jews being without prophets from the captivity, and after the death of Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra, until Christ. 2 He tells us, that " the Jews did not receive the book of Maccabees as they did the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gives testimony, as to His own witnesses." 3 He tells us, that the book of Judith was never in the Canon of the Jews.* He distinguishes between the books which are certainly Solomon's, and the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, to which custom has given the sanction of his name, but which learned men agreed were not his. 6 And many other proofs have been brought from his works, to show that he was at least doubtful concerning the authority of these books, notwithstanding his catalogue, which included them. 6 We now come to the Council of Carthage at which it is said that Augustine was present.- The date of this Council is disputed. It is usually considered as the third Council of Carthage, held a. d. 397. It enumerates the books of Scripture as we have them now, together with Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two books of Maccabees. 7 If Augustine was present, it is probable that we ought to interpret the decree of the Council with the same restrictions with which we plainly ought to interpret the words of St. Augustine, who, if he be not altogether inconsistent with him - 1 In canonicis autem Scripturis, Ec- prophetaverunt, et Esdram, non habue- clesiarum Catholicarum quam plurium runt prophetas usque ad Salvatoris a»l- auctoritatem sequatur ; inter quas sane ventum, &c. illre sint qua? Apostolicas sedes habere et 8 Contra Gaud. Lib. i. c. 81, § 88. Torn epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit ix. p. 655. igitur hunc modum in Scripturis canon- * De Civitate Dri, Lib. mil, c. 26. ids, ut eas, quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Tom. vii. p. 508. In libro Judith : quern ICcclesiis Catholicis, prseponat eis quas sane in Canone Scripturarum Judrei non quaedam non accipiunt : in eis vero quae recepisse dicuntur. non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat ° De Cirit. Dei, Lib. xvn. c. 20. Tom. eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, vn. p. 488. Propter eloquii nonnullam eis quas pauciores minorisque auctorita- similitudinem, ut Salomonis dicantur, ob- tls Ecclesiao tenent. — Lib. ii. c. 8, edit, tinuit eonsuetudo- non autem esse ip- Benedict. Tom. m. p. 28. sius, non dubitant doctiores. 8 De Civitat. Dei, Lib. xvn. cap. 24. * The whole question is fully sifted Tom. vn. p. 487. Toto illo tempore ex by Bp. Cosin, Scholastical History of tht quo redierunt de Babylonia, post Mala- Canon, ch. vn. ohiam, Aggaeum, et Zachariam, qui tone 7 Cone. Carthag. in. Can. xltii. Sec. II] FOR SALVATION. 166 self, must assign a lower degree of authority to the doubtful books than to those which all received. But if it be not so, we must still remember that the Council of Carthage was a provincial, not a general Synod ; that it was liable to err ; and that in matter of history, if not in matter of doctrine, it actually did err ; for by numbering five books of Solomon, it assigned to his authorship Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which could not have been written for centuries after his death. We cannot therefore bow to the au- thority of the Council of Carthage, even if that of St. Augustine be joined to it, against the testimony of all preceding ages, and, above all, against what has been shown to be the witness of our Lord Himself. The Council of Trent, however, in its fourth session, stamped with its authority all the books which had been enumerated by the Council of Carthage, with the addition of the book of Baruch ; and added an anathema against every one who should not receive the whole Canon so put forth, and all the traditions of the Church besides. 1 Thus did the Churches of the Roman communion set themselves against the Churches of God in the times of old, and against all the rest of Christendom in this present time. They, by implication, condemned those ancient fathers, who, as we have seen, almost with one voice preferred the Jewish Scriptures to the Apocryphal writings of the Septuagint. They anathematized, not only the Anglican, and all other reformed Churches, but as well the ancient Churches of the East, who with us reject the Apocry- pha, and adhere to the Scriptures which were sanctioned by the Lord. 2 We might speak more strongly of the danger of "cursing whom God hath not cursed ; " but we may rest satisfied with the assurance that " the curse causeless shall not come." 3 1 Concil. Trid. Sess. iv. Decret. i. veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur, Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et decreto adscribenduni censuit, ne cui traditiones prasdictas sciens et prudens dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint, contempserit, anathema sit. qui ab ipso Synodo suscipiuntur. Sunt 2 See Suicer, s. v. ypcuj^. See also vero infra scripti : Dr. Wordsworth's Lectures on the Canon, Test. V. Quinque Mosis, Jos., Judic., Appendix B. No. iv., where documents Ruth, 4 Reg., 2 Paralip., Esdrae 1 et 2 are given, showing the agreement of the (qui dieitur Nehem.), Tobias, Judith, Eastern with the Anglican Church on Esther, Job, Psalterium David, cl. Psal., the Canon of Scripture. Parab., Ecclcsiastes, Cantic. Canticorum, 3 On the Canon of the old Testament, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esaias, Hiere- see Suicer's Thesaurus, s. v. ypa&ri ; Bp mias cum Baruch, Ezech., Daniel., 12 Cosin's Scholastic History of the Canon ; Proph. Minores, Duo Machabaeorum 1 Bp. Marsh, Lectures, Part vi. On the Ait- et 2. thority of the old Testament ; Bp. Marsh's Test. N. Quattuor Evangelia, &c. &c. Comparative View, chap. v. Dr. Words- Si quis autem libros ipsos integros worth, in his Hulsean Lectures on the cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ec- Canon of Scripture, has thrown into the clesia Catholica legi convenerunt, et in Appendix the most important passages 166 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Aet. VL II. The Canon of the new Testament rests on the same authority as the Canon of the old. As regards the number of books which are to be admitted as Canonical in the New Testament, there is no difference between the Anglican and any other branch of the Church of Christ. Yet on the mode of settling the Canon there is some difference. The Roman Church holds, that we receive the Scriptures, both of the old and new Testament, simply on the authority of the Church. It is said, that the Canon was not fixed till the end of the fourth century ; and it is inferred, that the Church then, by its plenary authority, determined which books were Scripture, and which were not. Thus virtually the Church has been made to hold a position superior to the Scriptures, as not only " a witness and keeper," but also a judge "of Holy Writ." And though, in the first instance, such authority is conceded to the Church of the fourth century ; yet, by implication and consequence, the same authority is claimed for the Church of this day ; that is, not for the Church Universal, but for that portion of it which has claimed, as its exclusive title, the name of Catholic, i. e. the Church of Rome. On the other hand, some Protestants have been satisfied to rest the authority of the books of the new Testament on internal evidence, especially on the witness which the Spirit bears with our own spirits that they are the Word of God. The framers of the Belgic Confession, for instance, distinctly assert, that they re- ceive the Scriptures " not so much because the Church receives and sanctions them as Canonical, as because the Spirit witnesses with our consciences that they proceeded from God ; and especially because they, of themselves, attest their own authority and sanc- tity." » Now the Church of England rejects altogether neither the au- thority of the Church, nor the internal testimony of the Scrip- tures. Yet she is not satisfied to rest her faith solely on the authoritative decree of any council in the fourth or fifth, still less in any later century ; neither can she consent to forego all ex- ternal testimony, and trust to an internal witness alone, knowing that, as Satan can transform himself into an angel of light, so it on the subject from the Jewish and early pro canonicis recipiat et comprobet : Christian writers, in a form more con- qunm quod Spiritus Sanctus nostris con- venient than they may be seen in Bp. scientiis testotur illos a Deo emanasse: Cosin's most valuable work, as in the et eo maxime quod ipsi etiam per se latter tlu-y are scattered through the sacram banc suam authoritatem et sane- notes, whilst In Dr. Wordsworth's book titatem testentur ntque comprobent. — they are given in a compact form at the Confess. Bdyica, Art. v. ; Syllo^e Con- end. ffssimum, p. 828; Jones, On the Ccmon, 1 Idque non tam quod Ecclesia illos Part i. ch. vi. Sec. II.] FOR SALVATION. 167 is possible, that what seems the guidance of God's Spirit may, if not proved, be really the suggestion of evil spirits* Hence we think that there is need of the external word, and of the Church, to teach ; lest what seems a light within be but darkness counter- feiting light : and we know, that the fertile source of almost ever) fanatical error, recorded in history, has been a reliance on inward illumination, to the neglect of outward testimony. 1 The principle, then, which we assert, is this, that Christ gave authority to His Apostles to teach and to write, that He promised them infallible guidance, and that therefore all Apostolical writings are divinely inspired. We have only to inquire what writings were Apostolical ; and for this purpose we have recourse to testimony, or, if the word be preferred, to tradition. The testimony or tradition of the primitive Church is the ground on which the fathers them- selves received the books of the new Testament as Apostolical ; and, on the same ground, we receive them. We gladly add to this every weight which can be derived from internal evidence, or from the authority of early councils ; for we know, that no argument should be neglected, which may fairly confirm our faith. But the first ground on which we receive the new Testament is, that it can be proved to have come from the pens or the dictation of the Apostles of Christ, and that to those Apostles Christ promised infallibility in matters of faith. 1. The promise of inspiration and infallibility appears in such passages as the following : — " The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John xiv. 25, 26. "When He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth, and He will show you things to come." John xvi. 13. " It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." Mark xiii. 11. And what Christ promised, His Apostles claimed. They speak of having the deep things of God revealed to them by His Spirit, 1 Cor. ii. 10. They declare their own Gospel to be the truth, and 1 There is a passage much to the pur- that the book of Canticles is canonical pose, quoted by Jones (On the Canon, and written by Solomon, and the book Part i. ch. vi.) from the Preface to Bax- of Wisdom apocryphal, and written by ter's Saints' Rest. " For my part, I con- Pl.ilo, &c. Nor could I have known all fess, I could never boast of any such or any historical books, such as Joshua, testimony or light of the Spirit nor rea- Judges Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, spn neither, which, without human tes- Ezra, Nehemiah, &c.,tobe written bydi- timony, would have made me believe vine inspiration, but by tradition, &c." 168 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Abt. VL anathematize all who preach any other Gospel, Gal. i. 8. They speak of " the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men," as being now revealed to the " Apos- tles and prophets by the Spirit," Ephes. iii. 4, 5 ; and treat the Gospel as a faith " once delivered to the saints," Jude 3. If therefore we believe the new Testament at all, we believe that Jesus Christ gave a promise of inspiration to the Apostles ; and that the Apostles claimed the promise, professed to have received the inspiration, and accordingly assumed to be the only infallible depositaries of the doctrines of the Gospel. 2. We have therefore, in the next place, simply to determine the genuineness of the writings which profess to be Apostolical, and our labour will be finished. If we know that any book was written by an Apostle, we know that, as regards doctrine and faith, it is inspired and infallible, and therefore we receive it into the Canon of Scripture. The primitive Church acted on this princi- ple ; and we act upon the same. More or less, all ancient writings must be subjected to a test like this. If we wish to know whether certain books were written by Cicero, or Caesar, or Tacitus, we examine the evidence, and decide according to it. The simple fact that they have ever been received as theirs, is a strong presumption that they proceeded from them. But still we mostly require farther proof. Now, it is infinitely more important to be assured that a book was written by St. John or St. Paul, than to know that one was written by Caesar or Cicero. And accordingly God, in His Provi- dence, has afforded us far more abundant evidence concerning the genuineness of the different books of the new Testament, than can be found concerning any other writings of antiquity. That evi- dence is principally dependent on testimony, but is not resolvable into mere authority. It is the witness of the Church, not merely its sanction, to which we appeal. Now the position of the Church in its earliest ages was such, that its witness on this subject is singularly unexceptionable. Dur- ing the very lifetimes of the Apogtles, it had spread through the civilized world. Europe, Asia, Africa, had all heard the voice of the Apostles, and all had flourishing Churches long before the death of the last of that sacred body. The books which the Apostles had written were therefore not merely to be found in one or two obscure corners of the world, but they were treasured up, and read and reverenced in Rome and Alexandria, in Antioch and Ephesus, in Corinth and Thessalonica, very probably in Spain and Gaul and Sue. II.] FOR SALVATION. 169 Arabia, perhaps even in the remote region of Britain itself. There were therefore witnesses in every corner of the globe. Even where the arms of Rome had not carried conquest, the feet of Apostles had carried good tidings of peace. In many of these Churches, the writers of the sacred books were well known and constant visitors ; so that Epistles as from them, or Gospels with their names, could not have been palmed off upon their converts, who could continually have rectified errors of this kind by direct appeal to the living sources of Divine instruction. The writers of the new Testament themselves took care that what they wrote should be widely circulated, and extensively known, when first they wrote it. St. Paul bids the Colossians send his epistle to them to be read as well in the Church of Laodicea (Col. iv. 16). He charges the Thessalonians that they should suffer his epistle to be "read to all the holy brethren " (1 Thess. v. 27). We are informed concerning the Gospels, that they were written, the first by an Apostle, for the use of the Church of Judea ; l the second, by St. Mark, under the dictation of St. Peter, 2 for the use of those Christians amongst whom St. Peter had been preaching, and who wished to have the substance of it preserved in writing ; 3 that St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul, wrote his Gospel at St. Paul's dictation ; 4 and that St. John wrote his in his last days at Ephesus, having first seen and approved the other Gospels, writing his own as supplementary to them. 5 These and similar considerations show that the writings of the new Testament must have had a great degree of publicity, and therefore great protection against forgery and fraud, from their earliest publication. Every separate Church, and every separate city, to which they spread, was a guard against corruption, and a check upon its neighbours. But at the same time, wide as the empire of Christ had spread, it was not then, as now, a collec- tion of disunited communities, but one living, intercommunicating whole. The early records with one voice proclaim that all Chris- tendom was as one man. There was a circulation of life-blood through the whole. A Christian could not go from Rome to Alexandria, or from Alexandria to Ephesus, but he bore a talis- man with him, which made him welcomed as a brother. And the degree of intercourse which took place in the very earliest times between far distant Churches, is apparent by the letter of 1 Euseb. H. E. in. 24; Iren. in. 1. * Iren. in. 1. 2 Iren. in. 1 ; in. 11. 6 Euseb. in. 24; Hieron. De Viris Br 8 Euseb. i. 15; vi. 14, on the authority lustfibus, a. v. Joannes. of Clemens Alexandrinus. 22 170 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Abt. VL Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth, by the solicitude of Ignatius for the different cities, to which he wrote on the eve of his martyrdom, by the journey of Polycarp from Smyrna to Rome to discuss the Paschal controversy, by the appointment of Irenams, a native of Asia, to the chief bishopric in Gaul, and by numerous similap facts. We have therefore the following securities that the Churches from the first would preserve the writings of the Apostles safe and in their integrity. (1) The presence of the Apostles with them, and frequent intercourse among them, whilst the sacred books- were in writing. (2) The publicity given to these books from the first. (3) The wide diffusion of the Church throughout the world, so that copies would be multiplied everywhere, and one part of the Church would be a check against forgeries in another. (4) The intimate communion of every part of Christendom with the rest, so that every facility was afforded to every portion of the Church, of knowing what were the Apostles' writings, and of guarding against mistake. (5) To these we may add, that there were divisions in many Churches even from the Apostles' days, (see 1 Cor. iii. 3, 4 ; Gal. ii. 4, &c.) which necessarily created independent witnesses, even in individual Churches, each party being a check on the other. (6) And lastly, that in God's Providence the Apostle St. John lived at the great city of Ephesus for thirty years after the works of the other Apostles had been written ; and was thus living in the midst of the civilized world, as a final and authoritative court of appeal, if there could be any doubt as to which were Apostolical, and which Apocryphal writings. Can we doubt then, that the primitive Church was a body so remarkably constituted that its testimony united, on this particular subject, the singularly opposite merits of unanimity and yet of mutual independence ; that it enjoyed the most extraordinary powers for knowing the truth, with no interest in corrupting it, and without the power to corrupt it, even if it had the will ? We conclude therefore, that the Scriptures which the primitive Church held as Apostolical, must have been so. And we may add, that, owing to the wide diffusion of the Church throughout the world, it would have been impossible for a forger in after-times to pass off his forgery on the Church ; for, if it was received in one place, it would speedily be rejected in another, and convicted of falsehood, on the sure ground of novelty. The primitive Sec. II] FOR SALVATION. 171 Church, therefore, was singularly fitted by Providence to be a wit- ness and keeper of Holy Writ ; even a witness and a keeper of it against future as well as present corruptions. It is impossible to give more than a very brief sketch of the evidence which we derive from the early Church, thus qualified to bear testimony. We may classify it in the following order : — (1) Manuscripts of the original. (2) Versions in numerous languages. (3) Catalogues. (4) Quotations and references, and commentaries. (1) We have manuscripts of the new Testament Scriptures in very great numbers, preserved to us in different quarters of the globe. The testimony which these MSS. bear, all tends to the same point ; namely, the general integrity of the text of the new Testament, as we have it now. These MSS. indeed are so far different from each other as to be independent witnesses ; for, though they agree in preserving the same general text, they differ in verbal minutiae, and have various readings, like MSS. of all ancient authors ; and it is found that these MSS. can be classed into different families ; so that each family bears a line of testi- mony distinct from the others. Thus Griesbach distinguished the Greek MSS. into three distinct texts : the Alexandrine, which he found to correspond with the reading of the famous Codex Alex- andrinus and with the quotations of Origen, the great Alexandrian critic ; the Byzantine, including those MSS. which in their pecu- liarities agree with the MSS. which have been brought to us direct from Constantinople ; the Western, to which belong the MSS. which have been chiefly found in Europe, and which in their peculiarities resemble the Latin version. Other critics (as Mat- thai, Scholz, &c.) have made different arrangements and classifi- cations ; but all agree in the observation, that we have distinct streams of MSS. coming down to us from the most remote antiq- uity, and preserving in the main the same text of the new Testa- ment, though differing in minute particulars, sufficient to constitute them in some degree independent witnesses, and existing in the different quarters of the globe. It is true, the most ancient of these MSS. is probably not older than the fourth century ; but it is well known to all scholars, how very ancient a MS. of the fourth century is considered, and how very few MSS. in the world have anything approaching to such antiqiti'ty ; and it must be borne in mind, that a MS. of the fourth century represents a text of much earlier date, from which it must have been copied ; and when we 172 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VL have many independent MSS., and some of them of nearly the same great antiquity, we know that they respectively and inde- pendently bear witness to the existence of an older text or texts, to which they owe their original. Now here is one evidence of the genuineness of our new Testa- ment writings. They are preserved to us in innumerable MSS. in all parts of the world ; MSS. whose authority is of the highest possible character. The books which are thus preserved are not the Apocryphal, but the generally received Canonical books of the new Testament. (2) We have a great number of ancient versions of the new Testament Scriptures, in the various languages which were ver- nacular in the early ages of the Church. Thus we have versions in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and other languages. The Versions which are supposed to have the greatest claim to antiquity, are the Latin and the Syriac. That there was a very ancient Latin version, there can be no manner of doubt ; for the rapid diffusion of the Gospel in Europe and Africa made it a matter of great consequence that the new Testament Scriptures should speedily be translated into the Latin tongue. The ancient Italic may, therefore, very probably have been made in the days of the Apostles. The only difficulty of importance is the many alterations which the Latin Versions subsequently underwent, which make it hard to ascertain what MS. fairly repre- sents the most ancient text. Yet all the Latin Versions of any authority, at present in existence, give their testimony, in the main, to the integrity of the text of the new Testament as we have it now. The Peschito Syriac is by most scholars considered to be the oldest of all the versions ; and it has the advantage of being a Version from the Greek into the vernacular tongue of our Lord and His Apostles. It is by many thought to be a work of the first century, and may have been seen by the Apostle St. John. The Syrians themselves held the tradition that it was made by St. Mark. The testimony which it bears concerning the Canon of the new Testament is most satisfactory, so far as it goes. It contains, in literal translation, the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the first Epistle of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, — that is to say, all our present Canon, except the Apoc- alypse, the Epistle of St. Jude, the second of St. Peter, and the second and third of St. John. There are many reasons why so ancient a Version should not have contained these last-named Sec. II] * FOR SALVATION. 173 books. If it were made so early as has been supposed, some of the excluded books may not have been written. At all events, it is highly probable that they were not all at once collected into one volume, and some shorter and later pieces are especially likely to have been at first omitted. 1 (3) We have among very early fathers, regular catalogues of the books of the new Testament, as received and read in the Church. Origen, the most learned of the Greek fathers, who was born a. d. 185, e. e. less than ninety years from the death of St. John, gives a catalogue exactly corresponding with our present Canon. 2 Eusebius, another most learned and accurate inquirer, born at Caesarea, in Palestine, a. d. 270, gives a catalogue exactly corre- sponding with our own, except that he speaks of the Epistles of St. James, St. Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, as generally received, yet doubted of by some ; and says of the Apocalypse, that, though some doubted, yet others received it ; and he himself received it, and considered it as canonical. 3 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, a. d. 326, and who therefore must have been born in the third century, gives a catalogue ex- actly corresponding with ours. 4 Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, a. d. 349, gives the same list, with the exception of the Apocalypse. 5 The Council of Laodicea, a. d. 364, gives the same list as St. Cyril. 6 Epiphanius, a. d. 370, gives the same list as ours. 7 Gregory Nazianzen, a. d. 375, who was born about the time of the Council of Nice, gives the same list as ours, omitting the Apocalypse. 8 Jerome, who was born a. d. 329, was educated at Rome, and was ordained presbyter at Antioch, a. d. 378, gives the same list as ours ; except that he observes that most persons in the Latin 1 On the importance of the Syriac ver- ch. viii. ; Bp. Marsh's Lectures, Pt. v. On sion, see Jones, On the Canon, Pt. I. ch. Authority of the New Testament, Lect xiv.-xix. xxiv. ; Lardner, n. ch. xxxviii. 2 Comment, in Matt. ap. Euseb. H. E. 8 H. E. in. 25. vi. 25. In this catalogue he omits St. * Ex Festali Epist. xxxix. Tom. n. p. James and St. Jude. But in his thir- 961 ; Edit. Benedict. Tom. n. p. 38, Co- teenth Homily on Genesis he speaks of Ion. 1686. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, 5 Cateches. iv. § 36. He makes men- James, and Jude, as the authors of the tion of certain forged Gospels, ^>ev6tm- books of the new Testament. In his jpafa, and ascribes to the Manicheans a seventh Homily on the book of Joshua, Gospel according to St. Thomas. if we may trust the Latin translation of 6 Concil. Laodicen. Can. ix. Rufinus, in which alone it exists, he enu- 7 Hozres. 76, c. 5. merates all the books which we now 8 Gregor. Nazianz. Carm. xxxin. have. See Jones, On the Canon, Pt. i. 174 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Aut. VI Church did not consider the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's, though he himself held that it was so. 1 Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia, contemporary and friend of Jerome, gives the same catalogue as we now possess. 2 Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, a. d. 394, (born a. d. 355,) gives the same catalogue as ours. 3 The Council of Carthage (a. d. 397?) gives the same cata- logue. 4 (4) But, besides these formal catalogues, we have from the very first ages a series of quotations, references, and allusions to our sacred books, and in some cases regular harmonies and com- mentaries upon them. This is a wide subject. It occupies the first five volumes in the octavo edition of Lardner's most valuable work on The Credibility of the Gospel History. An account of it here must necessarily be brief. The writings of the Apostolical fathers are few in number, and there are many reasons why they should not quote so frequently and fully from the books of the new Testament, as those who suc- ceeded them. Yet there are, nevertheless, a considerable number of references and quotations from the books which we possess as the new Testament Scriptures, even in them. Clement, who probably died before St. John, especially ascribes the first Epistle to the Corinthians to St. Paul. Words of our blessed Lord, found in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, are recommended with a high degree of respect, but without the names of the Evangelists; and there is reason to think that he alludes to the Acts, the Epistle to the Romans, the two Epistles to the Corinthians, and divers other of the Epistles of the new Testament. 6 Ignatius, who suffered martyrdom very soon after the death of St. John, in writing to the Ephesians, ascribes the Epistle to that Church to St. Paul, and cites several passages from it. He alludes to St. Matthew's, St. Luke's, and probably to St. John's Gospel ; also, probably, to the Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Gala- tians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 and 3 John. He appears also to have expressions denoting collections of the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles. 6 1 Epist. L. ad Paiilinum. Opp. Tom. IV. 8 De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. II. c & p. 574; Ed. Bened. On the Epistle to Tom. in. p. 23. the Hebrews, see De Viris Itlustribua, s. 4 Concil. Carthag. m. Can. xlvii. v. P. -in I us. 6 Lnrdner, It. ch. n. * Exnosit. in Symb. Apostot. § 86, ad • Ibid. u. ch. v. calc. Oper. Cyprian. Sec. II.] FOR SALVATION. 175 Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of St. John, quotes Philippians, and speaks of St. Paul as having written to that Church. He quotes also expressions from St. Matthew and St. Luke, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians ; and there are manifest references to Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John, and probably to the Hebrews. 1 If Barnabas and Hermas are to be reckoned Apostolical, although there are manifest references to the new Testament in their works, yet the nature of their writings makes it most improbable that they should have quoted much from it, and accounts for their com- parative silence. 2 Papias, who was well acquainted with Polycarp, and, as some think, even with St. John, and was an anxious inquirer about all that had come from the Apostles and followers of Christ, bears testimony to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, quotes the first Epistle of St. Peter and the first of St. John, appears to have a reference to the book of Acts, and there is every reason to sup- pose he received the Apocalypse. There are no works of his re- maining, except a fragment preserved by Eusebius. 3 Justin Martyr, the first of the fathers of whom we have any considerable remains, was converted to Christianity about a. d. 133, flourished chiefly about a. d. 140, i. e. 40 years after the death of St. John, and died a martyr about a. d. 164 or 167. He has many quotations from the four Gospels, which he refers to under the name of the Memoirs of the Apostles.* He has, moreover, referred to the Acts, many of the Epistles, and expressly assigns the Book of Revelation to St. John. In his first Apology, he tells us that the memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets were read in the assemblies for public worship, and dis courses made upon them by the presiding presbyter. 5 1 Lardner. u. ch. vi. evayyefaa he considers an interpolation. 2 Ibid. II. ch. I. IV. He argues, that Memoirs of the Apostles 8 Euseb. H. E. Lib. m. cap. 39; Lard- more probably mean a single work than ner, ii. ch. ix. a collection of works, and that Justin's * ' Ano(ivr)fi»vtvfmTa ruv ' AnooroAuv, quotations are not exact from our pres which he explains by a KakelraL evayyiTua. ent Gospels. His arguments are consid- — Apol. i. p. 98, b. ered by Bishop Kaye, Writings of Justin Bishop Marsh in his dissertation On Martyr, ch. vm. The last-named prel- the Origin of the Four Gospels, ch. xv., ate seems to have clearly proved that supposes that Justin does not allude to there is no reason for doubting that our our present Gospels, but to a certain orig- present Gospels are those cited by Justin, inal document, which the Bishop sup- though, at times, he rather quotes the poses to have existed, which was early purport than the very words of a pas- composed by the Apostles, and from sage. which the Evangelists compiled their 6 Apol. i. p. 98 ; Lardner, n. ch. x. several Gospels. The words a KaMrai 176 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Akt. VL Tatian, the disciple of Justin Martyr, composed a harmony of the Gospels, called Diatessaron. 1 The circular Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, concerning the sufferings of their martyrs in the reign of Marcus Antoninus, uses language from the Gospels of St Luke and St. John, Acts, Romans, Philippians, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Reve- lation. 2 Irenaeus, who was a hearer of Polycarp, the disciple of St John, 8 and became Bishop of Lyons, a. d. 177, assures us that there were four Gospels, and no more, 4 all of which he has largely quoted, with the names of their writers, and has given an. account of their composition. 5 He refers the Acts to St. Luke. He quotes all St. Paul's Epistles, except Philemon and the Hebrews, also 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, and the Apocalypse, which he expressly assigns to St. John the Apostle, 6 and probably the Epistle of St. James. " His quotations from the Gospels are so numerous that they oc- cupy more than twelve folio columns in the index of Scripture passages annexed to the Benedictine edition." 7 Theophilus of Antioch (circ. a. d. 170) quotes St. Matthew, St. Luke, several of St. Paul's Epistles, and we are assured by Eusebius that in his work against Hermogenes he quoted the Apocalypse. 8 Clement of Alexandria, who lived at the end of the second century, about 100 years after the completion of the Canon of Scripture, quotes all the four Gospels, and especially tells us the origin of St. Mark's. 9 He ascribes the Acts to St. Luke ; quotes all St. Paul's Epistles, except the short Epistle to Philemon, and ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul, though he thinks it was written in Hebrew by St. Paul, and translated into Greek by St. Luke. 9 He quotes three of the Catholic Epistles, namely, 1 John, 1 Peter, Jude ; for it is doubtful whether he refers ex- pressly to St. James, or the second Epistle of St. Peter, and the second and third of St. John. The Apocalypse he expressly as- cribes to St. John. 10 Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage, of the same date with Clem- ent, quotes all the books of the new Testament, except perhaps 1 Lardner, it. ch. xin. is used of the seeing of the Apocalypse, 8 Ibid. ch. xvi. not, as some think, of the duration of * Hieronym. De V. I. s. v. Irenaeus. St John's own life. * Adv. Hares, in. 11. 7 Bp. Marsh's Lectures, Pt. v. Lect 8 Ibid. in. 1. xxiv. ; Lardner, n. ch. xvn. * Ado. Hares, iv. 20; v. 26. The 8 Lardner. 11. ch. xx. time of seeing the Apocalypse is men- 9 Euseb. //. E. vi. 14. tionod v. 80 ; namely, towards the end of 10 Lardner, n. ch. xxu. ; Bp. Kaye's the reign of Domitian, if the word iupd&n Clement of Alex. ch. vm. Sec. II.] FOR SALVATION. 177 St. James's Epistle, the second of St. Peter, and the third of St. John. The Epistle to the .Hebrews he assigns to Barnabas. 1 Dr. Lardner has observed, that " There" are perhaps more and larger quotations of the new Testament in this one Christian author than of all the works of Cicero, though of so uncommon excel- lence for thought and style, in the writers of all characters for several ages. 2 We are now arrived at Origen, who, as we have seen, gives a complete catalogue of the new Testament, as we have it now. 3 Dionysius of Alexandria, a. d. 247, quotes the Gospels, Acts, St. Paul's Epistles, especially ascribing the Hebrews to St. Paul, the three Epistles of St. John. On the Apocalypse he has a long dissertation, from which it appears that it was very generally received by Christians as written by St. John, though he himself inclines to attribute it to another John, whom he considered a holy and divinely inspired man. 4 Cyprian, a. d. 250, quotes all the new Testament except the Epistles to Philemon and the Hebrews, the third of St. John, the second of St. Peter, and St. James. The Apocalypse he often quotes as St. John's. 5 Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, circ. a. d. 260, con- stantly quotes or refers to the Gospels and Acts, most of St. Paul's Epistles, especially the Hebrews, also 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse. 6 Eusebius has already been adduced as a witness, having given a catalogue of the new Testament Scriptures, as we have them now. It is unnecessary to continue the list farther. We have already seen that from (his time we may find in the works of the fathers full catalogues of the books of the new Testament ; and the num- ber of quotations from them in their writings grows fuller and more abundant. We mast add, that heretics quoted and admitted the same Scrip- tures, with the exception of those outrageous heretics, such as the Gnostics and the Manichees, who were rather heathen philosophers, with a tinge of Christianity, than Christians with a defilemem of philosophy. Thus the Montanists, the Donatists, 7 Arius, 8 Pho- tinus, 9 Lucifer, 10 and other schismatics and heretics of the first 1 De Pudicitia, c. 20. 8 Ibid. in. ch. lvh. * Lardner, if. ch. xxvm. See also 7 Ibid. ch. lxvii. Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, ch. v. p. 307. 8 Ibid. ch. lxix. 8 Lardner, ch. xxxvm. 9 Ibid. ch. lxxxix. * Ibid. in. ch. xliii. 10 Ibid. ch. xci. 6 Ibid. in. ch. xi.iv. 23 178 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI. four centuries, received the same sacred books with the Catholic Christians. Not only heretics, moreover, but heathens and persecutors knew the sacred books and sought to destroy them. Thus in the perse- cution of Diocletian, there was an edict a. d. 303, that the Chris- tian Churches should be destroyed, arul their Scriptures burned. Accordingly, great search was made for the books of the new Testament, and those Christians who, to save themselves, ga\e up their books to the persecutors, acquired the opprobrious name of Tradi tores. 1 When Constantine the Great embraced Christianity, finding that the persecution under Diocletian had diminished the number of copies of the new Testament, he authorized Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea to get fifty copies of the new Testament written out for him, desiring that they should be skilfully and carefully written on fine parchment. 2 We have seen then, that numerous MSS., the most ancient Versions, the catalogues given us by the fathers, quotations and references from the time of the earliest Apostolical father, gradu- ally increasing in number, yet numerous from the beginning, the consent of heretics, the enmity of persecutors, — all witness to the existence, from the earliest times, of the new Testament Scrip- tures ; and all this testimony is uniform in favour of the very books which we now possess. It may be added, that, although it is quite clear that there were certain early writers, such as Clement, Barnabas, and Her- mas, highly esteemed, and whose writings were read in some Churches; and though there were some Apocryphal books pro- fessing to be the works of the Apostles and Evangelists : yet there is good reason to assert that these books are not quoted by the fathers as authority, and were not received by the Church as Canonical Scripture. 3 To the external evidence, the internal proofs of genuineness might be added, if time and space would allow. Books which are forgeries generally show, when carefully scrutinized, plain proofs that they are not his whose name they bear. The lan- guage, the ideas, the statements of facts, some little circumstance of date or place, some circumstance connected with the character, knowledge, or condition of the author, are found inconsistent and 1 Lanlner, ch. lxvi. 8 See Jones, On the Canon, Part n. ch. •Euseb. Lib. iv. c. 86; Lardner, ch. I. Observ. III.; Lanlner, ch. x. xit txx. XVII. XXII. XXXVIII. lvii. &c Sec. II.] FOR SALVATION. 179 incapable of being explained. Or if this be not the case, there is a markedly studied effort to avoid all this, and to make the forgery appear a genuine work. But the different books of the new Testament, though written by eight different hands, under vastly different conditions, have yet defied the efforts of critics to dis- prove their genuineness. .They only come out the brighter from every fiery trial. Their style and language is just what we should expect from the writers to whom they are ascribed. They abound in minute particulars, most naturally and simply introduced, which correspond accurately with the state of things existing at the time and in the place in which the authors wrote. Coincidences have been pointed out, which the cleverest forger could never have designed, and which only patient searching could have detected ; whereas, if such coincidences had been designed, they would have been put prominently forward to meet the view. 1 In this, and in similar manners, we may confirm by internal examination the results deduced from external testimony. But before we conclude this sketch we must observe, that, in the accounts of the catalogues and quotations given by the differ- ent early fathers, we could not but remark that some books were less universally quoted, and classed in the catalogues, than others. We learn, as early as Origen, and more clearly afterwards from Eusebius, that, though the Church generally received the Canon of the new Testament as we receive it now, yet some few books were by some persons considered as doubtful. Eusebius makes three distinct classes of books, 2 namely : — 6fj.oXoyovfj.evoL, those universally received ; avriXeyofxevoi, those generally received, but doubted of by some ; vo'0oi, i. e. Apocryphal books rejected by all but heretics. In like manner, Cyril of Jerusalem distinguishes between those napa irao~tv bfioXoyovfj-eva, owned by all, and d/^i/foAAo/xei/a, doubted of by some. 3 Now the undoubted books according to Eusebius, which all received, were the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, one of St. Peter, one of St. John. He adds, that Christians generally received the Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation. These he esteemed canonical, but tells us that some doubted concerning their genuineness. He also mentions the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, and the Pastor of Hermas, 1 See Paley's Horce Paulinas, passim ; 2 H. E. m. 3, 25. Marsh's Led. Pt. v. Lect. xxvi. 8 Cyril. Cateches. iv. 36 180 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VL as esteemed useful by many, but not to be considered a part of Canonical Scripture. 1 Now the principal reasons for doubting the genuineness and Canonicity of the books which Eusebius speaks of as dn-iAcyo/Acva, were of this nature. The Hebrews has not St. Paul's name, and is thought to be different in style from his other writings. 2 St. James might not have been an Apostle, and therefore his Epistle might have no claim to be in the Canon. The Apocalypse introduces the name of St. John, contrary to that Apostle's custom elsewhere ; and some supposed it was written by John the elder, a person whom Papias mentions, and not by St. John the Apostle. 3 To take first the Epistle of St. James ; there is strong reason to believe, that, whether the writer was James the son of Zebedee, or James the Lord's brother, he was in any case an Apostle ; for James the Lord's brother is in Scripture called an Apostle, 4 and was in all probability the same as James the son of Alphaeus, or Cleopas, (the two names being very probably identical,) his mother being Mary the sister of the Virgin Mary. 6 So that there is no reason to exclude his Epistle from the Canon, because he was not an Apostle. But farther, his Epistle is in the Syriac version, and the authority of the Syrian Church is very important on this head ; for the Church of Syria bordered on Palestine, where St. James, the Lord's brother, was bishop, and spoke the same language as the natives of Palestine itself. We must remember, too, that Eusebius tells us that this Epistle was received by the great majority of Christians ; and that it is by no means wonderful that an Epistle, written by the Bishop of Jerusalem to the Jews, should not have become known to the Grecian Churches so soon as others ; and hence more doubt might arise about it than about other Epistles. 6 Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, we learn that the former was not fully admitted by the Latin, nor the latter by the Greek Church among Canonical Scriptures. 7 Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we may observe that the absence of the Apostle's name may be fully accounted for by the fact that he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, not of the circum- cision ; and therefore, when he writes to the Jews, he does not put his name and claim his Apostleship, as not wishing to put for- i Euseb. H. E. as above ; Lardner, * See Lardner, vi. ch. xvi. oxxi i. e See Marsh's Lect. Pt v. Lect xxr. * Hieronym. Dt V. I. in Paul. 7 Hieronym. Dardan. Kpist. cxxix » Euseb. H. E. in. 89. De V. I. a. t. Paul. 1602. « Gal. i. 19. 8ec. II.] FOR SALVATION. 181 ward the same claim to authority over the Jews which he asserts over the Gentile Churches. 1 But the Epistle is probably referred to by Clement of Rome, 2 and perhaps by Polycarp. 3 We have in its favour the testimony of Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Jerusalem, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome. 4 It is. in the Syriac Canon. And, as regards the supposed difference of style from the general writ- ings of St. Paul, the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, that St. Paul wrote the Epistle in Hebrew or Syriac, and that it was translated by St. Luke into Greek, would explain all the difficulty. 5 Yet Mr. Forster appears to have proved, by most careful and accurate comparison, that the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews, notwithstanding the apparent dissimilarity, has all the peculiarity of the writings of St. Paul, a peculiarity so great that the genu- ineness of the Epistle can hardly be questioned. 6 The Apocalypse, which is the only other book of any consid- erable length which is doubted, is ascribed by Papias to John, probably the Apostle. It is the only book which Justin Martyr mentions by name, and he expressly assigns it to St. John. Irenaeus constantly quotes it and refers it to St. John. Tertullian and Theophilus of Antioch quote it. Clement of Alexandria assigns it to St. John. So do Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, the Council of Carthage. 7 All these are witnesses of great importance, and a large number of them living within a century of the date when the book in question was composed. Especially Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, the very earliest fathers after those called Apostolical, speak much concerning it, and quote frequently from it. Melito, a contemporary of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, is also, according to Eusebius, a witness to the Apocalypse of St. John. 8 We may now close our brief view of the evidence concerning the Canon of the new Testament ; and whilst we rejoice that councils in the fourth century, weighing the evidence, decided on the Canon, and settled it as we have it now, we cannot admit that the present Church receives the Scriptures, whether of the old 1 Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 6 Ap. Euseb. H. E. vr. 14. 14 ; Hieron. In Galut. cap. i. e Forster, On the Apostolical Authority 2 Eusebius observes that Clement uses of the Epistle to the Hebrews. the very language of the Epistle. — H. 7 See the lists and authorities referred E. m. 38. It may be added, that tte to above. writer of St. Clement's Epistle seems 8 Kal Xoyoc avrov (Me?j.Tuvoc) nepl npo- to have been thoroughly imbued with tynreiaq, nai 6 nepl $ilove!jiac • nal tj /cAk'c ' the spirit of the Epistle to the Hebrews, kcu to. irepl too diafiohov nai ttj^ 'AKOicaXb- a Lardner, eh. vi. tyeuc 'Iuuwou. — Euseb. H. E. iv. 26. * See the lists above given. 182 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI Testament or the new, merely on the authority of the Church of the fourth century ; inasmuch as the Church of the fourth century itself received them on the testimony of earlier ages, and the present Church receives it on the same. That testimony, even if Councils had been silent, would be of itself amply sufficient to prove that the new Testament Scriptures which we now possess are the genuine works of the Apostles and Evangelists. Section III. — ON THE REAL VALUE OF TRADITION, AND THE READING OF THE APOCRYPHA. I. T^HE Church of England then holds, in conformity with the -*- Church of old, that Scripture is absolutely perfect in rela- tion to the end to which it tends, namely, the teaching us all things necessary to salvation. She denies the existence and rejects the authority of any parallel and equal tradition, of any doctrines necessary to salvation, handed down from generation to generation. But it is not true that the Church of England rejects the proper use of tradition, though she will not suffer it to be unduly exalted. She does not neglect the testimony of antiquity, and cut herself off from the Communion of the Saints of old. It has been already remarked, that, besides the tradition which the Church of Rome holds necessary to be received, which is a tradition equal and parallel with the Scriptures, there are also traditions which are subservient to Scripture, and calculated to throw light upon it. Such tradition, when kept in its right place, the Church of England has ever used and respected. Now this tradition is of two kinds, Hermeneutical Tradition, and Ecclesiastical Tradition. The former tends to explain and interpret the Scripture ; the latter relates to discipline and cere- monial. With regard to the latter we find that the new Testa- ment has nowhere given express rules for rites, ordinances, and discipline ; although we evidently discover that rites, ordinances, and discipline did exist, even when the new Testament was writ- ten. For our guidance therefore in these matters, which are use- ful for edification, but not essential for salvation, we gladly follow the example of the Churches nearest to the Apostles' times, which we conceive to have been ordered by the Apostles themselves, Sec. Ill] FOR SALVATION. 183 and to be the best witnesses of Apostolic order and Apostolic usages. Scripture is, at least, not full on these matters ; yet they are essential for the regulating and governing of a Church. We appeal therefore, to the purest and earliest models of antiquity. We cannot err in doing this, for in asserting the sufficiency of Scrip- ture, we assert it for the end to which it was designed. As we do not assert it as fit to teach us arts and sciences, so neither do we assert it as designed entirely to regulate Church discipline and ceremony. And where it does not profess to be a perfect guide, we derogate not from its authority in seeking other help. On matters of faith it is complete and full ; but not in all things besides. With regard to Hermeneutical Tradition, we view matters thus. Those early Christians who had the personal instruction of the Apostles and their immediate companions, are more likely to have known the truth of Christian doctrine than those of after - ages, when heresies had become prevalent, when men had learned to wrest Scripture to destruction, and sects and parties had warped and biassed men's minds, so that they could not see clearly the true sense of Holy Writ. Truth is one, but error is multiform ; and we know that in process of time new doctrines constantly sprang up in the Church, and by degrees gained footing and took root. We believe therefore, that if we can learn what was the constant teaching of the primitive Christians, we shall be most likely to find the true sense of Scripture preserved in that teaching : and wher- ever we can trace the first rise of a doctrine, and so stamp it with novelty, the proof of its novelty will be the proof of its falsehood ; for what could find no place among the earliest Churches of Christ can scarcely have come from the Apostles of Christ, or from a right interpretation of the Scriptures which they wrote. We do not, in thus judging, appeal to the authority of any individual father, not even if he be one of those who had seen the Apostles, and had received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. We know that they were fallible men, though we believe them to have been pious and wise men. Bnt we look to their writings for evidence as to what were the doctrines prevalent in the Church during the earliest ages ; and we believe that, if we can discover what the doctrines of those earliest ages were, we have a most important clue to guide us in our course through the Scriptures themselves, because we judge that the Church thus early must almost certainly have, in the main, preserved the integrity of the 184 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI faith, and could not, whilst the voice of Apostolic men was in their ears, have fallen away into error and heresy. We know, that, in those days, men had many advantages over ourselves for the inter- preting of the new Testament. A knowledge of the language, the customs, the history of events, which illustrate the Scriptures, was of itself most important. Some of them must have had in their memories the personal teaching of the Apostles, for they were their immediate hearers and followers. Many of them lived within a comparatively short time from their departure. They took the utmost pains to preserve the purity of the Apostolic faith in the Church. The Church of their days had still the charismata, or miraculous gifts of the Spirit, visibly poured out upon it ; and we may say that in every, or almost every manner, it was qualified, beyond any subsequent Church or age, to understand the Scrip- tures, and to exhibit the purity and integrity of the Christian faith. The least, then, that can be said, is that the doctrine of the ancient Church is an useful check on any new interpretation of Scripture. Antiquity is a mark of truth, and novelty a mark of error in religion ; and this rule has ever been found valuable in important controversies. The Socinians have striven to show that Justin Martyr invented the doctrine of the Trinity, deriving it from the writings of Plato. Catholic Christians, on the contrary, have proved, that from the earliest times that doctrine was held in the Church, that therefore it is traceable to the Apostles, and not to Plato, that it springs from a true, not from an erroneous inter- pretation of Scripture. A like form has the controversy with the Church of Rome assumed. Many of her peculiar doctrines have been proved to owe their origin to comparatively recent times ; and so they have been shown to be unfit to stand the well-known test of Tertullian, that " what is first is true, what is later is adulterate." l Thus then tradition may be useful in the interpretation of Scripture, though not as adding to its authority. We well know that Scripture is perfect in itself, for the end for which it was designed. But we know also, that no aid for its interpretation should be neglected. That the Church of England takes this view of the right use of tradition, and of the value of the testimony of the primitive Church, will appear from the following documents. The Convocation of 1571, which passed the XXXIX. Articles in 1 Haec enim ratio valet ad versus omnes mum, id esse adulterum, quodcunqu* hereses, id esse verum, quodcunque pri- posteriua. — Tertull. Ado. Prax. 2. Sec. UI.] FOE SALVATION. 185 the form in which we have them now, passed also a code of Canons, in one of which is the following clause : " In the first place let preachers take heed that they deliver nothing from the pulpit, to be religiously held and believed by the people, but that which is agreeable to the old and new Testament, and such as the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected therefrom" l In like manner, in the Preface to the Ordination Service we read, " It is evident to all men reading Holy Scripture, and an- cient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been three orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Dea- cons." So Archbishop Cranmer, the great reformer of our Liturgy and compiler of our Articles, writes, " I also grant that every exposition of the Scripture, whereinsoever the old, holy, and true Church did agree, is necessary to be believed. But our contro- versy here " (that is with the Romanists) " is, whether anything ought to be believed of necessity without the Scripture." 2 So his great coadjutor Bishop Ridley : " In that the Church of Christ is in doubt, I use herein the wise counsel of Vincentius Lirinensis, whom I am sure you will allow ; who, giving precepts how the Catholic Church may be in all schisms and heresies known, writeth in this manner : ' When,' saith he, ' one part is corrupted with heresies, then prefer the whole world before that one part ; but if the greatest part be affected, then prefer antiquity.' " 3 Dr. Guest, who was appointed at the accession of Elizabeth, to restore the reformed prayer-book, after it had been disused in the reign of Mary, and who reduced it to nearly its present form, writes thus : " So that I may here well say with Tertullian, That is truth which is first ; that is false which is after. That is truly first which is from the beginning. That is from the beginning which is from the Apostles. Tertullian, Cont. Prax. Cont. Marc." 4 Bishop Jewel, in his Apology, which is all but an authoritative document, says : " We are come as near as we possibly could to the Church of the Apostles, and of the old Catholic bishops and fathers ; and have directed according to their customs and ordinances, not 1 Imprimis vero videbunt, ne quid un- kyn's Cranmer's Remains, iv. p. 229. See quam doceant pro condone, quod a pop- also p. 126, and in. p. 22. ulo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi 3 Gloster Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. quod consentaneum sit doctrinae Veteris 613. aut Novi Testamenti, quodque ex ilia * Guest to Sir \V. Cecil, concerning ipsa doctrina Catholici patres, et veteres the Service Book, &c. ; Strype's Annals, i. episcopi collegerint. — Cardwell's Syno- Appendix, No. xiv. ; also Cardwell'a dalia, i. p. 126. Hist, of Conferences, p. 52. 3 Cranmer, On Unwritten Verities; Jen- 24 186 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Akt. VI only our doctrine, but also the Sacraments, and the form of com- mon prayer." l These passages sufficiently prove that our reformers admitted and made use of the appeal to antiquity, in the interpretation of Scripture, and in the establishing of order and discipline. Their wisdom has been followed therein by all the great divines who have succeeded them. Joseph Mede, Hooker, Andrews, Hammond, Overal, Usher, Jeremy Taylor, Bull, Beveridge, Patrick, Water- land, Jebb, Van Mildert, Kaye, G. S. Faber, have been respec- tively cited as upholding the same principle, and acting upon it. 2 In the words of Bishop Kaye, u On the subject of religion, there appears to be a peculiar propriety in appealing to the opinions of past ages. In human science we find a regular advance from less to greater degrees of knowledge. Truth is elicited by the labours of successive inquirers ; each adds something to the stock of facts which have been previously accumulated ; and as new discoveries are continually made, the crude notions of those who first engaged in the pursuit are discarded for more matured and more enlarged views. The most recent opinions are those which are most likely to be correct. But in the case of a Divine revelation, this tenta- tive process can have no place. They to whom is committed the trust of communicating it to others, are thoroughly instructed in its nature and its objects, and possess a knowledge which no inquiries of subsequent ages can improve. What they deliver is the truth itself; which cannot be rendered more pure, though it may, and probably will, be adulterated in its transmission to succeeding gen- erations. The greater the distance from the fountain-head, the greater the chance that the stream will be polluted. On these considerations is founded the persuasion which has generally pre- vailed, that in order to ascertain what was the doctrine taught by the Apostles, and what is the true interpretation of their writings, we ought to have recourse to the authority of those who lived nearest to their times." 8 1 Apoloij. Enchiridion Theolog. p. 184 ; Jiration ; and also Primitive Doctrine of where see the original more at length. Election. On Ecclesiastic-til Tradition, or 2 The student may especially be re- tradition concerning rites and discipline, fen red to Bp. Beveridge, Preface to his see Hooker, E. P. liks. n. and III.; Bp. Codex Canonum ; Patrick's Discourse about Marsh's Comparative View, ch. vu. Tradition, in the first volume of Gibson's 8 Bp. Kaye's Justin Martyr, cli. i. p. 2. Preservative against Popery ; Dr. Water- The bishop has satisfactorily shown, that land, On t/ie Importance of the Doctrine of the tradition appealed to by Tertullian in the Trinity, ch. vu. ; Bp. Jebb's Pastoral the second century was no other than the Instructions — Chapter, On the Peculiar kind of tradition admitted by the Eng- Character of the Church of England ,- Bp. lish Church. See Bp. Kaye's TtrtuUiw\ Kaye's Taiullian, p. 229. See also Rev. p. 297, note. G. S. Faber's Primitive Doctrine of Justi- Sec. HI.] FOR SALVATION. 187 "We allow," says Bishop Patrick, "that tradition gives us a considerable assistance in such points as are not in so many letters and syllables contained in the Scriptures, but may be gathered from thence by good and manifest reasoning. Or, in plainer words, perhaps, whatsoever tradition justifies any doctrine that may be proved by the Scriptures, though not found in express terms there, we acknowledge to be of great use, and readily re- ceive and follow it, as serving very much to establish us more firmly in that truth, when we see all Christians have adhered to it. This may be called a confirming tradition : of which we have an instance in Infant Baptism, which some ancient fathers call an Apostolical tradition." Again : " We look on this tradition as nothing else but the Scripture unfolded : not a new thing, but the Scripture explained and made more evident. And thus some part of the Nicene Creed may be called a tradition ; as it hath expressly delivered unto us the sense of the Church of God concerning that great article of our faith, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, and of the same substance with the Father. But this tradition supposes the Scripture for its ground, and delivers nothing but what the fathers, assembled at Nice, believed to be contained there and fetched from thence." x So Dr. Waterland : " We allow no doctrine as necessary which stands only on fathers, or on tradition, oral or written. We admit none for such but what is contained in Scripture, and proved by Scripture, rightly interpreted. And we know of no way more safe in necessaries, to preserve the right interpretation, than to take the ancients along with us. We think it a good method to secure our rule of faith against impostures of all kinds, whether of enthusi- asm, or false criticism, or conceited reason, or oral tradition, or the assuming dictates of an infallible chair. If we thus preserve the true sense of Scripture, and upon that sense build our faith, we then build upon Scripture only; for the sense of Scripture is Scripture." 2 1 Patrick, On Tradition, as above. vandi finis 1 — Etsi omnis mea voluptas 2 Waterland, On the Importance of the est et sola versari in leetione sacrae Serip- Doctrine of the Trinity, ch. vn. The note turae, nullam tamen inde me hausisse pro- to this passage is as follows : — priam sententiam, nullam habere, neque " So the great Casaubon, speaking unquam oi/v Geu eizelv, esse habiturum. both of himself and for the Church of Magni Calvini haec olim fuit mens, cum England, and, at the same time, for Me- scriberet praefationem suam in commen- lanchthon and Calvin also : Opto cum tarium Epistolae ad Komanos ; non de- Melanchthoneet Ecclesia Anglicana, per bere nos kv role Kvpiururoic a consensu canalem antiquitatis deduci ad nos dog- Ecclesiae recedere," A. i>. ltill. Casaub. mata fidei, e fonte sacra? Seripturae deri- Epist. 744. Dan. Heinsio, p. 434. Edit, vata. — Alioquin quis futurus est inno- tertia Rotterdami. 188 THE SUf ?ICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VL It is indeed most necessary that we do not suffer our respect for antiquity to trench upon our supreme regard for the authority of Scripture. To Scripture we look, as the only source of all Divine knowledge. But when we have fully established this prin- ciple, we need not fear to make use of every light with which God has furnished us, for the right understanding of Scripture ; whether it be a critical knowledge of ancient languages, or history, or antiquities, or the belief of the primitive Christians, and the doctrines which holy men of old deduced from those sacred writ- ings, which were to them, as to us, the only fountain of light and truth. II. The Article, having declared the sufficiency of Scripture, and set forth the Canon of Scripture, then speaks of those other books which had been always held in high respect, but were not canonical, in the following terms : — " The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners ; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine." * The meaning of these words is, that the Church of God, in all ages, has been used to read the Apocrypha, for example and in- struction, but not for doctrine. This is a simple statement of fact, and if nothing more were said elsewhere, it would need no further explanation. But, if we look to the Calendar of the Prayer-Book, which was drawn up by the compilers of the Articles, and re- ceives, like the Articles, the assent of all the clergy of the Church, we find that, during a certain portion of the year, in the week-day services, the first lesson is appointed to be read from the Apocry- pha. This is acting on the principle laid down in the Article ; and this is one of those customs of the Church of England which has been most exposed to censure, from those who dissent from her, and from some even of her own children. There may certainly appear some danger in ordering that to be read, as a lesson of the Church, which is not Canonical Scripture, 1 ' 'kiroKpvtya. f3ipXia or iinoKprv^oi (JiflAot, so probably: " Sicut ergo Judith ot Tobit called either because their authors were et Maceabaeorum libros legit quidem Ec- unknown ; or because not laid up, like clesia, sed inter canonicas Scriptures non the Canonical books, in the ark; or be- recipit, sit et hsec duo volumina (h. c. li- cause read in private only, not in public bros Sapientiae et Ecclcsiastici) legnt ad ftlso ; though it appears from the XLViith sedificationem plebis, non ad auctorita- Canonofthe Council of Carthage, that tern Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum cnnflr- some apocryphal books were read pub- mandam." — Hieronym. In Libros Salo- licly. Suicer, 8. v. uiroKpvaot. Tom. i. monis, Chromatin el lidiodoro. Tom. i. p p. 468. 938. Ed. Ben. The passage of Hierome alluded to it Sec. III.] FOR SALVATION. 189 lest it should be mistaken for Scripture ; and it is moreover urged against the custom, that the Apocrypha not only is not inspired, but also contains some idle legends, and some erroneous doctrines, and therefore ought not to be admitted to be read in the Church. It is even added, that the Church of Rome has derived some of her errors from, and supports some of her false teaching by, the authority of the Apocrypha. It may be well, therefore, to state the grounds on which it is probable that our reformers thought fit to retain the Apocryphal lessons, that we may see what is the weight of the objections urged against our Church on the ground of their use. First, it has been replied to the principal objections, that, if we would exclude all human compositions from the Church, we must exclude homilies, sermons, metrical psalms and hymns, — nay, prayers, whether written or extempore, except such as are taken out of Scripture itself, — that there is no danger that the Apoc- rypha should be mistaken for Scripture when it is expressly assigned a far lower place, both in the formularies and in the ordinary teaching of the Church, — that, if it be not free from faults, no more is any human composition, and that on this prin- ciple we must still rather exclude sermons, psalms, hymns, and even liturgies, — that it is not true that the Church of Rome has derived her errors from the Apocrypha, which does not support them, and by which she could not prove them ; for she has derived them from misinterpreting Scripture, from oral tradition, and from her own assumed infallibility. 1 So much is said in answer to the objections. Farther, in favour of reading the Apocryphal books, their nature and history are alleged. The origin of them has been already alluded to. They were written in the period of time which elapsed between the return from captivity and the birth of Christ. The historical 1 The following is the answer of the no reason why the Apocryphal chapters Bishops to the exception of the Puritans should not be as useful, — most of them at the Savoy Conference against the containing excellent discourses and rules reading of the Apocrypha: "As they of morality. It is heartily to be wished would have no Saints' days observed by that all sermons were as good. If their the Church, so no Apocryphal chapter fear be, that, by this means, those books read in the Church ; but upon such a may come to be of equal esteem with reason as would exclude all sermons as the Canon, they may be secured againsf well as Apocrypha ; namely, because the that by the title which the Church hath Holy Scriptures contain in them all put upon them, calling them Apocry- things necessary either in doctrine to be phal ; and it is the Church's testimony believed, or in duty to be practised. If which teacheth us this difference, and to so, why so many unnecessary sermons 1 leave them out were to cross the prac- Why any more but reading of Scrip- tice of the Church in former ages." — tures ? If, notwithstanding their suf- Cardwell, Hist, of Conferences, ch. vu. p. flciency, sermons be necessary, there is 342. 190 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Am. VI books of the Apocrypha, therefore, supply a most important link in the history of the Jewish people. Without them we should be ignorant of the fulfilment of many of the old Testament prophecies, especially those in the book of Daniel ; and should know nothing of several customs and circumstances alluded to in the new Testament, and essential to its understanding. The other books are mostly pious reflections, written by devout men, who were waiting for the consolation of Israel. The Alexandrian Jews received them with the most profound respect. The fathers often appealed to them, and cited them ; though it has been shown they mostly knew the difference between them and the writings of Moses and the Prophets. It appears that from very early times they were read in most Churches, at least in the West ; as in very many were also read the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hennas, 1 — not that they were esteemed Canonical, but as of high antiquity and value, and useful for instruction to the people. In Rufinus we find a distinction between books Apocryphal and books Ecclesiastical. 2 Among the former he classed those which were wholly rejected ; among the latter those which were read in Churches. His division therefore is threefold : Canonical, which embraces all those which we now receive into the Canon ; Apocry- phal, i. e. those which were altogether rejected ; and Ecclesiastical, among which he reckons Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the like. This distinc- tion occurs elsewhere, though some of the fathers make only a twofold division, into Canonical and Apocryphal. 3 Now the Ecclesiastical books are what we at this time call the Apocrypha ; and forming part both of the Latin and Greek versions of the old 1 Dionysius, a bishop of Corinth in the Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sapientia second century, in a letter to the Church quae dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud of Rome (ap. Euseb. H. E. in. 16) says, Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ec- " they read on the Lord's day Clement's clesiasticus appellatur, quo vocabulo non Epistle to them in their assemblies ; " auctor libelli sed Scripturae qualitas cog- and Eusebius {Id. iv. '2:]) declares it to nominata est. Ejusdem onlinis est libel- have been "universally received, and lus Tobias et Judith et Maccabaeorura read in most churches," both in his and libri. In novo vero Testamcnto libellus. former times. The same he says of the qui dicitur Pastoris sivc Hermatis, qui Shepherd of Hermas [Id. in. 8), that appellatur duae vise, vel judicium Petri . " it was read in many churches ; " which quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis vol- is confirmed by At lianas i us (Episl. Pas- uerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctori- chal. xxxix.), and Kufinus (Exposit. in tatem ex his fidei eonfirmandam. Cete- Symb. AfK>M. § 36), both concerning this ras vero Scripturas Apocryphas nomina- and other books. — Jones, On Um Canon, runt, quas in Ecclesiis legi noluerunt" Part i. ch. x. — Rutin. In Synth. Apost. § 38. 8 " Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii 8 E. g. Cyril. Catecnes. iv. § 35, where libri sunt qui non Canonici, sed Kcclesi- he calls all Apocryphal which are not astici a majoribus appellati sunt; ut est Canonical. Src. Ill] FOR SALVATION. 191 Testament, they continued to be read in most Churches, from the earliest ages to the time of the Reformation. It was not peculiar to the English reformers to speak with respect of these books. The foreign reformers use similar lan- guage, citing them as a kind of secondary authority ; and especially the Swiss and Belgic Confessions, which represent the opinions of the extreme Calvinist section of the Reformation, speak in terms of honour concerning them, the latter allowing them to be read in Churches. 1 It may be added, that the Eastern Churches, which agree with us in the Canon, yet retain the Apocryphal books in their Bibles, and use them as we do. One more argument ought not to be wholly omitted. The new Testament writers, even our Lord himself, appear often to cite from the Septuagint. We must not consider this as giving full authority to all the books of the Septuagint. Such authority we have already shown to belong only to the books of the Hebrew Canon. But it should appear, that such citations from the Sep- tuagint would naturally commend to the Church the use of that volume as the Greek version of the Scriptures. Now that Greek version contains all the Apocryphal books. If, then, they were so mischievous, or so to be rejected, as some argue, it is scarcely to be accounted for, that neither our Lord nor any of His Apostles give any warning against them, whilst they quote, as of sacred authority, other portions of the volume which contains them. These views, in the general, appear to have influenced our reformers to retain the Apocryphal books. They have removed them from the Sunday services, and forbidden them to be quoted as authority in matters of faith ; but esteeming them as next in value to the sacred Scriptures, from the important information they contain, and from the respect which they have received from the earliest ages, they were unwilling to remove them from the place which they had so long occupied. The reformers were evi- dently not insensible to the evil of putting anything else on the same footing as the Canonical writings. But this danger, they justly esteemed, would be very small in the reformed Church. And experience has shown, that in this they were right in their 1 SyUoge Confessionum. Confess. Hel- eatenus etiara sumere documenta, qua- vet. Art. I. p. 17. Confess. Belyic. Art. terms cum libris Canonicis consonant ; vi. p. 3*28. The latter runs thus : Dif- at nequaquam ea est ipsorum auctoritas ferentiam porro constituimus inter libros et firmitas, ut ex illorum testimonio ali- iatos 8acros et eos quos Apocryphos vo- quod dogma de fide et religione Chris- cant: utpote quod Apocryphi legi qui- tiana certo constitui possit, &c. dem in Ecclesia possint, et fas sit ex iLlis 192 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES. [Art. VL judgment, for extreme respect for the Apocrypha has been a feeling in this country almost unknown. In this question, there- fore, they appear to have adhered to the maxim which often guided them in matters of doubt, a maxim quoted with so much approbation by the famous Apologist of the English Church, and which originated in the fathers of the Council of Nice : ftfy dpxala KparuTU} — Let ancient customs prevail. 1 1 " Cur id a nobis hodie audiri non and judicious writer, closely attached to potest, quod olim in Concilio Niceno, a a school in the English Church not par- tot Episcopis et Catholicis Patribus, nullo ticularly inclined to pay respect to the refragante, pronunciatum est, bfrn bpxua Apocrypha : " Man is a creature of ex- KpaTeiru." — Juelli Apohg. Enchiridion tremes. The middle path is generally Theologicum, p. 158. the wise path ; but there are few wise On the question of the reading of the enough to find it. Because Papists have Apocrypha in churches, see Hooker, E. made too much of some things, Prote»- P. v. 20. Concerning the ancient custom tants have made too little of them. . . . of reading Apocryphal books, see also The Papist puts the Apocrypha into his Bingham, Eccles. Ant. Bk. xiv. ch. in. Canon ; the Protestant will scarcely re- §§ 14, 15, 16. gard it as an ancient record," &c. — The following are the words of a pious Cecil's Remains, p. 364. London, 1830. [The commission to write the Scriptures is contained in the promises quoted on page 167, and the divine authority of the New Testament rests on the same promises. But these do not seem to have been made exclusively to the original Apostles, nor to have been fulfilled, as far as writing Holy Scripture is concerned, in all of them- For not all of them contributed to the New Testament, and much of what it contains was written neither by them nor under their guidance, as the Epistles of St. Paul. We are therefore obliged to add that the testimony upon which we receive certain books as inspired, is that of the early Church, which by a divinely-guided discrimination ac- cepted what was, and rejected what was not, written by virtue and in fulfillment of those promises ; and that discrimination was based upon evidence part of which is still accessible and can be appreciated by us. — H. A. Y. — J. W.] ARTICLE VII. Of the Old Testament. De Veteri Testamento. The old Testament is not contrary to Testamentcm vetus novo contrarium the new ; for both in the old and new non est, quandoquidem tain in veteri Testament everlasting life is offered to quam in novo, per Christum, qui unicus mankind by Christ, who is the only Me- est Mediator Dei et hominum, Deus et diator between God and man, being both homo, seterna vita humano generi est pro- God and man. Wherefore they are not posita. Quare male sentiunt, qui vete- to be heard, which feign that the old res tantum in promissiones temporarias fathers did look only for transitory prom- sperasse confingunt. Quanquam Lex a ises. Although the Law given from Deo data per Mosen (quoad ceremonias God by Moses, as touching ceremonies et ritus) Christianos non astringat, ne- and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor que Civilia ejus prsecepta in aliqua repub- the Civil precepts thereof ought of ne- lica necessario recipi debeant, nihilomi- cessity to be received in any common- nus tamen ab obedientia mandator urn wealth; yet notwithstanding, no Chris- (quae Moralia vocantur) nullus quantum- tian man whatsoever is free from the vis Christian us est solutus. obedience of the Commandments which are called moral. Section I. — HISTORY. TPHE Article, as it now stands, is compounded of two of the -*- Articles of 1552, namely, the sixth and the nineteenth. The sixth ran thus : — " The old Testament is not to be put away, as though it were contrary to the new, but to be kept still ; for both in the old and new Testaments everlasting life is offered to mankind only by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man. Where- fore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises." The nineteenth was as follows : — " The Law, which was given of God by Moses, although it bind not Christian men, as concerning the ceremonies and rites of the same, neither is it required that the civil precepts and orders of it should be received in any commonweal : yet no man (be he never so perfect a Christian) is exempt and loose from the obedience of those commandments Avhich are called moral ; wherefore they are not to be hearkened unto, who affirm that Holy Scripture is given only to the weak, and do boast themselves continually of the Spirit, of whom (they say) they have learned such things as they 25 194 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VII. teach, although the same be most evidently repugnant to the Holy Scripture." I. We may first consider, what persons have denied the doc- trine contained in the original sixth Article, which forms the first part of our present Article ; and then, who have been opposed to the statements of the original nineteenth Article, of which the substance is contained in the latter part of our present seventh Article. First then, some early heretics held, that the old Testament was altogether contrary to the new. The Gnostic sects, who believed in the malignity of matter, would not allow that the Creator of the world could be the Supreme God. Marcion especially appears to have distinctly taught, that the old Testament was contrary to the new, the former being the work of the Demiurge or Creator, the latter of the Supreme and invisible God. He is said to have composed a work called Antitheses, because in it he set, as it were, in opposi- tion to each other, passages from the old and new Testaments, intending his readers to infer from the apparent disagreement between them, that the Law and the Gospel did not proceed from the same author. Tertullian wrote a work against Marcion, in the fourth book of which he exposes the inconsistency of this attempt. 1 Similar opinions prevailed, more or less, among the Valentinians and other Gnostic sects ; all of whom attributed the creation to inferior beings, and consequently rejected the old Testament. The Manichees in like manner, who believed in two principles eternally opposed to each other, as they had views similar to the Gnostics concerning the evil of matter, so they resembled them in their disrespect to the old Testament Scriptures. 2 And in this they were very probably followed by those mediaeval sects of here- tics, the Bulgarians, Cathari, and others, who appear to have been infected with Manichean heresy. 8 It is most probable, however, that the framers of this Article, both in the earlier and in the latter part of it, had in view some of the fanatical sects of the period of the Reformation, especially the Antinomians, who denied the necessity of obedience to the Law 1 Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. iv. Bp. 46, Tom. Till. p. 16. See also Socrat. H. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 499, &c. E.c. 22; Epiphan. Hutres. 66, c. 4» ; Lani- 4 Deum, qui Legem per Moysen dedit, ner, Hist, of Munichees, hi. ch. lxiii. et in Hebraiis prophetis louutus est, non s See Mosheira, Ecc. Hist. Cent. xi. esse verum Deum, Bed unum ex princip- pt. II. cb. v. §§ 2, 8; Cent. xn. pt. n ibus tenebrarum. — August. De Hare*, ch. v. § 4. Sec. I.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 195 of God, and the Anabaptists, who referred all things to an internal illumination ; and both of whom were likely to have denied the value and authority of the old Testament. The opinion that the fathers looked only for transitory prom- ises, has been held, not only by heretics and fanatics, but, more or less, by some, in the main, orthodox Christians. Bishop War- burton, in his famous work, The Divine Legation of Moses, has endeavoured to prove that Moses studiously concealed from the Hebrews all knowledge of a future state ; and this forms one of the arguments by which he strives to prove the inspiration and Divine authority of the Books of Moses. Though he allows that the later Jews, during and after the Captivity, had a gradually increasing knowledge of the immortality of the soul, yet as re- gards the earlier times of the Jewish commonwealth, he appears to have denied any such knowledge, even to the patriarchs and prophets. 1 II. By looking at the wording of the original nineteenth Article, it will appear plainly that the latter part of our present Article is chiefly directed against fanatics, who affirm " that Holy Scripture is given only to the weak, and do boast themselves con- tinually of the Spirit, of whom, they say, that they have learned such things as they teach." This claim to inward illumination, and consequent neglect of the teaching of Scripture, has constantly characterized fanatical sects in all ages. Those against whom the words of the Article were directed are generally supposed to be the Antinomians and the Anabaptists, who sprang up soon after the rise of the Ref- ormation in Germany. The Antinomians were the followers of Agricola, who carried the doctrine of Justification by faith to the length of rejecting the necessity of moral obedience altogether. 2 The Anabaptists were a constant source of annoyance to the Lutheran reformers. As their name implies, they rejected Infant Baptism, and rebaptized adults. But with this they combined a variety of noxious and fanatic doctrines, which rendered them dangerous both to Church and State. Claiming a high degree of internal illumination, they appear to have sanctioned and com- mitted a number of excesses and crimes, under pretence of special direction and command of God. 8 1 See Warburton's Divine Legation, 3 See a history of them, Mosheim, Book v. §§ 5, 6. Cent. xvi. Sect. in. pt. n. ch. in. 2 Mosheim, Cent. xvi. Sect. in. pt. Mosheim also, in the preceding chapter, tl. ch. i. § 26. gives an account of a sect of Libertines 196 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VII. It seems that this Article also incidentally alludes to some per- sons, who would have retained, not only the moral, but the cere- monial part of the Mosaic Law. This of course must have been true of all the early Judaizing Christian teachers. In the history given of the doctrine of the first Article, we have seen that some part of the Eastern Church was materially corrupted with these Judaizing tendencies. The observance of the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday, the quartodeciman mode of calculating Easter, and similar observances, have been already mentioned as examples of this kind. As regards the belief that Christian commonwealths ought to be regulated after the model of the Jewish polity and according to the civil precepts of the old Testament, it seems likely that the Anabaptists of Munster, who seized on that city and set up a religious commonwealth among themselves, endeavoured to con- form their regulations in great measure to the laws of the Jewish economy. 1 In later times, in Great Britain, the Puritans, at the period of the Great Rebellion, were constantly using the language of the old Testament, as authority for their conduct in civil affairs, and as a guide for the administration of the Commonwealth. It is highly probable that, at the period of the Reformation, the whole question concerning the agreement of the old with the new Testament was a good deal debated. The prominent manner in which the subject of Justification was then brought forward naturally suggested topics of this kind. When men were told, in the strongest terms, that there was not, and could not be, any hope of salvation to them but by faith in Christ; and that this was altogether independent of any merits of their own, and could not be obtained by works of the Law ; it obviously and naturally occurred to them to inquire, How then were the fathers under the old Testament saved ? They had never heard of Christ, and could not be saved by faith in Him. They had only a law of works for their guidance. Can then the old Testament be contrary to the new ? calling themselves Spiritual Brothers the restraints of morality. All ages and Sister.-,, who sprang up among the have been more or less infected by such Oalvinists in Flanders, and against fanatios. They naturally flourished in a whom Calvin wrote. They held, that time of such religious excitement m the religion consisted in the union of the Reformation. soul with God, and that such as had at- * See Mosheim, as above. tained to such a union were free from Sec. IL] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 197 Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. TN endeavouring to show the correspondence of this Article of ■*■ our Church with the truth of Scripture, it will be desirable to consider the subjects of it in the order already adopted in speak- ing of their history. I. First, we may consider the statement, that eternal life is offered to mankind, in the old as well as in the new Testament, through Jesus Christ ; and that the fathers looked for more than transitory promises. II. Secondly, we may treat of the questions concerning the abrogation of the civil and ceremonial, and concerning the perma- nency of the moral Law. I. Now we shall find it more convenient to treat the first division of our subject in the following order : — 1. To consider the nature of the Law of Moses, and the rea- son why eternal life is not more clearly set forth as one of its promises. 2. To speak of the promises, in the old Testament, of a Me- diator and Redeemer. 3. To show, that under the old Covenant there was a hope among the pious of a future state and life eternal. 1. The character of the Law of Moses was peculiar to itself. God chose the people of Israel to be His own kingdom on earth. There were reasons, some known only to God, others revealed to us, why for two thousand years it pleased Him to preserve His truth amid surrounding idolatry, by committing it entirely to one chosen race. That people He constituted His own subjects, and ruled over them, as their Sovereign and Lawgiver. The Jew- ish commonwealth, therefore, was neither a Monarchy under the Kings, nor an Aristocracy under the Judges, but it was always a Theocracy. The people had properly no king but God. Moses was His vicegerent ; so was Joshua ; and after them the Judges exercised, from time to time, more or less of the same delegated authority. In the time of Samuel, the people, in a spirit of unbelief, asked for the presence of a visible king, and thereby greatly sinned against God, as dissatisfied with His invisible empire, and rebelling against the government which He had es- tablished over them. He however consented to grant them a 198 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VIL temporal ruler, an earthly king. Yet the king so appointed did not rule in his own name, but as the viceroy and lieutenant of the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies, the King of the kingdom of Israel. All the laws then were ministered in His name. All the sanction of those laws had reference to Him, as Ruler a ad Law- giver. The Tabernacle, and afterwards the Temple, were not simply places of worship ; they were rather the Royal Palace, as Jerusalem was the city of the Great King. In the Temple His throne was the mercy-seat, and between the attendant Cherubim He was present in the cloud of glory, to be approached with the homage of incense and prayer, and to be consulted as to His pleasure by His chief minister, the High Priest, with the Urim and Thurnmim. Accordingly, the Law given by Moses was the constitution and statute-book of the Theocratic commonwealth. It was indeed a guide for the life and manners of the people ; but it was their guide, especially as they were subjects of the temporal govern- ment of the Lord. The Almighty is, in His own nature and His own will, unchangeable ; and therefore the laws which regulate morality must ever be the same. Hence, when for a time He assumed the government of a temporal kingdom, murder, theft, adultery, and other crimes against justice, mercy, truth, and purity, were forbidden and punished, as a thing of course. But, over and above this, when God became the King of the nation, certain sins against Him became, not only moral, but civil offences. Idolatry was high treason, and direct rebellion. It was not, there- fore, as in general, left to the judgment of the hereafter, but was proceeded against at once, as a state crime of the highest magni- tude, and punished immediately with temporal death. The like may be said concerning the destruction of God's enemies, the Amorites, the Amalekites, the Philistines, and others. They were the foes of the King of Israel, and were to be extermi- nated accordingly. So again, much of the ceremonial of the Law constituted the Btate ceremonial of the Invisible King. The earthly sovereign, the priests and the Levites, were His court and His ministers. Custom and tribute were paid to Him, as they would have been naturally paid to the rulers in all the kingdoms of the world. Now such being the case, we may understand at once why all the sanctions of the Law are temporal, and not eternal. In many instances, indeed, the punishments denounced were to be executed Skc. II.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 199 by the civil magistrate. There were rules laid down as to the administration of justice by the inferior officers in the common- wealth of Israel. But in other cases the vengeance denounced is to be executed, not by the inferior magistrate, but by the supreme Head, the King of Israel Himself. Yet still the principle is the same. Whether the King Himself is to be the judge, or the priest, or the magistrate, the reason for the judgment is the same. And accordingly God, who was their King, interfered, not as in other nations by an ordinary Providence, but signally and mani- festly, by direct, obvious, miraculous interposition. The obedient subject was rewarded by his bountiful Sovereign with long life and peace and prosperity ; the disobedient was smitten with sickness, afflicted with poverty, or struck down by death. If at any time the nation became generally disobedient, Proph- ets were sent to it, who were messengers from the King, to exhort His subjects to preserve their allegiance and return to their duty. Even they, like the Law itself, spoke to the people, for the most part, as subjects of the temporal kingdom of the Lord, and admon- ished them of the danger of not submitting themselves to their lawful Sovereign. Whether then we look to the Law or to the Prophets, we can see good reason, why neither eternal life nor eternal death should be the sanction set forth, and the motives pressed upon the people. The Jewish dispensation was in every way extraordinary. We often mistake its nature, by viewing it as if it were the first full declaration of God's will to man ; whereas the patriarchal religion had already existed for full two thousand years before it, and the Law was M added " (jpod^riir^ Gal. iii. 19) to serve only for a time, and for a peculiar purpose. Its object, at least its direct and apparent object, was, not to set forth the way of eternal life, but to be the statute-law of the Theocracy, and to subserve the pui • poses of a carnal and preparatory dispensation, wherein the knowl- edge of God, and the hopes of a Messiah, were preserved amid the darkness of surrounding heathenism, till the day dawned, and the day-star arose. The Jews, indeed, who were contemporary with Christ and His Apostles, vainly supposed that the Law of Moses had in it a life- giving power. They stumbled at that stumbling-stone, for they sought eternal salvation, " not by faith in Christ, but as it were by the works of the Law " (Rom. ix. 32). Whereas, the Law was not given for that purpose, but with an object remarkably different from that. " If, indeed, a law had been given, which was capable 200 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VII. of giving life, then would righteousness (or justification) have been by the Law." 1 But law, though essential for the regulation of manners, is, of its own nature, incapable of giving eternal salva- tion ; for he who obeys its ordinances can, at most, but deserve to escape from its penalties. And this is still more emphatically true of men polluted by sin and compassed by infirmity. For law provides no propitiation, and offers no spiritual aid. There must therefore have been something more than law to save men from eternal ruin ; and the Jew, by imagining that the Law could do this, failed altogether of the righteousness of faith. Even the sacrifices under the Law had but a temporal efficacy. They served "for a carnal purifying" (717x15 r^v ttjs aapKos Kadapo- TTjra, Heb. ix. 13). They satisfied for offences against the tem- poral Majesty of the Great King, and screened from the temporal punishment due to all transgressions of the Law, which He had enacted. But there was no profession, no promise whatever, that they should satisfy for the sin of the soul. Indeed, for the heavier offences there was no propitiation set forth at all ; whether these offences were against the King, or against his subjects. For mur- der and adultery, for idolatry and blasphemy, there was nothing left " but a certain fearful looking for of judgment." " The blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sin ; " " could never make the worshipper perfect as pertaining to the conscience." 2. But beyond all this, there was still another purpose for which the Mosaic economy was designed. " The Law was a school-master to bring us to Christ." It was a dispensation pro- fessedly preparatory, and imperfect. It was, therefore, so con- structed by Infinite Wisdom that there should be an inward spirit vastly dissimilar from the outward letter of the Law. Accord- ingly, the whole dispensation, as it was preparatory, so it was typical. The kingdom of Christ was the great antitype of the old Theocracy. The Church is a theocracy now, as much as Israel was then. And so all the ordinances of the temporal kingdom were types and images of the blessings of the spiritual kingdom. Xo this end, as well as to their immediate object, served the priests and the temple, the altar and the sacrifices, the tribute and the incense, and all the service of the sanctuary. The letter then of the Law could never offer salvation : but the spirit did. Nay, the letter of the Law was necessarily condemnatory, as it gave more light and brought more obligations ; but neither satisfied for trans- 1 Gal. iii. 21. Ei ydp t66dij voftof 6 dwaftevof QjoKotijoai, Hvtuc fiv Ik vo/m> J» i) iiKoioovvT). Sec. II.J OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 201 gressions, nor gave inward sanctification. And so it is written, " The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life " (2 Cor. iii. 6). The letter brought no promise of immortality, but left men under con- demnation ; but the spiritual meaning of the Law led men to Christ, and so gave them life. It will not be necessary to go through the promises of the old Testament and the types of the Law, to show that there was a promise of a mediator, and of redemption from the curse which Adam had brought upon us. The promise to Adam of the seed of the woman, — the promise to Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, — the promise to David concerning his son, who should sit upon his throne, — the types of the passover, the scape-goat, the sacrifices on the day of atone- ment, the consecration of the high priest, the prophecies of David, of Isaiah, of Daniel, of Zechariah, of Malachi, — all readily occur to us as containing predictions, or exhibiting figures, which set forth to the enlightened understanding the hope of future deliver- ance, and of a Redeemer, who should turn away iniquity. It is said most truly, that all this was involved in much obscu- rity ; and it can never be denied, that the Jew had a much less clear understanding, a much more partial revelation of " the truth as it is in Jesus," than the least instructed member of the Chris- tian Church. Nay, " the least in the kingdom of Heaven," i. e. in the Gospel dispensation, " is greater " in knowledge " than he who was greatest " before the coming of Christ. But it should not be forgotten that during the patriarchal ages God had revealed Himself to Adam and Enoch, to Noah and Abraham, and perhaps to many besides. We are not to suppose that the light of such primeval revelation, which guided men for more than twenty cen- turies, was of a sudden qiienched in utter darkness. The tradi- tionary knowledge concerning a promised Mediator was no doubt carefully cherished, and served to enlighten much which in the Law, and even in the Prophets, might have been otherwise unin- telligible. And hence, the Mediator, though but faintly shadowed out, was yet firmly believed in. We have our Lord's assurance, that " Abraham rejoiced to see His day ; he saw it and was glad " (John viii. 56). We have St. Paul's assurance, that the same Abraham, having received the promise of the Redeemer, believed in it, and was justified by faith. 1 And we may well suppose that the faith which guided Abraham guided others, both before and after him. 1 Rom. iv. 1-20. Gal. ffi. 6-9, 14-19. 26 202 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Abt. VIL At first indeed, and whilst patriarchal tradition yet survived, the intimations of a Mediator in the ancient Scriptures are less distinct and less intelligible. But among the later prophets, when that early tradition may have had less weight, and when the day of Christ was more nearly approaching, the promises may be read more plainly, and the Gospel-history be almost deciphered in the sacred emblems of prophecy. 3. Are we then to suppose, notwithstanding this, that the fathers looked only for transitory promises ? It is a truth, which, I think, cannot be denied, that Moses does not bring prominently forward the doctrine of a future state. That was a subject which did not fall in with his purpose. His mission was to organize the Jewish Commonwealth, and embody in writing the statute-law of the Theocracy. That Theocracy, as has been said, was a temporal kingdom, though God was its King. Hence naturally he does not bring forward the doctrine of a future life. 1 In addition to the writing of the laws of Israel, Moses gives also a brief, a very brief, sketch of the history of the nation, and of its more illustrious ancestors. It is probable enough that no very frequent allusion to a future existence might occur in this his- tory; and it is only in the historical, not at all in the legislative writings, that we can expect to meet with it. It has been already explained, that even the prophets, who succeeded Moses, acted much as messengers from the Sovereign of Israel to His rebellious subjects, and hence naturally spoke much concerning obedience to His Law and the sanctions of that Law, which we know were temporal. Yet in many of the prophets, clear notices, not only of a Mediator and a hereafter, but perhaps also of a Resurrection, are to be met with. Even Bishop Warburton, though strongly main- taining that the earlier Jews had no knowledge of a life to come, yet admits that in later times they became fully acquainted with the truth of it. The principal passages in the books of Moses which seem to prove that the patriarchs believed in an eternity, and that a knowl- edge of it was general in the days of Moses himself, are as follows : — (1) The account of the translation of Enoch, Gen. v. 24. This account, indeed, is brief and obscure. We know, however, from other sources what it means, and its obscurity rather seems to 1 Bp. Warburton asserts that he studi- and therefore does not appear in it. It ously concenls it. This requires more does not follow that it was purposely proof than the Bishop lias given. Eter- concealed, nal life was not a sanction of the Law Sec. II.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 203 argue that it was, as is most likely, a fact generally known and well understood, and so not needing to be longer dwelt upon. But its obscurity is a little magnified ; for we clearly enough learn from the passage, that, whereas in general long life was a promised blessing, yet in the case of Enoch a still greater blessing was con- ferred. For, whereas all other persons in the same chapter are spoken of as living long and then dying ; Enoch's is said to have been comparatively a short life ; and then it is said, that, because of his piety, " God took him." " Enoch walked with God ; and he was not, for God took him." It is hard to know what other sense could be attached to the passage, except that given it by St. Paul : " Enoch was translated that he should not see death " (Heb. xi. 5). Now people who knew of the translation of Enoch, must have known something of that state of bliss to which he was removed. (2) Accordingly, Jacob on his death-bed utters an ejaculation utterly unconnected with the immediate context : " I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord " (Gen. xlix. 18). What salvation Jacob could have waited for, who in this very chapter looks for- ward to far future fortunes for his children, before " the Shiloh should come, and to Him should be the gathering of the people," except it were the salvation of his own soul, which he was just about to breathe forth, has never been clearly explained. (3) Balaam was so well acquainted with the truth (though so little obedient to it) as " to wish to die the death of the righteous, and that his last end should be like his " (Num. xxiii. 10). Now, the promise of the Law was to the life of the righteous ; the prom- ises of temporal blessing must all affect life, rather than death. It is natural for a believer in a blessed immortality to wish for such a death, and such a last end as awaits the just. But from a person who believes all God's promises to be made to this life, and looks forward to no life beyond, such an exclamation seems hardly in- telligible. (4) There is a saying of Moses himself which seems probably to imply the same thing. Just before his death he says of Israel, " Oh that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end." It is undoubtedly not certain that ;T"inW, " latter end," here, means death. Perhaps it should be said, it probably does not mean death : but it means either futurity, or final condition. And, though we may allow that the force of the passage is not unquestionable, its most natural inter- pretation would be, that it was a wish that the people of Israel 204 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VIL were thoughtful of that time when worldly objects of interest should pass away, and their end draw nigh, when wisdom and piety only should profit them. We come next to the famous passage in the Book of Job. 1 As the words stand in our Authorized Version, they prove Job's be- lief, not only in a future life, but in a resurrection of the body : " Oh that my words were now written ! Oh that they were printed in a book ! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever ! For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth ; and though after my skin worms destrov this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God : whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." (Job xix. 23-27.) There are, without doubt, difficulties in this translation. The passage is in many points obscure, though not more so than the book of Job in general. The more literal rendering of the last three verses is, perhaps, as follows : — " For I, even I, know that my Redeemer liveth, and hereafter shall stand above the dust. And though, after my skin, this (body) be destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God : whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and no stranger ; my reins are consumed within me." On the whole, whatever rendering is given to it, it is hardly possible that the passage should not appear to prove a belief in a future existence. The words " from my flesh " indeed may be interpreted differently, according to the different senses attached to the preposition ; and whereas our translators have rendered it " in my flesh," some eminent scholars have maintained that we should 1 The date and authorship of the Book common in the other books of the Bible, of Job is a question in some degree af- and for the explanation of which we must fecting the question in the text. Most look to the Syriac and Arabic languages, scholars consider the book as one of the But the style is very little like the style earliest in the Bible ; and many have be- of the later books, which contain a cer- lieved that it was written by Moses. Bp. tain number of Chaldaisms and even Warburton argues, that it was not writ- some Chaldee ; such as Daniel, Ezra, ten till the captivity, or the return from Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and some of captivity ; and that it is a dramatic com- the Psalms. The Aramaisms of Job are position rather than a real history (Di- very unlike these ; and so is the whole vine legation, Bk. vi. Sect. It.) The ques- style and character of the Hebrew. It is lion is not to be settled with a few words, indeed exactly what might be expected I can only say that it appears to mc to from a very ancient writer, who wrote in bear the marks of great antiquity. It is Hebrew an account of dialogues origi- true that it is not such pure Hebrew nally held in an ancient dialect of Arabic, as some parts of the old Testament ; or Whether or not Moses was that writer if rather that it contains a great many He- another question. It seems very doubt- brew words and phrases which are not ful, if not highly improbable. Sec. n.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 205 render it " without my flesh." 1 Yet the only difference, which such a different interpretation might cause, would be, that, according to the first, Job hoped to see his Redeemer at the Resurrection ; ac- cording to the latter, that he expected the same glorious vision as a disembodied spirit. It is, however, argued that it is very remarkable that no indication save this of a belief in an immortality occurs in the book of Job. It would be natural, it is said, when Job's friends charge him with wickedness, and attribute his sorrows to his sins, that he should at once answer, that, though miserable in this life, he yet had full hope of happiness in a better. As therefore no such reasoning is to be found, we must necessarily conclude that Job was ignorant of a future state ; and that this particular passage, instead of being an anticipation of a future Resurrection, is a prophetic declaration of his belief in what actually afterwards took place ; namely, that, though for a time the disease which afflicted him was permitted to destroy his body, yet, in the end, God should be manifested to defend his cause, and that he should be permitted to see Him with his own eyes. I am inclined to attribute but little weight to the previous silence of Job concerning the life to come. Men at that time gen- erally believed that a special Providence brought good upon the righteous, and evil on the wicked in this life ; and in the earlier days of the Jewish commonwealth it doubtless was so. Job shares this belief with his friends ; yet he is conscious of his integrity, and defends himself earnestly against their accusations. It is hardly likely that he should have tried to disprove the justice of a creed which he held himself. Therefore he does not say that they were wrong in believing in a retributive Providence, or urge them to look forward from this life to a better. This would have been 1 So Rosenmiiller. Praeflxum * ante analogy. To reject a person, "from ■ -a ^ j j- ^ ^ t •' i- being king," — to "forget a child so as v-,^ sigmficat defectum, ut Isai. xhx. not to love it »_ are vastly different no- 15, T j"n obliviscetur mulier Jilioli sui Qj-r-|» tionS ° f the P re P osition » from thaf resecta miseratione, i. e. ut non misereatur sought to be attached to it here, namely, ejus. 1 Sam. xv. 26, Rejecit te Deus "without my flesh." Rosenmiiller, ha\> _U n n ^nn ut non sis rex. Ita - me it appears that there is little or no tane autnor • 206 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VII. in Job an improbable and unnatural course. But from the singular solemnity with which he ushers in the passage in question, the hope that he expresses that it may " be printed in a book," nay, graven " in the rock for ever," we may well believe that he is about to give utterance to something different from what he has hitherto been speaking of, and to something so important that he wishes it to be preserved, not only for his own time, as a solemn assertion of his innocence, but that it should be handed down to all future generations, as a vital and an eternal truth. Now nothing could be more appropriate than such an intro- duction, if Job were about to speak of the general Resurrection, and his hope that he should be comforted and vindicated then. That was an argument unlike any he had urged before, and it was a truth of universal and constant interest, so that he might well wish to have the words which spake of it "printed in a book, yea, graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever." It is true, there are expressions in the Book of Job which may be interpreted into a denial of the doctrine of a future existence. For instance, " As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more " (Job vii. 9). "So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep " (Job xiv. 12). And again (ver. 14) " If a man die, shall he live again ? " Bishop Warburton lays great stress on these passages, as proving that Job was ignorant of a Resurrection, and even of a future state. But, in all fairness, do they mean any more than this, that if a man die, he shall live no more in this life ; if he goes down to the grave, he shall come up no more, while this world is remaining ? This interpretation fully satisfies the force of all the expressions, even of that strongest of all, " man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake." Nay, we may almost venture to say that this last expression has a more than commonly Christian sound ; for the new Testament teaches us that the general Resurrection at the last day shall not be, till " the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." (2 Pet. iii. 10, comp. Rev. xx. 11.) It may be added, that the very verse which follows this passage in Job (a passage which is thought so decisive against his belief in a hereafter) appears to carry with it a refutation of such a theory ; for in that verse (Job xiv. 13) the patriarch prays that God " would hide him in the grave (ViNT?3 in Hades), and keep him secret till His wrath was past ; that He would appoint him a Sec. 1L] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 207 set time, and then remember him." What could be the meaning of God's hiding him in Hades, or in the grave, till His wrath was past, and then after a set time remembering him, if such language was used by one who knew nothing of life and immortality ? For the word Sheol, be it observed, whatever diversity of opinion there may be concerning it, has never been supposed by any one to mean anything which is unconnected with the state of the dead. It must be either the grave, or the state of departed souls. Choose which we will; Job wishes for a temporary concealment in the grave, or in the state of the departed, and then to be remembeied, and, we can scarce fail to infer, to be raised up again. With such a hope and such an expectation will well correspond such expressions as, " Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him " (Job xiii. 15). But how shall we interpret them, if they be the language of one whose hopes were all bounded by this life ? In the book of Psalms, David, in a passage which we know to be prophetic of Messiah, speaks as follows : "I have set the Lord always before me ; because He is at my right hand I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory 1 rejoiceth ; yea my flesh also shall rest in confidence. 2 For Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life : in Thy presence is the fulness of joy : at Thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore." (Ps. xvi. 8-11.) In the ears of a Christian such language is so plainly expres- sive of the hope of resurrection, that it is difficult to attach any other meaning to it. Nay, we know that St. Peter quotes it as a prophecy that Christ should be raised from the dead, His soul not resting in Hades, His body not turning to corruption (Acts ii. 25-31). The passage then, according to the Apostle's comment on it, actually did mean a resurrection. The only question is, Did the Psalmist, when he wrote it, so understand it ; or did he write of common things, unconsciously to himself and through the guidance of the Spirit, speaking deep mysteries ? It is possible that the latter may have been the case. And yet the words chosen seem to make it improbable. Why does he say, after speaking of the gladness of his heart, and the rejoicing of his spirit, that " even his flesh should rest in confidence " ? Tins looks much like an 'H'H? " My glory," probably a poetical expression for the heart or the soul. Bee Gesenius, s. v. a ntg3b in confidence, securely. 208 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VIL assurance that not only the heart might rejoice in God, but even that the body had hope of immortality. And then, " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." Had he meant that he should not be permitted to die, it would have been natural to say, " Thou wilt not bring me down to hell." But he who hopes not to be left in Hades, must surely have expectation of first going thither. The words therefore of themselves so plainly imply a resurrection, and are so apparently chosen for the purpose of expressing the hope of a resurrection, that, though we may admit that profound igno- rance on the subject may have kept the prophet from understanding them, and have blinded his eyes that he should not- see their sense, yet nothing short of this would have hindered him, who uttered the language, from feeling inspired with a hope full of immortality. 1 Again, the view which David takes elsewhere of the difference between the end of the righteous and of the wicked is consonant with the hope of a future retribution, and otherwise is unintelli- gible. (Ps. xxxvii. 37, 38.) " Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright : for the end of that man is peace. But the trans- gressors shall be destroyed together : the end of the wicked shall be cut off." In like manner his confidence in trial and troubles, when the wicked prosper and the just are oppressed, has at least a striking resemblance to the language of one who looks for a time when the just shall be delivered, and the wicked consumed in judgment. Thus, in Psalm xxiii. 4, David says, " Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil ; for Thou art with me ; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me." To " walk through the valley of the shadow of death " is probably but a poetical phrase for " to die " ; and to those who looked only for temporal blessings, death would be wellnigh the greatest " evil." Hence he who could die and yet " fear no evil," must have had a hope after death. So in Psalm lxxiii., if this were David's, then David, but if not, then Asaph, who is not likely to have known more than David, having spoken of his having envied the wicked, when he saw them in prosperity, and when he found himself chast- ened and afflicted, concludes in this manner : " Thus my heart was 1 It must be remembered that those who was a conqueror, and had dwelt persons who think Job and David and among the Philistines, and become ac- others ignorant of a future state, yet ad- quainted with many peoples, should use mit, nay contend, that all their neigh- language concerning a tenet which they hours round about were fully cognizant almost must have heard from neighbour- of such a doctrine. (See Warburton, ing nations, and yet not understand it Bk. v. § v.) How then came it to pass themselves? that Job, who was an Arab, and David, Sec. II.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 209 grieved, and I was pricked in my reins. So foolish was I, and ig- norant ; I was as a beast before Thee. Nevertheless I am always with Thee ; Thou hast holden me by my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory " (Ps. Ixxiii. 21-24). The "glory" is not of necessity glory ever- lasting, but it is hardly necessary to observe that such a sense of the word suits the context better than any lower interpretation of it. 1 As David thus seems to have had hopes of something after death, so his son Solomon knew, that " when a wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish" (Prov. xi. 7) ; that "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness, but the righteous hath hope in his death " (Prov. xiv. 82). But what hope has the righteous more than the wicked, or how does the expectation of the wicked, more than that of the just, perish when he dieth ; unless there be a something after death, which gives hope to the one, but takes it away from the other ? Again, Solomon tells us (Eccles. xii. 7), that at death " shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it;" signifying, as it plainly seems, that, when the body returns to that from which it was taken, the spirit shall return into the hand of Him who gave it, not perishing with the body, but awaiting the judgment of its God. 2 1 There are, no doubt, some expres- sions in the Psalms, which seem to im- ply an ignorance of a future life, e. g. : — " In death there is no remembrance of Thee ; in the grave who shall give Thee thanks? (Ps. vi. 5.) "Shall the dust praise Thee t shall it declare Thy truth ? " (Ps. xxx. 9.) " Wilt Thou show won- ders to the dead ? shall the dead arise and praise Thee ! shall thy loving-kind- ness be declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in destruction 1 Shall thy wonders be known in the dark, and thy righteousness in the land of forgetful- ness 1 " (Ps. Ixxxviii. 10-12.) These are certainly remarkable ex- pressions, but they do not appear unac- countable in a person who had been taught by the dispensation under which he lived to look for temporal blessings as a reward for obedience, even though he was a believer in a future state. It is doubtful whether such language might not be used even by a Christian. Death is certainly a part of the curse; and hence there is no wonder if the pious Jew dreaded it. And speaking concern- ing the silence of death does not neces- sarily imply a total disbelief in a resur- rection. The silence and forgetfulness 27 may mean only forgetfulness as regards this world. 2 On this passage see Bishop Bull, Works, Oxf. 1827, I. p. 29. Bishop War- burton's strongest passage is from Eccle- siastes : — " The living know that they shall die ; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward: for the memory of them is forgotten." Eccles. ix. 5. The book of Ecclesiastes is one the language of which is singularly ob- scure. The passage in question, if taken in its context, may, however, be inter- preted with no great difficulty. The royal Preacher observes, that there is one event to all men, from which no one shall escape; and whatever good things he may enjoy in this life, yet death will surely soon deprive him of them all. This may naturally embitter earthly en- joyments, for the living know that they shall die, and they may be assured that in death they will lose their conscious- ness of all things that have given them pleasure here, and receive no more re- ward or emolument (-i^*) from them. - T " Their love and hatred and envy per- ish ; and they have no longer a portion in anything that is done under the sun." 210 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VIL When we come to the prophets, it is scarcely denied by any that we meet with a mention of immortality. Bishop Warburton, who is probably the ablest writer, at least in the English language, in favour of the opinion that the early Jews knew nothing of a future state, yet admits that in the prophetic writings we begin to see some clear intimations of that doctrine which was to be fully brought to light in the Gospel. Two remarkable passages are the following: (Isai. xxvi. 19) " Thy dead men shall live ; together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust ; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." It is not necessary to determine whether there be here a distinct proph- ecy of the Resurrection. It is enough to show that Isaiah, and those he wrote for, believed in a Resurrection, if, to express even something else, he uses words to illustrate it, which in their most natural sense imply a Resurrection. When we use a figurative expression, we borrow the figures which we use from things fa- miliar and understood among us. In the book of Daniel a description is given, which so exactly corresponds with the Christian description of the last Judgment and the general Resurrection, that it must require the greatest in- genuity to give any other sense to it : " At that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament ; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever" (Dan. xii. 1-3). We have already seen (under Art. III.) that the Jews, who lived at the time of our Saviour, with the exception of the sect of the Sadducees, not only believed in the immortality of the soul, but in a Resurrection, and in an intermediate state between death and Judgment. Thus St. Paul's appeal, when he was brought before the Sanhedrim, was agreeable to all, except the sect of the Sad- ducees : " Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Phar- isee ; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." And the reason of this was, that, though the small and heretical sect of the Sadducees " said there was no resurrection. Now this seems the obvious meaning of plain that he is speaking only of men's the passage beginning ver. 2 and ending losing by death their good things and ver. 6. Does this prove that Solomon consciousness of enjoyment in this life. did not believe in a future life? It is Sec. II.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 211 neither angel nor spirit," yet the more orthodox, and more exten- sive sect of the " Pharisees confessed both " (Acts xxiii. 6, 8). There may have been sufficient obscurity in the old Testament Scriptures to admit of the possibility of the existence of two differ- ent sects, the one holding, the other denying, a future immortality ; yet there is abundant evidence from the new Testament that the true interpretation was that adopted by the Pharisees, and that the Sadducees erred from ignorance and pride. Our Lord indeed, when the Sadducees came to Him and propounded to Him a diffi- culty concerning the Resurrection, tells them at once, that they "erred, not knowing the Scriptures" (Matt. xxii. 29). And though the passage which our Lord adduces from the books of Moses (Exod. iii. 6), " I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," requires some explanation to show that it proved the doctrine in question, yet it is quite plain that our Lord reproves the Sadducees for dulness in not having learned from the old Testament that " all men live to God." But the passage in the new Testament, which most fully as- sures us that the ancient fathers looked for heavenly promises, is the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the first twelve verses the Apostle had been speaking of the faith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, and perhaps of Isaac and Jacob ; and he then adds (vv. 13-16), " These all died in faith, not hav- ing received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims upon earth. For they that say such things, declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly : wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He hath prepared for them a city." In like manner (vv. 25, 26) he tells us, that Moses chose " rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season ; esteeming the re- proach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward." And other saints of the old Testament, he says, " were tortured, not accepting de- liverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.' 1 '' Now those " who seek a better country, that is, a heavenly," those who despise the pleasures of sin and choose to suffer through life per- secution with the people of God, " having respect to the recom- pense of reward," those who endure torture, " not accepting de- 212 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VII. liverance," that " they may obtain a better resurrection," must certainly have looked for more than transitory promises, even for those very promises of life and immortality which they indeed saw but afar off, but which at length the Lord Jesus by the Gospel fully brought to light. It may seem unnecessary to add anything further to show that the old Testament is not contrary to the new. Yet it is worth while to remark that the constant quotation of the old Testament by the writers of the new, and their mode of quoting it to confirm and ratify their own teaching, is abundant proof that the one closely corresponds with the other. Our Lord expressly asserts that the old Testament Scriptures are " they which testify of Him" (John v. 39). The people of Berea are spoken of with high commendation, because they searched the old Testament to see whether the preaching of the Apostles was the truth ; and we read that they were so convinced by this daily searching of the Scriptures, that many of them were led to believe (Acts xvii. 11, 12). Nay, St. Paul tells Timothy, that those Scriptures of the old Testament, which he had known from a child, " were able to make him wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. It is certain, therefore, that they who wrote, and He in whose name they wrote the Scriptures of the new Testament, so far from holding that the old Testament was different from the new, ever held and taught their entire agreement, and appealed to the old Testament as the strongest confirmation of their doctrine, and as bearing abundant testimony to their sacred mission and their heav- enly inspiration. II. But though the old Testament is not contrary to the new, yet, 1. the ceremonial of the Jewish Law is abolished ; but, 2. the commandments called moral still continue in force. 1. The very end and object of the Jewish ceremonial were such that of necessity it must have passed away. It has already been seen that the Law of Moses was, first, the code of statute- law for the Theocratic commonwealth ; and, secondly, a system of types and emblems preparatory to the coming of the Messiah, who was to fulfil them all. These two purposes it served so long as these purposes existed. But now the Jewish Theocracy has given place to the Christian Church ; and the great Antitype has come, to whom all the typical ceremonies looked forward. There is now therefore no longer any reason for the continuance of the Mosaic Sec. II.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 213 Law. Moses and Ettas, the Law and the Prophets, have passed away, and we see no one but Jesus only, to whom we are to listen, as God's beloved Son. There cannot be at present any kingdom circumstanced as the kingdom of Israel was. God is no longer an earthly Sovereign, reigning exclusively over the Jewish nation as their temporal King. He is indeed the great King in all the earth, but not the particular Ruler of a single commonwealth. The Lord Jesus sits on His Mediatorial Throne. But His is a spiritual dominion. It is in- deed that great fifth empire, which Daniel saw imaged by a stone hewn without hands, which in course of time filled the earth. But it is nevertheless a kingdom not of this world ; and therefore His servants are not to fight, nor to call down fire from Heaven on their enemies, nor to take the sword, lest they perish by the sword. The weapons of their warfare are not carnal ; their citizenship is in Heaven ; their fellow-citizens are the saints ; their fellow-subjects the household of God. It is therefore unfit that any kingdom should be governed by the laws, or regulated by the ceremonial of the Jewish polity. The court of an earthly sovereign must be differently ordered from the court of the King of Heaven ; the laws, which relate to all the governments of this world, different from those which had refer- ence to the supremacy of the Lord. We have seen that blas- phemy, idolatry, and similar offences were under the Jewish econ- omy not merely crimes against religion, they were also distinctly crimes, and that of the highest character, against the State. They tended to nothing less than the dethroning of the King, and put- ting an usurper in His room. It is therefore clear, that, on princi- ples of civil justice, they were crimes which deserved to be pun- ished with death. But in modern nations they are religious, not civil offences ; and though the magistrate may justly restrain such acts or words as tend to the offence of society, or the endangering of morality, yet he would not be justified in proceeding against the blasphemer or the idolater on the principle on which the mag- istrate was bound to proceed against them in Israel, where their crimes were both civil and religious, derogatory to the honour of God, and at the same time rebellion against the authority of the State. Religious wars and religious persecutions are both utterly alien from the spirit of Christianity. James and John, who would have called down fire, Peter who smote off the ear of Malchus, both thought and acted in the spirit of the Jewish, not of the Christian economy ; and were herein types of the Dominicans, 214 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VIL who would convert or destroy by the rack and the flame, and of the zealots of later times, who in fighting for religious liberty, shouted as their war-cry, " The sword of the Lord and of Gideon ! " We know well how strongly St. Paul condemns those who ad- hered to the Jewish ceremonial. Our Lord, indeed, had declared that " one jot or tittle should not pass away till all was fulfilled." l But all was fulfilled when the sceptre departed from Judah, and so the Jewish commonwealth was dissolved ; and when the types of the Law had their full accomplishment in their great Antitype, our Prophet, Priest, and King. The argument of the whole Epis- tle to the Galatians is directed against the observance of Jewish ceremonies. The Epistle to the Hebrews equally shows that the Law had " waxed old, and was ready to vanish away," and that, its accomplishment being perfected in Christ, there was no longer benefit to be gained by adhering to it. Indeed, in the Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle declares, that if a man is circumcised, and strives to keep the Law (i. e. the ceremonial Law of Moses), Christ has become of no effect to him, he has fallen from grace. 2 But, thus clear though it be, that the ceremonial Law is no onger binding on a Christian or on a commonwealth, we ought yet to bear in mind that the organization of the Jewish State proceeded from above. It was, in some degree, a model republic. It was, no doubt, in a particular age of the world, under peculiar circumstances, and with a special object, that the Jewish nation was set apart to be God's peculiar people, His own kingdom upon earth. But taking all these into account, we ought still to be able to derive lessons of political wisdom from the ordinances ap- pointed by the Allwise for the government of His own chosen race. We can never again see a constitution and a statute-law devised by infinite Wisdom. We know from our Lord's own words, that in some respects the enactments of the Mosaic economy, though com- ing from God, were yet not perfect, because of the hardness of heart of those for whom they were designed ; 8 and therefore, of course, we must take into account, not only the particular circum- stances, but also the particular character of the people ; but when we have made such allowances, we may rest assured that the com- monwealth of Israel would be the fittest pattern and type which legislators could adopt for the government of empires. 4 1 Matt. v. 18. dom does indeed preclude the notion of * Qal. v. 4. its being a religion of ceremony. We 8 Matt. xix. 8. must not, however, run into the ex- * The spiritual nature of Christ's king- trerae of supposing that, because the Sec. II.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 215 2. As regards that portion of the Law of Moses which is called moral, we must plainly perceive that it is founded in the eternal principles of justice and truth. It is not a code of enactments, given for the temporary guidance of a temporary government ; it is rather a system of moral precepts, for the direction and instruc- tion of rational and accountable beings. Indeed, as God was the King of Israel, moral obedience was in itself a portion of civil obedience. Yet the principle, from which its obligation resulted, was not the relation of a subject to his king, but the relation of a creature to his God. The former was a temporary relation, exist- ing only whilst the Jewish commonwealth should last ; the other is an eternal relation, which must endure forever and ever. The moral Law, then, which is God's will, was holy and perfect, even as He is perfect. And St. Paul, when he speaks of it as incapable of justifying, yet carefully guards against any misapprehension of his words, as though he should be supposed to speak disparagingly of the Law itself. He declares that " the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good " (Rom. vii. 12). He says that " the Law is spiritual," and the reason why it could not sanctify man was not its own deficiency, for in itself, and for its own end, it was perfect, but because of the weakness and sinful- ness of man ; because the natural man is " carnal, sold under sin," and so unable to fulfil the law ; and the more perfect the Law, the more unable man is to live up to it (Rom. vii. 14). But that it is still binding upon Christians, appears sufficiently from the same Apostle's reasoning, who, when he has shown that by nature man cannot obey the Law, goes on just after to assert^that what could not be done by man's natural weakness, could be, and was done, by the power of God ; even " that the righteousness of the Law should be fulfilled in them, who walked not after the flesh, but after the Spirit " (Rom. viii. 4). Our Lord, in the Sermon on the Mount, not only shows that the moral law is binding on Christians, but shows, moreover, that it is binding in a much stricter and more spiritual sense than was generally understood by the Jews. It had been taught in the Law that we should not commit adultery. But Christ enjoined temporal or carnal ceremonies of the Apostles enjoined ordinances of public Mosaic Law were done away in Christ, worship, and exercised ecclesiastical dis- therefore all outward ordinances are in- cipline ; all which are essential to the consistent with Christian worship. We existence of a Church in this world, must remember that man is a creature though they may be unnecessary in that compounded of soul and body, and there- city " where there shall be no temple ; fore needing outward as well as inward for the Lord God Almighty and the agency. Accordingly, our Lord ordained Lamb shall be the temple of it." Sacraments, and a ministry ; and the 216 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Art. VII. that we should not suffer an impure look, or an unholy thought (Matt. v. 27, 28). It had been taught in the Law, that we should do no murder. But Christ taught that the angry feeling and the angry word, which are the first steps to violence, and might in some cases lead to murder, were breaches of that commandment, and therefore unfit to be permitted in Christian men (Matt. v. 21, 22). The ordinances of the Law were expressed in terms of sim- ple command and prohibition, and were looked on in a light suited to the carnal nature of the dispensation, in which they were given. The Pharisees, who were jealous for the Law, yet mostly looked no farther than the letter, satisfied if they abstained from absolute violation of its negative, and fulfilled the literal injunctions of its positive precepts. But our Lord told His disciples, that, except their righteousness exceeded such righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, they should in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven (Matt. v. 20). His was a spiritual kingdom, and He required spiritual obedience. Mere formal compliance with the ordinances of the Law was insufficient for a Christian, whose heart must be brought into captivity to the will of God. Yet because the obedience must be spiritual, it did not follow that it should not be real. On the contrary, it was to be more real, yea, more strict. For subjection to the spirit of the Law necessarily involves sub- jection to the letter, though obedience to the letter does not of necessity produce obedience to the spirit. A man may cherish lust and anger without their breaking forth into murder and adul- tery ; but if he checks every rising of evil, he cannot be guilty of the more deliberate wickedness. The first step cannot be arrested, and yet the last plunge be taken. But if there could be any question as to our Saviour's teaching, one sentence alone should set it at rest : " Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven " (Matt. v. 19). It is most true that some of the moral commandments are ac- companied by sanctions which have respect to the state of things under the Jewish Theocracy. For example, the fifth command- ment enjoins obedience to parents, with the promise, " that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." But this by no means proves that the injunction is not binding upon all. All we can learn from it is, that, beyond the sanctions by which the eternal will of God is upheld in all religion, Sue. II.] OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 217 natural or revealed, the Jew, as a subject of the Theocracy, had also temporal promises to be expected as the reward of obedience ; which, from the peculiar nature of the Mosaic economy, were con- stantly put prominently forward. And, in the case of this particu- lar commandment, St. Paul expressly enjoins all Christian children to observe it, on the very ground that it was a commandment of the Law of God. And he adds, as a special motive for attending to this commandment, that it must plainly have been an important commandment, inasmuch as in the Law it was the first to which a promise was specially attached. " Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honour thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise ; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth " (Eph. vi. 1, 2, 3). The Apostle first enjoins the duty, quotes in confirmation of his injunction the words of the commandment, and then shows the peculiar importance of that commandment, by pointing out that, under the Mosaic economy, a special promise of blessing was an- nexed to it. This by no means shows that we are to fulfil this commandment in hope of that peculiar promise ; but it shows that the commandment is binding on Christians as well as upon Jews ; and that it is binding, because it is a part of the moral Law given by God to man, which is in itself unchangeable — as unchangeable as He who gave it. 28 ARTICLE VIII. Of the Three Creeds. De Tribus Symboli$. The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Sthbola tria, Nicenum, Atlianasii, et Atli;in;isi us' Creed, and that which is quod vulgo Apostolorum appellatur, om- commonly called the Apostles' Creed, nino recipienda sunt, et credenda, nam ought thoroughly to be received and be- firmissimis Scripturarum testimoniis pro- lieved : for they may be proved by most bari possunt. certain warrants of Holy Scripture. [The American Article reads, " The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed," &c. There is no mention, therefore, of " the Creed of Athanasius," and, correspondently, it does not appear in our Service. That our Church accepts the Athanasian definition is placed beyond doubt, by the declaration in the Preface to the Prayer Book, that we do not intend to depart " from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine ; " by the retention of the Preface for Trinity Sunday in the office for Holy Communion, and by the adoption of the first five Articles. That she is not singular in omitting the Athanasian Symbol from her public worship, is proved by the fact that it does not occur in the authorized formularies of the Orthodox Greek Church. And these two facts must, it would seem, place her beyond any well-grounded charge of unsoundness, or even carelessness, on such a vital point. Bishop White's " Memoirs " show, that all these considerations were present to the minds of the Bishops — White and Seabury — who composed the House of Bishops in 1789. Whether they were equally present to the minds of the other House is, to say the least, uncertain. That body was very strenuous in its opposi- tion, refusing to allow the insertion of the Creed — or, as it should rather be called, Hymn — at all, even with the provision that it might be used or omitted at discre- tion. This refusal the New England clergy, not without reason, considered intol- erant. The difficulty probably arose from those clauses which even Dr. Waterland thought might be separated from the symbol itself. — J. W. | Section I. — OF CREEDS IN GENERAL. rpHE Church, after having defined the authority to which she * appeals for the truth of her doctrines, proceeds to require belief in those formularies of faith which from very early times had been in constant use in the Church universal, and that upon the principle already laid down, namely, that they are in strict accordance with holy Scripture. It seems generally admitted that the probable origin of Creeds Sec. L] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 219 is to be traced to the form or confession of faith, which was pro- pounded to the Catechumens previously to their baptism. In the Scriptures such forms appear to have been brief. Our Lord com- manded that men should be baptized " in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : " and perhaps a confes- sion in some such simple form as, " I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost," was all that was at first required. Indeed, Philip required of the Eunuch no more than a profession of a belief that " Jesus Christ was the Son of God." 1 It is prob- able that the Apostles and their immediate disciples used several Creeds, differing in form, though not in substance. Hence, no certain form existing, all Churches were at liberty to make their own Creed, as they did their own liturgies, not being tied to a particular form of words, so long as they kept to the analogy of faith and doctrine delivered by the Apostles. Then, as heretics arose who denied the fundamental doctrines of the faith, the Creeds became gradually enlarged, to guard the truth from their insidious designs and false expositions. Dr. Grabe, who examined the question as to what forms were used even in the Apostles' days, came to a conclusion that all the Articles in the Creed commonly called the Apostles' Creed, were in use in the Apostolic Confessions of faith, with the exception of these three, " The Communion of Saints," " the Holy Catholic Church," and " the descent into Hell." 2 Many confessions of faith are to be found, nearly corresponding with the Creeds which we now possess, in the writings of the ear- liest fathers. For example, in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, the Apostolic Constitutions. 3 We have also Creeds of several different Churches preserved to us, agreeing in substance, but slightly varying in form ; as the Creed of Jeru- salem, Caesarea, Alexandria, Antioch, Aquileia, 4 &c. But until the time of the Council of Nice, there does not appear to have been any one particular Creed, which prevailed universally, in exactly the same words, and commended by the same universal authority. 1 See King, On the Creed, p. 33 ; Wall, testimony to the doctrines expressed by On Infant Baptism, II. pt. n. ch. ix. them in the earliest ecclesiastical writ- § x. p. 439. ings. Evidence of this may be seen as 2 Bingham's Eccles. Antiq. Bk. x. ch. regards one of them, " The descent into in- §§ 6, 7. It is not to be supposed, Hell," under Art. ill. because these Articles do not occur in 3 These are given at length in Wall, aa the most ancient copies of the Creed, that above ; and in Bingham, Bk. x. ch. iv. they were therefore of comparatively * See them at length in Bingham, as modern invention. There is abundant above. 220 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Art. VHL The prevalence, however, of some authoritative standard in the Church, although varied by diversity of expression, is appar- ent from the language of many of the earliest Christian writers. Thus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others, speak of a " Canon, or rule of faith, according to which we be- lieve in one God Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His Son, &c." And it is quite clear that this KawW dAi^eias, or Regula jidei, was no other than the Creed of the Church, expressed in a regular formulary. 1 The commonest name by which the Creed was designated, was that of 2u/x/3oA.ov, or Symbolum. The meaning of the term is confessedly obscure. (1) It has been said to have arisen from the fact that the twelve Apostles met together, and each contrib- uted (avvi^akov) one article to the Creed ; hence called Symbolum, or collation. (2) It has been said to mean a Collation, or Epit- ome of Christian doctrine. (3) It has been supposed to be, like the Tessera Militaris among the Roman soldiers, a symbol, or sign, by which the soldiers of the Cross were distinguished from hea- thens or heretics. (4) It has been thought again that it was bor- rowed from the Military oath (sacramentum), by which the Roman soldiers bound themselves to serve their general. 2 (5) And lastly, Lord King has suggested that it may have been borrowed from the religious services of the ancient heathens, who gave to those who were initiated into their mysteries certain signs or marks (symbola), whereby they knew one another, and were dis- tinguished from the rest of the world. 8 It is not veiy easy to decide which of these five senses may with most propriety be attached to the word. The first is the least probable, inasmuch as the tradition on which it rests appears not to have existed before the fourth century.* The word " Creed," by which these ancient formularies of faith are designated in English, is derived from the word Credo, with which the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds commence. 1 See Bingham, Bk. x. ch. m. § 2; Bp. others have adopted King's derivation. Marsh, Lectures, Camb. 1828, p. 470. See Bingham totally rejects it. also the meaning of the term, " Rule of 4 St. Augustine says, the name was faith," discussed under Art. vi. given, " quia symbolum inter se faciunt 2 Symbolum cordis signaculum, et nos- mercatores, quo eorum sociotas pacto traa militise sacramentum. — Ambros. fidei teneatur. Et vestra societas est Lib. in. De velandis Virginibus, apud commerciura spiritualium, ut similes Suicer. ,-itis ncgotintoribus bonam inargaritam 8 Suicer, voc. Svp/foAov. — Bingham, quoerentibus." — Serm. ccxn. Offer. Tom Bk. x. ch. in. King, On the Creed, pp. v. p. 986. Paris, 1688. 6, 11, &c. Wheatley, Dr. Hey, and Sec. IL] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 221 Section II. — THE APOSTLES' CREED. RUFINUS mentions a tradition, handed down from ancient times, that, after our Lord's ascension, the Apostles, having received the gift of tongues, and a command to go and preach to all nations, when about to depart from one another, determined to appoint one rule of preaching, that they should not set forth diverse things to their converts. Accordingly, being met together, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, they drew up the Apostles' Creed, contributing to the common stock what each one thought good. 1 The author of the Sermons de Tempore, improperly ascribed to Augustine, 2 tells us that " Peter said, I believe in God the Father Almighty ; John said, Maker of Heaven and earth ; James said, And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord ; Andrew said, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; Philip said, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried ; Thomas said, He descended into Hell, the third day He rose again from the dead ; Bartholomew said, He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Al- mighty ; Matthew said, From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead ; James the son of Alphasus said, I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church ; Simon Zelotes said, The Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of Sins ; Jude the brother of James said, The Resurrection of the Flesh ; Matthias concluded with, The Life Everlasting." The principal objections to the truth of these traditions, which are fatal to the last, and nearly fatal to the other, are these : — First, that Rufinus himself tells us, that the article of the descent into hell was not in the Roman (i. e. the Apostles'), nor in the Eastern Creeds. It has been proved by Archbishop Usher and Bishop Pearson, that this statement is true ; and also, that two other articles, "the Communion of Saints " and "the Life Ever- lasting," were wanting in the more ancient Creeds. Secondly, the formation and existence of the Creed is not men- tioned in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in any of the more ancient fathers or Councils ; which is most extraordinary, if any such for- mulary was known to have existed, a formulary which would have 1 Rufinus, Exposilio in Symb. Apost. ad are " conferendo in unum quod sentiebat calcem Cypriani, p. 17, Oxf. 1682 ; King, unusquisque." p. 24; Bingham, Bk. x. ch. m. §5. 2 Serin. De Tempore, 115; Augustini Bingham translates, " each one contribut- Opera, Paris, 1683, Tom. v. Append, p. ing his sentence." But Rufinus's words 395, Serra. ccxli. 222 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Abt. VHL had the full authority of Scripture itself, and would therefore, probably, have been continually appealed to, especially in Councils, where new confessions of faith were composed. Thirdly, it is plain that the ancient Creeds, though alike in substance, were not alike in words ; which could never have been the case, if one authoritative form had been handed down from the Apostles. 1 Fourthly, we may add to this, that the ancients scrupulously avoided committing the Creed to writing ; and it is hardly probable, if there was in the Church a deposit so precious as a Creed drawn up by the Apostles, that it would have been left to the uncertainty of oral tradition, or that, if it were so left, it would have been pre- served in its perfect integrity. 2 But though this Creed was not drawn up by the Apostles them- selves, it may well be called Apostolic, both as containing the doc- trines taught by the Apostles, and as being in substance the same as was used in the Church from the times of the Apostles them- selves. This will appear to any one who will compare it with the various ancient forms preserved in the works of the most ancient fathers, and which may be seen in Bingham, Wall, and other well- known writers already referred to. 8 It was, no doubt, " the work neither of one man nor of one day ; " yet it is probable that the Apostles themselves used a form in the main agreeing with the Creed as we now have it, except that the articles concerning the descent into hell, the communion of saints, and the life everlasting, were most likely of later origin. The form indeed was never committed to writing, but, being very short, was easily retained in the memory, and taught to the cate- chumens, to be repeated by them at their baptism. It differed in different Churches in some verbal particulars, and was reduced to more regular form, owing to the necessity of guarding against par- ticular errors. The form most nearly corresponding to that now called the Apostles' Creed, was the Creed of the Church of Rome ; though even that Creed lacked the three clauses mentioned above. 4 And it is an opinion, not without great probability, that the rea- son why it was called Apostles' Creed was, that the Church of Rome being the only Church in the West which could undeni- ably claim an Apostle for its founder, its see was called the Apos- tolic See, and hence its Creed was called the Apostolic Creed. 6 1 See Suiccr, 8. v. Ivpflotov ; King, Pearson, at the head of every Article in p. 26 ; Bingham, Bk. x. ch. III. § f>. his Erftosition of the Creed. 8 Sec Aug. Oinmt, Tom. v. p. 988. See 4 Bingham, Bk. x. ch. in. § 12. also King, p. 81. 6 Wall, On Infant Baptism, Part n. ch 8 Suiccr, Bingham, and Wall, as above ; IX. p. 472. Oxford, 1885. Sec. IE.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 223 It is hardly necessary here to enter into any exposition, or proof from Scripture of the different clauses of the Apostles' Creed. Most of them occur in the Articles of the Church of England. The few which are not expressed in them may be more profitably considered in regular treatises on the Creed, than in a necessarily brief exposition of the Articles. Section III. — THE NICENE CREED. TX7HEN the Council of Nice met, a. d. 325, summoned by the ' " authority of the Emperor Constantine, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, recited to the assembled fathers the Creed, which he professed to have received from the bishops which were before him, into which he had been baptized, even as he had learned from the Scriptures, and such as in his episcopate he had believed and taught. The form of it was as follows : — " We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only- begotten Son, begotten before every creature (TLpworoKov Trdo-qs ktio-cws, Col. i. 15) ; begotten of the Father before all worlds, by whom all things were made ; who for our salvation was made flesh, and conversed among men, and suffered and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost." This confession of faith both Constantine and the assembled bishops unanimously received ; and it should seem that this would have been all that was required. But Arius himself, soon after the Council, a. d. 328, delivered a Creed to the Emperor, which was unobjectionable, if viewed by itself, but which studiously omitted anything which might have led him either to express or to abjure his most heretical opinions ; x namely, that there was a time when 1 Arius's Creed runs thus : — incarnate, and suffered, and rose again, " We believe in one God, the Father and ascended into Heaven, and shall Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Son come again to judge the quick and the our Lord, begotten of Him before all dead : and in the Holy Ghost ; and in ages, God the Word, by whom all things the resurrection of the flesh, and in the were made that are in Heaven and that life of the world to come, and in the are in earth ; who descended, and was kingdom of Heaven ; And in one Cath 224 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Art. Vm. the Son of God was not, that He was made out of nothing, and that He was not of one substance with the Father. This shows that there was an absolute necessity that the Council should word its Confession of faith, not only so as to express the belief of sound Christians, but also so as to guard against the errors of the Arians. Accordingly, the symbol set forth by the Council was in these words : — " We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father ; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, Begotten, not made ; being of one substance with the Father : by whom all things were made, both things in Heaven and things in earth ; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man : He suffered, and rose again the third day : and ascended into Heaven : and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. " And those who say that there was a time when he was not ; or that before He was begotten, He was not ; or that He was made out of nothing ; or who say that the Son of God is of any other substance, or that He is changeable or unstable, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes." * The Nicene Creed thus set forth, and the decrees of the Council against Arius, were received by the whole Church throughout the world, and thus marked by the stamp of Catholicity. Athanasius, in a. d. 363, informs us, that all the Churches in the world, whether in Europe, Asia, or Africa, approved of the Nicene faith, except a few persons who followed Arius. 2 It appears to many that this Creed of the Council of Nice was but an abridgment of the Creed commonly used in many parts of the Church, and that the reason why it extended no further than to the Article, " I believe in the Holy Ghost," was, because it was intended to lay a stress on those Articles concerning our Lord, to which the heresy of Arius was opposed. Epiphanius, who wrote his Anchorate some time before the Council of Con- olic Church of God, from one end of the also Athanasii Opera, Tom. i. p. 247, earth to the other." — Socr. H. E. Lib. Epist. ad Jovian. Colon. 1686. I. c. 26 ; Suieer, voc. 'Zvfido'Kov ; Bing- 2 Kot ravrnc oi'fultifot rvyxuvovm naaat ham, Bk. x. cli. iv. § 10; Wall, Part iv. al navraxov kutu rcmov YZkkTJjouu .... ch. ix. p. 458. irapcl; bTlyuv ru 'Ap«'ou Qpovovvruv. — 1 The Greek may be seen in Routh's Epist. ad Jovian, Tom. i. p. 246. See ScriptorumEeclesia8ticorumOpuscula,Tom. Palmer, On the Church, Pt. iv. ch. IX. I. p. 851 ; and in Suieer, voc. EvpfioXov ; Sec. HI.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 225 stantinople, says, that every catechumen repeated at his baptism, from the time of the Council of Nice to the tenth year of Valen- tinian and Valens, a. d. 373, a Creed in the following words : — " We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible : and in the Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, that is of the substance of His Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in Heaven and things on earth ; who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate ; He suffered and was buried ; and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven ; and sitteth on the right hand of the Father ; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead ; whose kingdom shall have no end. " And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And in one Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, We look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the world to come. Amen. " And those who say there was a time when He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or from some other substance or essence, or say that the Son of God is liable to flux or change, those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes." This Creed Epiphanius speaks of as handed down from the Apostles, and received in the Church, having been set forth by more than 310 Bishops (the number at Nice being 318). 1 It has also been observed that Cyril of Jerusalem, who died a. D. 386, and delivered his Catechetical Lectures early in his life, in the eighteenth lecture repeats the following Articles, as part of the Creed: — "In one Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one Holy Catholic Church ; and in the Resurrection of the flesh ; and in eternal Life." 2 We must infer then, either that a larger, as well as a shorter Creed was put forth at Nice, such as Epiphanius has recorded, or that such a longer form had existed of old time, and that the 1 Epiphanius, In Anchorato, juxtafinem ; 2 Cyril, Catech. xvm. Suicer, s. v. ovfifioAov ; Bingham, Bk. x. ch. iv. § 15. 220 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Art. VIH. Council only specified those parts which bore particularly on the controversy of the day ; or, lastly, that shortly after the Council of Nice the Nicene fathers, or some of them, or others who had high authority, enlarged and amplified the Nicene symbol, and that this enlarged form obtained extensively in the Church. 1 The Council of Constantinople met a. d. 381, consisting of 150 fathers. Their principal object was to condemn the Macedonian heresy, which denied the Deity of the Spirit of God. They accordingly put forth an enlarged edition of the Creed of the Council of Nice. It agreed almost word for word with the Creed of Epiphanius, the only omission being of the following clauses, " that is of the substance of His Father," and " both things in Heaven and things in earth ; " which were already fully expressed in other words. The chief clauses contained in this Creed, which do not occur in the Creed as put forth by the Council of Nice, are as follows : — " Begotten of the Father before all worlds," " By the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," " Was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and was buried," " Sittethon the right hand of the Father," " Whose kingdom shall have no end ; " and all those clauses which follow the words "We believe in the Holy Ghost." The most important of these expressions is " the Lord, and Giver of life " (to Kvpiov nal to £a>07rot6v). The Arians spoke of Him as a creature. The Macedonians called Him a ministering spirit. In opposition to these, in the Creed of Constantinople, after an expression of belief in the Holy Spirit to Uvevfia to ayior is added to Kvpiov, " the Lord." This was in allusion to 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18, where the Spirit is spoken of as the Lord (?'. e. Jeho- vah) ; and is called "The Lord the Spirit;" 2 and therefore in this Creed He is called i o IIvevp;a t6 Kvpiov, " the Spirit, which is the Lord." 8 It is unnecessary to repeat here what was said in the History of the fifth Article, concerning the famous addition of the Filioque ; which was the chief cause of the schism of the Eastern and West- ern Churches. The Creed of Constantinople was solemnly confirmed by the third general Council, the Council of Ephesus, a. n. 481 ; whose seventh Canon decrees that " No one shall be permitted to intro- duce, write, or compose any other faith, besides that which was 1 See Suicer and Bingham, as above. * Sec Wall, On Infant Baptism, n. p. * 6 di Kipioc rd Ylvtvpa loriv, and aird 466. Kvpiov IlveVparof . Sec. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 227 defined by the holy fathers assembled in the city of Nice with the Holy Ghost." 1 It is said that the first to introduce the Constantinopolitan Creed into the Liturgy was Peter Fullo, Patriarch of Antioch, about the year 471 ; and that he ordered it to be repeated in every assembly of the Church. 2 It is further said, that Timotheus, Bishop of Constantinople, first brought the same custom into the Church of Constantinople, about a. d. 511 . 3 From the East the custom passed into the Western Churches, and was first adopted in Spain by the Council of Toledo, about a. d. 589, when that Church was newly recovered from an inundation of Arianism. The Roman Church appears to have been the last to receive it, as some say, not before a. d. 1014 ; though others have assigned, with probability, an earlier date. 4 Section IV. — THE CREED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. I. fTVHE original of this, as of the Apostles' Creed, is obscure. -■- In former times, many learned men believed it to have been composed by Athanasius, when he was at Rome, and offered by him to Pope Julius, as a confession of his faith. This was the opinion of Baronius, and in it he was followed by Cardinal Bona, Petavius, Bellarmine, Rivet, and many others of both the Roman and the reformed communions. 6 The first who entered critically into an examination of the question of its authorship, was Gerard Vossius, in his work De Tribus Symholis, a. d. 1642 ; who threw strong doubts on the received opinion, having given good reason to believe that this Creed was the work, not of Athanasius, but of some Latin writer, probably much posterior to Athanasius. Indeed he did not set it higher than a. d. 600. He was followed by Arch- bishop Usher, who in his tract De Symholis (a. d. 1647) produced new evidence, of which Vossius was ignorant, agreed with him in denying it to Athanasius, but scrupled not to assign it a date prior to the year 447. 1 Beveridge, Synodicon, i. p. 103; iv. §7; Palmer's Origines Liturgicae, n Routh's Opuscula, ii. p. 392. ch. iv. § 6. 3 Tlirpov p»7 cts tov ®ebv Jlaripa iravTOKpaxopa iroirpyjv ovpavov koi y»}s, koi *Ir)(rovv Xpurrov Yiov avrov tov p,ovoyevrj tov Kvpiov rjp,5>v. tov o~vWr) u)vras av#pa>7rovs, Kai Sta ttjv rjpxripav crwmjplav, KwreXOovra ck t5»v ovpavCtv, koX o-apKtodevra ck Uv€t>- paTos aytov, Kai Mapias t»)s irapOevov, kcu evav6par7rr]o~avTa- arravpatdcvra. tc vjrcp ^/xa)v «7Tt noiriou IltXaTou, Kai 7ra#oiTa, kol racpivra, Kai dvaoTaWa rg rpiTg r/fiipa Kara Tas ypas, Kai Ka#c£opevov €K S€$lS>v tov Uarpos, ko.1 7raA.1v ep^opevov pera Bo$rjs Kplvai ^wn-as Kai kc- Kpovv. Eis piav ayiav Ka^oAtK^v Kat d7rooToAiKr)v CK/cAiio-iav bp.o\oyovpnv ev {3a.7rrurpa cts av, Trpoo-8oKr)v tov peXAovTos aifivos. *Ap.rjv. 3. JYefe* Sancti Athanam. 1. Quicunque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam Fidem. 2. Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. 3. Fides autem Catholica haec est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in Unitate veneremur : 4. Neque confundentes Personas, neque Substantiam sepa- rantes. 5. Alia est enim Persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti. 6. Sed Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, una est Divinitas, aequalis Gloria, coasterna Majestas. 7. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis et Spiritus Sanctus. 8. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus et Spiritus Sanctus. 9. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus et Spiritus Sanctus. 10. ./Eternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus et Spiritus Sanctus. 11. Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus. 12. Sicut non tres increati, nee tres immensi, sed unus incre- atus, et unus immensus. 13. Similiter, Omnipotens Pater, Omnipotens Filius, Omnipotens et Spiritus Sanctus. Sec. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 237 14. Et tamen non tres Omnipotentes, sed unus Omnipotens. 15. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus et Spiritus Sanctus. 16. Et tamen non tres Dii, sed unus est Deus. 17. Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus et Spiritus Sanctus. 18. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus est Dominus. 19. Quia sicut singillatim unamquamque Personam et Deum et Dominum confiteri Christiana veritate compellimur ; ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere Catholica religione prohibemur. 20. Pater a nullo est factus, nee creatus, nee genitus. 21. Filius a Patre solo est, non factus, nee creatus, sed genitus. 22. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio, non factus, nee creatus, nee genitus est, sed procedens. 23. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres ; unus Filius, non tres Filii ; unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. 24. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil majus aut minus, sed totae tres Personae coaeternae sibi sunt, et coaequales. 25. Ita ut per omnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et Unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in Unitate veneranda sit. 26. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. 27. Sed necessarium est ad aeternam Salutem, ut Incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat. 28. Est ergo Fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus pariter et Homo est. 29. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus : Homo, ex substantia Matris in saeculo natus. 30. Perfectus Deus, perfectus Homo ex anima rationali et hu- mana carne subsistens. 31. JEqualis Patri secundum Divinitatem : minor Patre se- cundum Humanitatem. 32. Qui licet Deus sit et Homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. 33. Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum. 34. Unus omnino, non confusione Substantias, sed unitate Per- sonam. 35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est Homo ; ita Deus et Homo unus est Christus. 36. Qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. 238 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Art. VHL 37. Adscendit ad coelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris ; inde ven- tolins judicare vivos et mortuos. 38. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis, et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. 39. Et qui bona egerunt ibunt in vitam aeternam, qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum. 40. Haec est Fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter, firmi- terque crediderit, salvus esse non potent. ARTICLE IX. Of Original, or Birth-Sin. Original Sin standeth not in the fol- lowing of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and cor- ruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit, and therefore, in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are re- generated ; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek j of this passage better than imputed, it is the fault and corruption of „ , „ ™ r • .. • »u„_~. the nature of every man that naturally is ">• ^c<»munctioni«.gnithc««. propagated from Adam; whereby man 80 , n w . hv 0«m had cursed the earth, not Is wholly deprived of original righteous- wh * IIe would not cune ■» a » aln - Sec. II.] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 255 original warrants. The Hebrew word B73M signifies rather danger- ously sick, and therefore feeble, and in a moral sense, corrupted and depraved. Yet still the passage shows that the heart of man, taken in the general, is so corrupted and depraved as to be eminently deceitful and hard to know. To these passages from the old Testament are added the words of St. Paul, " I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing," Rom. vii. 18 ; and then again, " The carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be," Rom. viii. 7. Such language undoubtedly proves the very great corruption of the human heart, so that we cannot hesitate to say with our Church, that by nature " man is very far gone from original right- eousness." He is described as " dead in trespasses and sins," and therefore we ought undoubtedly to maintain that his corruption is such as to prevent him from making any efforts to recover himself and turn by his own strength to calling upon God. This is the practical part of the doctrine, and our Church goes no farther. Those who would push the matter to its greatest length, con- tend that the passages above quoted show that the image of God, in which man was created, was utterly taken from him at the fall ; that he thenceforth had no trace of resemblance to what he once was ; and, though they may not use language so strong, the nat- ural conclusion from that which they do use is, that in a moral point of view there is no distinction between fallen humanity and evil spirits. Those who differ with them argue that God's image was in- deed defaced by sin, and so the effect and blessing of it lost. But that that image was quite gone they consider disproved by the declai*ation that " whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; for in the image of God made He man " (Gen. ix. 6), — by St. Paul's statement, that the man "is the image and glory of God " (1 Cor. xi. 7), — by St. James's reasoning, that it is inconsistent with the same mouth to bless God, and to " curse men, which are made after the similitude of God " (James hi. 9). All these passages, they say, refer to men since the fall, and therefore prove that, whatever effect the fall may have had, it cannot have wholly obliterated the image of the Almighty. They say farther, that when St. Paul says that " in him, that is in his flesh, dwelleth no good thing," he yet adds, " that to will is present with him, but how to perform that which is good. he finds not " (Rom. vii. 18) ; and that he all along represents man as ap- 256 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Art. IX. proving of what is right, but unable to accomplish it, — as honoring the law, but not fulfilling it, — as even " delighting in the law of God after the inward man," but finding another law ruling in his members, " which brings him into captivity to the law of sin " (Rom. vii. 22, 23). Hence, though man is captivated and subdued by sin, there must be some relic of his former state to make him see and admire what is good, though unable to follow it ; and so the Apostle speaks of all men as subject to the dictates of natural conscience (Rom. ii. 14, 15), and does not hesitate to reason with unregenerate heathens, of " righteousness, temperance, and judg- ment to come " (Acts xxiv. 25). These and like expressions in Scripture, it is thought, are incon- sistent with the stronger language which some have used concern- ing human depravity ; although there is fully enough to show the universal and fearful corruption of our nature, and our utter ina- bility of ourselves to become righteous, or to move upwards tow- ards God and goodness. IV. We come next to consider the statement which is made in the Article, that original sin "in every person born into the world deserveth God's wrath and damnation." Dr. Hey thinks that the word " damnation " is not necessarily to be understood of condemnation to eternal death, but may be construed, according to the proper signification of the term, to mean merely condemnation of some kind or other. The language of the Article is undoubtedly guarded, and studiously avoids expressing anything which cannot be clearly proved from Scripture. It is possible, therefore, that this may have been its meaning. But in either sense of the word, we shall probably find fully sufficient support for the doctrine ex- pressed. The language of St. Paul already quoted, " in Adam all die " (1 Cor. xv. 22), " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men ; for that all have sinned " (Rom. v. 12), shows that the woe denounced upon Adam, as the effect of his own sin, passed from him to his posterity, as the effect of that sinfulness which they inherited from him. Accord- ingly, the same Apostle calls all men " children of wrath " (Ephes. ii. 3) ; and that we may be sure that this is true, not only of adults who have sinned wilfully, but even of infants, who have only in- herited a sinful nature, we find our Lord, when speaking of the importance of the souls of little children, and of the guardianship of angels over them, attributing the blessings of their condition to Sec. II.] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 257 His having delivered them from their original state, which was that of those that are lost. " For," said He, " the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost" (Matt. xviii. 11). With this corresponds the before-cited passage of St. Paul : " Death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." We find therefore all men, even children, represented as " lost," as " children of wrath," as subject to, and under the reign of " death." And this is said to have been brought in by the sin of one man, even Adam, and to have " passed upon all men ; for that all have sinned." We cannot fail to infer, that, as Adam by sin became subject to wrath and death, so all men are subject to the same wrath and death, because, by having a nature in itself sinful, they are, even without the commission of actual sin, yet sinners before God, and esteemed as " having sinned." The death which Adam brought in is clearly (in Rom. v. and 1 Cor. xv.) opposed to the life which Christ bestows. That life is spiritual ; and we therefore reason that the death, which is anti- thetic to it, is spiritual too. The conclusion is, that every person born into the world has a sinful nature and a sinful heart, which, though it have not broken out in acts of sin, yet constitutes him a sinner, so that he may be said to " have sinned ; " and that, on this account, he is liable to death, whether by death be meant death of the body, or death of the soul. It appears to me that our Church takes this view of the sub- ject, and so follows closely on the teaching of St. Paul. She has said nothing concerning that hypothesis which was current among the schoolmen, and in general has prevailed amongst the followers of St. Augustine, that Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, and that, as Levi was esteemed to have paid tithes in Abraham, being ** yet in the loins of his father" (Heb. vii. 9, 10), so all men are esteemed to have sinned in Adam, and thus have his act of disobe- dience imputed to them. 1 The hypothesis is ingenious as explain- ing the language of the Apostle, but seems scarcely to correspond with his assertion that " death passed upon all men for that all 1 See Edwards, On Oriqinid Sin, Part Church, though perhaps for some igno- iv. ch. in. Bp. Burnet, in stating the rant ages it received it, as it did every- objections to this doctrine, gives this thing else very implicitly, yet has been among the rest: "It is no small prejudice very much divided both about this, against this opinion that it was so long and many other opinions related to it, before it first appeared in the Latin or arising out of it." — Burnet on Art. Church : that it was never received in ix. the Greek ; and that even the Western 33 258 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Akt. IX. have sinned." l It may be said indeed that they are esteemed to have sinned. But the statement is simply that they " have sinned." And it is much easier to understand that a being of sinful disposi- tion should be considered as having done that to which his disposi- tion inevitably leads him, and which he has only left undone for lack of opportunity, than it is to suppose that he should be esteemed to have committed an act which was really committed by another, five thousand years before his birth. At all events, where our Church leaves it, let it rest. V. It remains only to show that the infection of original sin is not (as the Council of Trent ruled it) wholly removed by baptism, but that it remains even in the renati ; and, though there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized, yet the lust or concupiscence, which remains in all men, has the nature of sin. 1. Let us first remark, that " Therefis no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized." This is plain from our Lord's words in His commission to His Apostles : " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved " (Mark xvi. 16). It is not less plain from the language of St. Peter, who, when asked by his hearers what they should do for salvation, replied, " Repent, and be bap- tized" 2 (Actsii. 38). The questions which may arise concerning the baptism of young children, may properly be reserved for the Article which treats expressly of baptism. Here it is sufficient to observe that our Church, though not admitting that all taint of original sin is done away in baptism, yet holds that its condemnation is remitted. ■ It is certain," she says, " by God's word, that children which art- baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." 8 2. But, though we thus believe that the condemnation which 1 The marginal translation of £0't5" in peccata, tatnquam omnino ad parvuios whom," would much favour this hypoth- non pertim-ant : si quidcm in Adam tunc csi.s. But it needs proof that k M in Prov - x - 8 > W3Wn p^n f&p* theology. Thus n^H signifies both desire " He withholdeth the desire of the wick- «•- ed." (2) wickedness, as Ps. v. 10, ,-,V)rr and wickedness. In Arabic tS/ is Vasta Mnp " Their inward part is very wick- "~ edness." Where the plural form give* in- cuptdiUu, Amor intensissimus, from (Sj tensity. ARTICLE X. Of Free Will. The condition of man, after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith, and calling upon God ; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, 1 when we have that good will. 2 De Libero Arbitrio. Ea est hominis post lapsum Adas con- ditio, ut sese naturalibus suis viribus e* bonis operibus, adfidem et invocationem Dei convertere ac praeparare non possit. Quare absque gratia Dei (quae per Chris- tum est) nos praeveniente, ut velimus, et cooperante dum volumus, ad pietatis opera facienda, quae Deo grata sunt et accepta, nihil valemus. Section I. — HISTORY. TTHE Article on Free Will naturally follows that concerning -*• Original Sin ; and much which was said on the latter subject may be applicable to the explication of the former. The sentiments of the Apostolical Fathers on Free Will are probably nowhere very distinctly expressed. Their writings are rather practical than controversial ; and hence these topics are not very likely to be discussed in them. That they fully and plainly teach the weakness of man, and the necessity of Divine grace, cannot be questioned. The opinions of Justin Martyr are more clearly and definitely put forth in his extant works than are those of the Apostolical Fathers. In answer to objections which the Jews urged against 1 This is the reading of the copy of the Articles as set forth in 1571. In 1562 the words run " working in us," and such was the reading in 1552. 2 The Article, as it stood in 1552, be- gan with the words, " We have no power." The former part was prefixed in 1562 by Abp. Parker, having been taken from the Wirtemburg Confession, the words of which are : — Quod autem nonnull'r affirmant homini post lapsum tantam animi integritatem relic tain, ut possit sese, naturalibus suis viribus et bonis operibus, ad fidem et in- vocationem Dei convertere ac praeparare, baud obscure pugnat cum Apostolica doctrina et cum vero Ecclesiae Catholi- cae consensu. The latter part, which constituted the whole of the original Article, lias adopted the language of St. Augustine : — Sine illo vel operante ut velimus, vel cooperante cum volumus, ad bonae pie- tatis opera nihil valemus. — De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, cap. 17. See Abp. Laurence, B. L. pp. 101, 235. 262 OF FREE WILL. [Abt. X. the scheme of Christian doctrine, namely, that according to it there was an inevitable necessity that Christ should suffer, and therefore a necessity and constraint laid upon the Jews to crucify Him, Justin denies that God's foreknowledge of wicked actions made Him the author of those actions. He puts no restraint upon men's wills, but foretells certain evil actions, not because He causes, but simply because He foresees them. 1 In like manner, in the first Apology, which was addressed to heathens, he explains that our belief in the predictions of the Prophets does not oblige us to believe that things take place according to fate ; for, if men acted •under a fatal necessity, one could not be praised nor another blamed. 2 " And in the second Apology he maintains, in opposition to the Stoics, who believed in an inevitable fate (ko6* eipMpixivrjv avdyKrjv iravTa yiveaOai), that it is the nature of all men to have a capacity for virtue and vice ; for unless there were a power of turning to either, there could be nothing praiseworthy. 3 Yet, with such a belief in the freedom of human choice, Justin fully maintained the necessity of Divine grace, and the impossibility of attaining salvation without the light and aid of God's Spirit. 4 In the earliest ages the Gnostic and other heretics held, to a great extent, the doctrines of material fatalism. We have already Seen that some of the Gnostics considered actions as influenced by the stars. We have seen also, that Florinus taught that God was the Author of evil, and that Irenseus, who had formerly been his friend, wrote against him. 6 Against such statements Irenseus con- stantly maintained human freedom, and denied that the will was a 'mere machine acted on by good or evil principles, and itself passive under them. But the necessity of the grace of God's Holy Spirit he as strongly expressed, when occasion required. 6 The Marcionites maintained that the universe was governed by two independent principles, one of good, and the other of evil. This naturally led to the belief in a physical restraint on the will of the creature. Accordingly, Tertullian, in disputing against 1 Dial, cum Tnjphone, Opera, p. 290. 6 See History of the Ninth Article. 8 Apol. i. Opera, p. 80. 8 E. g. Sicut ariila term, si non per- 8 Apcl. ii. Opera, p. 46. cipiat hiimorem, non f'ruetificat : sic et * E. v dvSpuiruv, 6u\ yevoc i} nXovrov in. 19. # ia^vv $ ao6iav voui&iv dvvaotiai oC^eodai. Concerning tho opinions of Ircnacus — IHal.c Tifiph. Opp. p. 3'2\). on free will, see Faber as above, and Concerning Justin Martyr's opinions on Bcaven's Account of Irenants, ih. IX, p free will, consult Bp. Kaye's Justin Mar- 112. iyr, p. 76, ch. in. ; Faber's Primitive Doctrine of Election, Bk. I. ch. XI. Sec. I.] OF FREE WILL. 263' them, strenuously contends that freedom of the will was given to Adam. 1 From the same father we learn that Valentinus taught that man was created of three different kinds, — spiritual, animal, and terrestrial ; the first sort as Seth,*the second as Abel, the third as Cain ; and that, as the distinction was from birth, it was conse- quently immutable. The first kind were destined to certain salva- tion, the last to certain perdition, the lot of the second was uncer- tain, depending on their greater inclination on the one hand to the spiritual, on the other to the carnal. 2 The fathers, who were contemporary with these heretics, were naturally led, in disputing against them, to use strong language on the freedom of the will ; so that it is no wonder if, after the rise of Pelagius, his followers were ready to quote some of the ancients in defence of their errors. Origen was one of those who opposed the Marcionite and Valentinian heresies ; and his peculiar system of theology specially led him to more than ordinarily strong assertions of the freedom of the will. He took up the Platonic notion of the preexistence of souls. The state of all created beings he believed to be regulated by their former actions. All souls were created free. Every rational creature was made capable of good or of evil. Angels and devils were alike created capable of holiness or of wickedness. The devil and his ministers fell by abuse of freedom ; the holy angels stood by a right use of it. 3 Every reasoning being is capable of degenerating or of improvement, according as he follows or resists reason. Men have been placed in different positions in this world ; but it is because of their conduct in a former existence. Jacob was beloved of God more than Esau, because in the former life he had lived more holily. 4 And, as good or evil are substantially in none but the Holy Trinity, but all holiness is in creatures only as an- accident, it follows that it is in us and in our own wills to be holy, or through sloth and negligence to decline from holiness to wickedness and perdition. 5 Holiness is attained or lost, much as music or mathematics. No man becomes a mathematician or a musician but by labour and study, and, if he becomes idle and negligent, he will forget what he has learnt, and cease to be skilful in his science 1 Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. n. 8, 9, beati vel sancti simus, vel per desidiam &c. etnegligentiam abeatitudine in malitiam 2 Tertullian, De Anima, c. 21-30. See et perditionem vergamus, in tantum ut Bisbop Kaye's Tertullian, pp. 330, 522. niraius profectus (ut itadixerim) malitiae, 3 De Princip. Lib. i. cap. 5. si quis in tantum sui neglexerit, usque * Lib. ii. cap. 9, num. 7. ad eum statura deveniat, ut ea quae dici- 5 Et per hot; oonsequens est in nobis tur contraria virtus efflciatur. — Lib. I. esse, atque in nostris motibus, ut vel cap. 5, num. 5. 264 OF FREE WILL. [Art. X. or his art ; and so no man will be good who does not practise good- ness, and, if he neglects self-discipline and is idle, he will soon lapse into sin and corruption. 1 Such language assigns so much strength to man, and keeps out of sight so much the necessity of Divine grace, that it has been truly said not to have been " without reason that St. Hierome accuses him of having furnished the Pelagians with principles ; " though yet in some places he speaks very favour- ably of grace and of the assistance of God. 2 In later times, as we have seen already. Manes and his followers held that good or evil actions were produced by the good or the evil principle. They appear to have believed that men are acted on by these powers as an inanimate stock, which must passively submit to the impulses which move it. 3 St. Augustine was himself originally a Manichee. In his earlier treatises he constantly directs his arguments against the Manichean doctrines, as being those errors with which he was best acquainted, and which he dreaded most. 4 After the rise of Pelagianism, and when his efforts were chiefly directed to the overthrow of that heresy, he speaks less frequently and clearly in favour of the original freedom of the will, and brings more prominently out those predestinarian opinions which are so well known in connection with his name. It would not, however, be true to say that he materially changed his opinions on that sub- ject ; for in some of his most decidedly Anti-Pelagian writings, and whilst most strongly maintaining the sovereignty of Divine grace, he unequivocally asserts the freedom of the human will, as a gift of God to be used and accounted for. 6 The tenets of the Pelagians on this subject are expressed in one of the charges urged against Coelestius in the Council of Carthage, " That a man may be without sin, and keep the commandments of 1 Lib. i. cap. 4. Liberum ergo arbitrium evacuamus * Dupin, Ecclesiastical Hist. Cent. HI. per gratiam ? Absit, sed magis liberum Origen. arbitrium statuimus. Sicut enim lex per It seems as if Clement of Alexandria fidem, sic liberum arbitrium per gratiam pressed the doctrine of free will to a non evacuatur sed statuitur. Neque very undue extent, though not so far nor enim lex impletur nisi libero arbitrio : so systematically as his great pupil Ori- sed per legem cognitio peccati, per fidem gen. See Bp. Kaye's Clement of Alexan- impetratio gratia; contra jK'ccutum, per aria, cli. x. p. 4'2'J. gratiam sanatio animal a vitio peccati, 3 Beausobre, and apparently Lardner per animae sanitatein libertasarbitrii, per who quotes him, doubt whether the Man- liberum arbitrium jtistitiae dilectio, per ichees did believe the will to be so thor- justitiso dilectionem legis operatio. Ac oughly enslaved. See Lardner, Hist of per hoc, sicut lex non evacuatur, sed Afanichees, Sec. iv. 18. Vol. III. p. 474. statuitur per fidem, quia fides impetntt * For instance, see the treatise Oe gratiam, qua lex impleatur : ita lilwrum Libero Arbitrio, Opp. Tom. I. arbitrium non evacuatur per gratiam, sed 6 For example, De Spiritu et Litem, statuitur, quia gratia s.ui.it voluntatem, § 52, Tom. .v. p. 114. qua justitia libero diligatur. Sec. L] OF FREE WILL. 265 God if he will ; " * or in the passage which Augustine cites from his work, " Our victory proceeds not from the help of God, but from the freedom of will." 2 The Semi-Pelagians, though they did not deny the necessity of grace, yet taught that preventing grace was not necessary to produce the beginnings of true repent- ance, that every one could by natural strength turn towards God, but that no one could advance and persevere without the assistance of the Spirit of God. 3 In the ninth century, Goteschalc, a Saxon divine, broached strong predestinarian doctrines, which, of course, more or less embraced the subject of the present Article ; for, as he is said to have held that God eternally decreed some men to salvation and others to perdition, he must have held that the will was in a great degree subject to an inevitable necessity. 4 The history of this controversy, however, more properly belongs to the seventeenth Article. The disputes on the doctrines of Goteschalc divided the writers of his day. He was defended by Ratramn, monk of Corby, famous on more accounts than one, and condemned by Rabanus Maurus and Johannes Scotus Erigena. In the twelfth century nourished Peter, surnamed Lombardus or Lombard, Archbishop of Paris, who wrote a book called Libri Sententiarum, in which he compiled extracts from the fathers on different points of faith and doctrine, from which he was afterwards known as the Magister Sententiarum, or Master of the Sentences. His work became the text-book for future disputants, the store- house for scholastic polemics, esteemed well nigh upon a par with Scripture itself. The schoolmen, who followed him, and flourished chiefly in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, discussed to a great extent the questions concerning predestination and the freedom of the will. The most famous of these, as being heads of powerful and opposing parties, were Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican Friar, of a philosophical spirit and great learning, and was known by the name of Doctor Universalis, or Angelicus. He was born in Italy, a. d. 1224, and died in 1274. 1 Wall, Infant Baptism, i. p. 357 ; Col- Vitalis held that " God did work in us lier, Eccl. Hist. Book i., and the ac- to will, by the Scriptures either read or count of Pelagianism given under Arti- heard by us ; but that toconsent to them cle IX. or not consent is so in our own power 2 Victoriam nostrara non ex Dei esse that if we will it may be done." — Au- adjutorio, sed ex libero arbitrio. — Au- gust. Epist. cvn. ad Vila/em. gust. De Gestis Pelagii, Tom. x. p. 215. * See Mosheim, Cent. ix. pt. IX. ch. 8 Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. v. pt. II. m. ch. v. § 26. 34 266 OF FREE WILL. [Art. X. His most famous work is his Summa Theologice. In philosophy he was a Realist ; in Theology, a disciple of St Augustine ; and there- fore opposed to that belief too prevalent among the schoolmen, that the gift of grace was dependent on the manner in which men exercised their merely natural endowments (jpura naturalia). Duns Scotus, born at Dunston in Northumberland, about the period of the death of Aquinas, was a Franciscan. He attacked the system of Thomas Aquinas, and acquired the name of Doctor Subtilis. He so strongly maintained the doctrine of the freedom of the will as to approximate suspiciously to the error of Pelagius. Duns Scotus was the founder of the School called the Scotitsts, to which the Franciscan friars belonged. The followers of Thomas Aquinas were called Thomists, and to these belonged the Domini- cans, who with the Franciscans divided between them the learning of the Christian world in the ages preceding the Reformation. In reasoning on the subject of the human will, and the need of grace to produce holiness, the school-authors invented a mode of speaking, alluded to in our thirteenth article, by which they endeavoured to reconcile some of the apparent difficulties of the question. They observed that Cornelius, before his baptism and a knowledge of the Gospel, had put up prayers and given alms, which are spoken of in Scripture as acceptable to God. 1 They thought, therefore, that some degree of goodness was attributable to unassisted efforts on the part of man towards the attainment of holiness ; and, though they did not hold that such efforts did, of their own merit, deserve grace, yet they taught that in some de- gree they were such as to call down the grace of God upon them, it being not indeed obligatory on the justice of God to reward such efforts by giving His grace, but it being agreeable to His nature and goodness to bestow grace on those who make such efforts. Endeavors, then, on the part of man to attain to godliness were by the schoolmen said to deserve grace de congruo, of congruity. But, when once grace was given, then it enabled the recipient to deserve at the hands of God, not only farther grace, but even in the end everlasting life. All this of course was to be considered as depending on the Atonement of Christ ; but whatever was pre- supposed, it remarkably tended to the exalting the power of the will, and the strength of unassisted man. 2 1 Acts x. 4 : " Thy prayers and thine out the marked distinction between the alms are come up for a memorial before doctrine of grace de cowjrno, as held by Qod." Aquinas, and the same doctrine, as held 8 Laurence, D. L. Serm. iv. and the by Alexander of Hales and the Francis- notes to that Sermon jnissim. Neander, cans, vol. viii. pp. 280, 231. Neander points Sec. I.] OF FREE WILL. 267 We now come to the period of the Reformation. The doctrine of grace de congruo gave the greatest possible offence to Luther, and called forth much of his strongest language. For example, in his treatise on the Bondage of the Will he asserted, that " in his actings towards God, in things pertaining to salvation or damna- tion, man has no free will, but is the captive, the subject, and the servant, either of the will of God, or of the will of Satan." 1 Again, " If we believe that God foreknows and predestinates everything .... it follows that there can be no such thing as free will in man or angel, or any creature." 2 These expressions are charac- teristic of the vehemence of Luther's temper, when opposing what he considered a dangerous error, and are much stronger than the opinions subsequently expressed by him, and very different from the language of Melancthon and the confessions of the Lutheran Churches. In the Council of Trent the Lutheran opinions on this doctrine were set forth to be discussed. Much was said on both sides of the question. The Franciscans, as being followers of Scotus, spoke much for the absolute freedom of the will, and in favour of the doctrine of grace de congruo. The Dominicans, after St. Thomas Aquinas, repudiated the idea of congruous merit, and maintained the inability of man to turn to good of his own will, since the fall of Adam. The decrees were drawn up, so as to displease either party as little as possible, but with a leaning to the Franciscan doctrines. Those were condemned who said " that since the sin of Adam free will is lost," and that " bad as well as good works are done by the working of God." Yet, at the same time, those were anathematized who said that " a man could be justified without grace," " that grace is given to live well with greater facility, and to merit eternal life, as if free will could do it though with more difficulty ; " and who said that " a man may believe, love, hope, or repent, without the prevention or assistance of the Holy Spirit." 3 In the earlier days of the Reformation, the Lutherans generally held extreme language on the slavery of the will, and Melancthon himself used expressions which he afterwards withdrew. The more 1 Caeterum erga Deum, vel in rebus praescientia et praedestinatione, deinde quaj pertinent ad salutem vel damna- nihil fieri nisi ipso volente, id quod ipsa tionem, non habet liberum arbitrium, sed ratio cogitur coneedere, simul ipsa ra- captivus, subjectus et servus est vel vol- tione teste, nullum potest esse liberum untatis Dei, vel voluntatis Satanae. — De arbitrium in homine vel angelo, aut ulla Servo Aibitiio, Opp. Tom. i. p. 432. creatura. — Id. p. 481. 2 Sienim credimus verum esse, quod 8 Sarpi, pp. 134, 210; Heylyn, Hisio- Deus praeseit et praeordinat omnia, turn ria Quinquarticularis, pt. i. ch. IV. neque falli neque impediri potest sua 268 OF FREE WILL. [Abt. X. matured convictions of this great writer were sober and wise ; and the confession of Augsburg, whilst affirming that the will of man " hath not the power to effect the righteousness of God without the Spirit of God," 1 yet declares that " the cause of sin is the will of wicked beings, namely, the devil and ungodly men, which, when not aided by God, turns itself from God, as it is written, When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of himself." 2 The Calvinistic reformers do not hesitate to use the most ex- treme expressions on the inability of man to do anything but evil. " The mind of man," says Calvin, " is so wholly alienated from God, that it can conceive, desire, and effect nothing but what is impious, perverted, foul, impure, and flagitious ; the heart of sin is so steeped in venom, that it can breathe forth nothing but fetid corruption." 8 The followers of Calvin have, for the most part, used language similar to their leader. Whether Calvin allowed to Adam free will in Paradise, or believed that even his fall was predestinated, has been matter of dispute. Of the Calvinistic divines, those called Supralapsarians held, as has been mentioned before, that God fore- ordained that Adam should sin, and therefore denied to him free will even in a state of innocence. The Sublapsarians held that he fell of his own will, and not by constraint or through the ordina- tion of God. Among the bodies of Christians who embraced the Calvinistic doctrines and discipline, some of the most considerable were the Churches of Holland and Belgium. The Belgic Confession, put forth in the year 1567, contains explicit declarations that all things in the world must happen according to the absolute decree and ordination of God, though God was not to be called the author of sin, nor to be blamed for its existence. 4 Several divines of the Belgic Church had demurred at these doctrines ; and at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, Jacob Van Harmin, or Arminius, a pastor of Amsterdam, broached the 1 Non linbct vim sine Spiritu Sancto 8 Stot ergo nobis indubia ista Veritas, cfficicndaajustitise Dei, seujustitise spirit- qua nullis machinatnentis quntefieri pot- ualis, quia animalis homo non percipitea, est, mentem liominis sic nlienatnm pror- quro sunt Spiritus Dei. — Art. xvu. ; sus a Dei justitia, ut nihil non impium. Syl'.oiie, p. 129. con tortum, feed um, impurum. flagitiosum *' Art. xix. De causa peccati docent, concipiat, concupiscat, moliatnr : cor pec- quod tametsi Deuscreatet conservnt na- cati veneno ita penitus delibutum, ut turam, tnmen causa peccati est voluntas nihil quam corruptum foetorem efflare malorum, videlicet diaboli et impiorum, queat. — Calv. lnstitut. Lib. u. cap. v quae non ndjuvflnte Deo avertit se a Deo, 19. sicut Christus ait Joh. viii., Cum loqui- * Confeis. Bclgica, Sylloge, p. 284 tur raendacium, ex seipso loquitur. — Sail. p. 180. Sec. I.] OF FREE WILL. 269 sentiments generally known by the name of Arminianism. He dying in 1609, and his followers being persecuted by the dominant party, they addressed, in 1610, a Remonstrance to the states of Holland, whence they were called Remonstrants. Their senti- ments on the subject of free will may be gathered from the third and fourth of the five articles, to which the Arminian doctrines were reduced. The third article says that " man cannot attain to saving faith of his own free will, in regard that, living in an estate of sin and defection from God, he is not able of himself to think, will, or do anything which is really good." The fourth article runs thus, " The grace of God is the beginning, promotion, and accomplish- ment of everything that is good in us ; insomuch that the regen- erate man can neither think, will, nor do anything that is good, nor resist any sinful temptations without this grace preventing, cooperating, and assisting; and consequently, all good works which any man can attain to, are to be attributed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as for the manner of the cooperation of this grace, it is not irresistible ; for it is said of many in Scripture, that they did resist the Holy Ghost, as in Acts vii. and many othei places." 1 The disputes between the Remonstrants and their opponents led to the calling of a Synod at Dort, or Dordrecht, at which dep- uties were present from most of the Protestant Churches of Europe. At this the Arminians were excommunicated, and the doctrines of the Swiss and Belgic reformed Churches declared to be decidedly Calvinistic, and intolerant of the opposite opinions. 2 Both election and reprobation are declared to be of God alone ; 3 but at the same time, it is affirmed that God is not to be considered as the author of sin; 4 nor is it to be said that He works on men as logs or stocks, but rather by giving fife and energy to their wills. 5 The decrees of the Synod are indeed generally esteemed decidedly su- pralapsarian, and were unsatisfactory to the English divines who were present during some of their discussions ; 6 but their language seems less exaggerated than some who were opposed to them have been inclined to represent it. 7 The Church of Rome, after the Council of Trent, was not 1 Heylyn's Hist. Quinq. pt. I. ch. v. ; 6 Ibid. p. 431, Art. xvi. Moslieim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. xvn. Sect II. 6 See Bp. Hall's Observations on some pt. II. Specialities in his Life. 2 Heylyn and Moslieim as above. " See, for example, Heylyn, H. Q. pt» 8 Sylloye, p. 406, Art. vi. i. ch. vi. * Ibid. p. 409, Art xr. 270 OF FREE WILL. [Akt. X. exempt from the same controversies which divided the Protestants on grace and free will. Molina, a Jesuit, professor at Ebora, in Portugal, in 1588, published a book entitled Libert arbitrii Con- cordia cum Gratia; donis, Divina Prosscientia, Pr&destinatione, et Reprobatione. His theory was somewhat similar to that of the Arminians, who taught that grace was given, according as God foresees that man would embrace and make good use of it. The Dominicans were much offended at this work, and accused the Jesuits of reviving Pelagianism. This led to a long and violent contention between the two orders, which caused Clement VIII. to appoint a sort of Council called the Congregation de Auxiliis. 1 The death of Clement VIII., before a settlement of these disputes, did not prevent their continuance under his successor, Paul V. And though Paul did not publicly declare for either side of the question, it is probable that he urged both parties to moderation, being deterred from pronouncing against the Jesuits by the patron- age extended to them by the court of France, and from deciding against the Dominicans by the protection of the court of Spain. 2 The controversy, hushed for a time, broke out again in the year 1640, in consequence of the writings of Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, who revived the doctrines of Augustine, in his book enti- tled Augustinus. His followers were called Jansenists, and were strongly opposed by the Jesuits ; the former maintaining the sen- timents held by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the Dominicans, the latter holding those of Duns Scotus and the Franciscans. The book of Jansenius was first condemned as a breach of the concord which had been enjoined in the Church, but was afterwards more distinctly prohibited by a solemn bull of Pope Urban VIII., a. d. 1642. The Jansenists however continued to prosper, numbering many able and pious men in their ranks, and appealing to miracles in support of their opinions. But ultimately they were condemned and persecuted by the Bishops of Rome, and the dominant faction of the Church. 8 Before concluding this sketch of the different controversies in other countries, we must mention the Socinian opinions on free will ; which, of course, correspond with their views of original sin ; as they appear to consider that man's will is so far free and strong as to need only external, and not internal help towards his sanctifi- cation. 4 After the Retormation, or during the establishment of it in 1 Moslieim, Cent. xvi. Sect. in. pt. i. » Ibid. Cent xvn. Sect. n. pt i. § 40 1 Ibid. Cent. xvn. Sect. n. pt. i. § 35. * Ibid. Cent.xvi. Sect. m. pt n. 17. Sec. I.] OF FREE WILL. 271 England, the first thing which particularly claims our attention is the Article of Free Will in the Necessary Doctrine, set forth by King Henry VIII. and signed by Convocation, a. d. 1543. In this it is said that " man has free will now after the fall of Adam ; " and free will is defined, as " a power of reason and will by which good is chosen by the assistance of grace, or evil is chosen without the assistance of the same." x The reformers in the reign of Edward VI. appear to have fol- lowed closely upon the steps of the Lutherans (Melancthon and the Confession of Augsburg), in the Articles which concern grace and free will. 2 The Article on free will, in the forty-two Articles of 1552, was immediately succeeded by an Article on grace, which was worded as follows : — " Of Grace. " The grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost by Him given, doth take away the stony heart and giveth an heart of flesh. And although those who have no will to good things, He maketh them will, and those that would evil things, He maketh them not to will ; yet nevertheless he enforceth not the will. And therefore no man, when he sinneth, can excuse himself as not worthy to be blamed or condemned, by alleging that he sinned unwillingly or by compulsion." During the Marian persecution, the English Divines who fled to Frankfort and other places on the Continent, by being thrown into contact with foreign reformers, were drawn into the contro- versies which agitated them. Many came back with strong prej^ udices in favour of the Calvinists, while others were strongly dis- posed to maintain Lutheran views. There were therefore three distinct parties in the Church in the early part of the reign of Elizabeth. Some were for the restoration of popery ; others in- clined to Lutheran views of grace and of the Sacraments ; and a third party had imbibed Calvinistic sentiments of predestination and church discipline, and Zuinglian sentiments on sacramental grace. The last were the forerunners of the Puritans, who soon became non-conformists, and finally dissenters. They acquired the name of Gospellers, and called their opponents Freewillers. Archbishop Parker and the leading men of the day wisely strove to heal the divisions, and softened down the language of our for- mularies so as to include as many as possible within the pale of the 1 Formularies of Faith in the Reign of 2 See Laurence, B. L. passim, espe- Henrq VIII. p. 359, where see the Arti- cially Sermon v. cle of Free Will at length. 272 OF FREE WILL. [Art. X. National Church ; and among other measures of conciliation the Article on Grace was omitted, to satisfy the Calvinistic section of the Church. 1 The controversies, however, between the higli Church and the Puritan divines, both on points of doctrine and of discipline, con- tinued to divide the Church. Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, in doctrine agreed with Calvin, but in discipline was a high Episco- palian. During his primacy were drawn up the famous Lambeth Articles, which he would gladly have imposed on the Church, but which never received the authority of the queen, the parliament, or the convocation. The first of these Articles says, that " God hath from eternity predestinated some men to life, others He has repro- bated to death ; " and the ninth asserts, that " it is not in the will or power of every one to be saved." 2 In the conference held at Hampton Court in the reign of King James I. a. d. 1603, an effort was made on the part of the Puritan divines to obtain an alteration in some of the XXXIX Articles, and to have them made more conformable to Calvinistic language ; but no alteration was effected, owing to the opposition of the King and of the Bishops to the arguments of the Puritans. 8 The Articles remain therefore as they were put forth in 1562, and afterwards in 1571. And those on the subject of grace, free will, and other similar subjects, are the same as those drawn up in 1552, by Cranmer and his fellows, with the exception of the omission of the Article on Grace which was then the tenth Article, and the prefixing of the first part of the present tenth (originally the ninth Article) down to the word " wherefore." There have been, ever since the reign of Elizabeth, two parties in the English Church, one holding the doctrines of Calvin, and the other opposing those doctrines, and each party has considered the Articles to speak their own language. It is however an un- doubted truth that the Articles were drawn up before Calvin's works had become extensively known, or had become in any degree popular in this country. It is probable that they speak the lan- guage neither of Calvin, nor of Arminius ; and between the ex- treme opinions, which had prevailed among the Schoolmen and others, they held a middle course, carefully avoiding the dogma of congruous merit, maintaining jealously the absolute necessity of preventing grace to enable us to will or to do according to the 1 Heylyn's H. Q. pt. in. ch. xvn. a Heylyn's H. Q. pt. lit. ch. xx. On the state of parties, &c. in Elizabeth's * Heylyn, pt. m. ch. xxn. ; Card reign, see Soames's Elizabethan Religious well's History of Conferences, p. 178, 4c. History. Sec II.] OF FREE WILL. 273 commandments of God, but not minutely entering into the ques- tions concerning the freedom of man before the fall, or the degree of free agency left to him since the fall. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. THE ninth Article having asserted that man by the fall is " very far gone from original righteousness," there arises at once a probability that he is weak and helpless towards good. In rear soning therefore on that Article, it was natural in some degree to anticipate some of the conclusions of this. Yet still, unless it be clearly conceded that by the fall man became totally corrupt, with no shadow of the image of God in which he was created, and with a mind nearly approaching, if not actually similar, to the mind of devils ; it would be possible that such a degree of strength might remain to him that he might make some independent efforts towards holiness, and in some degree prepare himself for the reception of grace. As therefore the ninth Article does not define the exact amount of man's defection from original righteousness, it was quite necessary to state the doctrine of his utter helplessness in this. The subject, as it is stated in the Article, seems to divide itself into the two following heads. I. Since the fall, man has no power by his own natural strength to turn himself to faith and godliness, or to do good works acceptable to God. But the grace of God is absolutely necessary to enable him to do this. II. The grace of God acts in two ways. 1. First, it is preventing grace, giving a good will. 2. Afterwards, it is cooperating grace, working in and with us, when we have that good will. I. First, then, since the fall, man has no power by his own natural strength to turn himself to faith and holiness, or to do good works acceptable to God. But the grace of God is abso- lutely necessary to enable him to do this. Here the point to be proved is simply this. Whatever degree 35 274 OF FREE WILL. [Akt. X. of defection is implied in the fall, whatever natural amiability any individuals of the human race may possess, no one, by mere natural strength, and without internal help from God, can believe or do what is, in a religious point of view, pleasing or acceptable to God. 1. In the sixth chapter of St. John our Lord says, " No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him " (ver. 44) ; and again, " Therefore said I unto you, no man can come unto Me, except it were given him of My Father" (ver. 65). Now here the proposition is quite general. All mankind are included in the sentence, " No man can come " to Christ, except it be given him of God, except God the Father draw him. This is a plain statement of natural weakness, and of the need of prevents ing grace. It shows that by nature man is apart from Christ, and that only the gift of God and the drawing of God can bring him to Christ. To this argument the Pelagians answer, that no doubt it is necessary that God should draw us, if we are to come to Him ; but the way in which He draws us is not by internal assistance and the motions of His Spirit in our hearts, but externally, by the calls of His word, the warnings of His Providence, the ordinances of His Church. Thus, therefore, say they, He may be said to draw us, and thus it is given us of Him to come to Christ. But we may reply to this objection, that such an interpretation is i?i — consistent with the whole drift of our Lord's discourse. The Ca- pharnaite Jews, who heard Him, were staggered at His sayings, and disbelieved them. Externally the word of God was drawing them then, but they murmured against it, and refused to listen to it. Accordingly our Lord tells them that it was from an absence of inward sanctification that they rejected the outward calls of His word. If they came to Him, it must be by the drawing of the Father, through the grace of His Spirit; for, says He, " No man can come unto Me, except the Father, which hath sent Me, draw him ; and 1 will raise him up at the last day. As it is written in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and that hath learned of the Father. cometh unto me " (vv. 44, 45). If by these words is meant only the outward drawing by external means, it is plain that all who heard Him had such drawing in its most efficient form ; yel most of them rejected Him. It is evident that they lacked something more than this. That being taught of God, that learning of the Father, Sec. II] OF FREE WILL. 275 which would bring them to Christ, must therefore have been some- thin 2 within them, not the calls of His word without ; and hence we may conclude that our Lord's words show it to be an invari- able rule, a truth coextensive with the nature of fallen man, that no one can come to Christ, or, what is the same thing, turn and prepare himself to faith and calling upon God, without the internal operations of the Spirit of God. 2. To confirm this view of the subject, let us recur to what we saw, in considering the ninth Article, was the doctrine of Scrip- ture concerning our original corruption. Our Lord states (John viii. 34) that " whosoever committeth sin is the servant (SovAos the slave) of sin." Now all men by nature commit sin, and therefore are slaves of sin. This is what St. Paul calls " the bondage of corruption " (Rom. viii. 21). This natural state of man is, both by our Lord and by the Apostle, contrasted with the liberty of the soul under a state of grace. " If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John viii. 36), says Christ ; and St. Paul calls it " the glorious liberty of the children of God " (Rom. viii. 21). In like manner our Lord distinguishes between the state of a servant and the state of a son (John viii. 35). Nay, so complete is this servitude of sin by nature, that St. Paul, more than once, calls it death. He speaks of people as by nature " dead in trespasses and sins " (Ephes. ii. 1 ; Col. ii. 13). He says of those who had been delivered from this state by grace, that " God had quickened them together with Christ " (Ephes. ii. 5) ; that those who were baptized into the death of Christ, having been dead in trespasses and sins, God had " quickened together with Him " (Col. ii. 12, 13). Now slavery and death are the strongest terms to ex- press utter helplessness that language admits of. So, freeing from slavery and quickening or raising to life, as plainly as possible, in- dicate a free gift, independent of the will or power of the recipient, and show that the recipient must previously have been in a con- dition, as unable to free himself as the bondsman, as unable to quicken himself as a dead man. In accordance with all this, St. Paul (in Rom. vii. viii., a pas- sage considered in the last Article) argues at length, that man, being by nature " carnal, sold under sin," even if able to admire what is good, was utterly unable to perform it (Rom. vii. 14-21), there being a law, ruling in his members, which makes him captive to the law of sin (v. 23). And then he tells us, that the way in which this bondage must be broken is by the Spirit of God taking possession of and ruling in that heart, in which before sin had *76 OF FREE WILL. [Ai»t. X. ruled, and so delivering it from the law of sin. " For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (viii. 2). Not only is such helplessness of the unregenerate man plainly taught by our Lord and His Apostles, but we farther find, that the very mind and understanding are represented as darkened by the natural state of corruption, and so incapable of comprehending and appreciating spiritual truth, until enlightened by the Spirit of God. Thus " the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; . . . . neither can he know them, because they are spirit- ually discerned " (1 Cor. ii. 14, comp. Rom. viii. 5 ,6, 7 ; Jude 19). Man by nature has no discernment of those things which belong to the Spirit of God ; and if so, it is quite clear, that, if he ever attains to spiritual discernment, it must be given him preternat- urally. To this belong all the passages concerning the new birth ; for if a new birth be necessary, there must, before it, be an absence of that life which is the product of such a birth. Accordingly, God is represented as begetting us of His own will (James i. 18). To enter into the kingdom, a man must be born again, of water, and of the Spirit (John iii. 3, 5). In Christ Jesus a new creation availeth (Gal. vi. 15). It is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His own mercy that God saveth us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit. iii. 5). In like manner, the Scriptures, when speaking of the good works of Christians, represent them as due, not to any independent effort of the human will, but altogether to the grace of God working in them. Thus our Lord, in a parable, fully declares the whole source and spring of Christian holiness to be the life and virtue derived from Him. He likens Himself to a Vine, and all His disciples to branches. We know, that branches of a tree derive life and strength from the sap, which is sent into them from the root and stem. In like manner our Lord tells us, that, by being branches of Him, we may bring forth good fruit, but that, apart from Him, we can do nothing. " Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine ; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the Vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit ; for without Me (x w P l « «/"w> apart from Me) ye can do nothing (John xv. 4, 5). So constantly is this dependence of the Christian upon Divine Sec. H.] OF FREE WILL. 277 grace urged by the sacred writers, that they frequently call to our remembrance, not only that we owe our first turning from evil to the quickening of God's Spirit, but that even the regenerate and the faithful believer is at every step dependent upon the illumina- tion, guidance, strength, and support of the same Divine Comforter and Guide. So St. Paul, writing of himself and other regenerate Christians, says, " Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves : but our sufficiency is of God " (2 Cor. iii. 6). When urging his faithful converts to " work out their own salvation with fear and trembling," he adds as an encouragement to them, " For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure " (Phil. ii. 13). And when speaking with thankfulness of the labours which he himself had been enabled to undergo for the sake of the Gospel, he adds, " Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me" (1 Cor. xv. 10). Now all this language of Scripture seems plainly to prove that by nature man has no free will to do good, no power to make in- dependent efforts towards holiness. There is an iron tyranny, a law of sin and death, which keeps him in bondage and deprives him of the power to escape, and even of the discernment of spiritual things, which would make him desire deliverance. From this law of sin and death the Spirit of life can set him free ; from this bondage the Son can make him free indeed ; but none besides. Nay ! he is sleeping the sleep of spiritual death, and therefore needs internal as well as external aid to rouse him ; aye ! a new creation, a new birth, a new life. And even when set free, quick- ened, regenerate, he continues still able to act and think uprightly only so long as he derives strength from Christ ; just as the branch can bear no fruit, except it derive sap and strength from the stem on which it grows. II. It being thus proved that by nature man, corrupted by the fall, is not in possession of free will, or more properly, that his will, though unrestrained by God, is yet warped and led captive by evil spirits and his own bad propensities, it remains that we consider the effects of God's grace upon the will, when setting it free from this captivity. The Article describes these effects, as follows : — 1. God's grace prevents us, that we may have a good will. 2. It works in us, or with us, when we have that good will. The passages of Scripture which have been already brought to bear in the former division of the subject, may appear to have suf- ficiently demonstrated these two propositions. 1. The necessity of preventing grace follows, of course, from the 278 OF FREE WILL. [Art. X. doctrine that man, of himself, cannot turn to God. For, if he can- not turn of himself, he must either remain forever alienated, or must need some power to turn him. In the language of the prophet, " Turn Thou me, and I shall be turned " ( Jer. xxxi. 18). Accordingly, we read continually of the first turning of the heart as coming from God. God is said to be " found of them that sought Him not, and made manifest to them that asked not after Him " (Isai. lxv. 1 ; Rom. x. 20). We read of His opening peo- ple's " hearts so that they attend to the things spoken " (Acts xvi. 14) ; and we are taught that He u worketh in us both to will and to do" (Phil. ii. 13) ; so that the regenerate and sanctified Chris- tian is declared to be God's '* workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works " (Eph. ii. 10). God is said to have " wrought " believers for immortality and glory (2 Cor. v. 5). The " new man " is said to be H created in righteousness and true holiness " (Eph. iv. 24). Such passages, and all others which speak of new birth and new creation, show plainly that God's grace prevents us, waits not, that is, for us to make advances to Him, but graciously comes forward to help us, whilst yet we are without strength. They show too, that whereas by nature the will was corrupt and not tending to God, bound down and taken captive to the law of sin, so when the grace of God renews it, it is no longer in slavery, but free, choosing life and holiness, not by compulsion, but by free choice and love. " The Son makes us free indeed " (John viii. 36). " The law of the Spirit of life makes us free from the law of sin and death " (Rom. viii. 2). There is a " glorious liberty for the children of God " (Rom. viii. 21). It is, H to liberty " that we " have been called " (Gal. v. 13) ; for, " where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty " (2 Cor. iii. 17). We see then the contrast which exists between the will in its natural corrupt state, and the will in its regenerate and purified state In the former it is enslaved ; in the latter it is free. Satan keeps it a bond-slave in the first ; God sets it free in the last. Then it could only choose evil ; now it is free to choose good. Then under the law of sin and death ; now under " the perfect aw ~f liberty" ( James i. 25). 2. But the will, thus set free, needs farther support, guidance, and strength. The new-born Christian has still a conflict to under- go, for which he requires the whole armour of God. This is ex- pressed in the Article, by the words u working with us when we have that good will." Sec. II] OF FREE WILL. 279 The Latin Article has the word cooperante, which in the first English translation was rendered " working in us ; " but in 1572 it was expressed somewhat more closely after the Latin, ** working with us." Such expressions of course imply that when the will is renewed there is need of farther grace to support it, but, at the same time, that the renewed man is to exert himself in the strength of that grace, and to work under its influence. The doctrine of cooperation has been opposed by many as assigning too much strength to man. Man, say they, is altogether too weak either to begin the work of grace, or even, after that work is begun, to contribute anything towards its completion. It is patching the pure robe of Christ's righteousness to add any of the filthy rags of man's works to it. Accordingly, St. Paul attrib- utes all his own labours, not to himself, but to " the grace of God which was with him " (1 Cor. xv. 10) ; and says, " I no longer live myself (£w Se ovkItl eyw), but Christ liveth in me " (Gal. ii. 20). And it is written that God " worketh in us," not with us, " both to will and to do " (Phil. ii. 13). Whether cooperation be a good expression or not, and whether it be altogether reverent to speak as if the Holy Spirit of God and man's renewed will act in concert together, is of course fairly open to question. In general, no doubt the Scriptures speak of God's working in us, rather than with us. Yet the doctrine of our Arti- cle, rightly understood, rests on a sound foundation. In the first instance indeed man's will is represented as being under bondage. Spiritually we are described as slaves, blind, dead. But as we have seen, the Son is said to " make us free ; " the " law of the Spirit of life frees us from the law of sin and death ; " and so we are brought into " the glorious liberty of the children of God." Thus it appears that Christ's service is indeed perfect freedom. The will, no longer enslaved and bowed down, is set at liberty and enabled to act ; and though, whenever and howsoever it acts in a good direction, it is always acting under the guidance and gover- nance of the Spirit of God, yet it does not follow that that guidance is a yoke of bondage, or of irresistible necessity. Accordingly, when the Apostle has explained how the Spirit frees us from the law of sin, and brings us into the glorious liberty of God's children (Rom. viii. 2—21), he tells us a little farther on, that whereas we still continue weak and ignorant, " the Spirit helpeth our infirmities " (ver. 26). In the very same breath in which he tells us that "it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do," he bids us OF FREE WILL. [Akt. X 44 work out our own salvation with fear and trembling " (Phil. ii. 12, 13). And so he speaks of himself as using all kinds of self- discipline (1 Cor. ix. 27), and as "pressing forward to the mark for the prize of the high calling " (Phil. iii. 14). To this purpose are all the exhortations of Scripture addressed to those who are under grace, not to miss the blessings which God has prepared for them. For example, we have warnings not to 44 defile the temple of God," L e. not to pollute with sin our bodies, in which God's Spirit dwells (1 Cor. iii. 17) ; not to grieve, not to quench the Spirit (Eph. iv. 30 ; 1 Thess. v. 19) ; not to neglect the gift which is in us, but to stir it up (1 Tim. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 6) ; not to ' 4 receive the grace of God in vain " (2 Cor. vi. 1) ; 44 to stand fast," and not " fall from grace " (Gal. v. 1-4) ; " to take heed lest there be an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God " (Heb. iii. 12) ; to 44 look diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God " (Heb. xii. 15) ; when we think we are standing, " to take heed lest we fall " (1 Cor. x. 12). Now all such passages do indeed plainly presuppose that all the good we can do comes from the Spirit of God Working in us. Yet they seem as plainly to prove that that blessed Spirit does not move the will as a mere machine, so that it is impossible for it to resist or neglect His blessed influences. It seems plain from them, that under those influences, and guided by them, the renewed heart moves willingly ; and that, whenever those influences do not pro- duce their full effect, it is because the remains of corruption in that heart resist and counteract them. And this is all that is meant in the Article by the term cooperante, " working with us." If, indeed, according to the sentiment of Luther, quoted in the former section, man's will was first a mere bond-slave of sin, and after grace equally a slave, or machine, moved passively and irresistibly by the Spirit, we can hardly understand how it should be that men are not all equally abandoned before grace, and all equally moving onward to perfection under grace. Since by that theory the will is entirely passive under the motions of the Spirit, opposing no obstacle to them, and therefore, as we should suppose, likely in all persons to be fully and perfectly sanctified. The doctrine o£ Scripture, however, is evidently expressed in the words of our Article. God must give the will, must set the will free from its natural slavery, before it can turn to good ; but then it moves in the freedom which He has bestowed upon it, and never so truly uses that freedom, as when it follows the motions of the Spirit. Yet clearly there remains some power to resist and Sec. H.] OF FREE WILL. 281 to do evil. For, though " those that have no will to good things God maketh them to will ; . . . Yet, nevertheless, He enforceth not the will." 1 And so, although He must work in us, yet we, under His influences, must strive and press forward, not resisting Him, not neglecting, but stirring up His gifts in our hearts. i Art. of 1662. ARTICLE XL Of the Justification of Man. De Hominis JuslijScationc We are accounted righteous before Tantum propter meritum Domini et God, only for the merit of our Lord and Servatoris nostri Jesu Chrijti, per fidem, Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and non propter opera et merit* nostra, justi not for our own works or deservings : coram Deo reputamur. Quare sola fide Wherefore, that we are justified by faith nos justificari, doctrina est saluberrima, only is a most wholesome doctrine, and ac consolationis plcnissima, ut in homilia very full of comfort, as more largely is de justificatione hominis fusius explica- exnressed in the Homily of Justification, tur. Section L — HISTORY. TT is probable that natural religion inclines all men, uninstructed * by Revelation, to seek for pardon and acceptance with God, either by attempting to live up to His law, or by making some per- sonal sacrifices as an atonement for offences against it. The robe laid before the statue of Athena, or the hecatomb offered to Phoe- bus, were to compensate for sins against their divinity. If we look to Jewish history, we shall find the prophets remon- strating with the Israelites for thinking that ceremonial observan- ces would satisfy for the breach of God's commandments, and their sincerest penitents acknowledging that sacrifices would not profit them, but that they needed to be purged as with hyssop, and new created in heart (Psalm li.). Hence we may readily see, that the temptation of the Jews was to seek God's favour, when they had fallen from it, by ceremonial rites, without sufficient reference to the spirit of the ritual ; as with many it was to seek the same favor by a rigid observance of a mere formal obedience, such as our Lord reproves in the Pharisees, and as St. Paul declares to have been the cause of the fall of his countrymen (Rom. ix. 31, 32). The Rabbins appear to have taught that a man's good deeds would be weighed against his bad ; and that if the former prepon- derated, he would be accepted and rewarded. 1 And forgetting or neglecting the spiritual significance of their prophecies and sacri- fices, they expected a Messiah indeed, but a triumphant conqueror, 1 See Bull, Harmon. Apost. n. xvi. 8. Sec. L] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 283 not one who by His death would expiate their sins ; and so the Cross of Christ was a stumbling-block and offence to them. They were profoundly ignorant that Christ should be to them " the end of the Law for righteousness," that by Him alone all who believed in Him should receive justification and life. 1 It has been thought also, that some among the Jews held that a man would be saved, even without holiness, who simply embraced the creed of Abraham, acknowledging the unity of the Godhead and the Resurrection of the dead ; a view which seems to have been adopted by Mohammed in the Koran. Accordingly, it has been said, that, as St. Paul in his Epistles condemned the former error of his fellow-countrymen, so St. James directed his Epistle against the latter : the one showing, that neither ceremonial obser- vances nor legal obedience could satisfy the demands of God's jus- tice, but that an atonement and true faith were necessary ; the other, that a mere creed was not calculated to please God, when the life was not consistent with it. 2 The sentiments of the fathers on the subject of justification have afforded matter for much discussion. According to some* they taught nearly the doctrine of the Council of Trent ; according to others, they nearly spoke the language of Luther. The truth appears to lie in neither of these statements. Justification had not been in early times the cause of much debate. No fierce con- tests had arisen upon it. Hence, no need was felt for accurate definitions concerning it. The statements of the fathers are there- fore generally rather practical than formal. They dwell much on the Atonement, and the meritorious cause of pardon ; so much so, that they could see the Blood of Christ in the scarlet thread which Rahab tied in her window, and His Cross in the stretched out hands of Moses, when Israel prevailed over Midian. 3 But they do not appear ever to have entered thoroughly into the question of justification, as it was afterwards debated in the time of the school- men, and, still more, of the reformers. It is remarkable, that probably the most express statement on the subject which occurs in all the writings of the fathers, is to be found in the very earliest of all, Clement of Rome. Speaking of faithful men of old, he writes, " They were all therefore greatly glorified, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the 1 See Bull, Harmon. Apost. n. xvii. 3. that his Epistle was written hefore St. a See Michaelis, Introduction to the Paul's, or at least before he had seen St. New Testament, iv. eh. xxvi. § 6, who Paul's writings. considers this to have been the cause of ? Clem. Rom. Epist. 1 ad Corinth. 12. St. James's argument on justification, and Barnab. Epist. 12. 284 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XL righteousness that they themselves wrought ; but through His will. And we also, being called by the same will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowl- edge, or piety, or any works which we did in holiness of heart, but by that faith by which God Almighty has justified all men from the beginning : to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." l The passage is important, not only because of its antiquity, but because of its distinctness. The word "justify " appears to be used, as our Article uses it, for " to account righteous ; " not, as the Council of Trent, for " to make righteous " by infusion of holi- ness ; and the instrument of such justification is declared to be and ever to have been, not " wisdom, knowledge, piety, or works done in holiness of heart, but" " faith." 2 With regard to the statements of the later fathers, we must carefully bear in mind, that, without question, they attributed the salvation of man solely and perfectly to the Blood of Christ ; that they did not look to be saved because they had deserved salvation, but because Christ had satisfied for their sins ; but though this is thus far plain, it will not enable us to come to any certain conclu- sion as to their views concerning the doctrine of justification scholastically considered. Such passages as the following show the spirit of the fathers, as regards their reliance on the Atonement of Christ. " Let us without ceasing hold steadfastly to Him, who is our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, even Jesus Christ, who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree ; who did no sin, neither 1 Clem. Rom. IBfltat. i. cap. 32. p. 452. Mr. Faber thinks that, "Indis- 2 Udvrec ovv ktioS-uadtioav, oi> 6C avrCni, # putably, by the very force, and tenor of tlieir tuv Ipyuv aiirCiv, f) (hu tt)c ducaionpayiae tjc definition (i. e. as being works done in Kareipyuaavro, uXKuauirov tfeA^arof ainov. holiness of heart), they are works per- Kat rintic ovv 6iu deTaifiuTOC airov tv Xptaru formed after the infusion of holiness into 'lijaov Kkrjdhnec, ov 6C tavruv dinaiovfitda, the heart by the gracious spirit of God." ovt& 6ui tt)c ifUtipkt ooQiac, # ovviaeuc, y — Primitive Doctrine of./iwtificntion, p. 88. eioefieiae, f/ ipyuv uv KaTeipyaadfieda tv Mr. Newman, on the other hand, con- 6atoTTjTt napiYiac ■ uAAu 6tu ttic nioreuc, 6C rjc tends that " in holiness of heart " meant iriivrac rove inr' aiuvoc 6 iravroKpurup Qebc no more than " piously," *' holily ; " and tdiKcuuoev • avelov vfuic erre/a- Irenceus, p. 194. nev 'Hoatac anoXavaofdvovc eael rbv Qovov 5 Ambr08. De Jacobo et Vita Beat. i. 6. koI tuc uXkac a/j.apriac, ovc ovde to rye See Newman, On Justification, p. 401. daXaotrnc Uavdv nuv vdop Ka&apiaac, iMa 6 August. De Civit. xix. 27. See uc eiKbg nafau tovto knewo to oui-rrjptov Calvin, Institut. in. 12. Tiovrpbv t/v, 5 elirero role fierayivvoKovoi, 7 Non peccare Dei est justitia ; horainis nal puixiri ai/ian rpuyuv nal irpo8it.Ta» $ 286 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XI. it seems, on a general examination of the most remarkable passages from the ancient writings on this subject, that it is extremely difficult to say whether the fathers always understood the word "justification " in a forensic sense, as signifying acquittal from guilt and imputation of righteousness, or rather, as, in addition to that, containing in it the notion of infusion of righteousness. It has already been observed that we must not expect in their words the precision of controversy, where no controversy had been raised. In order of time, acquittal from guilt and infusion of righteousness (or what in modern Theology have been called justification and sanctification) go together, and are never separated. Therefore, though at times the fathers seem to use the term "justification " merely in its forensic sense, yet sometimes they speak too as if it included the idea of making just, as well as of esteeming just. For example, in one place St. Chrysostom (on Rom. viii. 33 : * It is God that justifieth ; who is he that condemneth ? ") writes : M He does not say, it is God that forgave our sins, but, what is much greater, It is God that justifieth. For when the Judge's sentence declares us just (Sikcuov? d7ro<£cuW), and such a Judge too, what signifieth the accuser? " 1 Here he seems to speak as if he considered justification as no more than " declaring or pro- nouncing just." Yet, in other parts of the same work, he clearly shows that in justification he considered something more to be in- cluded than remission and acquittal. Thus, in the Eighth Homily on Rom. iv. 7, (" Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,") we read : " He seems to be bringing a testimony beside his purpose. For it does not say, Blessed are they whose faith is reckoned for righteousness. But he does so purposely, not inadvertently, to show the greater excellence. For if he be blessed that by grace onodu Sapulewc, fj oep.i5aX.eue npoo^opalc rum meritis sed gratuita gratia. — Au- Kadapcfrpevovc, uXXa nioret 6ui tov atparog gust. De Spiritu ft Litera, cap. 22. tov Xpiorov, leal tov ■davurov ovtov, be <5«« Convertentem impiumper solam fidem tovto uirtdavev. k. t. A. — Just. M. Dial, justificat Deus, non opera bona quae non p. 229, d. habuit : alioquin per impietatis opera Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus fuerat puniendus. Simul attende, quia Abrahae, cujus diem concupivit videre : non peccatorem dicit justificari per fidem sed neque l'ater Domini; didicerat enim sed impium, hoc est, nuper credentem a Vcrbo Domini, et eredidit ei ; quaprop- asseruit. ter et deputatum est ei ad justitiam a Secundum propositum aratia?. Dei.] Qui Domino. Fides cnim qua; est ad Deum proposuit gratis per solam fidem peccata altissimum justifieat hominem. — Irenes, dimittere. — Hicron. In Epist. nil Horn. iv. 18. See also iv. 27. cap. iv. Tom. v. pp. 937, 938. The His ipitur eonsideratis pertractatisque Benedictine editors consider this com- pro viribiis quas Dominus donare dig- mentary as not Jerome's. See also In natur, colligimus non justificari hominem BpUt, ad (lalat. cap. iii. pracceptis boniu vitie nisi per fidem Jesu ' Homil. in JCf. ad Rom. xv. See alto Christi, hoc est non lege operum sed Horn. Til. on ch. iii. 27. fldei ; non litera sed spiritu, non facto- Sec. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 287 received forgiveness, much more he that is made just and that manifests faith." Again, Homil. x. on Rom. v. 16, ("the free gift is of many offences unto justification,") he argues that " it was not only that sins were done away, but that righteousness was given." It is true that to be esteemed righteous is more than to be esteemed sinless ; as the one would only deliver from punishment, the other give a right to reward; and so St. Chrysostom may only mean that justification is more than pardon, because to be accounted righteous is more than to be acquitted of guilt. But it appears to have been common to many of the fathers to leave in some uncer- tainty the question, whether justification did or did not contain in it the making that of which it involved the imputation. This is especially observable in the works of St. Augustine. For example, in the 45th chapter of the Be Spiritu et Litera, where he is reasoning on the words of St. Paul, " The doers of the Law shall be justified." He asks " What is to be justified but to be made just by Him who justifies the ungodly, so that from un- godly, he becomes just? " and so he concludes, that by this phrase St. Paul means that " they shall be made just who before were not so, not who before were just ; that so the Jews, who were hearers of the Law, might understand that they need the grace of a justifier that they might become doers of the Law." Or else, he proposes to interpret it in the other way, " shall be justified, as though it were said, shall be held and accounted righteous ; just as it is said of a certain one, He willing to justify himself, that is, to be held and esteemed just." So then Augustine appears to leave it an open question, whether to justify is to make, or to esteem and hold as righteous. Yet, though there be such ambiguity, we need be but little solicitous on the subject; but rather conclude, that "the point having never been discussed, and those fathers never having thoroughly considered the sense of St. Paul, might unawares take the word (justify), as it sounded in the Latin, especially the sense they affixed to it signifying a matter very true and certain in Chris- tianity." l Dr. Waterland, in his treatise on Justification? has collected a great number of passages from the fathers, to show that they considered every person at his baptism to receive the gift of justi- fication. Our limits will not allow us to follow him at length. But if we take justification to mean remission of sin and admission into 1 Barrow, n. Sermon v. On Justification by Faith. 2 Waterland's Works, ix. p. 442. 288 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Abt. XL God's favour, it needs but very slight acquaintance with the writ- ings of the early Christians to know, that as they confessed their faith " in one baptism for the remission of sins," so they universally taught that all persons duly receiving baptism, and not hindering the grace of God by unbelief and impenitence, obtained in baptism pardon for sin, admission into the Christian Church and covenant, and the assistance of the Holy Spirit of God ; and that so they were thenceforth " children of God, members of Christ, and inheri- tors of the kingdom of heaven." To sum up what has been said. In the essence of this Article the fathers' language is clear. They held, that all hope of salva- tion must spring from the mercy of God through the merits of Christ. They taught, that every person baptized (not forfeiting the grace by sin and impenitence) was looked on as a member of the body of the faithful, and so in favour with God. They spoke too of faith as that state of salvation in which we receive justi- fication and life. But (if at least we make some exceptions) they do not speak in the clear and controversial language of later days ; nor is it always certain, whether by the word justified they under- stand that a man's faith is accounted to him for righteousness, or that, being the great sanctifying principle, it is the instrument whereby God works in him holiness. It would be beside our purpose and exceed our limits to inves- tigate at length the definitions of the schoolmen. Learned discus- sions are liable to much misunderstanding. But the impressions popularly conveyed by the teaching of the scholastic divines, and especially the view which was taken of them by Luther and their opponents, are very important to our right apprehension of the controversy at the time of the Reformation. In the first place it appears that the schoolmen generally un- derstood justification to mean not infusion of righteousness, but forgiveness of sins. It is true, they looked on it as the immediate result of, and as inseparably connected with grace infused ; but their definitions made justification to mean, not the making right- eous, but the declaring righteous. 1 It is not to be supposed that they denied or doubted that such 1 Primo quseritur, an justiflcatio impii Qaastion. Disput. quaest 28, Art i. quoted ■it remissio peccatorum 1 Et videtur by Laurence, Dampt. Led. p. 1 19. quod non .... Sed contra est quod Neander, vm. p. 222, gives an in- dicitur in GlosBa Rom. viii. Super illud foresting account of tho scholastic dia- " Quos vocavit, hos et justificavit." Olo. cussions on justification. His statement! remiBsione peccatorum : ergo remissio appear different from those in tho text, peccatorum est justiflcatio. — Aquinas, but it is only so at first sight Sec. L] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 289 justification sprang primarily from the grace of God, and merito- riously from the death of Christ. The faults charged upon their system are, that they looked for merit de congruo, and de condigno, that they attached efficacy to attrition, that they inculcated the doc- trine of satisfaction, and that they assigned grace to the Sacraments ex opere operato. Luther especially insists that these scholastic opinions were directly subversive of the doctrine of St. Paul, and of the grace of God. " They say," he writes, " that a good work before grace is able to obtain grace of congruity (which they call meritum de con- gruo'), because it is meet that God should reward such a work. But when grace is obtained, the work following deserveth eternal life of debt and worthiness, which they call meritum de condigno. .... For the first God is no debtor, but because He is just and good, He must approve such good work, though it be done in mortal sin, and so give grace for such service. But when grace is obtained, God is become a debtor, and is constrained of right and duty to give eternal life. For now it is not only a work of free- will, done according to the substance, but also done in grace, which makes a man acceptable to God, that is to say, in charity." " This is the divinity of the kingdom of antichrist ; which here I recite, that St. Paul's argument may be the better understood, for two things contrary to one another being put together may be the better understood." } Again, the compunction for sin which might be felt before the grace of God was given, was called attrition ; compunction arising from the motions of God's Spirit being called contrition. Now attrition was considered as a means whereby God predisposed to grace. So that it had in it some merit de congruo, and so of its own nature led to contrition and to justification. 2 There being some difficulty in knowing whether a man's repent- ance was contrition or merely attrition, the Church was supposed to come to his aid with the power of the keys. The sacrament of penance added to attrition, and works of satisfaction being enjoined, the conscience was to be stilled, though it might yet be uncertain whether true repentance and lively faith had really been attained. 3 1 Luther, on Galatians, ii. 16. gratiain : et pro ilia attritione, ut pro mer- 2 See Laurence, 13. L. Lect. iv. andvi. ito, justificat, sicut est meritum justifi- Also notes on Lect. vi. The following is cationis. Et licet non continuaretur idem one sentence from a long passage quoted actus circa peccatum in genere naturae et by him, p. 321, from Scotus, Lib. iv. nioris, qui pri us, adlmc in illo instanti in - dist. iv. quaest. 2. funderetur gratia, qui jam praecepit raer- " Potest ergo dici quod Deus disponit itum de congruo." per attritionem, in aliquo instanti dare 8 Laurence, as above, and p. 320. 37 200 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XL Once more, the doctrine that the Sacraments worked grace and so effected justification independently of the faith of the re- ceiver, and merely ex opere operate, was by the reformers charged upon the schoolmen, as overthrowing the doctrine of justification, through faith, by the merits of Christ. 1 And at last when by attrition perfected by penance, satisfaction, and absolution, and through the grace of God passing into contrition, the sinner was believed to be pardoned, and his soul justified before God, it still remained a question whether there was not a certain amount of temporal punishment to be endured, in this life perhaps, but more probably in purgatory, before the soul be received into full favour with God, and be pronounced " not guilty " in His presence. The abuses which prevailed at the time of the Reformation connected with the above doctrines are popularly known. Hence, especially, the merit attached to pilgrimages, and other works of satisfaction, which were thought capable of averting the temporal punishments yet due to sin ; although of course eternal punish- ment could be averted only by the merits of Christ. Hence, too, the famous sale of indulgences, which first prompted Luther to take the steps which led rapidly to his breach with the see of Rome. It is possible that much of the teaching of the schoolmen, and of the more learned and pious of the divines of the Middle Ages, may, when fairly interpreted, admit of a sense far more innocent han we are apt to attribute to it, and might, if confined to the schools, have produced comparatively little mischief. But the effect produced upon the popular mind was evidently noxious. Nothing can be more plain than the fact, that reformers, in all countries, felt that the great evil against which they had to fight was the general belief that man could merit God's favour by good deeds of his own, and that works of mercy, charity, and self-denial, procured (through the intercession of Christ, or perhaps of the Virgin Mary) pardon for sin and acceptance with God. It was in opposition to all this, that Luther so strongly pro- pounded his doctrine of "justification by faith only." He saw the extreme importance of teaching men to acknowledge their own weakness, and to rely on the Atonement M as a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world." Salvation was to be ascribed to grace, not to be claimed as a right ; and with the view of effectually destroying all hope from claims, he adopted the language of St. Paul, and put forth in its strongest possible form, as the artieulus stantis out cadentis ecclesios, the statement, 1 Laurence, p. 324. Sec. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 291 that "justification is by faith only," without works, love, or holiness. That is to say, he asserted that man k justified through, or because of the merits of Christ, and that the sole instrument of his justify cation is faith. This faith indeed will produce charity, and so good works ; but, when considered as justifying, it must be con- sidered as apart from holiness, and charity, and good works. The vehemence of his temper, and the great importance which he attached to his doctrine, led him to state it in language which we may not approve. Such language, if used now, when very different errors prevail from those most common in Luther's time, might, in all probability, lead to Antinomianism and fanaticism of all kinds. But it is necessary to put ourselves into Luther's posi- tion, and to take a fair view of the man, whose energy brought about the greatest revolution in history, in order to judge fairly of his language and opinions. For example, Luther stated that faith alone, not faith informed or perfected by charity, was that which justified. This seems opposed to the language of St. James (ch. ii. 14, &c.),and even to the language of St. Paul, who tells us that it is " faith, which worketh by love," which " availeth in Christ Jesus " (Gal. v. 6). Accordingly, the schoolmen had distinguished between fides informis, a faith which was merely speculative, and had in it neither love nor holiness, and fides formata, or faith which is perfected by the charity and good works which spring from it ; to which faith they attributed the office of justifying. 1 Now this statement, that it is fides formata which justifies, Luther denied. By so doing it wiK. be thought by many that he contradicted Scripture, the fathers, the homilies of our own Church, and the sentiments of many con- temporary reformers. But the ground on which he did so he himself clearly explains to us. The schoolmen and Romanist divines, according to him, taught that faith, furnished with charity, justified the sinner, in order that they might assign the office of justification, not to the faith, but to the charity : that so it might be said, Faith justifies indeed ; but it is because of the merit of that charity, and of those good works which it contains, and which give it all its efficacy. " Faith," he says, is, according to them, " the body and the shell ; charity the life, the kernel, the form, and fur- niture." u But we," he continues, " in the stead of this charity, put I On this scholastic distinction see est. Christus nisi cum Spiritus sui sanc- Calvin, Instit. Lib. III. ch. ii. § 8. Also tificatione cognosci nequit. Consequitur Neander, vm. 220, 221. Calvin himself fidem a pio affeetu nullo modo esse dis- denies the justice of the distinction on trab.endam. A very different argument this ground : Fides in Christi notitia sita from Luther's. 292 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Akt. XL faith, and we say that faith apprehends Jesus Christ, who is the form which adorns and furnishes faith .... As the schoolmen say that charity adorns and furnishes faith, so do we say that it is Christ which furnishes or adorns faith, or rather, that He is the very form and perfection of faith. Wherefore Christ apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart is the true Christian righteousness, for which God counteth us righteous, and giveth us eternal life." l Faith then, he taught, will justify, not because it is full of love, but because it is full of Christ. Therefore, too» he thought It necessary to state that faith justified, before it had charity or good works with it ; though, of necessity, it must produce charity and good works, as soon as it has justified. Faith he compares to the bride, Christ to the bridegroom. The bride will be alone with the Bridegroom, but as soon as she cometh forth from the bridecham- ber, she will be attended by her bridesmaids and followers, good works and holiness. The earnestness with which he pursued his object, and the in- finite importance which he attached to it, led him into vehemence of expressions, and perhaps inaccuracy of statements, which only the circumstances of the case can extenuate. At times he seems to speak as if faith itself was the cause, not merely the instrument, of salvation. At other times he writes as if good works were rather to be avoided than desired. But it is fair to consider these expres- sions as the result of inadvertence and the impetuosity with which he pleaded a favourite cause, when we find statements of the evil of Antinomianism, and the excellency of those works which spring from faith, in other portions of the very same writings. 2 It should be added, that Luther plainly put forth the statement that the sins of the believer are imputed to Christ, and so that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. 8 He speaks often of the desirableness of attaining to personal assurance of sal- vation, and at times appears to identify this assurance with justify- ing faith. 4 1 Luther on Galat. ii. 16. See also * See on Gal. iii. 18. Opera, 1664. on Gal. ii. 17 ; v. 16. Tom. v. p. 360. Concerning Luther's * For example, on Gal. iii. 22 : "When view of the connection of justification we are out of the matter of justification, with baptism, we may refer to his com- we cannot enough praise and extol those mentary on Gal. iii. 27, Tom. v. p. 369. works which God has commanded. For There lie says, " We have by nature the who can enough commend the profit and leathern coat of Adam, but we put on fruit of only one work, which a Chris- Christ by baptism." In Baptismo non tian does in and through faith ? Indeed, datur vestitus legalis justitise aut nostro- it is more precious than heaven and rum operum, sed Christus fit indumcn- earth." See also on Gal. iii. 19, 28, 27, turn nostrum .... Evangelice Christum Ac. induere, non est legem et opera, sed in- * See on Gal. ii. 16; iii. 13. mtimabile donum induere, scilicet re Sec. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 293 The council of Trent was much occupied in discussing Luther's doctrine of justification. Indeed, the Tridentine fathers appear to have gone to the consideration of it, with the conviction that all his errors might be resolved into this one. 1 It was universally agreed among these divines, that faith justi- fies. But what justifying faith was, or how it justified, was much debated. " All agreed, that justifying faith is an assent to what- soever is revealed by God, or determined by the Church to be believed ; which, sometimes being joined with charity, sometimes remaining without it, they distinguished into two sorts : one, which is found in sinners, which the schools call unformed, solitary, idle, or dead ; the other, which is only in the good, working by charity, and therefore called formed, efficacious, and lively. " But it was not universally agreed that justifying faith was to be called faith formed by charity ; ]Vf arinarus, a Carmelite, objecting that St. Paul did not say that faith was formed by charity, but that it worketh by charity. 2 There was much discussion concerning works before grace, and merit de congruo ; in which the Franciscans maintained, whilst the Dominicans denied, that good works could, be done without the Spirit of God, and so merit grace of congruity. 3 But concerning works after grace, all agreed to condemn Luther, who denied in- trinsic goodness to works done in and after grace, and asserted even that they were sins. These, they all asserted, having been wrought by the Spirit of God, were essentially good and perfect. 4 They all agreed too, that only faith could not be said to justify, since God and the Sacraments do justify, as causes in their several kinds. 5 But the principal points of the difficulty were : first, Is a man justified, and then acts justly ? or, Does he act justly, and then is justified? and, secondly, Is the word "justify" to be used in the forensic sense of imputing righteousness ; or does it mean infusion of habitual righteousness into the heart ? On the latter point there was much difference of opinion ; the Franciscans strongly opposing the forensic sense, which was as strongly upheld by Marinarus. None doubted that Christ had merited for us, but some blamed the word to impute, because it was not found in the fathers ; whilst others said that, agreeing on the thing, it was needless to dispute about the word ; a word which it appears the Dominicans especially missionem peccatorum.justitiam, pacem, 2 Ibid. p. 183. consolationem, laetitiam in Spiritu Sancto, 8 Ibid. p. 185. ealutem, vitam, et Christum ipsum. See * Ibid. p. 186. also De Sacr. Baptism. Tom. i. p. 72. 6 Ibid. p. 183. 1 Sarpi, Hist. Lib. n. p. 178. 294 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XI. would have accepted, as showing that all was from Christ, but that they suspected any word which was popular with the Lutherans. 1 After many such discussions as these, the Council finally drew up sixteen heads and thirty canons or anathemas on the subject of justification, yet so guarded and obscure that each party wrote treatises to prove that the decisions were in their favour. 2 The most important of the decrees were the following : (2) That God sent His Son to redeem both Jews and Gentiles. (3) But that, though He died for all, yet those only enjoy the benefit to whom His merit is communicated. (4) That the justification of the wicked is a translation from the state of a son of Adam to that of a son of God, which, since the Gospel, is not done without baptism or the vow thereof. (5) That the beginning of justification in adults proceeds from preventing grace. (7) That justification is not only remission of sins, but sanetifieation also ; and has five causes : the final, God's glory and eternal life ; the efficient, God ; the meritorious, Christ ; the instrumental, the sacraments ; and the formal, righteousness, given by God, received according to the good pleasure of the Holy Ghost, and according to the disposition of the receiver, receiving together with remission of sins, faith, hope, and charity. (8) That, when St. Paul saith that man is justified by faith and gratis, it ought to be understood, because faith is the beginning, and the things which precede justification are not meritorious of grace. 8 Among the anathemas, some of the most important are : (1) That a man may be justified without grace. (11) That man is justified only by the imputation of the justice of Christ, or only by remission of sins without inherent grace, or charity ; or that the grace of justification is only the favour of God. (12) That justi- fying faith is nothing but confidence in the mercy of God, who re- mitteth sins for Christ. (14) That man is absolved and justified, because he doth firmly believe that he is justified. 4 These articles and canons show the difference between Luther and the Council of Trent, so far as we can be certain of the design of the latter. Yet the mosj eminent divines present in the Council, after its decrees, debated on their sense ; 6 so that at last it wa? necessary to make a decree against all notes, glosses, and commen- taries ; the Pope reserving to himself the right of solving diffi- culties, and settling controversies on the subject. 6 1 Sarpi, But. Bk. n. p. 187. * Concil. Trident. Can. 1, 11, 12, 14 * Ibid. p. 202. 6 Sarpi, Bk. n. p. 215. » Concil. Trident. Sess. vi. capp. 2, 8, « Ibid. Bk. vm. p. 762. 4, 6, 7, 8. Sec. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 295 Roman Catholic writers since the Reformation have generally- gone against the forensic sense of the word "justify ; " have held, that God by grace implants inherent righteousness in the heart, makes the sinner righteous by union with Christ and the indwelling of His Spirit, and that then He esteems him, what in fact He has made him, a holy and righteous man. Their view has been thus stated by one who may be supposed to have carefully studied it. " It appears that they hold two things : — that the presence of grace implies the absence, of mortal sin ; next, that it is a divine gift bringing with it the property of a continual acceptableness, and so recommending the soul to God's favour so as to anticipate the necessity of any superadded pardon." 1 To return to the Lutheran divines : Melancthon, the Confession of Augsburg, and generally the more moderate Lutherans, softened and explained the strong language of Luther. With them Faith was trust (Jiducia), or fiduciary apprehension. It was made clear, that faith in itself had no virtue, but that the meritorious cause of justification was the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. So that justification by faith was even said to be a correlative term for justification or salvation by the merits and death of Christ. Nay, justification by faith was even called a Paulina figura, by which was meant that we are saved by grace, and not by claims or merits of our own. 2 1 Newman, On Justification, p. 396. See also Hellarmine, De Justific. ; and Bar- row, ii. Sect. v. p. 79. Bellarmine states the causes of justifi- cation thus: 1. The final cause, God's glory and our salvation. 2. The efficient cause, God's goodness and Christ's merits. 3. The material, cause, the mind or will of man, in which righteousness abides, and in which are formed the dispositions pre- disposing to the formal cause. 4. The firmed cause, internally, the habit of grace ; externally, the righteousness of Christ. De Justific. Lib. i. cap. 2. Justi- fication lie denies to consist in remission of sins or imputation of righteousness only, but asserts it to have for its formal cause the infusion of habitual righteous- ness. Lib. ii. cap. 3,6, 15. Good works he asserts to be meritorious of eternal life, but that, because they are wrought in us by the grace of God. Lib. v. cap. 12, et passim. ' 2 Fide sumus justi, id est, per miseri- cordiam propter Christum sumus justi ; non quia fides sit virtus, quae mereatur remissionem sua dignifate. — Melancth. Loci Theoloy. de Aryum. Adoers. p. 286. Laurence, B. L. p. 333. , Cum dieitur, Fide justificamur, non aliud dieitur, quain quod propter Filium Dei accipiamus remissionem peccatorum et reputemur justi . . . . Intelligatur ergo propositio correlative, Fide justi sumus, id est, per misericordiam propter Filium Dei sumus justi seu accepti. — Mel. Loc. Theol. de Voc Fidei, f. 199, 2. Newman, On Jus- ti/. p. 278. Cum igitur dicimus Fide justi ficamur, non hoc intelligimus, quod justi sumus propter ipsius virtutis dignitatem, sed haec est sententia, consequi nos remissi- onem peccatorum, et imputationem jus- titias per misericordiam propter Christum .... Jam bonas mentes nihil ofivndet novitas hujus Panlinie figura. Fide justifi- camur, si intelligant proprie de misericor- dia dici, eamque veris et necessariis lau- dibus ornari. Quid potest enim esse gra- tius conscientiae amictse et pavidaj in veris doloribus quam audire, hoc esse mandatum Dei, banc esse vocem sponsi Christi. ut statuant certe donari remis- sionem peccatorum seu reconciliationem, non propter nostram dignitatem, sed gra- tis, per misericordiam, propter Christum, ut beneficium sit certum. — Confessio August. 1540. De Fide, Sylloqe Confes- sionum, Oxf. 1827, p. 182. 296 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XI Thus then it was ruled, that the peculiar significance of St. Paul's language, and of the Lutheran use of it, implied, not an opposition of faith to charity, or of faith to holiness, but an oppo- sition of the merits of Christ to the merits of man, of the mercy of God to the claims which a sinner might suppose himself to have for acceptance in God's presence. Still it was clear that, in some sense, faith was made the instru- ment or formal cause of justification. And the question still remained, Had such faith love in it, or was it to be considered as apart from love ? We have seen that Luther declared that justi- fying faith had not love in it till it had justified ; and to his defi- nitions some of the Lutherans adhered, though he may himself afterwards have in some degree modified them. Melancthon and the moderate Lutherans appear to have spoken rather differently. Melancthon says, that " no doubt there are love and other graces in faith ; but that, when St. Paul says, • we are justified by faith,' he means, not by the virtue of that grace, but by the mercy of God, for the sake of the Mediator." 1 The Con- fession of Augsburg declares, that " faith cannot exist except in those who repent ; " that " among good works, the chief is faith, which produces many other virtues, which cannot exist till faith has been conceived in the heart." 2 Again, it reconciles St. James and St. Paul, by explaining that St. James speaks of a mere his- torical faith, whilst St. Paul speaks of reliance on God's mercy in Christ. 3 It distinctly asserts, that faith brings forth good works, and quotes with approbation the words of St. Ambrose, Fides bona 3 voluntatis etjustos actionis genitrix est.* All then, but a few of the more rigid Lutherans, agreed that it was a living, not a dead faith, a faith full of good works, not a bare and historical assent to truth, which justified the soul. Still, the question remained, Was it fides* quce viva est, or, fides qua viva est, (i. e. faith, which is living, or faith, because it is living,) which justifies ? Some thought, that if it were considered as justifying because it was living, then there would be some merit attached to that which quickened it, or which i Concedo in flducia inesse dilectionem, 2 Nee existere fides potest nisi in his 1 1 hanc virtutem et plerasque alias ad- qui poenitentiam agunt, quia fides conso- rsse oportet* [ sed cum dieimus, Fiducia latur eorda in eontritione et terroribus Humus jiisti, non intelligatur nos propter peccati Inter bona opera, praeiipuura virtutis istius dignitatem, sed per mis- est et summus cultus Dei fides ip>:i. »>t ericordinm reeipi propter Mediatorem, parit multas alias virtutes, qua; existere quern taim-n oportet fide appreliendi. non possunt, nisi prius corda fidem con- Ergo hoodlcimus correlative.— Molancth. ceperint. — Con/ess. A ugust. Syll. ConJ Loci Theolot]. de Artjum. Adtws. p. 284. p. 83. Laurence, 13. L. p. 882. Newman, Jus- * Si/lliye Con/, pp. 181, 182. Itfc. p. 10. * Ibid. p. 188. Sec. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 297 showed it to be alive, t. e. to charity. " Modes were invented of explaining the difficulty, which savoured more of metaphysical subtlety than of practical wisdom, such as that mentioned by Bish- op Bull : " Faith justifies, pregnant with good works, but not as yet having given birth to them." * Bucer, a divine, who had some concern in our own Reforma- tion, and whose opinions are therefore particularly interesting to us, seems to have been very moderate on this subject. He ex- presses his regret that language should be used concerning faith alone, to the exclusion of holiness, such as to offend well-meaning men. He considers that no one should object to the additions of viva or formata as applied to justifying faith ; since it is plain that St. Paul spoke of a living faith as justifying, and only meant to exclude self-righteousness. 2 Several controversies concerning justification arose among the Lutherans, even in the lifetime of Luther. Osiander, a. d. 1550, broached some opinions, the exact nature of which it may be diffi- cult to define. They appear to have been chiefly, " that faith does not justify by applying and embracing the righteousness of the Man Christ, but by uniting to Christ, who then by His Divine nature dwells in the heart, and that this union both justifies before God, and sanctifies the sinner." There was probably, however, something more than this, or it would hardly have excited the vehement opposition of so mild a man as Melancthon. 3 Of a very different kind were the errors of Agricola, (a. d. 1538,) who is accused of having carried the doctrine of faith alone to its most noxious extreme. He is esteemed the founder of the Antinomians ; and is said to have held that all licentiousness and sin were allowable, if only Christ was received and embraced by a lively faith. He was vigorously opposed by Luther.* To proceed from the Lutheran to the Calvinistic reformers : they appear for the most part to have symbolized with Luther in his general statement concerning justification. They declared that to justify was a forensic term signifying to remit sins, and pronounce righteous. 5 They said, that we receive this justification not by 1 Bull, Harm. Apostol. Diss. Prior, vi. 6 Justificatio significat Apostolo in dis- 2. putatione de Justiflcatione, peccata remit- 2 See especially on Psalm xi. quoted tere, a culpa et poena absolvere, in gratiam by Bull, Harm. Apostol. Diss. Post. II. 8. recipere, et justum pronunciare. — Confess. 8 Mosh. Ch. Hist. Art. xvi. § in. part He/vet. Sylloqe, p. 51. ii. See also Calv. Instil, in. cap. xi. 5- Nos justificationem simpliciter inter- 11, who accuses him of opinions border- pretamur acceptionem, qua nos Deus in Ing on Manicheism. gratiam receptos pro justis habel — Cal- * Mosh. as above. vin, Inst. in. xi. 2. 38 298 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XI. works, but by faith in God's mercy ; and because faith receives Christ, our righteousness, and ascribes all to God's grace in Christ, therefore justification is attributed to faith, and that chiefly be- cause of Christ, not because it is any work of ours. 1 They con- sidered it to consist especially in the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to us ; and strenuously denied that justification was in consequence of any internal sanctification wrought in us by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and the faith which He inspires. 2 They denied that justification was of faith and works conjoined. 8 But when the question arose, Is the faith which justifies to be considered as alone, and informis, or lively, and full of good works, (Jormata) ? they seem to have decided that it was the latter and not the former. Although Calvin complained that the distinction was nugatory, inasmuch as faith never could exist apart from the holiness which it produces. 4 Our own reformers soon eiribraced the doctrine of Luther, with such modifications as their own wisdom suggested. In the Ar- ticles set forth in 1536, justification is defined to signify remission of sins and acceptance into the favour of God. We are said to attain this justification for the only mercy and grace of the Father, freely for Jesus Christ's sake, through contrition and faith joined with charity ; 5 language which is repeated in the Institution of a Christian Man. 6 As on other subjects, the English reformers' views grew more fixed and definite after the death of Henry VIII. The Homily of Salvation, and the 11th Article of 1552, expressed definitively the judgment of Cranmer and his companions on justification. The 11th Article, as drawn by them, ran thus : " Justification by i Si/Uwje, p. 52. * Calv. Inst, in. xi. 13, 14. 2 Deus nos j ustificat non imputans no- * Quapropter loquimur in hac causa, bis peccata, sed imputans Christi nobis non de ficta fide, de inani et otiosu et justitiam. Sylloge, p. 52. mortua, sed de viva, vivificanteque, quae Hinc et illud conficitur, sola interces- propter Christum, qui vita est et viviflcat, sione justitiae Christi nos obtinere ut co- quern comprehendit, viva est et dicitur, ram Deo justificemur. Quod perinde ac se vivam esse vivis (factual operibus. valet ac si diccretur hominem non in Nihil itaque contra banc nostiam doc- seipso justum esse, sed quia Christi jus- trinam pugnat Jacobus ille, qui de fide titiaimputationecum illo communicatur : loquitur inani et mortua, quam quidam quod accurata animadversione dignum jaetabant, Christum autcm intra se viven- est. Siquidem evanescit nugamentum tern per fldom non babebant. — Confess. illud, ideo justifleaxi hominem fide, quo- Helvet. Syltoge, p. 63. See also Calvin, niam ilia Spiritum Dei participat quo jus- Inst. m. ii. 8, quoted above, tus redilitur : quod magis est contrariura b Formularies of Faith in the Reign of auperiori doctrinae quam ut conciliari un- Henry VIII. Oxford, p. 12. quam qucat. Neque enim dubium, quin tt Ibid. p. 209. sit inops propria? justitiaB, qui justitiam extra seipsum quasrere docetur. — Calv. Int. in. xi. 28. Sec. I] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 299 only faith in Jesus Christ, in that sense as it is declared in the Homily of Justification, is a most certain and wholesome doctrine for Christian men." The Article as it stands now is somewhat differently worded, but probably conveys the same sense. Both send us to the " Homily of Justification " as the interpreter of the sense in which the Church of England understands " Justification by faith ; " and therefore the definitions of this homily, if we can discover them, are the definitions of the Anglican Church concern- ing this debated point. There is no homily entitled the Homily of Justification, but the Homily of Salvation treats expressly of justification ; and it has therefore always been understood, either that this homily alone, or this conjoined with that which precedes and that which follows it, is the homily referred to in the Article. The Article itself, as it now stands, appears to speak very much the language of Melancthon and the Confession of Augsburg ; for its statement of the doctrine of justification by faith is, that " We are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings." This is language very similar to that of Melancthon, quoted above, who considered justification by faith, and salvation by grace, to be correlative terms ; and to that of the Confession of Augsburg, which calls justification by faith a Paulina figura for remission of sins by mercy, for the sake of Christ. For further explanation the Article sends us to the homily, which teaches as follows. It begins by defining justification to be " the forgiveness of sins and trespasses." " This justification or righteousness, which we so receive of God's mercy and Christ's merits, embraced by faith, is taken, allowed, and accepted for our perfect and full justification. .... God sent His Son into the world to fulfil the LaAv for us, and by shedding of His most precious Blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends to His Father for our sins, to assuage His wrath and indignation conceived against us for the same. Insomuch that infants, being baptized and dying in their infancy, are by this sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to God's favour, and made His children, and inheritors of His Kingdom of Heaven. And they which in act or deed do sin after baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are like- wise washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their dam- nation. This is that justification of righteousness which St. Paul speaketh of when he saith, No man is justified by the works of the 300 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XI law, but freely, by faith in Jesus Christ. Gal. ii The Apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our jus- tification. Upon God's part, His great mercy and grace : upon Christ's part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God's justice .... upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but God's working in us ... . Therefore St. Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith, which nevertheless is the gift of God, and not man's only work without God. And yet How it is to ^ ia * ^ a ^ n °^ n n0 *' snu ^ ou ^ re P entance » hope, love, be understood dread and the fear of God, to be joined with faith, in that faith jus- . ...,,,, . . , , tifieth without every man that is justified, but it snutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not alto- gether ; nor the faith also doth not shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty towards God : (for we are most bounden to serve God in doing good deeds, commanded by Him, in His holy Scripture, all the days of our life :) but it ex- cludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them." J Again — " The true understanding of the doctrine, we be justified freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only, is not that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us, and deserve our justification unto us (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue which is within ourselves) ; but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God's word and believe it ; although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread and fear of God within us, and do never so many good works thereunto ; yet we must renounce the merit of all said virtues, of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deed*- which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as 'things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve remission of our sins and our justification ; and therefore we must trust only in God's mercy, and that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, fro obtain thereby God's grace and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to Him again. So that as St. John the Baptist, although he was never so virtuous and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgiveness of sin, he did put the peo- 1 First Part of the Homily of Salvation. Sec. L] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 301 pie from him, and appointed them to Christ, saying thus unto them : Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world, John i. ; even so, as great and godly a virtue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth or appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by Him remission of our sins, or justifica- tion. So that our faith in Christ (as it were) saith unto us thus : It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only ; and to Him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ." l It is plain that the doctrine contained in these extracts (from a homily which has unusual authority, as being virtually assented to by every one who signs the Articles) is briefly as follows. That, which the English reformers meant by justification by faith, is, that we can never deserve anything at God's hands by. our own works, — that therefore we must owe our salvation only to the free mercy of God, who, for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ, pardons and accepts all infants who are baptized in His name, and all persons who sin after baptism, when by His grace they are brought to re- pentance and conversion, — that justification is especially assigned to faith, not because of any peculiar excellence in faith itself, but rather because faith sends us from itself to Christ, and because by it we apprehend Christ and rest upon Him only for acceptance with God, — that, though therefore we ascribe justification to faith only, it is not meant that justifying faith either is or can be without its fruits, but that it is ever pregnant and adorned with love, and hope, and holiness. Language in strict conformity with this was uniformly held by those who had the chief hand in drawing up the Articles and com- piling the Liturgy, and is to be found in those semi-authoritative documents which were from time to time set forth by them. 2 1 Second Part of Homily of Salvation. Justification is thus briefly explained Also concerning the difference between in Edw. VI.'s Catechism : " As oft as we a dead and living faith, and the recon- use to say that we are made righteous ciliation of St. Paul and St. James, see and saved by faith only, it is meant Part 8. See also the conclusion of the thereby, that faith or rather trust alone, 3d part of the Homily on Prayer ; the doth lay hand upon, understand, and per- 2d part of the Homily on Almsdeeds, ceive our righteous making to be given near the middle ; the conclusion of the us of God freely : that is to say, by no second Homily of the Passion, and partic- deserts of our own, but by the free grace ularly the whole of the Homilies of Faith of the Almighty Father. Moreover, and Good Works. faith doth engender in us the love of our 2 We may refer particularly to the neighbour, and such works as God is following : Cranmer's Catechism, Oxf. pleased withal. For if it be a true and pp. 98, 114, 115, 143, 205; Cranmer's lively faith, quickened by the Holy Ghost, Works; ed. Jenkyns, Oxf. it. p. 121, m. she is the mother of all good saying and 663. doing .... And although good works 302 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Akt. XI. Owing to the unhappy divisions of later times in the Church of England, there has been no small difference among her divines on this head of justification ; a difference, however, which there is good reason to hope is rather apparent in scholastic and logical definitions, than in its bearing on vital truth or practical godliness. The great Hooker wrote a treatise on Justification, in which he strongly impugns the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning justification by infusion of righteousness, and maintains the princi- ple of imputation, distinguishing the righteousness of justification as external to us, the righteousness of sanctificatipn as internal. 1 Bishop Bull in his Harmonia Apostolica admits that sense of justification by faith, which, he says, all the sounder Protestants have attached to it, namely, Salvation by grace only. He takes justification in the forensic sense, the meritorious cause of which is Christ, the instrument or formal cause being fides formata, or faith accompanied by good works. 2 Dr. Barrow, in the first five of his Sermons on the Creed, dis- cusses the nature of faith and justification with great learning and moderation. Justification he shows to be a forensic term, to be given for the sake of Christ, to be the result of God's mere mercy, apart from our deserts ; yet he considers baptism and faith to be the conditions of justification, and faith to include its effects. Faith is a hearty reception of the Gospel, first exerting itself by open avowal in baptism, to which time therefore the act of justification especially pertains. Yet too every dispensation of pardon granted upon repentance may be also termed justification. Hence every cannot deserve to make us righteous be- fore God, yet do they so cleave unto faith, that neither can faith be found without them, nor good works be anywhere with- out faith." — (Enchiridion Theolog. I. p. 25.) So Noel's Catechism : Ad Dei miseri- cordiam confugiendum est qua gratis nos in Christo nullo nostro merito nee operum respectu, amore et benevolentiacomplec- titur ; turn peccata nobis nostra condo- nans, turn justitiaChristi per Fidem in ip- 6um ita nos donans ut ob earn, perinde ac si nostra esset, ipsi accepti simus .... M. Non ergo inter hujus justitiae causas Fidem principem locum tenere dicis, ut ejus merito nos ex nobis justi coram Deo habeamm •"? A. Nequaquam : id enim es- set Fidem in Christi locum substituere . . M. Verum an a bonis opcribus ita separari bacc justitia potest, ut qui banc habct, illis careat? A. Nequaquam . . . . M. Jus- titiam ergo, Fidem, ac bona opera, natura ooherentia esse dicis, quae proinde non magis distralii debeant quam Christus illorum in nobis author a seipso divelli possit. — Enchirid. Theolog. i. p. 282. Jewel's Apologi/ : Itaque unicum re- ceptum nostrum et perfugium esse ad misericordiam Patris nostri per Jesum Christum, ut certo animis nostris persua- deamus ilium esse propitiationem pro peccatis nostris ; ejus sanguine omnos labes nostras deletas esse .... Quamvis autem dicamus nibil nobis esse prsesidii in operibus et factis nostris, et omnis sa- lutis nostra} rationem constituamus in solo Christo, non tamen ea causa dici- mus laxe et solute vivendum esse, quasi tingi tantum et credere, satis sit boinini Ohristiano, et nihil ab eo aliud expee- tetur. Vera Fides viva est, nee potest esse otiosa. — Enchirid. Tlieolog. pp. 181, 182. 1 Discourse on Justification, &c. Works, in. pt. II. p. 601. Oxf. 1836. 2 Mull's Harm. Apost. and Examen Cen- tura. Works, Oxf. in. iv. Sec. I.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 303 person is justified freely for Christ's sake at his baptism, continues justified whilst he is in a state of lively faith, and returns to a state of justification, if he have fallen from it, by repentance. 1 Dr. Waterland, in a very able tract on the same subject, argues, that the causes of justification are (1) the moving cause, God's grace and goodness ; (2) the meritorious cause, Christ ; (3) the efficient cause, the Holy Spirit — that its instruments are (1) bap- tism ; (2) faith — that its conditions are, (1) faith ; (2) obedi- ence. 2 Mr. Alexander Knox, a writer of great originality and piety, expressed himself unable to believe the protestant doctrine of justi- fication. The forensic sense of the word seemed to him too like a legal fiction : and he could not believe that God could pronounce any one just, or account any one righteous, who had really no such inherent quality as justice or righteousness. Accordingly, he solved the difficulty by asserting that God pronounces those right- eous by justification, whom He has already made so by sanctifica- tion. 3 In still later days, Mr. Faber has written an able work to prove that in the earliest Christian writers, from Clement of Rome down- wards, the word justification is used strictly in its forensic sense, and that justification is ascribed to faith alone. 4 Lastly, not very long before his secession to the Church of Rome, Mr. Newman published a most logical treatise, in which he professes to steer a middle course between the Roman and the Lutheran doctrines. He takes the forensic sense of the term justification — and asserts, that it is conferred in baptism, is main- tained by faith, and consists in the indwelling of the Spirit of God, and the being made members of the Body of Christ. 5 Whatever speculative differences may have existed of late or in times gone by, it is no small comfort to know, that it has been allowed by all that fallen man cannot of himself become worthy of eternal salvation, that he stands in need both of pardoning mercy and sanctifying grace, that this mercy and this grace have been procured for him by the all-prevailing merits of the Redeemer, and that these blessings, offered to all, may be appropriated to the individual believer by that faith which the Holy Spirit will implant, and which must produce love and holiness and all good fruits. The 1 Works, fol. Vol. ii. especially Ser- * Faber's Primitive Doctrine of Justiftca- mons iv. v. tion. 2 Waterland, On Jxistificotion, Works. 6 Newman, On Justification ; see espe- Van Mildert, ix. p. 427. cially Lect. in. vi. ix. 8 Knox's Remaitxs. 804 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XL divines of Trent and their most extreme antagonists have denied none of these propositions. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I. QENSE of the word Justification. *J The word which we render just or righteous (namely, Si'kcuos, or in the Hebrew p" 1 " 1 !?) has two principal significations : the one popular, the other accurate. In its popular signification, it is nearly equivalent to good, holy, pious, (ayatfos, eio-e/Jr/s, TDn) ; and is used commonly of men, who are living a pious and upright life, not according to the perfect standard of the law of God, but sub- ject to such imperfection and impurity as is common to man. Ex- amples of this usage may be found in the following, among many other passages : Gen. vi. 9. Ps. xxxvii. 12. Prov. iv. 18 ; xxiv. 16. Matt. i. 19 ; x. 41 ; xxiii. 29. Mark vi. 20. Luke ii. 25. Acts x. 22. James v. 16. In its more accurate sense, StKatos sig- nifies absolutely, strictly, and perfectly righteous or just, without defect or impurity, like the holy Angels, or like God Himself. As for instance, in Job ix. 2. Matt, xxvii. 19. Luke xxiii. 47. Rom. ii. 13 ; iii. 10. 1 Tim. i. 9. In which, as in most similar pas- sages, the word particularly seems to express innocent, not guilty, with reference to a tribunal of justice, or question of crime. The same distinction is equally observable in the substantive righteous- ness QyjS hiKaiovvvrf) ; which at one time stands for strict and per- fect justice, (as in Acts xvii. 31. Rom. iii. 5. Rev. xix. 11, &c.) ; at other times for such goodness, holiness, or good deeds, as men under the grace of God are capable of (as in Ps. xv. 2. Isai. xxxii. 17. Matt. v. 10, 20 ; vi. 33. Acts xiii. 10. Rom. vi. 18, 19, 20 ; viii. 10 ; xiv. 17. Eph. v. 9 ; vi. 14. Heb. xii. 11). The verb St/caiow, which strictly corresponds with the Hebrew causative verb p^llJn, and is translated in English M to justify, ," in some degree partakes of the ambiguity of the adjective, from which it is formed ; yet, not so as, fairly considered, to introduce much difficulty into the doctrine of which we have to treat. 1. The literal signification of the verb, whether in Hebrew or in Greek, is " to make righteous." It may therefore, of course, be used for something like an infusion of righteousness into the mind Sec. II.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 305 or character of a man ; and the passive may signify the possession of that righteousness so infused ; and such a sense appears proba- bly to belong'to it in Rev. xxii. 11, " He that is righteous, let him be rio-hteous still " (6 Sikcuos 8iK.auodrJTv 7ru(ri). 3. It is used as a term to designate the Christian Religion, " the faith " or " the faith of Christ." So Acts vi. 7, " were obedient to the faith." Acts xiii. 8, " seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith." Rom. i. 5, " for obedience to the faith among all na- tions," €is viraKorjv iriarewi iv iracn rot? Wvecri (i. e. to convert all na- tions to the Christian Religion). So xvi. 26. Comp. Eph. iii. 17 ; iv. 5. Phil. i. 25. 1 Tim. iv. 1. Tit. i. 1, 4. James ii. 1. Jude, 3, 20. Rev. ii. 13 ; xiv. 12. In this sense St. Paul appears especially to use it in his Epistle to the Galatians ; where perhaps we may consider, that in his constant antithesis of Law and Faith, he is contrasting the Law of Moses, or the Religion of the Jews, with the Faith of Christ, or the Religion of the Gospel. Some of the more obvious usages of the word in this sense in the Epistle to the Galatians are in the following : Gal. i. 23, " now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed," iii. 23, " Before faith came (?rpo tov 8c cA.0eiv tt]v 7tio-tiv), we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed " («b ryv fxikkowrav aTroi0r)vai 71-icmv). The same sense is apparent in the whole context (vv. 24, 25, 26) ; where it is taught us, that both Jews and Gen- tiles become children of God by the faith (i. e. by embracing the religion or Gospel) of Jesus Christ, having put on Christ by being baptized into Him. Accordingly, Gal. vi. 10, we read of Christians as being ouccum rij9 irioTtws, servants of the Gospel, domestics of the Christian faith. 1 1 8° DfiS ' 9 uset * for " true religion/' Pi- Ixxxvi. 11. Sec. II.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 309 4. There are passages in the Epistles in which it seems plain that faith is spoken of as separable from its results, as an assent to Christian truth without the heart being duly moved by it, and so the life corresponding with it. That is to say, faith is used in that sense which the schoolmen called fides informis. Thus St. Peter (2 Pet. i. 5) bids men " add to their faith virtue" and all other Christian graces, as though faith might be considered as apart from other graces. St. Paul (1 Cor. xiii. 2) speaks of a faith strong enough to move mountains, and yet capable of being conceived of as without charity, and so of no value ; and in the same chapter (ver. 13) speaks of faith, hope, charity, as three dis- tinct graces, two of which shall pass away, and one, namely, char- ity, shall abide ; and declares this charity to be the greatest of the three. Especially St. James (ii. 14-26) considers the case of faith without works, and declares such a faith unable to justify. 5. Yet, on the other hand, since it is the nature of faith to open the eye of the mind to things spiritual, and to bring home to it the view of Heaven, and hell, of God's justice and mercy, of man's liability to judgment, and Christ's Atonement and Media- tion ; therefore it is most commonly spoken of as an operative and active principle, "purifying the heart" (Acts xv. 9), and "work- ing by love " (Gal. v. 6). Accordingly, in Heb. xi. St. Paul at- tributes to the energy of faith all the holiness and heroism of the saints and martyrs in times of old. 6. Especially, as the principal subjects of God's revelations are His promises, therefore faith came to mean 7rc7roi^cris, fiducia, reliance on the truth of God's promises, or trust in His mercy and grace. Of such a nature was that faith which gave men strength to ben- efit by the miraculous powers of Christ and His Apostles, Matt. ix. 2, 22 : " Thy faith hath made thee whole." Acts xiv. 9, St. Paul perceived that the cripple at Lystra " had faith to be healed." See also, Matt. viii. 16 ; ix. 29; xvii. 20 ; xxi. 21. Mark ii. 5 ; iv. 40 ; v. 34 ; x. 52 ; xi. 22. Luke v. 20 ; vii. 9 ; viii. 25, 48 ; xvii. 5, 6 ; xviii. 42. Acts hi. 16. Jam. v. 15. So St. James speaks of " praying in faith, nothing wavering " (James i. 6), that is, praying in a spirit of trust in God and reliance on His promises. St. Peter (1 Pet. v. 9) tells us to resist the devil " stedfast in the faith," i. e. steadily relying on the help of God. Of such a nature seems to be " the shield of faith " (Eph. vi. 16), which can " quench the fiery darts of the wicked one." So we read of " faith and patience," of " the patience and faith of the saints," 310 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XI. (Rev. ii. 19 ; xiii. 10), evidently signifying their resignation and trust in God under trials and afflictions. So perhaps we may say that in the above-cited eleventh of Hebrews, faith is represented as a full conviction that what God had promised He was able and will- ing to perform ; hence a trust or reliance on God's truth and prom- ises, by which men overcame earthly temptations and difficulties, despised the world, and fought a good fight. See especially vv. 10, 11,13,14, 16, 19, 26, 27. Thus much of faith generally. The question next arises, In what sense does St. Paul use the word when he speaks of faith as justifying ? Is justifying faith a bare historical assent ? Is it but a synonym for the religion of Christ ? Is it trust and confidence in God ? Is it to be considered, as full of its fruits and lively in its operation, or apart from all such, or at least prior to them ? Let us examine those passages of Scripture, whether St. Paul's or not, in which it is certain or probable that faith and justification are considered together, and see what attributes are assigned to the faith so spoken of. Justifying faith then is : — 1. The work and gift of God. Matt. xvi. 17. John vi. 29, 44, 45. Phil. i. 29. 2. The character of the regenerate. Compare Gal. v. 6, with Gal. vi. 15 ; whence it will appear that regeneration and justifying faith are used convertibly. 3. The sign of regeneration. 1 John v. 1 : " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," his faith being the proof of his regeneration. 4. It is seated in the heart, not merely in the understanding. Rom. x. 10 : " With the heart man believeth unto righteous- ness." 5. Is not dead. See James ii. 14—26 ; which proves clearly that, if faith is dead and so without works, it does not profit. 6. But, on the contrary, is a full conviction of the truth of God's promises and reliance on them. See Heb. xi. 19, where Abraham's faith, when he offered up Isaac, is described as an " accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead ; " which is the very example adduced by St. Paul, when he is specially treating on the subject of justify- ing faith (Rom. iv. 18-20), and by St. James, when he is rectify- ing errors on the same important subject (James ii. 23, &c.) 7. It worketh by love. Sec. II.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 311 Gal. v. 6 ; where we read that that which " availeth " (ii e. jus- tifieth) "in Christ Jesus," is "faith which worketh by love." 8. Accordingly it sanctifies. Acts xxvi. 18 : " That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me." 9. It purifies the heart. Acts xv. 9 : " Purifying their hearts by faith." 10. It overcomes the world. 1 John v. 4 : " This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." Compare Hebrews xi., throughout the whole of which we have a description of faith as that which overcomes the world. And with this again compare (as before) Rom. iv. ; where the same kind of reasoning is used, and the same example adduced concern- ing justifying faith, as in Heb. xi. concerning faith in the general. 11. It is evidently connected with its results, and by a kind of synecdoche considered as containing them, 1 or pregnant with them. This will plainly appear, if we examine the three passages in which Abraham's faith is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness, i. e. to have been justifying. Those three passages are Gen. xv. 6. Rom. iv. James ii. 21-23, to which may be added Heb. xi. 8-10. In Gen. xv. we read of God's promise to Abraham, that he should have a son in his old age, whose seed should be as the stars of heaven for multitude. And unlikely as this was, and against all natural probability, Abraham " believed in the Lord ; and He counted it to him for righteousness," ver. 6. In Rom. iv. St. Paul quotes this instance of Abraham's faith, and illustrates it thus (ver: 18-22) : " Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations ; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb ; he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully persuaded that what He had promised He was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." Now St. James (ii. 21-23) reasons on the subject thus : " Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect ? And the Scrip- 1 See Barrow. 312 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XL ture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness ; and he was called the friend of God." And similar effects of his faith St. Paul himself speaks of, Heb. xi. 8 : "By faith, Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither he went." See also verses -9-12. From all which passages it is sufficiently apparent, that when the Scriptures speak of the faith of Abraham, which justified him, they understand by it a faith of such nature that a man is per- suaded by it to disregard all earthly considerations, and to resign himself, contrary to all his worldly interests, to obedient conformity with the will of God. 12. As it was seen of faith in general, that it had special refer- ence to the promises and mercies of God, so it will be found that justifying faith has special reference to the Person, sufferings, and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to God's promises in Him. For example, John iii. 14, 15 : " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." John vi. 40 : " This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life." Ver. 47 : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." Acts x. 43 : 44 Through His Name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins." xvi. 31 : 44 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Rom. iii. 25, 2G : 44 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, at this time, His righteousness, that He might be just, and the justifier of Him which believeth in Jesus." x. 9: 44 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." See also John i. 12; iii. 16, 18, 36 ; v. 24 ; vi. 29, 35 ; xi. 25, 26 ; xvi. 27 ; xvii. 25. Acts xiii. 38, 39 ; xx. 21. Rom. iii. 22 ; iv. 5, 24 ; x. 4. Philem. 5. 1 John iii. 23 ; v. 1. So much indeed is this the character of faith, (at least of that active faith which, as we have seen, is the faith which justifies,) that by it Christ is said to dwell in the heart. Ephes. iii. 17: " That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." And so it not Sec. II.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 313 only has reference to the work of Christ for us, but it is both the proof of Christ's dwelling in us, and the instrument whereby He dwells in us. III. General View of Justification in Scripture. Having premised thus much concerning the meaning attached to the term Justification, and to the grace of justifying faith, by the inspired writers in the new Testament, we may now perhaps pro- ceed to state more fully and formally the doctrine of Scripture concerning justification, or pardon and acceptance with God. In the general, then, we may state concerning the justification of man, that 1. The moving cause is God's mercy. 2. The meritorious cause is Christ's Atonement. But we know, that, notwithstanding the infinite mercy of God, and the fulness and all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, yet all men do not benefit by this grace. Therefore we learn that there is need of something internal to connect with the external work of our salvation ; Christ in the heart connecting with Christ on the cross ; the work of the Spirit to be united to the work of the Redeemer. Hence 3. The immediate efficient cause is the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart by His influences, leads to Christ, regenerates and re- news. 4. The first instrument by which God conveys pardon, under ordinary circumstances, is Baptism. Hence this is the first instru- ment of justification. This will appear from the following. Even John's baptism (a fortiori Christ's) was a " baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," i. e. for justification. Mark i. 4. Luke iii. 3. When our Lord instituted His baptism, it was with the promise that all who so far believed the preaching of the Apostles as to embrace the faith of Christ and be baptized into it, " should be saved," Mark xvi. 16. When the Apostles were asked by their converts what they should do, they replied, " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" Acts ii. 37, 38. After St. Paul's conversion to the faith, Ananias called on him to " arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins," Acts xxii. 10. The Apostle couples being " washed " with " sanctified and justified," 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; speaks of the Church as " cleansed with the washing of water," Eph. v. 26 ; and places the " washing of regeneration " as a synonym or parallel with the " being justified,' 5 40 314 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XL Tit. iii. 5, 7. See likewise Rom. vi. 4, 7. Col. ii. 12, 14. 1 Pet. iii. 21, &c. Baptism is that which places us in a state of covenant with God, and hence, in St. Paul's words, is that in which " we put on Christ," and are esteemed " the children of God by the faith in Christ," Gal. iii. 26, 27. Hence a person receiving baptism is put in a position to receive from God the gifts which He has covenanted to give to us in His Son ; and the first of those gifts is acceptance into His favour and remission of our sins, that is, justification. 5. The state of heart in which a man must be, who is accepted or justified, is a state of faith, Rom. x. 10. Eph. iii. 17. Accord- ingly, when justification is considered subjectively, or as connected with the state of the Christian's heart, the instrument is said to be faith. Faith, therefore, may be considered either as the instrument, or as the state of justification. 6. When a man is said by St. James to be justified by works ; it is not because his works procure him acceptance meritoriously, but because they are the sign, and fruit, and necessary results of that sanctification by the Spirit which unites him to the Atonement of Christ, and are the necessary and inseparable concomitants — or, in fact, parts — of his faith, as much as light is part of the sun, or fruit is part of the tree which bears it. Such may be fairly considered as a general view of the doctrine of justification as commonly taught in Scripture. But in order to a full investigation of this question, it is necessary to understand the peculiar signification attached by St. Paul to what may be con- sidered his favorite formula, namely : — IV. Justification by faith. Now it is quite clear that St. Paul's great object in the Epistle to the Romans was to put down all claims on the part of man to reward, for services done by him to God. Accordingly, in the first three chapters he shows all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, to be sinners, and so deserving, not justification or acquittal, but condem- nation. His conclusion is, that if we are saved, it must be by the merits of Christ or by free grace only ; without any claims on our part on the score of desert. This truth he expresses under the formula of " Justification by faith." Hence we conclude, that, in the language of St. Paul, "justi- fication by faith," and " free salvation by grace," are (as it has been seen that Melancthon, the Confession of Augsburg, and our own Article and Homilies, teach) correlative or convertible expressions. The former means the latter. Sec. II.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 315 That this is the case will appear more plainly, if we read con- nectedly but a very few of the passages in which St. Paul espe- cially propounds his doctrine of justification, e. g. Rom. iii. 23, 24, 28 : " All have sinned and come short of the glory of God ; being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom, &c. . . . therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Eph. ii. 8 : " By grace are ye saved through faith," &c. Tit. iii. 4, 5, 7 : " After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us . . . that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." So Rom. iv. 25 ; v. 1, 9, 16, 20, 21, compared together, clearly show the same thing. " Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God," Rom. iv. 25 ; v. 1. " Much more then, being now justified by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him," v. 9. " The judgment was by one to condemnation ; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification," ver. 16. " Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so. might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ," vv. 20, 21. But although we may readily come to the conclusion that justification by faith is little more than a synonymous expression for justification or salvation by free grace ; yet we can scarcely doubt, that there is something in the nature of faith which espe- cially qualifies it to be put in a formula to denote grace in opposition to claims. Now this would be the case, if faith in the argument of the Epistle to the Romans meant nothing more than " the Christian Religion ; " which it sometimes appears to mean, especially in the Epistle to the Galatians. For, as the religion of Christ is that by embracing which we embrace God's offers and promises of pardon, it might naturally be put to represent those promises and that grace by which pardon is given. But we can hardly conclude that this is the signification of justifying faith in the Epistle to the Romans ; because St. Paul especially adduces the case of Abraham, as a subject of justifying faith (Rom. iv. 1, &c). But Abraham could no more have been considered as justified by the Gospel or the religion of Christ, than any other person under the old dis- B16 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Abt. XI pensation ; and could not have been spoken of, as living under the Gospel, in opposition to such as lived under the Law. It should appear, therefore, that it is not Christ's religion, con- sidered as a whole, which is meant by the Apostle when he speaks of justifying faith ; but that it is that special religious grace which is called faith, and the qualities of which we have lately investi- gated. Accordingly we must search for something in the nature of faith itself, or of its objects, which renders it fit to be put in the formula of St. Paul, as the representative of grace, and as opposed to self-justifying claims. 1. First then, faith is a state of heart in which a man is, and is not an enumeration of so many works or good deeds, which a man has done, and for which he may be supposed to claim reward. It therefore fitly and naturally represents a state of grace, in con- tradistinction to a state of claim, or self-justification. It is that state in which a man is who is regenerate, and so in union with Christ. Yet at the same time, as in the case of the penitent thief upon the cross, it may exist even before it can have brought forth external good works, and therefore obviously cannot recom- mend us to God on the score of meritorious services, which we have rendered to Him. It is therefore the symbol of acceptance by free mercy, apart from human claims. 2. Next, its character is to rely on the power and promises of God, and not on the strength or works of man. For the eye of faith, seeing Him who is invisible, contrasts His power with its own weakness. Hence it becomes nearly identified with trust (fiducia). Such emphatically was the character of Abraham's faith, so specially referred to by the Apostle, which led him to leave his country and sacrifice his son, because u he counted Him faithful who had promised." Hence faith becomes a fit symbol for renunciation of claims and deserts, and trust in God's mercy and pardoning grace. 3. Faith is, perhaps even more than other graces, clearly and obviously the gift of God. We know that we cannot force or con- trol our own belief, and therefore feel that we require the eyes of our understanding to be enlightened by inspiration from above. Therefore again faith is less likely than other graces to be made a ground for boasting. 4. Lastly, although this may not be its exclusive object, yet its peculiar and principal object is Christ, and His Atonement and Mediation. Hence, according to Luther, faith is " full of Christ.'' Hence, according to a greater than Luther, " Christ dwells in our Sec. II] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 317 hearts by faith." Hence faith, leading to Christ and looking to Christ, is, by a natural transition, spoken of in Scripture as if it were invested with attributes which are really above it, and as though it effected that of which it is but the instrument, and whose cause and Author is God in Christ. To the belief indeed, that justifying faith, as spoken of by St. Paul, means merely a reliance on the Atonement, the often- adduced instance of Abraham seems at first sight opposed. For Abraham, whom St. Paul brings forward as the type of justifying faith, is not spoken of as having full confidence in the pardoning grace of Christ; but his faith, in the instance alluded to (Gen. xv. 5, 6), had reference to God's promise, that his seed should be as numerous as the stars of Heaven. It was this faith that was counted to him for righteousness ; and, though it may be argued that there was in this promise of God concerning his offspring virtually contained a promise of the Messiah ; yet it can hardly be said, that Abraham's belief that God would multiply his seed, meant a belief that he should himself be saved by the merits of Chi'ist, and that, on this account, it was justifying faith. We must then probably infer that some of the general charac- ters of faith above referred to, rendered Abraham acceptable to God ; and that so his faith was counted for righteousness. And this consideration certainly causes some little difficulty in our appre- ciation of the doctrine laid down by St. Paul. Still, if we examine the whole of his reasoning in the first five chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, we shall find that the great object on which he speaks of the Christian's faith as fixed is the work of Christ, and God's acceptance of us in Him. Even where he adduces the example of Abraham, and insists that Abraham was justified, not by his own merits, but by his faith ; he concludes, that, in like manner, faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness, " if we believe in Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification " (Rom. iv. 24, 25). And the following chapter is all devoted to considering the reparation which the righteousness of Christ has made for the ruin which Adam's sin had produced. It appears, therefore, that the faith of Abraham must have been alleged, rather as illustrative of, than as identical with, the faith of the Christian. It was of the same kind with the Christian's faith, !n so far as all faith has the same general characters, and has therefore a similar acceptableness with God. But the peculiar faith of the Christian is that by which he apprehends Christ. As 318 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XL the High-priest laid his hand upon the head of the scapegoat, and by confessing, conveyed the sins of the congregation to the scapegoat, that they might be taken away, so the believer lays his hand on the Head of the Great Sacrifice. He believes in the Redeemer of the world, and in God's love through Him. His soul rests upon his Saviour. His faith therefore is a bond of union with the incarnate Godhead ; and so becomes the instrumental cause of jus- tification in us ; the meritorious cause of which is all in Christ. And on this ground most especially it seems, that the Apostle, when labouring to show that human merit and human efforts must fail to bring us to God, and to render us acceptable to Him, pro- duces, and insists so strongly on his peculiar statement of " Justi- fication by faith." * V. Certain questions on the Doctrine of Justification. 1. Is justification an act or a state ? Some persons have decided that it is an act, taking place at a particular moment, never to be repeated. Others, that it is a state, which continues or is lost, as the case may be. If it be the former, it must be limited either (1) to baptism, when, as has been shown, there is promise of remission of sins ; or (2) to the moment which may be considered as the turning- point from a life of sin to a life of repentance, faith, and holiness, — a moment known only to God ; or (3) to the day of Judgment, when the wicked shall be condemned, and the pious shall be ab- solved or justified. Either or all of these may be considered as the moment of transition from condemnation to justification, or pardon and acceptance. But Scripture seems rather to represent justification, as a state of acceptance before God. It is quite certain, that some persons are represented as in favour, grace, or acceptance with God, that is justified ; others as under His wrath, and liable to condemnation. The prophet Ezekiel (xxxiii. vv. 12-19) contrasts the condition 1 This is excellently expressed in the tute et merito Christi, in quam credentes following passage from Cardinal Toletus salvi fiunt, non propria ipsorum virtute (in cap. iii. ad Roman, annot. 17) quoted et merito. Ea causa est cur fidei tribui- by Bp. Forbes, Considerationes Modesf only useful and desirable, but are absolutely necessary for every Christian, and are pleasing and acceptable to God. " We do not take away the reward, because we deny the merit of good works. We know that in the keeping of God's commandments there is great reward (Ps. xix. 11) ; and that unto him that soweth right- eousness there shall be a sure reward (Prov. xi. 18). But the question is, whence he that soweth in this manner must expect to reap so great and so sure a harvest ; whether from God's justice, which he must do, if he stand upon merit, or from His mercy, as a recompense freely bestowed out of God's gracious bounty, and not in justice due for the worth of the work performed. Which ques- tion, we think the prophet Hosea hath sufficiently resolved, when he biddeth us sow to ourselves in righteousness, and reap in mercy (Hos. x. 12). Neither do we hereby any whit detract from the truth of that axiom, that God will give every man according to his works; for still the question remaineth the very same, whether God may not judge a man according to his works, when He sitteth upon the throne of grace, as well as when He sitteth upon the throne of justice ? And we think here, that the Prophet David hath fully cleared the case in that one sentence, Psalm lxii. 12, ' With thee, Lord, is mercy ; for thou rewardest every one ac- cording to his work.' " Originally therefore, and in itself, we hold that this reward proceedeth merely from God's free bounty and mercy ; but acci- dentally, in regard that God hath tied Himself by His word and promise to confer such a reward, we grant that it now proveth in a sort to be an act of justice ; even as in forgiving of our sins, which in itself all men know to be an act of mercy, He is said to be faith- ful and just (1 John i. 9), namely, in regard of the faithful per- formance of His promise." 1 To conclude, then, the Scriptures prove, and the Church teaches, that, not upon the ground of merit, but yet according to God's will and appointment, good works, wrought in Christ, are necessary for every Christian, are pleasing and acceptable to God, and will in the end receiA r e " great recompense of reward," even that " crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give in that day" (2 Tim. iv. 8). 2. That good works " do spring out necessarily of a true and living faith," is a proposition which may be considered to have been incidentally but fully proved in treating on the eleventh Article. It may therefore here be sufficient to refer but briefly 1 Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. xu. 42 830 OF GOOD WORKS. [Abt. XIL to a few of the passages of Scripture in which this is most plainly set forth. The sixth chapter of Romans throughout is an explanation entered into by the Apostle, to show that this doctrine of justifica- tion does not supersede the necessity of good works ; inasmuch as justified persons walk in newness of life, are made free from sin, and become servants of righteousness. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews is an enumeration of signal works of holiness, which were produced through the energizing power of the faith by which the saints of old lived and acted. St. James, in his famous chapter (ii. vv. 14-26), explains at length, that if faith be living, it will necessarily bring forth works, and that if there be no works, the faith is dead. We read of being " sanctified by faith " in Christ (Acts xxvi. 18). God is said to " purify the heart by faith " (Acts xv. 9). Faith is said to be " the victory which overcometh the world" (1 John v. 4). The faith which " availeth in Christ Jesus," is called "faith which worketh by love " (Gal. v. 6). Perhaps the strongest proof of tins proposition is, that in all those writings of St. Paul (especially his Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians) where he peculiarly treats of faith, he passes directly from faith to speak of holiness, counselling Christians, as the consequence of his doctrine concerning faith, to bring forth good works. This we may observe in the latter chapters of both these Epistles, and indeed of all his Epistles. The eleventh chap- ter of Hebrews indeed, which professes to explain to us what faith is, does so almost entirely by giving a list of the works which have sprung from it ; just as one who wished to describe the excellence of a fruit-tree would dwell chiefly on the beauty and goodness of its fruit. We may be assured, therefore, that we cannot assign too high a place to good works, so long as we do not assign to them the power of meriting salvation. They spring from faith, and they feed faith ; for the more faith is called into action, the brighter and the stronger it grows. And as in the bodily economy of man, good health gives birth to good spirits, and yet again, good spirits support and invig- orate health ; so it is in his spiritual life. Faith gives rise to hob* ness, and holiness gives energy to faith. ARTICLE XIII. Of Works before Justification. De Operibus ante Justificationem. Works done before the Grace of Opera quae fiunt ante gratiam Christi Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, et Spiritus ejus afflatum, cum ex fide are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as Jesu Christi non prodeant, minime Deo they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ ; grata sunt ; neque gratiam, ut multi vo- neither do they make men meet to re- cant, de congruo merentur ; immo cum ceive grace, or (as the school-authors non sint facta, ut Deus ilia fieri voluit et say) deserve grace of congruity ; yea, praecepit, peccati rationem habere non rather, for that they are not done as God dubitamus. hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin. Section L — HISTORY. HPHIS Article is intimately connected with the four preceding •*- Articles, and is intended, probably, to prevent any mistakes, and more fully to explain some points in them. In the former Articles an account has been given of most of the errors against which this Article is directed ; and the very wording of it shows that the scholastic doctrine of congruous merit is especially aimed at. Here, however, it may be proper to remark that the question has arisen concerning the nature of heathen vir- tue, a question of great difficulty, on which the fathers touched, both before and after the Pelagian controversy. Clement of Alex- andria particularly speculated much upon the mode in which God's grace and the teaching of Christ visited men before the coming of the Gospel. " His notion was, that philosophy was given to the Gentiles by God, for the same purpose for which the Law was given to the Jews : in order to prepare them for justification under the Gospel by faith in Christ." " It is certain, however, that Clem- ent did not believe that heathen virtue possessed of itself any efficacy towards justification. For he says, that every action of the heathen is sinful, since it is not sufficient that an action is right ; its object or aim must also be right." 1 1 Bishop Kaye, on the Writings of Clement of Alexandria, p. 426. See also pp. 122, seq. 332 OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Art. XIII. Indeed, these opinions of Clement do not seem to interfere at all with the doctrine of this Article ; for Clement evidently con- sidered that God mysteriously worked in the Gentiles by His grace, using, as an external means, the imperfect instrument of their own philosophy. So that whatever good, he thought, might have existed in heathens, he still ascribed to God's grace, and therefore did not consider their goodness " as works done before the grace of Christ." « We have already seen, how the Pelagians and Semi-pelagians 3 denied the necessity of preventing grace ; and held that, in the first instance, God only called men by His word and ordinances, and that by their own strength such as were called might turn to God, and seek His assistance. In controversy, they appear to have referred to the case of virtuous heathens, many of whom might put to shame the lives of Christians. To Julianus, who advances this argument, Augustine replies at great length. Augustine's position was, that " what was not of faith was sin." Julianus supposes the case of a heathen, who covers the naked and does works of mercy ; and asks, " If a Gentile have clothed the naked, is this act of his therefore sin, because it is not of faith ? " 8 Augustine replies that it is ; " not because the simple act of covering the naked is sin, but because none but the impious would deny, that not to glory in the Lord, on account of such a work, was sin." 4 He then goes on to argue, that a bad tree cannot bring forth really good fruit, that an unbe- lieving tree is a bad tree, and that apparently good works are not always really so, as the clemency of Saul in sparing Agag was sin. So he, who does unbelievingly, whatever he does, does ill ; and he who does ill, sins. 6 The good works which an unbeliever does are the works of Him, who turns evil to good. But without faith we cannot please God. 6 If the eye be evil, the whole body is dark ; whence we may learn, that he who does not do good works with the good intention of a good faith (that is, of a faith which worketh by love), his whole body is full of darkness. And since the good works, or apparent good works, of unbelievers cannot bring them to Heaven, we ought to hold, that true goodness can never to 1 See Bishop Kaye, as above, p. 122, factum est, quod est nudum operire, peo- 4c, catum est ; sed de tali opere non in Doin- 8 See History of Art. ix. and x. ino gloriari, solus impius negat esse 8 Si gentilis, inquis, nudum operuerit, peccatum. — Cont. Julianum, Lib. it. c numquid quia non est ex fide, peccatum 30. est? * Cap. 81. * Prorsus in quantum non est ex fide, • Cap. 82. peccatum est. Non quia per se ipsum Skc. I.] OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. 333 given but by the grace of God through Christ, so as to bring a man to the kingdom of God. 1 This was the kind of reasoning, which the fathers of that day used against the Pelagian arguments, that truly good deeds might be done without the grace of God. 2 The doctrine of the schoolmen concerning grace of congruity bore a suspicious resemblance to that of Semi-pelagians. In the history of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh Articles enough has been said on this subject ; and of the zeal with which Luther maintained the absolute necessity of preventing grace, in order that man should make any efforts, or take any steps towards godliness. 3 The case of Cornelius (Acts x.) was an argument often made use of in favour of grace of congruity. He, it was said, was a Gentile, and therefore not under the influence of God's grace; and yet it was told him, " Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God " (ver. 4). Hence it was argued, that he did what was acceptable to God, though without the grace of God. Luther treats Cornelius as a man who had faith in a promised Mediator, although he did not yet know that that Mediator was come ; and so, he argues, that his good deeds were of faith, and therefore acceptable. 4 At the Council of Trent the general opinion was strongly against Luther on these points. Catarinus indeed maintained, with great learning, that " man, without the special help of God, can do no work which may be truly good, though morally, but sinneth still." In confirmation of which, he quoted Augustine, Ambrose, Prosper, Anselm, and others. He was violently opposed by the Franciscans, but supported by the Dominicans. 5 In the end, the seventh canon of the sixth session of the council condemned those who said, " That works done before justification are sins, and that a man sinneth the more, by how much the more he laboureth to dispose himself to grace." 6 Which canon does not 1 Aut certe quoniam saltern concedis Pelagian opinion that good works must opera infidelium, quae tibi eorum videntur be added to faith, he contends that good bona, non tatnen eos ad salutem sempi- works spring from faith, ternam regnumque perducere : scito nos 2 The reader may see many passage; illnd bonum hominum dieere, illam vol- from Jerome, Prosper, and others, to the untatem bonam, illud opus bonum, sine same effect, in Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, Dei gratia quae datur per unum Mediato- ch. xi. rem Dei et hominum nemini posse con- 3 See especially Luther on Gal. ii. 16. ferri ; per quod solum homo potest ad 4 Luther on Gal. iii. 2. aeternum Deidonum regnumque perduci. 5 Sarpi, pp. 183-185. Cap. 33. See also Augustine, De Fide 6 Session vi. Can. 7, and Sarpi, p. 210 et Operibus, where, in opposition to the 334 OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Abt XDX exactly contradict the words of our Article, except it be in the last sentence of it. The Lutheran Confessions of faith speak very reasonably on this subject. The twentieth article of the Confession of Augsburg states a principal reason for maintaining justification by faith to be, that we might not think to deserve grace by our own good works ante- cedent to grace. 1 Our own reformers seem to have been influenced by a very similar view. The Homilies say, that " without faith can no good work be done, accepted and pleasant to God." '* Without faith all that is done of us is but dead before God ; although the work seem never so gay and glorious before man." 2 Again, " As the good fruit is not the cause that the tree is good, but the tree must first be good before it can bring forth good fruit ; so the good deeds of man are not the cause which maketh man good, but he is first made good by the Spirit and grace of God, that effectually worketh in him, and afterwards he bringeth forth good fruits." 3 " They are greatly deceived that preach repentance without Christ, and teach the simple and ignorant that it consisteth only in the works of men. They may indeed speak many things of good works, and of amendment of life and manners : but without Christ they be all vain and unprofitable. They that think that they have done much of themselves towards repentance, are so much the farther from God, because they do seek those things in their own works and merits, which ought only to be sought in our Saviour Jesus Christ, and in the merits of His death and passion and bloodshedding." 4 Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. f~PHE subjects embraced by the Article are, — * I. That works before grace and the inspiration of the Spirit are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they are not of feith. II. They do not make men meet to receive grace de congruo. 1 Svlloge, pp, 180, 181. « First part of the Homily of Rtptmt- 3 First part of Homily on Good Works, once. * Second part of the Homily on Ainu- •Jfttli . Sec. H.] OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. 335 III. Rather, as not being done as God hath willed, it is believed that they have the nature of sin. Of these three positions, the second must follow from the proof of the first. For if good works without grace are not pleasing to God, they cannot predispose to grace. As regards the title of the Article, " Of Works before Justification," we may observe, that i* was probably adopted because the question discussed in the Arti- cle itself went, at the time of the Reformation and the Council of Trent, under that name. 1 All questions concerning merit da con- gruo, and works done before grace, were considered as embraced in the general term, " the question concerning works before justifica- tion." The Article itself says nothing about justification. All that it determines is, that, in order for works to be acceptable to God, they must be done by the grace of God, and must spring from a principle of faith. Against the whole tenor of the Article, and in favour of all which it condemns, the principal arguments from Scripture are such as these. Certain passages of Scripture seem to speak highly of par- ticular individuals, who were not Christians or true believers, e. g. Naaman the Syrian, and Cornelius the centurion. They had not the faith of Christ, and yet their good deeds are approved. It may, however, be replied, that both of them evidently acted from a princi- ple of faith. Naaman went to the prophet and sought relief, be- cause he believed that, as a prophet, he had power to heal him. Again, Cornelius, though not a Jew, was evidently a believer in the One true God, a proselyte of the gate, if not a proselyte of righteous- ness ; and therefore we cannot say that he had no faith, nor that he was without the grace of God, The same may be said of the Ninevites. Their repentance, it is argued, was accepted by God ; and yet they were heathens, and therefore not true believers. But it is certain that their repent- ance sprang from their faith in Jonah's preaching, and may very probably have been produced by that Holy Spirit who at all times has striven with men : and hence it was not of the nature of simple, naked, unassisted efforts to do good. 1 Luther had used this language, that man, who is not in a state of full sancti- a man was justified first, and then did fication, is therefore devoid of goodness, good works : and so " works before jus- and of the nature of sin. This article tifioation," became a common expres- sufficiently explains both its own mean- sion. Our Church in the xnth Article ingand the meaning of the phrase, " fol- speaks of good works as " following after low after justification," in the xnth Arti- justification." We are not, of course, cle, namely, that no works are good bound to consider that every act of a which do not come of grace. OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Art. XIII. A stronger argument against the doctrine of this Article seems derivable from the language of St. Paul, Rom. ii. 14, 26, 27. There he speaks of the Gentiles or heathens, " which have not a law," and yet " do by nature the things contained in the Law," and so " are a law unto themselves." And he says, that " if the uncir- cumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uneir- cumcision be counted for circumcision ? And shall not uncircumci- sion which is by nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law ? " Here the apos- tle seems to speak as if the heathen, who had not the revealed knowledge of God's will, yet might so do His will as to be ac- ceptable with Him. In like manner, many learned men, of the Reformed Commun- ions, as well as of the Roman, understand St. Paul's reasoning in Gal. iv. to be like what was shown in the last Section to have been the opinion of Clement of Alexandria ; namely, that before the Gospel both Jews and Gentiles were kept by God in a state of bondage or tutelage, waiting for the liberty of the children of God ; that to the heathen their condition was one of elementary servitude, preparatory to the Gospel, as was that of the Jews. If the first seven verses of this chapter be compared carefully with the eighth and ninth, there will appear some ground for such an interpretation. From these passages it is argued, that heathens, who could not have faith, and were not subjects of grace, were yet capable in their de- gree of pleasing God. To this reasoning we may reply, that nothing can be more obscure than the question as to God's dealings with, and purposes concerning the heathen world. Revelation is addressed to those whom it concerns, and tells us very little of the state of those to whom it is not addressed. Our business is to follow Christ, and not to ask " Lord, and what shall this man do ? " There is a marked purpose in Scripture not to satisfy man's idle curiosity. The ques- tion therefore, at times so much debated, whether it be possible or impossible that the benefits of Christ's redemption should reach to those millions of human beings who never have heard and iuvcv could hear of Him, is left in deep obscurity ; and when people havo reasoned on the subject, their arguments have mostly been infer- ences deduced from other doctrines, and not express statements of Scripture. This much, however, we may fairly conclude, that if the passages just referred to prove that the heathen can do what is pleasing to God, and be accepted by Him, it is because His Holy Spirit can Sec. II.] OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. 337 plead with them, even through the imperfect means of natural re- ligion. St. Paul says, it was God's will that men " should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him " (Acts xvii. 27). And he is there speaking of the world in its times of heathen darkness. It is possible that there may have been an imperfect faith, even " in times of ignorance which God winked at." We know not, but that they who touched but the hem of Christ's garment, may have found virtue go out of it. But with regard to the teaching of our Article, we may fairly conclude that it rather refers to the case of persons within, not without the sound of the Gospel. This is the practical question. It does not concern us practically to know how it may be with the heathen ; although, of course, their case affects the general question. And the case of the heathen is so obscure, that we can hardly be justified in bringing it to throw light on a case which concerns ourselves and our own state before God. But it may be farther said that God approves of justice, and tem- perance, and charity, in themselves, and of themselves ; and there- fore if a man who has neither faith nor grace, acts justly, and does mercy, and lives soberly, God must approve and be pleased with such acts, just as he would disapprove and hate the contrary. But, in reply, it is urged, that God sees the heart, and loves what is good in us, only when it springs from a good source. Indeed, there are some sinners much greater sinners than others, whom He will visit with " greater damnation." But though in themselves He loves justice and mercy, He does not.love and accept the man who does them, unless that man does them from right motives ; and as " every good and perfect gift is from above," we infer that good motives cannot come but from Him, " who worketh in us to will as well as to do according to His good pleasure." The man " dead in tres- passes and sins," must have life given him from above, before he can walk in newness of life, and do what is well pleasing in God's sight. Having 'thus considered the principal objections, we may now proceed to prove our propositions. I. And first : " Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith." The language concerning the new birth may come in here. John iii. 3 : " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the king- dom of God : " the language of our Lord to His disciples, John xv. 43 838 OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Art. XIH. 5, " Without Me ye can do nothing : " and the language of St. Paul concerning the state of the unregenerate and carnal mind, " In me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing," Rom. vii. 18. " The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God," Rom. viii. 7, 8. All these and many similar passages were considered at length under Article IX. ; and they surely prove that the natural man, without the aid of God, cannot bring forth fruits which are pleasing to God. As our Lord says expressly, " Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine ; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me," John xv. 4. 1 But, moreover, as it is taught us that the source of all true holi- ness is faith, so if our good works do not spring from faith, they can- not be pleasing to God. Thus, " without faith it is impossible to please God," Heb. xi. 6. " The just shall live by faith," Rom. i. 17. Nay ! we are even told that " whatsoever is not of faith is sin," Rom. xiv. 23 : and that evidently, because apparently good works, if not springing from a good source, are not really good. Hence the statement of our Article seems fully borne out, that " works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith." II. The second proposition follows from the first : namely, that works done without grace do not make men meet to receive grace de congruo. If they are not acceptable to God, it is manifest that they cannot procure grace from Him. It is true, that " the Law of the Lord is an undefiled law, converting the soul ; " and that he who strives earnestly to fulfil God's commandments may always expect to have his exertions assisted by fuller supplies of the grace of God. 2 But this is because God loves to reward His grace in us by farther gifts of that grace — because all those earnest strivings are in themselves proofs of the Spirit of God working in us. Good worlcs are in no degree to be underrated ; and the more a man does of them, the more he is likely to gain strength to do more. This is the regular course of growth in grace. Even naturally, good habits are acquired by performing good actions : and spirit- ually, those that use the grace of God find it increasing in them. 1 The reader may refer to what was shall know of the doctrine, whether it be ■aid under Art. x. on Free Will. of God," John vii. 17. " God resistcth 3n this principle it is that " If any the proud but ffiveth grace will (m v ) do the will of God, he ble, A 1 Pet. v. 6. Sec. II.] OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. 339 But this is quite a distinct view of the case from that taken by the maintainers of congruous merit. Their doctrine is that a man, without any help from God, and by a strong effort of his own will, can so fulfil the commandments, as, though not of actual right, yet, on a certain principle of congruity, to draw down the grace of God upon him. Scripture, on the contrary, seems to teach that every attempt of this kind is displeasing, as being the result of arrogance and self-sufficiency. The Pharisees, who thought themselves not blind, are told that that was the very cause of their condemnation, whereas, if they were aware of their own weakness, they should receive their sight. " If ye were blind, ye should have no sin ; but now ye say, We see ; therefore your sin remaineth " (John ix. 41). The Jews are spoken of as cast off and blinded, because they sought to find their way to God, and to attain to righteousness, through the works of the Law, and through their own righteousness, in- stead of by the faith of Christ (see Rom. ix. 30, 31) ; for they " were ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit themselves to the righteous- ness of God " (Rom. x. 3). III. The Article concludes by saying, that forasmuch as such works " are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin." Works done in self-righteousness, done with a view to justify ourselves by our own merits, are not done as God hath willed, but in a wrong spirit and temper ; and therefore, proceeding from a bad principle, must be bad. There may be in such works a mix- ture, as there often is, of good with the bad motive. This God alone can see, and will approve the good, whilst He disapproves the bad. Many a person tries to do right, acting in ignorance, and on the principle that such a mode of action is what God has appointed, and what He will reward. Such a person may have very imperfect knowledge of the truth, and may not be sufficiently aware of his own weakness, and his own need of Divine strength. But mixed with such errors, there may be pure principles of faith and desire to serve God ; and God, who sees the heart, may give more blessing to such a person than to many a better instructed Christian. The Article, however, may be quite right, notwith- standing, in saying that works, not springing from grace, and not done in faith, have the nature of sin. As a general proposition, it is true that " whatever is not of faith is sin." And the spirit which leads a man, instead of relying on God's mercy in Christ, 340 OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. [Art. XIII. and seeking the aid of His Spirit, to rely on his own unassisted efforts, is also sin. It is a virtual denial of human infirmity, of the Atonement of Christ, and of the need of the Spirit. Again, the only thing, which makes good works to be good, is the fact that God has commanded them. Hence, if we find them not done in the way and for the end to which God has ordained them, we are justified in saying that they are not good works, but bad works. The passages quoted from the Homilies in the former section show sufficiently that this was what the reformers meant by the words of the Article. ARTICLE XIV. Of Works of Supererogation. De Operibus Super erogationis. Voluntaky works, besides, over and Opera, quae supererogationis appel- above God's commandments, which they lant, non possunt sine arrogantia, et im- call Works of Supererogation, cannot be pietate praedicari. Nam illis declarant taught without arrogancy and impiety : homines, non tantum se Deo reddere, for by them men do declare, that they quae tenentur, sed plus in ejus gratiam do not only render unto God as much as facere, quam deberent, cum aperte Chris- they are bound to do, but that they do tus dicat : Cum feceritis omnia quaecun- more for His sake than of bounden duty que praecepta sunt vobis dicite, servi in- is required : whereas Christ saith plainly, utiles sumus. When ye have done all that are com- manded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants. Section I.— HISTORY. T^HERE is nothing in the earliest fathers which bears much on -*- the subject of this Article, unless it be that they appear to have attached more than due importance to martyrdom. Thus the baptism of blood was considered equivalent to baptism by water ; and some perhaps, appear to have ascribed merit to it, such as to cancel sins. Hennas for instance speaks of the martyrs as hav- ing " all their offences blotted out, because they have suffered death for the name of the Son of God." 1 And again says of them, when compared with the rest of the redeemed, that they have " some glory above the others." 2 And so Tertullian says, that " all sins are forgiven to martyrdom." 3 But with reference to the last-named writer, it has been clearly shown, that with all his high esteem for martyrdom, he expressly maintained that it was impos- sible for martyrs to have an excess of holiness above what was required, as not being in themselves sinless. It was the custom in his days for persons who had lapsed in persecution to be restored to the communion of the Church, at the intercession of martyrs and confessors ; a custom which was often much abused. Writing i Simil. ix. 29. 2 Vis. in. 28. 8 Omnia huic operi delicta donantur. Apol. sub. fin. 342 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. [Art. XIV. on this subject, Tertullian says, " Who but the Son of God can by His own death relieve others from death ? He, indeed, delivered the thief at the very moment of His passion ; for He had come for this very end, that, being Himself free from sin and perfectly holy, He might die for sinners. You then, who imitate Christ in par- doning sins, if you are yourselves sinless, suffer death for me. But if you are yourself a sinner, how can the oil out of your cruise suffice both for you and me ? " * In this admiration, however, of the early Church for martyrdom, and in the admission of the intercession of the martyrs for the de- liverance of others from church-censures, we may perhaps trace the germ of the doctrine of works of supererogation. 2 In the respect which they paid to virginity we may find another source for the same error ; for it is well known, that they gave the fullest latitude to those words of our Lord and of St. Paul, in which they speak of celibacy as a favourable state of life for the development of Christian graces, and for devotion to the service of the Cross. On this subject especially St. Paul writes, " Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord ; yet I give my advice " (1 Cor. vii. 25) ; De virginibus autem prceceptum Domini non habeo, sed consilium do. From this expression it was very early inferred that the Scriptures made a distinction between precepts, which are binding on all men, and counsels, which it is desirable to follow, but which are not obligatory on the conscience. Thus St. Cyprian, speaking of celibacy, says, " The Lord does not command this, but exhorts to it. He lays not on a yoke of necessity, when the free choice of the will remains. But whereas he says, that in His Fa- ther's house are many mansions, He points out the way to the better mansions." 8 St. Augustine writes, " It is not said, Thou shalt not marry, as it is said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill. The latter are exacted, the former is offered. If the one is observed, there is praise. If the other is neglected, 1 De Pudicitia, Cap. 22. See Bishop Hence supererogare, to pay over and Kaye, Tertullian, p. 836. above. In Luke x. 36, irpoaianavau is Like this is the language of Augustine, in the Vulgate snpererogo, to spend more, quoted by Bp. Beveridge on this Article : — Hey, in. p. 403. Etsi fratres pro fratribus moriantur, ta- 8 Nee hoc jubet I)ominu9 sed hortatur: men in peccatorum remissionem nullius nee jugum necessitatis imponit, quando sanguis martyris funditur, quod fecit Ille maneat voluntatis arbitrium liberum. (/. «. Dominus Christ us) pro nobis. Au- Sed cum habitationes multas apud Pa- gust. In .loh. tract 84. trem suum dicat, melioris habitaculi hos- 2 Ro>fare le an undefiled state, and nothing can be cleaner than that which is not at all unclean." 1 And therefore, though we fully admit the hon- our due to a holy celibacy, we yet deny that it has any merit at all, as nothing in man can merit from God ; and still more do we deny that it can have merit of supererogation. 2 The above are the only arguments from Scripture, adduced by Bellarmine, which can be considered as of weight or importance ; and we may therefore fairly consider that, in answering them, we have shown that Scripture does not countenance the doctrine which our fourteenth Article condemns. It remains to show, that there are passages and statements in the Scriptures directly at variance with that doctrine, and utterly inconsistent with it. 1. In the first place Scripture shows that all men, even those un- der the dominion of grace, are still imperfect and full of infirmity. David says, that " there is none that doeth good, no not one " (Ps. xiv. 3) ; St. James says, that " in many things we offend, all " ( Jas. hi. 2) ; and St. John says, that " if we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves " (1 John i. 8). But if it be true that all men have sinned and " in many things offend," then it is quite clear that no man can be so perfectly holy as not only to fulfil all God's law, but even to exceed it. And as the Psalmist spoke, in the four- 1 Jer. Taylor, as above. servant of Christ has need to be con- 2 A passage, not noticed by Bellar- formed to the likeness of the sufferings mine, may seem to countenance the doc- of his Lord'. St. Paul considered, that trine that the sufferings of the saints there was somewhat lacking in him, that were beneficial, not only to themselves, there was somewhat yet behind of " the but to the Church ; and that therefore affliction of Christ," before he could be their merits were more than enough for thoroughly conformed to His likeness ; their own salvation. The passage is Col. and earnestly desiring to be made like i. 24, " Who now rejoice in my sufferings his Lord, he gladly took every additional for you, and fill up that which is behind trial as only bringing him nearer to His of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for image ; and all these trials he endured His body's sake, which is the Church." for the sake of the Church, which he But if we carefully consider the passage, served, and to which he preached the we cannot suppose that the Apostle , Gospel of Christ. There is no mention means that there was anything deficient of vicarious suffering on the part of St. in the sufferings of Christ, or that His Paul, of supererogatory merit, or of" addi- infinite merits needed addition from the tion to the full, perfect, and sufficient sac- sufferings of His servant. The true rifice of Christ upon the Cross, meaning of the passage is this: Every 352 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. [Art. XIV. teenth Psalm, " to those that were under the Law " (see Rom. iii. 10, 19), so St. James and St. John evidently spoke to those who were under grace ; as the whole context evinces. Hence we must con- clude that even under grace no man lives actually spotless in God's commandments. 2. But even if we could live wholly without spot, and never of- fend in thought, word, or deed, even so our Lord teaches us that such a spotless obedience would still leave us undeserving of reward. " When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say We are unprofitable servants : we have done that which was our duty to do " (Luke xvii. 10). What room is there then for the doctrine which teaches, that a man may do enough for his salvation and attain to glory by keeping the precepts ; and then by observing counsels may merit still more ? Even if we could keep all the precepts, we should be unprofitable, having no right to reward, but merely to exemption from punishment. 1 Something more than obedience to precepts is required, even for salvation ; and where, then, is the foundation on which to build still higher merit ? 3. Again, in the parable of the ten virgins, when the five foolish virgins found their oil fail, they are represented as going to the wise virgins, and asking to borrow oil from them. But the wise an- swered that they had not enough for themselves and others too, showing that no one can have holiness or grace enough to supply another's deficiencies, but that each one must seek pardon and grace for himself (Matt. xxv. 9). 4. Then the precepts of the Gospel are so full and comprehen- sive that everything, even the highest degree of perfection, is con- tained in them. Under the Law, indeed, if the letter only was ob- served, the statutes contained but a certain express catalogue of du- ties : but the spiritual sense of the Law, as enforced by our Saviour, enjoins such an entire surrender of all the faculties of the body, soul, and spirit to the service of Christ, that nothing conceivable can exceed or overpass it. This will be quite apparent, if we read our Lord's exposition of the Law, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt, v. 27, «#?.), where a thought or a look of evil is deadly sin ; or His declaration that no one can be His disciple who hates not his 1 Quod sub praecepto est, si non im- Mints. But we must remember that our pleatur, punit. Impletum morte tantum Lord, in the passage from Luke xvii. 10, caret ; quia nihil ex se dat, sed quod spoke to His own disciples, — those very debet, exsolvit. — Hieron. in 1 Cor. vii. saints who are supposed not only to have It is true, that the divines of the Uo- merited life, but to have laid up a store man communion always presuppose that of (rood works, more than was needed it is the atonement of Christ which gives for their salvation, efficacy and merit to the works of the Sec. II.] WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 353 nearest friends and his own life, if need be, for Christ's service ; or His summary of the commandments — unbounded love to God, and perfect love to man (Matt. xxii. 37, 38, 39) ; " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind ; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." We cannot conceive either saint or angel more perfect than this : and yet all this is commanded — is of the nature of a. precept, not of counsels only. The language of St. Paul's exhortation is equally strong ; that we present ourselves " as living sacrifices to God " (Rom. xii. 1), that we " cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God " (2 Cor. vii. 1). " Finally, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are lovely, whatso- ever things are of good report ; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things " (Phil. iv. 8). Can any- thing go beyond these things which it is our duty to do ? But if any man seem to be contentious, St. Peter tells us, as a plain com- mand, to aim " to be holy as Christ is holy " (1 Pet. i. 15, 16) : and Christ Himself concludes His teaching concerning the strict and spiritual nature of the Law with the words, " Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect " (Matt. v. 48). Till then we can learn that God's grace has ever made man as perfect as God, we can never believe that man has ever fully lived up to the precepts of the Gospel. Where is the room for higher graces still ? 5. Lastly, we may observe that the whole of the doctrine of works of supererogation arises from a false view of the principles of Christian obedience. If we look for merit, it must be to Christ. Christian obedience is' not a task of so much work to be done, and so much reward to be expected. When it is sound and perfect, it springs from a true faith and a holy love. And as no degree of perfection can excel the obedience which would be yielded by perfect love, so nothing can excel that holiness at which every Christian is bound to aim. The obedience of the Gospel is not the task-work of a slave, but the perfect freedom of a son. 46 ARTICLE XV. Of Christ alone without Sin. Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except ; from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His Spirit. He came to be the lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world ; and sin (as St. John saith) was not in Him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things ; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in De Christo, qui solus est rlne ptccato. Chri8tu8, in nostra naturae vehtate, per omnia similis'factus est nobis, excepto pcccato, a quo prorsus erat immunis, turn in came, turn in Spiritu. Venit ut Agnus, absque macula, qui mundi peccata per im- molationem sui semel factum tolleret, et peccatum (utinquit Johannes) in eo non erat : eed nos reliqui etiam baptizati, et in Christo regenerati, in multis tamen offendimus omnes. Et si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et Veritas in nobis non est. Section I.— HISTORY. rPHE history of the greater part of the doctrine contained in -*- this Article may be considered as involved in the history of some of the preceding Articles, especially of the ninth. We spoke there of the Pelagian heresy, and observed that Pelagius held that it was possible for a man, even without the grace of God, to keep God's law, and live a life of perfect holiness. St. Augustine, we saw in his arguments against Pelagianism, still expressed unwillingness to discuss the question of the sinfulness of the blessed Virgin Mary, out of reverence to her Son and Lord. Pelagius had held that it was necessary for our religion that we should confess the Virgin to be sinless (ft e. that we might not hold our Saviour to be born in sin). St. Augustine answers, " Con- cerning the Virgin Mary, I am not willing, for the honour of our Lord, to hold any dispute, when we are talking about sin. Foi how do we know what more grace was bestowed on her to over- come all sin, who had the honour to conceive and bring forth Him who certainly had no sin ? " * 1 August. De Natura et Gratia. Wall, Inf. Bupt. i. p. 404. The passage from Augustine is from c. 42. Tom. x. p. 144: — Excepta ilaque sancta virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullum prorsus cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quaistioiK'tn. Unde cnim sdmiis. quid ci plus gratitc collatum fuerit ad vincendum onini ex parte peccatum ? Ac Sec. I] OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 355 This scruple, which early prevailed about the Virgin, in the course of years grew into a doctrine. But for a length of time the doctrine was privately held, not publicly expressed. In the year 1136 the Canons of Lyons brought the doctrine of the Im- maculate Conception of the Virgin into the ecclesiastical offices ; for which act of rashness they were severely censured by St. Ber- nard. But about the year 1300, the celebrated Schoolman, John Duns Scotus, a Franciscan Friar, strenuously maintained the total exemption from sin of the Blessed Virgin, and grounded it upon the omnipotency of God, who could free her from sin, if He chose. Thenceforward the Scotists and Franciscans ever advocated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. 1 At the Council of Trent this question was hotly debated ; the Franciscans excepting the Virgin from all taint of sin, the Domin- icans labouring to comprehend her name under the common law. The pope commanded that the contention on the subject should be omitted, for fear of causing a schism. Both parties acquiesced in silence, on the condition that when the decrees were made it should merely be added that there was no intention to include the Blessed Virgin in the decrees concerning original sin. 2 It was therefore left an open question, although the Franciscans had the better reason of the two parties to be satisfied. 8 1 Sarpi, Council, of Trent, p. 178. *Sarpi, pp. 164/169, 171. 3 [Some further historical details may properly be added, relating to the action of the papacy. In 1476, Sixtus IV. issued the Bull Cum Prceceha. In it he encouraged the celebration of the Festival of the Immac- ulate Conception. In 1488, by the Bull Grave minis, he forbade that either those who hold the opinion of the immaculate conception, or those who hold its con- trary, should be charged with heresy or mortal sin. These two Bulls were for- mally accepted by the Council of Trent. Sess. V. Decree concerning Original Sin. In 1570, Pius V. issued the Bull Super Speculum. This Bull allowed either opin- ion, and forbade all controversy in pub- lic, though it allowed discussion in the schools. In 1617, Paul IV. issued the Bull Bead {lacijici, in which, under heavy penalties, le renewed the constitutions of Sixtus IV. and Pius V. In 1622, Gregory XV. took a step in advance, by forbidding any one, till it should be otherwise ordered, to assert in public that the Virgin was conceived in original sin, though he declared that he did not deny or controvert the opinion that she was. At the same time he al- lowed any one to assert the immaculate conception, only not attacking the other opinions, while, without permission from the Holy See, no one was permitted to as- sert the conception in original sin at all. In the same year another lJull, Eximii at- que Singularis, allowed the Dominicans, in their own schools, to discuss the opinion. Alexander VII., in 1671, issued the Bull Solicitudo omnium Ecdesmrum, which, while it favoured the opinion of the im- maculate conception, yet forbade those who held the opposite opinion to be charged with heresy. Finally, on the 8th of December, 1854. Pius IX. by the Bull fnejfibilis, created this opinion into an Article of the Faith, without even the pretence of consulting a General Council, consolidating and con centra fing in himself a power, in spiritu- alibus, which neither Ilildebraud nor In- nocent had ever attempted to exercise, and accepting, or rather demanding, as- sent to the most ultramontane theory of the papal authority. There the matter rests at present, but the end is not yet. Already the claim is advanced, that the Blessed Virgin merited this grace of 856 OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SEN. [Art. XV. It was also decreed in the Council of Trent that all the taint of original sin is washed away in baptism. 1 And the Lutherans were condemned for saying that God's commands were not possible to the just. 2 From these canons of the council it might naturally follow, that a person baptized and justified may fully keep God's commands, and live a life of spotless holiness. But what is even more to the purpose still, is the Romish doctrine of works of supererogation. For, if such works are possible, it must first be possible that he who does them should be perfectly sinless. Other- wise he could not do, not only his duty, but more than his duty. Accordingly this Article of our Church, " Of Christ alone without sin," follows immediately on that concerning Works of Supererogation. The one is very probably intended as a supple- ment and strengthener to the other ; so that, whereas in the last Article it was said that no man can do more than God's law requires, so in this it is added, that no man in this life can fully live up to its requirements, but all offend many times ; and none, even of the baptized and regenerate, is quite free from sin. That part of the Article which alleges that Christ was free from sin need not be considered historically, for none but those who - deny His Divinity can deny His sinlessness. And the greatest heretics, even mere Humanitarians, have respected the .Saviour as a pure and holy Being. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. fPHE subjects treated on in the Article are, — -*- I. That Christ was without sin, although in all other things made like unto us. II. That all other men (even though baptized and born again in Christ) ^et oflfend in many things. I. That Christ, though perfect man, was yet free from sin, prop- the immaculate conception, because of of the Immaculate Conception, may well be her holiness in a preixistent slate. How consulted ; while, to set- the weakness of long will it take to extend that preexist- the arguments in defence of this fearful ence to eternity, and then to argue from novelty, one need only read the Treatim eternal existence, participation in the Divine of the Cardinal Lambruschini. — J. W.] Nature? l Scss. v. Can. 5. The Abbe Laborde, On the Impossibility * Sess. vi. Can. 18. Sec. II.] OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 357 erly forms a part of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and is there- fore intimately connected with Article II. The eternal Son of God, the second Person in the Godhead, took into that Person the perfect nature of man. That nature of man had become defiled and debased. And it was that He might purify and restore it that He took it into Himself. But the ques- tion is, whether, when He took the nature, He was obliged to take its corruption with it. If so, we may well believe that the Incar- nation would have been impossible. God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Much less can we suppose that God would take iniquity and corruption to Himself, into union with His own spot- less purity and holiness. But though human nature, in all naturally engendered of Adam, is stained with the sin of Adam, yet sin is not a part of human nature, but a, fault of it. 1 The Manicheans held that matter was essentially evil, and so human nature was evil, because matter was a part of it. But matter as well as spirit comes from God, and so is of itself, like all His creatures, " very good." Sin, therefore, which we all inherit, is a corruption and evil addition to our nature, not an essential and integral part of it. Whether it consists in a withdrawal of the indwelling and presence of God, and a con- sequent rebellion of the lower principles of man's nature, 2 or whether there be moreover a kind of taint or poison, which, work- ing in him, produces sin, and renders him liable to death ; in either case original sin is not human nature, but an accident of that nature ; a quality as distinct from humanity as is any particular bodily disease, such as madness, or consumption, or neuralgia. When therefore Christ took our nature, it was not essential to its perfection that He should take our sinfulness. Sin not being a part, but a fault of nature, He might be " made in all things like unto us," even though sin were excepted. Our liability to sin indeed He must have taken ; for else He could not have been M in all things tempted like as we are." Adam had a liability to sin, and therefore was susceptible of temptation, before he was 1 The Manichees held that sin was a 2 " Man's corruption consists, first, in natura non a culpa : i, e. because they the deprivation of the Divine guidance, thought one portion of our nature (i. e. which he has rejected, for " the light the body) essentially evil. But the fa- shined in darkness, and the darkness thers taught that it was not tt/c (pvoeug, comprehended it not ; " and secondly, in KKhu Trjg tca/cyc irpoaipeoewc : " not of na- the correspondent rebellion of the low- turc, but of an evil determination of the er principles of his body and his soul." will:" (see History of Art. ix. note,). — Wilberforce on The Incarnation, p And our ninth Article teaches, not that 74. it is part of our nature, but " the fault and corruption of our nature." 358 OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. [Art. XV actually guilty of sin, and so defiled and corrupted by it. And Christ, who was the second Adam, who came on purpose that He might conquer where Adam had fallen, and so restore that nature which Adam had debased, was, by the constitution of that nature which He adopted, liable to be assailed by the same dangers that Adam had been assailed by. But His own essential holiness and the supporting power of his Godhead enabled Him to endure temptation, and so made it impossible that He should fall under it. Thus He became a fit representative of our race, as much as Adam was. He had all our nature, with all its natural weak- nesses ; and all that He lacked was that which was no proper part of, but only a vicious addition to our nature, namely, our sin. Nay, He even condescended to take our sicknesses. He was liable to hunger and weariness, and death. Many indeed of our sick- nesses are the natural results of sin, of gluttony or intemperance, anger or passion. These He, who had no sin, could not have. Yet He took, not only Imman nature, but mortal nature ; and though He was too holy to defile Himself with our sin, yet He was not too glorious to submit to our death. The passages of Scripture which prove this part of the doctrine of the Article, are sufficiently numerous and familiar. Thus it is announced to Mary, " That Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God " (Luke i. 35). " The prince of this world," said our Lord, " hath nothing in Me " (John xiv. 30). He was H the Holy One, and the just " (Acts iii. 14). God " made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin" (2 Cor. v. 21). " He was in all things tempted like as we are, yet without sin " (Heb. iv. 15). 44 An High Priest, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens ; " not like those " high priests who have infirmity," and needing to " offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the people's " (Heb. vii. 26, 27, 28). He " did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth " (1 Pet. ii. 22). He " was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin " (1 John iii. 5). The words of the Article, that " He came to be the Lamb with- out spot " are from the following : — 44 He was led as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth" (Isai. liii. 7). " The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world " (John i. 29). " Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God " (Heb. ix. 14). Redeemed " with Skc. II] OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 359 the precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot " (1 Pet. i. 19. Comp. Exod. xii. 5 ; Lev. xxii. 19, 20, 21). II. The second part of the Article, that " all other men offend in many things, even though baptized and born again," has been already considered at some length under the ninth Article. It was there shown that the taint of sin pervaded the whole human race, and that every one naturally born of Adam was subject to it ; that even the regenerate had still the remains of such corruption ; and that that concupiscence, which still remains in them, has the nature of sin. 1 It may be sufficient here to recite a few of the passages of Scripture on which more especially the proof of this assertion depends. " If they sin against thee," says Solomon, " for there is no man that sinneth not" (1 Kings viii. 46). " In Thy sight," says David, " shall no man living be justified " (Ps. cxliii. 2). " Who can say," asks the wise man, " I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? " (Prov. xx. 9). " We have proved both Jews and Gen- tiles, that they are all under sin " (Rom. iii. 9). " Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. v. 12). "The Scripture hath concluded all under sin " (Gal. iii. 22). " In many things we offend, all " (James iii. 2). " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us " (1 John i. 8). " Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof" (Rom. vi. 12). " I had not known sin but by the Law : for I had not known lust except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet " (Rom. vii. 7). So " the flesh lusteth against the Spirit " (Gal. v. 17). The last two passages show that lust or concupiscence hath the nature of sin. 2. The principal objections which may be urged against this part of the doctrine of the Article, are such as the following. In some passages of Scripture people are called blameless : as (Luke i. 6), Zacharias and Elizabeth are spoken of as " both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordi- nances of the Lord, blameless." In a like manner St. Paul speaks of himself as having " lived in all good conscience before God to this day " (Acts xxiii. 1) ; as exercising himself " to have a con- 1 Av&punuv ovdelg uva[iapT7)TOC, ivl yap (laprvpeiTai, 5rt afiopriav ova inoirjae. Basil M. Oral, de Poenitentia. Suicer. i. 207. 360 OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. [Art. XV. science void of offence toward God and toward man " (Acts xxiv. 16) ; as having been before his conversion, " touching the right- eousness which is in the Law, blameless " (Phil. iii. 6). Such passages seem to argue blameless perfection. But we may answer that Zacharias could not have been perfect, or he would not have disbelieved the Angel when he promised him a son, and so have been smitten with dumbness for his want of faith (Luke i. 20). St Paul, when he speaks of himself as blameless touching the righteousness of the Law, was a persecutor of the Church, and though he did it ignorantly in unbelief, and so obtained mercy, yet we can hardly consider it as consistent with perfection ; and though he speaks of himself as exercising himself to have a conscience void of offence, yet we know that he did " not count himself to have apprehended," that he was sensible of " infirmities " (see 2 Cor. xi. 30 ; xii. 10, &c.) ; that he felt it necessary to " keep under his body, and bring it into subjection " (1 Cor. ix. 27). Nay, we know that he was liable to infirmity, for so sharp a contention rose between him and Barnabas, that they could not continue together in the work of the Gospel, but were obliged to separate one from another. We must therefore understand the word blameless in a more popular sense, not as if those of whom it is predicated were free from all stain of sin, but as meaning that they lived an upright, godly life, ever striving to keep a conscience free from offence, and never yielding to those wilful sins which offend society, or destroy the work of God's grace in the soul, or even give cause of deep and bitter regret to him who yields to them. Again, it is said of the Christian under grace, that " the law of the Spirit of life makes him free from the law of sin and death " (Rom. viii. 2). This is true of all good Christians, but it does not mean that they are made perfect and wholly free from sin, but that the Spirit of God sets them free from the bondage and slavery of sin, and gives them freedom and strength to " fulfil the right- eousness of the Law." The same reasoning nearly applies to the words of St. John, " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin " (1 John iii. 9). This is true of every regenerate man as regards his new nature, the new man created in him. That new man is pure and holy, hating sin and avoiding it. Still however there are the remains of the old man, causing in him those infirmities which more or less are common to all. A regenerate man does not live in admitted sin. If he does, his new life has failed and is stifled. But, he still " in many things offends," and, " if he says he has no sin, he deceives Sec. II. ] OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 361 himself;" because, in this world, the old nature maybe kept in subjection and bondage, but is never thoroughly extinguished, un- til the last enemy has been destroyed, and all things are put in subjection under the feet of Christ. It is true, we are bid to be holy, as Christ is holy (1 Pet. i. 15) ; to " be perfect, as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect " (Matt. v. 48). But we can infer from these exhortations no more than this. It is our part to set before us the highest possible standard at which to aim. Christ took our nature, that He might make us partakers of His nature ; and we are never to be satisfied, unless we grow daily more and more like to Him. But it does not follow, that we shall ever attain to such perfect conformity to His Image, until we become " like Him, by seeing Him as He is." We come, lastly, to consider the case of the Blessed Virgin. That she was a person of most singular holiness, most highly hon- oured of God, and most affectionately beloved by her Divine Son, no candid reader of Scripture can doubt. The Angel salutes her, " Hail, thou that art highly favoured : l the Lord is with thee ; Blessed art thou among women " (Luke i. 28). Her cousin Elizabeth saluted her, by the Holy Ghost, saying, " Blessed art thou among women ; " and though she was her near kinswoman, yet wondered at the honour done to herself in that " the Mother of her Lord should come unto her " (Luke i. 42, 43). Mary her- self said of herself, that " all generations should call her blessed " (Luke i. 48). The Lord in His youth was subject to her (Luke ii. 51). At His death, and with His dying accents, He com- mended her to the care and guardianship of His most devoted and best loved disciple (John xix. 26, 27). We learn of her, that she was the first who, hearing the blessed teaching of her Son, " kept all His sayings in her heart " (Luke ii. 51). We find her following Him, with unwearied and dauntless affection, to the foot of His Cross (John xix. 25) ; and, when all but His most faithful followers were dispersed, continuing with the Apostles " with one accord in prayer and supplication " (Acts i. 14). All this is but what we should expect. Doubtless among women there never lived a holier than she who was chosen to the highest honour that ever befel created being. That honour, indeed, to be the tabernacle of Incarnate Godhead, to cherish the infant years, minister to the wants, and soothe, if such there were, the early sufferings of the Redeemer of mankind, to be the only earthly 1 KexapiTu/iEVTi. The margin has " Or, graciously accepted, or, much graced." 46 362 OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. [Art. XV. instrument by which God wrought the mystery of the Incarna- tion, is an honour so high that we can hardly wonder if ages of ignorance gave undue reverence to her who had such favour of God. 1 Yet it has been remarked that on three separate occasions our Lord and her Lord used of, and to her, language at least border- ing on censure. At the marriage in Cana, the words, " Woman, what have I to do with thee ? " (John ii. 4) (though not sound- ing so strong in the Greek as in the English language) have been esteemed in all ages as words of rebuke. 2 Before this, when He was but twelve years old (Luke ii. 49), as His mother and Joseph sought for Him, He reproves them for not knowing the high mis- sion on which He came : " How is it that ye sought Me ? Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business ? " Lastly, when His mother and His brethren sought to speak with Him, the answer to those who told Him of it was, " Who are My mother and My brethren? And He stretched forth His hand towards His disciples and said, Behold My mother and My brethren ! For, whosoever shall do the will of M) Father which is in Heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother " (Matt. xii. 48, 49, 50). Very similar to this was that saying, when a certain woman " lifted up her voice and said unto Him, Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked. But He said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it " (Luke xi.- 27, 28). There was indeed no denial of the blessed- ness of being His mother ; still less was there any denial that His mother was blessed. But the privilege of being the mother of Jesus was not in itself so great as the blessing of doing the will of God. Now those who argue that the Virgin was perfectly free from sin, argue so from the very fact of her being the mother of the Immaculate Saviour. But surely, if the fact of being His 1 "Man is a creature of extremes .... that ladies of the highest rank would hare Because Papists have made too much of been so addressed in Greek. But the things, Protestants have made too little fathers all acknowledged rebuke in the of them .... Because one party has sentence. iirintyrTE rj uirr/H, says Atha- exalted the Virgin Mary to a divinity, nasi us ( Contra Ariun. Orat. 4) ; lirerifujocv the other can scarcely think of that most uKoipue alrovoi}, says Chrysostom (In Mitt, highly favoured among women with com- hom. 45) ; 'OS bxmup avrij ovk uAoyuf, mon respect." — Remains of the Reo. Rich- says Theophylact. See Beveridge on ard Cecil, p. 864. Ninth Edition. Loud, this Article. Epiphanius says that these 1830. words were used that no one might J rl tool nal aol yvvat ; the word yvvot esteem the Blessed Virgin of a higher may easily bo used as a term of respect, nature than woman, with spi>eial view to and might as well have been rendered the heresies which would one day arise "lady" as "woman." Every one knows (Harts. 79, Collyridiani). Sec. II.] OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN. 363 mother proved that she was sinless, it would have brought with it, or have been the proof of, a blessing so great that there could have been no room for the " Yea ! rather blessed." We may conclude, therefore, that the Virgin Mary, though "highly favoured," "blessed among women," and, doubtless, unu- sually sanctified, was yet no exception to the rule that all man- kind, Christ only excepted, are stained with sin, and liable to offend in many things. 1 1 The subject of the Perpetual Vir- of the Virgin Mary." See especially the ginity of the Virgin Mary, which has notes. See also Jer. Taylor's Life of some affinity to the question discussed Christ, § 2. Bp. Bull's Works, i. Serm. in the text, may be seen treated at length iv. ; and Professor Mill's Accounts of our by Pearson On the Creed, Article, " Born Lord's Brethren. ARTICLE XVI. Of Sin after Baptism. De Peccato Post Baptismum. Not every deadly sin willingly commit- Noh omne peccatum mortale post bap- ted after baptism is sin against the Holy tismum voluntarie perpetratum, est pec- Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore catum in Spiritum Sanctum, et irre- the grant of repentance is not to be de- missibile. Proinde lapsis a baptismo in nied to such as fall into sin after baptism, peccata, locus poBnitentiae non est negan- After we have received the Holy Ghost dus. Post acceptum Spiritum Sanctum we may depart from grace given and fall possumus a gratia data recedere, atque into sin, and by the grace of God we peccare, denuoque per gratiam Dei re- may arise again and amend our lives, surgere, ac resipiscere ; ideoque illi dam- And therefore they are to be condemned nandi sunt, qui se, quamdtu hie vivant, which say theycan no more sin as long amplius non posse peccare affirmant, aut as they live here, or deny the place of vere resipiscentibus veniae locum dene- forgiveness to such iis truly repent. gant. Section I. — HISTORY. fPHE Article as it now stands is very nearly the same as the ■*■ fifteenth Article of a. d. 1552. But in the Articles of 1552, the sixteenth Article followed out the subject of the fifteenth, and treated expressly of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The Article which we now have, treats of, or alludes to I. Deadly sin after baptism, and the possibility of repentance for such sin. II. The sin against the Holy Ghost. III. The possibility of falling from grace. The first of these three divisions is that which forms the main subject of the Article ; the other two being incidentally alluded to. The third, however, is spoken of in somewhat decided terms, and being a point on which there has been no little controversy, re- quires to be considered. I. As regards the possibility of repentance and forgiveness for sins committed after baptism and the grace of God, there was some stir even in early ages of the Church. Some of the Gnostics, who affected great asceticism, appear to have held also very rigid notions of the divine justice and the irre- Skc. L] of sin after baptism. 365 missibility of sins. Clement of Alexandria says that Basilides taught that " not all sins, but only sins which were committed involuntarily or through ignorance, were forgiven." * The Church itself in early times was very severe in its censures against heinous crimes, and very slow in admitting offenders to Church-communion. It appears that in the second and third cen- turies, persons who committed small sins might be admitted fre- quently to repentance, but that great and flagrant offenders were put to penance and reconciled to the Church but once. In the case indeed of some very grievous, deadly, and often-repeated sins, the Church seems to have refused communion even at the last hour. The meaning of which severity doubtless was, that offenders might not mock God and the Church with feigned repentance, turning again to sin like the swine to their wallowing in the mire. 2 The Montanists carried this rigour much farther than the Cath- olics ; for they not only refused repeated penances and reconcilia- tion, but did not allow to the Church the power of forgiving great sins after baptism, even once. Tertullian, in those writings which he composed before he became a Montanist, speaks of grievous sins as once, and but once, remitted by the Church. After he had joined the sect of the Montanists, he distinguishes between venial sins, (such as causeless anger, evil speaking, rash swearing, false- hood,) and sins of a heinous and deadly character, such as murder, idolatry, fraud, denying Christ, blasphemy, adultery, fornication. Of these latter he says there is no remission, and that even Christ will not intercede for them. 3 St. Clement of Alexandria in one place seems to say that there is no repentance but once after baptism. 4 It is probable that he refers to a passage in the Pastor of Hermas, where we read that there is but one penitence, namely, when we descend into the water, and so receive remission of sins. 5 But whereas it is pretty certain that Hermas speaks of the repentance and remission of sins in baptism to be once given and never repeated, but does not thereby 1 Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. p. 634, Pot- ch. xix. sect. 8 ; Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. ter; Mosheim, De Rebus ante Constant. Cent. n. pt. II. ch. v. saec. 2, c. 48 ; King, On the Creed, p. 358 ; * 'O (£v ovv i£ k&vuv koI tt)c npojjibrriToc Bp. Kaye's Clem. Alex. p. 269. iKeivqg enl tt)v manv bpprioae, una!; ervxev 2 See this subject fully considered by aeas(jc afiaprubv, 6 de /cat fieru ravra a/iap- Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. Bk. xvi. C. x. ; tjigoc, eha pxravouv, nq,v ovyyvu/jitic rvy- Bk. xviii. c. iv. He quotes Hermas, XQ-vi), <"<5«ff#at btyeilei, (17)keti Xovbfievog eic Clem. Alex., Tertull., Origen, the Coun- wpeaiv a/iapnurv .... dbar/oic roivvv y.tra- cil of Eliberis, Ambros., Augustine, &c. ; voiae, ov /xeravoia, rb noXkanuc ahetodai see especially Bk. xvm. c. iv. § 1. avyyvufirjv, k

ov Tpenrov reparat et corroborat vires, quibus fides ical pEvorrjg tpvoeus) nai 6sx°t iCU tovto Kpo- instaurata vegetetur. Repetet certamen dvuug, nai Trpoonwij rdv 6e6unoTa, /cot ro'n OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI. St.. Ambrose says, that, as our blessed Lord calls all that are weary and heavy laden to come unto Him, those cannot be reckoned as His disciples, who, whilst they have need of mercy themselves, yet deny it to others. 1 The Novatians granted pardon to smaller, not to greater crimes ; but God, says St. Ambrose, makes no such distinction, who has promised His mercy to all, and gives to all His priests the power of loosing without any exception. Only, if the crime be great, so must be the repentance. 2 Other early heretics are mentioned, as agreeing with the Novatians in their severity against the lapsed. The Apostolici are reckoned by Epiphanius as an offset from the Encratites or Cathari. Their opinions concerning marriage and all worldly indulgences were highly ascetic, and they refused to receive those who once fell. 3 The Meletians were an Egyptian sect. They arose about the time of Diocletian's persecution. Meletius, their founder, was Bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid. He was deposed by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, and set up a schismatical communion under Alexander, the successor of Peter. They ultimately joined the Arians, as being the great enemies of Alexander. Epiphanius and Augustine ascribe to them the same severity to the lapsed which characterized the Novatians. 4 The Luciferians, who followed Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, avoided communion with those who had lapsed to Arianism, and with those bishops who restored the lapsed. It should seem from Jerome that the Luci- ferians did not altogether exclude laymen who had lapsed from returning to communion, but would on no account receive repent- ant bishops and presbyters ; arguing from our Lord's words, " Ye are the salt of the earth : but if the salt have lost its savour, where- with shall it be salted." 6 aXXoic [iETaSitiutu nai npoeiofyepu tov kXeov cipulos non esse habendos, qui dura pro rdv iXeov. Oloa yiip ml abrbg uodevecav mitibus, supcrba pro humilibus sequcnda irepuceipevo(, nal ug av (lerpf/ou, perpq&Tioo- opinantur ; et cum ipsi quaerant Domini pevo{. Zi) 6k ri Myeig ; ri vofw&erel(, u misericordiam, aliis earn dcnepint; ut vie Aapiaale, nal nadaph ttjv npooyyopiav, sunt doctores Novatianorum, qui mun- oii rqv npoaipeoiv, xa.1 Qvouv r/fdv Navarov dos se appellant." — l)t Panitentia, Lib. r« fierci rt/c abrfft ua&eveiac ; ob 6i%y P^d- ?■ c - !■ volav; ob didug ddvpuolg x<^>P av > ob daKpvetc • " Sed Deus distinctionem non facit, &uKpvov; M# av ye roiovrov Kpirov rbxofc qui misericordiam suam promisit omni- .... obdi rbv Aa/?«$ 61 XV (itravoovvra, bus, et relaxandi licentiam omnibus sa- Kai to ■KpotyriTUibv £u/Mositio inchoata, 14-23. Tom. III. par. inus objeoit, si qui resipiscentes ad Dei ii. p. 983-940. See especially, c. 22, p. gratiam confugerunt, sine ulla dubita- 989 : " Si ergo nee Paganis, nee Hebrreis, tione sanati sunt : quid aliud restat nisi, nee hsereticis, nee schisniaticis nondum ut peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum, quod li:i])tiz;itis ad baptismum Christi aditus neque in hoc sau-ulo neque in future clauditur, ubi condemnata vita priore in dimitti Dominus dicit, nullum intelliga- inelius commutentur ; quamvis Chris- tur nisi perseverantia in nequitia et in tianitati et Ecclesise Dei adversantes an- malignitate, cum desperatione indulgen- tcquam Christianissacramentis ablueren- the Dei ? " tur, etiam Spiritui Sancto quanta potu- 2 See Marshall's Penitential Discipline, erunt infestatione restiterint ; si etiam especially ch. u.pt. n. § 1, and ApjK'ii- hominibus, qui usque ad sacramentorum dix, Num. i. ; Gregory Nywen's Lanoni- perceptionem veritatis scientiam percep- cal Epistle, to Letoius. erint, et post luce lapsi Spiritui Sancto * Concil. Ancyrani. Can. xx. ; Bere- rcatiterunt, ad sanitatem redeuntibus et ridge, Pandect. Tom. i. p. 397. pacem Dei poenitenrio qusercntibus, aux- * Can. vi. ; Beveridge, I. p. 880. ilium misericordiae non negatur ; si deni- 8 Can. vm. ; Beveridge, I. 882. que de illis ipsis, quibus blasphemiam In Sec. I.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 373 considered as intimately connected with the doctrine of God's pre- destination, and therefore might properly come under the XVIIth Article. Yet, as it is certainly in some degree treated of in this Article, and may be separated from the question of predestination, we may not refuse to consider it here. The earliest fathers, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and others, speak of God's election and of predestination to grace and life. But, as we shall see in the next Article, it is not immedi- ately certain in what sense they use this language of holy Scripture. The controversies which afterwards arose concerning the Pelagian heresy, and the predestinarian doctrines of St. Augustine, induced persons to use more accurate terms : and Augustine himself argues that the fathers did not teach his doctrines, because no heresy had arisen which made it necessary to expound them. 1 It seems, how- ever, tolerably certain that the fathers of the second century spoke of the possibility of falling away from grace, and held that those who had received the gift of the Holy Spirit might afterwards reject it and be lost. Justin Martyr says, that " God will accept the peni- tent, as if he had never sinned, and will treat him who turns from godliness to impiety, as a sinner and unjust. Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ says, " In whatsoever I find you, I will judge you." a Irenasus says, that whereas God gives grace, those who profit by it will receive glory, but those who reject it will be punished. 3 He compares children of God, who disobey Him, to sons of men who are disinherited by their fathers ; and says that if we disobey God, we shall be cast off" by Him. 4 Clement of Alexandria speaks of his Gnostic or perfect Christian, as praying for the permanence and continuance of that good which he already possesses. 5 Tertul- lian indeed, in his later treatises, especially after he had become a Montanist, seems to say that a person who fell away from grace 1 De Prcedestinatione, § 27, Tom. x. p. alienati sunt, non enim hasredes fiunt na- 808 ; De Dono Perseverantice, § 53, Tom. turalium parentum : eodem modo a pud x. p. 851. Deum, qui non obediunt Ei, abdicati ab 2 Dialog, p. 267. Eo, desierunt filii Ejus esse . . . Verum 8 " Dedit ergo Deus bonuni, quemad- quando credunt et subjeeti esse Deo per- modum et Apostolus testificatur in eadem severant et doctrinam Ejus custodiunt, epistola, et qui operantur quidem illud, filii sunt Dei ; cum autem abscesserint, gloriam et honorem percipient, quoniam et transgressi fuerint, Diabolo adscribun- operati sunt bonum, cum possint non tur principi, ei qui primo sibi, tunc et operari illud ; hi autem qui illud non reliquis causa abscessionis factus est." — operantur, judicium justum recipient Ibid. iv. 80. See also Beaven's Irenams, Dei, quoniam non sunt operati bonum, p. 166. cum possint operari illud." — Adv. Hcer. 6 'O yvuaTucbc 6e uv uiv kekttjtoi irapa- IV. 71. fiovijv, ETUTtfdeiaTTiTa 6e «f a /uXXei anofiai' * " Quemadmodum enim in hominibus vetv, ko! uidioTTjTa uv TafipErai, al-ri/aeTat. — indicto audientes patribus filii abdicati, Strom. Lib. vu. 7, p. 857. natura quidem filii eorum sunt, lege vero 374 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI had never been a Christian. In his tract De Prcescriptione even, which was probably written before his Montanism, lie speaks of no one as a Christian, but such as endured to the end. 1 But in his tract De Pudicitia, which was written when he had become a Mon- tanist, in commenting on those words of St. John, " He who is born of God sinneth not," he argues that venial sins, such as causeless anger, rash swearing, &c, all Christians are liable to ; but that deadly sin, such as murder, idolatry, blasphemy, impiety, no good Christian, no child of God, will commit. 2 Bishop Kaye even thinks that the language of Tertullian in his later writings is directly op- posed to the doctrine of our XVIth Article. But he observes that as there was no controversy on the subject of perseverance in his days, we must not construe his expressions too strictly- 8 The time when this question really came to be discussed was after the rise of Pelagianism, and when St. Augustine had stated his predesti- narian opinions. Perseverance was a natural part of his doctrine of predestination ; for, whereas he taught that some men were predestinated to eternal salvation, whilst others were permitted to fall by their own sins into condemnation, it followed of necessity that he should believe some to be predestinated to final persever- ance, and others not. In his work De Oorreptione et Gratia, he calls those elect who were predestinated to eternal life ; 4 and ob- serves that those who did not persevere were not properly to be called elect, for they were not separated from the mass of perdition by the foreknowledge and predestination of God ; and though, when they believed and were baptized and lived according to God, they might be called elect, yet it was by those who knew not the future, not by God, who saw that they would not persevere. 6 The clergy of Marseilles and other parts of Gaul, being offended at the predestinarianism expressed in this and other treatises of Au- gustine, Prosper and Hilary wrote to him a statement of their ob- jections. These letters of Hilary and Prosper called forth a reply from St. Augustine, in two books ; the former on the Predestina- tion of the Saints, the other on the Gift of Perseverance. In the latter, he asserts perseverance to be the gift of God, not given equally to all, but only to the predestinated. Whether a person has received this gift must in this life ever be uncertain ; for, how- ever long he may have persevered in holiness, yet if he does not persevere to the end, he cannot have received the grace of perse- 1 " Nemo autem Christianus, nisi qui 8 Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 840. adfinem usque perseveraverit." — De Prat- * De Corrept. et Grot. § 14. script. Hasretic. c. 8. 6 Ibid. § 16. 2 De Pudicitia, c. 19. Sec. I.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 375 verance. 1 He says, that of two infants equally born in sin, by God's will one is taken, one left ; that, of two grown persons, one follows God's call, another refuses to follow it ; and all this is from the inscrutable judgments of God. And so, of two pious persons, why to one is granted final perseverance, to another it is not granted, is to be resolved into the still more inscrutable judg- ments of God. 2 It appears plainly that St. Augustine held two distinct predesti- nations : one predestination to regeneration and a state of grace, the other predestination to perseverance and to final reward. We find him continually speaking of persons predestinated to be brought into the Church, and so by God's grace brought to baptism, and therein regenerate, but not necessarily on that account persevering to the end. Nay, he speaks of persons continuing in a state of grace for many years, but yet finally falling away. 3 Such were predestinated to regeneration, and to receive grace and sanctifica- tion, but for some unknown though doubtless just cause, they were not predestinated to final perseverance. God is pleased to mix those who will not persevere with those who will, for good and wise reasons, on purpose that he who thinketh he standeth should take heed lest he fall. 4 In this life it was utterly impossible for any one to know whether he would persevere or not. 5 He might live ten years and persevere for five, and yet for the last five fall away. 6 We may see examples of God's hidden counsels in the case of some infants who die unregenerate, others who die regen- erate ; the former lost, the latter saved. And of those who are re- generate and grow up, some persevering to the end, others permit- ted to live on till they lapsed and fell away, and so are lost, who if they had died just before they lapsed, would have been saved ; and again others, who had lapsed, preserved in life till they repented again, who, if they had been taken away before repentance, would have been damned. 7 1 De Dono Persei'erantice, Opp. Tom. aliam quandam discretionem non erant x. p. 822. See especially §§ 1, 6, 7, 10, ex nobis, nam si fuissent ex nobis, man- 15, 19. sissent utique nobiscum." — Ibid. § 21. 2 " Ex duobus autem pii«, cur huic 3 See especially De Cotre/H. et Grat. donetur perseverantia usque ad finem, 20, 22 ; De Dono Perscverantice, 1, 21, 32, illi non donetur, inscrutabiliora sunt ju- 33, &c. dicia Dei . . . Nonne postremo utrique 4 De Don. Perxev. 19. vocati fuerant, et vocantem secuti, utri- 5 " Utrum quisque hoc munus accep- que ex impiis justiflcati, et per lavacrum erit, quam diu banc vitam ducit, incer- regenerationis utrique renovati ? Sed si turn est. Si enim prius quam moriatur haec audiret ille, qui sciebat procul dubio cadat, non perseverasse utique dicitur, et quod dicebat, respondere posset et dicere : verissime dicitur." — Ibid. § 1. Vera sunt haec, secundum haec omnia 6 Ibid. ex nobis erant ; verumtamen secundum 7 Ibid. § 32. 37b OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI. It is of considerable importance to observe the nature of St. Augustine's doctrine of perseverance, as it materially differs from the doctrine most generally held by later predestinarians. St. Augustine did not hold that persons who had once received the gift of God's Spirit could never lose it, or at least, could never be finally lost. On the contrary, he plainly taught that persons might receive the gift of regeneration, and might persevere in holiness for a time, and yet, if they had not the gift of perseverance, might fall away at the last. In short, he held that predestination to grace did not necessarily imply predestination to glory. A person might receive the grace of God and act upon it, and yet not per- severe to the end ; and hence it was that he held that, even if a person had all the signs and tokens of a child of God, it was quite impossible in this life to say whether he was predestinated to persevere to the end. 1 The question of final perseverance, and of the falling from grace, thenceforth became a natural part of discussions concerning pre- destination. At the time of the Reformation all these subjects were hotly discussed. The Council of Trent found nothing to condemn in the writings of Luther, or of the Lutheran divines, on the subject of predestination, or of final perseverance ; 2 but from the writings of the Zuinglians several articles were drawn out which were con- sidered deserving of condemnation. Among these there were, (5) That the justified cannot fall from grace. (6) That those who are called, and are not in the number of the predestinated, do never receive grace. (8) That the justified is bound to believe for certain that in case he fell from grace he shall receive it again. 8 The divines of Trent, though not entirely at one concerning some questions of predestination, agreed to censure these concern- ing final perseverance, with admirable concord. They said that it had always been an opinion in the Church, that many receive grace and keep it for a time, who afterwards lose it, and are damned at the last. They alleged the examples of Saul, Solomon, and Judas, of whom our Lord said, " Of those whom thou hast given me have I lost none save the son of perdition." To these they added Nicholas, one of the deacons, and for a conclusion of all, the fall of Luther. 4 The language of Luther, on all the subjects connected with predestination, varies a good deal. Earlier in his life he was a 1 See ante, note 6, p. 875, and Dr. Dono Pertevtrantia, passim. 1 Sarpi, p. 197. « Ibid. « Ibid. p. 200. &kc. L] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 377 high predestinarian ; but later he seems to have materially changed his views. In his commentary on the 17th chapter of St. John, he speaks of all disputes on predestination as having sprung from their author the devil. 1 In his commentary on the Galatians (ch. v. 4), he speaks plainly of falling from grace, and says that " he who falls away from grace, loses expiation, remission of sins, righteousness, liberty, life, &c, which Christ by His death and resurrection deserved for us ; and, in their room, acquires wrath and God's judgment, sin, death, slavery to the devil, and eternal damnation." 2 The Xlth Article of the Confession of Augsburg, which is clearly the source of our own XVIth Article, condemns the Ana- baptists, who say that persons once justified cannot again lose the Holy Spirit. 3 From which we may conclude, first, that such was the teaching of the Anabaptists ; and secondly, that the Lutherans viewed it altogether as an Anabaptist error. The Calvinist divines, on the contrary, have generally believed that grace once given was indefectible ; and this is in fact their doctrine of perseverance. Calvin himself held, that our Lord and St. Paul taught us to confide that we should always be safe, if we were once made Christ's ; and that those who fall away may have had the outward signs, but had not the inward truth of election. 4 The English reformers, as we have already seen, adopted in this Article the language, not of the Zuinglians and Calvinists, but of the Confession of Augsburg and the Lutherans. This is apparent from the wording of the Article itself, which evidently follows the wording of the Confession of Augsburg ; and also from the Homi- lies, and other documents, both before and after the drawing up of the Articles. " The Necessary Doctrine " has been appropriately cited, which says, "It is no doubt, but although we be once justified, yet we may fall therefrom . . . ? And although we be illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and be made partakers of the Holy Ghost, yet we may fall and displease God." 5 The whole of the Homily " Of Falling from God " holds language of the same character. It should be read throughout, being a practical dis- course, from which extracts would fail to give a right impression. It is impossible to doubt, that the doctrine contained in it is, that 1 Opp. Tom. v. p. 197. * " Quid liinc nos discere voluit Chris- 2 Opp. Tom. v. p. 405. tus,nisi ut confidamus perpetuo nos fore 8 " Damnant et Anabaptistas, qui ne- salvos, quia illius semel f'acti sumus ? " gant semel justificatos iterum posse &c. — Instit. Lib. in. c. xxiv. 6, 7. amittere Spiritum Sanctum." — Sylloge, 5 Formularies of Faith in the Reign of p. 173. Henry the Eighth, p. 367. 48 378 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Akt. XVI. we may once receive the grace of God, and yet finally fall away from Him. These were documents drawn up at the period of the Reformation, shortly before the putting forth of the Articles. The second book of Homilies, written early in the reign of Queen Eliz- abeth, and of nearly the same date with the final revision of the Articles, breathes the same spirit throughout The language of the H'>mily called " The First Part of the Information of certain parts of Scripture " may be referred to as a specimen. After reciting examples from Scripture of the sins of good men, it continues, ' We ought then to learn by them this profitable lesson, that if so godly men as they were, which otherwise felt inwardly of God's Holy Spirit influencing their hearts with the fear and love of God, could not by their own strength keep themselves from commiting horrible sin, but did so grievously fall that without God's mercy they had perished everlastingly ; how much more ought we then, miserable wretches, which have no feeling of God within us at all, continually to fear, not only that we may fall as they did, but also be overcome and drowned in sin, as they were not." The Homily on the Resurrection has the following : " Ye must consider that ye be therefore cleansed and renewed that ye should henceforth serve God in holiness and righteousness all the days of your life, that ye may reign with Him in everlasting life (Luke i.) If ye refuse so great grace whereto ye be called, what other thing do ye than heap to you damnation more and more, and so provoke God to cast His displeasure upon you, and to revenge this mockage of His holy sacraments in so great abusing of them ? Apply yourselves, good friends, to live in Christ, that Christ may still live in you," &c. Similar is the tone breathed by the Liturgy itself. In the Baptismal Service we are taught to pray, that the baptized child " may ever remain in the numbft* of God's faithful and elect chil- dren." In the Catechism the child, after speaking of himself as in a state of salvation, adds, " I pray unto God to give me His grace that I may continue in the same unto my life's end." And in the Burial Service we pray that God will " suffer us not at our last hour for any pains of death to fall from " Him. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth the sympathy which had sprung up with the Calvinistic reformers of the continent made the teaching of our English divines approximate more nearly to the teaching of the Calvinists. Near the end of that reign a dis- pute arose at Cambridge, originating in the teaching of Barret, a fellow of Caius College, who preached ad clerum against Calvin'a Sec. I.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 379 doctrines about predestination and falling from grace. Barret was complained of to Archbishop Whitgift, who at first took his part ; but at last, at the earnest request of the heads of Colleges, sent for him to Lambeth, where he was directed not to teach like doctrines again. The dispute so originating was continued between Dr. Whitaker, the Regius Professor, and Dr. Baro, the Margaret Professor, of Divinity. Whitaker, who took the high Calvinistic side, was sent by his party to Lambeth, where he proposed to the Archbishop to send down to Cambridge a series of Articles, nine in number, stamped with the authority of the archbishops and bishops, in order to check the progress of what he called Pelagian- ism. Archbishop Whitgift was thus induced to call a meeting of bishops and other clergy. The theses of Whitaker were sub- mitted to them, and with some few alterations, which however were of considerable importance, they were passed by the meeting and sent down to Cambridge. The Queen censured Whitgift for the whole proceeding ; and he promised to write to Cambridge, that the Articles might be suppressed. These were the famous Lambeth Articles. The fifth and sixth concerned falling from grace and certainty of salvation. The fifth as proposed by Whit- aker ran thus, u True, living, and justifying faith, and the influence of the Spirit of God, is not extinguished, nor fails, nor goes off, in those who have once been partakers of it, either totally or finally." The divines at Lambeth erased the words " in those who have once been partakers of it," and substituted for them " in the elect ; " thus making the doctrine more nearly correspond with Augustine's, rather than, as it did in Whitaker's draught of it, with Calvin's. The sixth Article, in Whitaker's draught, said that " A man who truly believes, that is, who has justifying faith, is sure, from the certainty of faith, concerning the remission of his sins and his eternal salvation through Christ." For " certainty of faith " the Lambeth divines substituted " full assurance of faith," using that word as signifying, not a full and absolute certainty, such as is the certainty of matters of science or of the principles of the faith, but rather a lesser degree of certainty, such as is ob- tained in matters of judicial evidence and legal trials. 1 1 The Vth and Vlth Articles as drawn justificante praeditus, certus est certitu~ by Whitaker were, — dine fidei, de remissione peccatorum suo- " V. Vera, viva, et justificans fides rum et salute sempiterna sua per Chris- et Spiritus Dei Sanctificans non extin- turn." guitur, non excidit, non evanescit tin its In the Vth the Lambeth Divines for qui semel ejus participes fuerunt, aut totali- in Us qui semel ejus parti^ipes fuerunt, sub- ter aut finaliter. stituted in electis. " VI. Homo vere fidelis, id est fide In the Vlth for ceriitudine they substi- 380 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVL Soon after the accession of James I., a. d. 1604, the conference was held at Hampton Court Dr. Reynolds, the speaker for the Puritans, moved, among other things, that the Articles be explained and enlarged. For example, whereas in Art. XVI. the words are these : " After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace," he wished that there should be added, " yet neither totally nor finally ; " and also that " the nine assertions orthodoxal concluded at Lambeth might be inserted into that book of Articles." On this point he was answered by the Bishop of London ; no alteration of the kind was conceded, the Articles remaining as they were before, and the Lambeth Articles never having received any sanction of the Church or the Crown. 1 Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. THE first thing we have to show from holy Scripture is, that " every deadly sin committed after baptism is not unpardona- ble," and that " the place of forgiveness is not to be denied to such as truly repent." To prove this proposition, it will be desirable (1) to show that sins after baptism are not generally unpardonable. (2) To consider those texts of Scripture, which are thought to prove the great heinousness and unpardonable nature of some sins, especially if committed after baptism. I. First, then, sins after baptism are not generally incapable of being pardoned. Baptism is the first step in the Christian life, by which we are admitted into the covenant, and to a share of the pardoning love of God in Christ. Under the Jewish dispensation there was no such thing as baptism ordained by God ; but circumcision admitted into God's covenant with Abraham, and to a participation in the bless- ings of the congregation or Church of the Jews. Now it is a truth universally admitted, that the blessings we receive under the Gospel are greater than those which the Jews received under the Law. Especially, under the Gospel and in the Church of Christ, there is tuted plerophoria. — See Strype'i Whit- • Cardwell, Hi$t. of Cmfsrmcm, p. gift, L. iv. c. 17. 178. Sec. II.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 381 a fuller fountain of mercy and grace opened to all. " There is a fountain open for sin and for uncleanness," such as „ne Jews had only in figure. " The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ " (Joh. i. 17). Yet under the Law it is quite certain that there was a continual sacrifice offered for the sins both of priests and people, and a continual promise of pardon to the re- turning and penitent sinner. The prophet Ezekiel (ch. xxxiii. 12-20) by God's commandment clearly expounds to the Israelites, that, of those within the covenant, if the righteous man turn from his righteousness, he shall surely die ; but if the wicked " turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right," " none of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him ; he hath done that which is lawful and right ; he shall surely live." So the prophet David, after deliberate murder and adultery, was yet at once restored on his repentance. If then under the Law those who sinned were admitted to pardon, but under the Gospel, that is to say after baptism, those who sin are not admitted to pardon, then is the Gospel a state of less, instead of greater, grace than the Law ; then those who have been made partakers of Christ, have been admitted to a sterner law and a less merciful covenant than those who were baptized into Moses, and admitted to that carnal commandment, which made nothing perfect. It is true, indeed, that the greater God's mercies are, the heavier will be the punishment of those who slight them. " If they who despised Moses' law died without mercy, of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God ? " (Heb. x. 28, 29). Yet, that the slighting of God's mercies should be of so great guilt, results from the fact that those mercies are so great : and, if the grant of re- pentance be withheld from the Christian, which was conceded to the Jew, then we may say, that God's mercies under the Law were greater than are His mercies under the Gospel. Thus then we may naturally infer that pardon of sin would be given to Christians, and that sin committed after baptism would not in general exclude the sinner from all hope of repentance. Such reasoning is fully confirmed by the language of the new Tes- tament. The Lord's Prayer was ordained for the use of those who might call Almighty God their Father. We therefore may clearly see that it was to be used only by children of God. Now in bap- tism we are made children of God. In the Lord's Prayer, then, God's baptized children are taught to pray that their sins should be forgiven them. And our blessed Lord comforts us with the 382 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM [Art. XVI assurance, that, " if we forgive men their trespasses, our heavenly Father will also forgive our trespasses" (Matt. vi. 14). So in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke xv.), it is a son that leaves his father, and who on his repentance is welcomed home and pardoned. The parable plainly sets before us, that, if we, as sons of God, leave our Father's home and revel in all iniquity, still on true and earnest repentance we shall be received, pardoned, comforted. To the chief ministers of His Church our Lord gave the power of binding and loosing ; binding by censure upon sin, but loosing again by absolution and reconciliation (Matt, xviii. 18) ; and to confirm this power to them the more strongly He declared : " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose so- ever sins ye retain, they are retained " (John xx. 23). If the reconciliation of offenders to the Church be so sanctioned in Heav- en, can there be a doubt that there is also pardon in Heaven for such as, having so offended, have repented and been reconciled ? We have instances in the new Testament of the Apostles giving hope of pardon, and restoring communion to those who had sinned most heavily after baptism. Thus Simon Magus, just after he was baptized, showed himself to be " in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity ; " yet St. Peter urged him to repent of his wicked- ness, and to pray God, if perhaps the thought of his heart might be forgiven him f (Acts viii. 22, 23). Even of the man who after baptism had committed incest, and whom St. Paul (1 Cor. v. 1—5) bids the Corinthians to excommunicate, he yet gives hope that " his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus " (ver. 5). And when the incestuous man had given signs of true sorrow for his sin, but a very short time after his excommunication, the Apostle ordered him to be restored to communion, declares that he ministe- rially pardoned his offences in the name and as the minister of Christ (2 Cor. ii. 10) ; recommends the Corinthians to comfort him, that he should not be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow (ver. 7) ; and assures them, with reference to the same subject, that " godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of" (2 Cor. vii. 10). Nay ! he expressly says that the object of ex- commun'eating the guilty man was that his " spirit might be saved " (1 Cor. v. 5). Again St. Paul exhorts the Galatian Church. " Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault (iv rm napaTn-wfiari) you, which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." The words made use of are 1 koI drii&ijri &eov, tl upa u+edrtoerai ooi ij tnivoia rift Kapdiac aov. Sec II.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 383 perfectly general, and we may infer from them, as a general rule, that a man entrapped or overtaken by any kind of transgression or backsliding is, on his repentance, to be restored to communion. In the latter part of the second Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 20, 21), the Apostle speaks of his apprehension that he shall be grieved at the state of the Corinthian Church, for he feared that many of the Corinthian Christians had committed all those sins which most grievously defile the temple of God (aKa.6a.pma., iropvtia, do-e'A.ytia), even every kind of uncleanness ; but then the way in which he adds /ecu fir} ixeTavorjadvToiv, " and have not repented," seems clearly to in- dicate that the poignancy of his grief was derived from their im- penitence ; and that for those who repented there was still room for pardon and hope. St. Peter tells us, that God " is long-suffering to usward " (mean- ing, as we may suppose, to Christians), " not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance " (2 Pet. iii. 9). St. John says that, as all men are sinners, so " if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." And when he writes to Christians, calling them his " little children," and exhorting them that they sin not, he yet adds, " If any man sin, we have an advo- cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and He is the propitiation for our sins." Here we have an evident address to those who were members of Christ's Church by baptism, an earnest exhortation to them not to sin, yet an encouragement to those who fall into sin, not to despair, as there is yet an Advocate, yet pro- pitiation, through Jesus Christ (1 John i. 9 ; ii. 1, 2). St. James (James v. 13—15) enjoins, that if any member of the Church be sick, he should send for the clergy, the elders of the Church, to pray over him, and, among other blessings, promises that " if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him." Lastly, in the Apocalypse, referring to men who had been seduced from their faith to all the abominations of the worst kind of heresy, our blessed Lord speaks of "giving time to repent;" and threatens heavy punishment, " unless they repent of their deeds " (Rev. ii. 20-22). The general promises to repenting sinners do not, of course, belong to our present inquiry. Such promises may have been made to such as had not been baptized, and may be performed only in baptism. But those now adduced all evidently concern Christians, who had been brought to Christ by baptism, and who had afterwards fallen into sin. And they seem clearly to prove, that not even the deadliest sin committed by a baptized person 384 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI. makes it utterly impossible that, on hearty repentance and true faith, he should be forgiven. There are indeed some passages of Scripture, and some very serious considerations, which have led to the belief that deadly sin after baptism has never forgiveness ; and these we must take into account. The fact that St. Paul speak" of the whole Church and every individual Christian as temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. iii. 16 ; vi. 19 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. ii. 22), joined with many similar con- siderations, shows that at our baptism we are set apart and conse- crated to be temples of God. And then St. Paul declares that " if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are " (1 Cor. iii. 17). In like manner, we know that in baptism we are made members of Christ (see Gal. iii. 27 ; Ephes. iv. 15, 16, &c). And St. Paul, reminding the Corinthians of this, says : " What, know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot ? God forbid " (1 Cor. vi. 15). Such sayings prove, with exceeding force, the great wickedness of sin, and especially of sins of unclean- ness, when committed by a baptized Christian ; who thereby " sin- neth against his own body " (1 Cor. vi. 18), and against the Holy Ghost, whose temple his body has been made. So our blessed Saviour, speaking of Christians as branches of the Vine, whose root and stem is Christ, says that, " If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered" (John xv. 6). These passages, however, though they show the great guilt of sinning against grace, do not prove such sins to be unpardonable, though probably they suggested the opinion that sin after baptism was the sin against the Holy Ghost, which hath never forgiveness. There are strong and very fearful passages in the first Epistle of St. John, which have still more led to some of the opinions dis- claimed by the Article we are now considering. In 1 John iii. 6, 8, 9, we read that, " Whosoever abideth in Him, sinneth not. . . . He that committeth sin is of the devil. . . . Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him ; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." This passage led Jovinian to teach that a baptized Christian could never sin ; and has been one argument from which it has been inferred, that, if by any means this high estate of purity should be lost, it would be lost ir- revocably. Jerome, in his answer to Jovinian, 1 well explains the 1 Adv. Jovinian. Lib. n. arc. init. Tom. it. pt. n. p. 198. Sec. II.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 385 general tenour of St. John's reasoning. He remarks that St. John exhorts those whom he addresses as little children, to keep them- selves from idols (1 John v. 21) ; showing that they were liable to be tempted like others, and to fall ; that he writes to them not to sin ; and assures them still that, if they sin, they have an Advo- cate in the Lord Jesus Christ (1 John ii. 1, 2) ; that their best way of knowing that they know Christ is to keep His commandments (ver. 4) ; that he, who says he* abides in Him, ought to walk as He walked (ver. 6). " Therefore," he continues, " St. John says, ' I write unto you, little children,' since ' every one who is born of God sinneth not,' that ye sin not, and that ye may know that ye abide in the generation of God, so long as ye do not sin ; yea, those who continue in God's generation cannot sin. For what commun- ion hath Christ with Belial ? If we have received Christ as a guest into our hearts, we put to flight the devil. But if we sin again, the devil enters through the door of sin, and then Christ de- parts." This seems a correct account of St. John's reasoning, and shows that what he means is, that the regenerate man, so long as he continues in the regenerate state, overcomes sin and casts it out ; but if he falls from the regenerate state and sins, then he be- comes again the servant of the devil. But it neither proves, that the regenerate man cannot sin, nor that, if he does, his fall is irre- coverable. But St. John (1 John v. 16, 17) speaks of the distinction be- tween ** sin unto death," and " sin not unto death ; " and encourages us to pray for the latter, but not for the former. Bp. Jeremy Taylor has some good remarks on this verse. " Every Christian," he says, " is in some degree in the state of grace, so long as he is invited to repentance, and so long as he is capable of the prayers of the Church. This we learn from those words of St. John, ' All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death ; ' that is, some sorts of sin are so incident to the condition of men, and their state of imperfection, that the man who hath committed them is still within the methods of pardon, and hath not forfeited his title to the promises and covenant of repentance ; but ' there is a sin unto death ; ' that is, some men proceed beyond the measures and economy of the Gospel, and the usual methods and probabilities of repentance, by obstinacy, and preserving a sin, by a wilful, spiteful resisting, or despising the offers of grace and the means of pardon ; for such a man St. John does not encourage us to pray ; if he be such a person as St. John described, our prayers will do him no good ; but because no man can tell the last minute or period of 49 3»G OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI. pardon, nor just when a man is gone beyond the limit ; and be- cause the limit itself can be enlarged, and God's mercies stay for some longer than for others, therefore St. John left us under the indefinite restraint and caution ; which was decretory enough to represent that sad state of things in which the refractory and im- penitent have immerged themselves, and yet so indefinite and cau- tious, that we may not be too forward in applying it to particulars, nor in prescribing measures to the Divine mercy, nor in passing final sentences upon our brother, before we have heard our Judge Himself speak. ■ Sinning a sin not unto death ' is an expression fully signifying that there are some sins which though they be committed and displeased God, and must be repented of, and need many and mighty prayers for their pardon, yet the man is in the state of grace and pardon, that is, he is within the covenant of mercy ; he may be admitted, if he will return to his duty : so that being in a state of grace is having a title to God's loving-kindness, a not being rejected of God, but a being beloved of Him to certain purposes of mercy, and that hath these measures and degrees." Again, " Every act of sin takes away something from the con- trary grace, but if the root abides in the ground, the plant is still alive, and may bring forth fruit again. ' But he only is dead who hath thrown off God for ever, or entirely with his very heart.' So St. Ambrose. To be ' dead in trespasses and sins,' which is the phrase of St. Paul (Eph. ii. 1), is the snme with that expression of St. John, of ' sinning a sin unto death,' that is, habitual, refrac- tory, pertinacious, and incorrigible sinners, in whom there is scarcely any hope or sign of life. These are they upon whom, fcft St. Paul's expression is, (1 Thess. ii. 10,) ' the wrath of God is come upon them to the uttermost, *k r<> .«'.•., unto death.' So \va> their sin, it was a sin unto death ; so is their punishment." 1 But by far the most terrible passages in Scripture, on the dan- ger of backsliding and the difficulty or impossibility of renewal, are to be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. We learn indeed from Tertullian (2)g Pudicitia), that the difficulty of the 6th chapter of that Epistle was the main reason why the Roman Church irta so long in admitting it into the Canon. In the 10th chapter we read that, "if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that de- spised Moses' law, perished without mercy under two or three wit- 1 Of Rf(>entance, cli. iv. § 2. Sec. II.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 387 nesses ; of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace ? " (Heb. x. 26-29). The peculiar strength of this passage is in the words, " If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." The word " sin " in the first clause, is here supposed by many to mean " apostatize." So in Hos. xiii. 2, we read fctonb ^EDi^ *!&#) " Now they add moreover to sin ; " where the sin spoken of is a revolting from God, and apos- tatizing to Baal. And, as regards the " remaining no more sacri- fice for sin," the Apostle had been showing, throughout the early verses of the chapter, that the priests under the Law kept con- stantly offering sacrifices, year by year and day by day (vv. 1-11). But Christ offered but one sacrifice for sin, and by that one sacri- fice hath perfected all that are sanctified (vv. 12-14). So then, if we reject the sacrifice of Christ, and after a knowledge of its sav- ing efficacy, apostatize willingly 1 from the faith, there are not now fresh sacrifices, " offered year by year continually ; " and by reject- ing the one sacrifice of Christ, we cut ourselves off from the bene- fit of His death ; and since we have chosen sin instead of God, there is no new sacrifice to bring us to God. Another of the hard sentences, which has led to a belief in the irremissibility of post-baptismal sin, is Heb. xii. 17. The Apostle, warning against the danger of falling from grace, bids us take heed, lest there be " any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited a blessing, he was re- jected ; for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." There can be no doubt, that Esau is here propounded to us as a type of those who, having been made sons of God by baptism, and so, having a birthright and promised inheri- tance, by thoughtlessness and sensuality, " for one morsel of meat," throw themselves out of God's favour, and, leaving God's family, return to the condition of mere sons of Adam. St. Paul reminding us that, when Esau had sold his birthright, he found no place for repentance, even when he sought it with tears, puts us on our guard against the like folly, by fear of the like fate. Yet it does not follow of course, that every person who lives unworthily of his baptismal privileges, shall be denied access to repentance. We can 1 iKovaiug p^j-) -jvj with a high hand, and Rosenmiiller thereon ; Kuinoel on presumptuously. See Numb. xv. 29, 30; Heb. x. 26. 388 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVL never, when we yield to sin, know that God will give us repent- ance ; and we may die in our sin. And even if we repent, our repentance, like Esau's, may be too late ; after the door is shut, and when it will not do to knock. We are told elsewhere of those who came and cried, " Lord, Lord, open unto us," and who received no answer but, " I know you not " (Matt. xxv. 11, 12). Such a late repentance is that of those who would repent in the grave, per- haps of some who seek only on the bed of death. But if we follow out the history of Esau, we may gain at least this comfort from it, that, even late as he had put off his seeking repentance, so late that he could never be fully restored, yet, though not to the same posi- tion as before, he was still restored to favour and to blessing (Gen. xxvii. 38, 39). So that we may hope from this history, as set forth to us for a type, that, though such as cast away their privi- leges as Christians find it hard to be reinstated in the position from which they fell, and may, perhaps, never in this world attain to like blessedness and assurance as if they had never fallen, still the door of repentance is not shut against them. Their place in their Father's house may be lower ; but still it is not hopeless that there may, and shall, be a place for them. The strongest passage, and that on which the Novatians most rested their doctrines, remains yet to be considered. It is Heb. vi. 4, 5, 6 : " It is impossible for those, who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame." The Syriac Version, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others of the ancients, who are followed by Ernesti, Michaelis, and many learned men of our own times, understand by the word " enlightened " (a7ra£ <£wn.o-0eVras) here, and in Heb. x. 32, " baptized." Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and others of the very earliest Christians, used the word in this sense. 1 But whether we admit this to be the right interpretation or not, we must allow the passage to teach that a person, after baptism and Christian blessing and enlighten- ment, may so fall away that it may be impossible to renew him to repentance. The words made use of seem to say that persons once baptized, endued with God's Holy Spirit, made partakers of the Christian Church, 2 if they despise all these blessings, rejecting, 1 See Suicer, 8. v. tparifa, funo/ibs. * Awa/uic fiiXfonnvc oiwvof, the Yery Also Bingham, /■:. .1 . i. iv. 1, xi. i. 4. phrase used in the LXX. (cf. I*ai. lx. 6) Sec. II.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 389 and, as it were, afresh crucifying the Son of God, cannot be again restored to repentance. The difficulty of the passage lies almost wholly in two words, 7rapa7reo-oVTas, " having fallen away," and avaKawi&Lv, " to renew." Most commentators consider the word " fall away," which occurs here only in the New Testament, to signify total apostasy from the faith. 1 If indeed the other two participles (avao-Tauoowras and 7rapa8eiy/xaTt£ovTas) be to be coupled with it, as in apposition to, and explanation of it, then we may well conclude that it can mean no less. It is the case of those " who sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth," of him from whom one devil had been cast out, but to whom it had returned with seven worse devils. Rejecting their faith and their baptism, they fall away from Christ, reproach and crucify Him afresh, as much reject Him for their Saviour as they who actually nailed Him to the Cross. Bishop Taylor describes them as persons, who, " without cause or excuse, without error or infirmity, choos- ingly, willingly, knowingly, called Christ an impostor, and would have crucified Him again if He were alive ; that is, they consented to His death by believing that He suffered justly. This is the case here described, and cannot be drawn to anything else but its parallel ; that is, a malicious renouncing charity, or holy life, as these men did the faith, to both which they have made their solemn vows in baptism ; but this can no way be drawn to the condemna- tion and final excision of such persons who fall into any great sin, of which they are willing to repent." 2 And for the other word of difficulty, dvaKcuvi£eiv, " to renew," some think we must understand to rebaptize. The Church has no power to rebaptize those who fall away ; and so, as first they were washed in the waters of baptism from original sin, to wash them again from their guilt of apostasy. 3 Others understand to admit by absolution to the fellowship of the Church, and so restore them to repentance and penance, when they have once thoroughly aposta- tized. 4 Others understand, that, whereas they have rejected the of the Christian Church. See Hammond, 2 On Repentance, ch. ix. sect. 4. in be. Rosenmiiller and Kuinoel both 8 Dr. Hammond, in loc. observes that, understand these words of the Kingdom as kyuaivi^eLv is to dedicate, consecrate, of Christ, the Reign of Messiah. Hence so, uva.Kaivi&iv is to reconsecrate. Per- " the powers of the world to come " would sons utterly apostate could not be recon- be the blessed effects of Christ's king- secrate. There was no power to repeat dom and gospel. their baptism, nor, if utterly apostate, 1 irapan'nrTuv is the translation of the could the Church readmit them by pen- LXX. for Qi»l?M ^zek. xxu ^ 4, and ^3773 ance to Church-communion, •n, .*o T «i-i "T. 4 Many understand uvaitacvi&iv as ap- Ezek. xiv. 13 Schleusner compares 2 Ked to ( he ministers of the Church> ft Chron xxix. 19 where the LXX. trans- £ „ impossible for the ministers f Christ late iytcfc tv anocraatg. avrcrv. to ren / w them in „ ^ . h . 390 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Akt. XVI. Gospel and all its means of grace, their case has become hopeless, because no other covenant can be provided for them : " There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." No new method of salvation will be devised for them ; and as they have utterly given up the one already provided, rejected Christ, and despised His Spirit, so it is impossible that any other should renew them. " Other founda- tion can no man lay, save that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ ; " f for there is no means of salvation but this one ; and this one they hate, and will not have ; they will not return to the old, and there is nonQ left by which they can be renewed, and therefore their con- dition is desperate." 1 On the whole, there can be no doubt of the awful severity of the language of this passage, and of the warning it gives us against falling from grace ; but, when we compare it with other passages somewhat like it, and contrast with it those which assure us of God's readiness to receive the penitent sinner, and to give repent- ance even to those who sin after grace given ; we can hardly fail to conclude that it concerns particularly extreme cases, and not those of ordinary occurrence ; and that, though it proves the heinousness of sinning against light and grace, and shows that we may so fall after grace as never to recover ourselves, yet it does not prove that there is no pardon for such baptized Christians as sin grievously, and then seek earnestly for repentance. The fact that our Lord left to His Church the power of the keys, allowing its chief pastors to excommunicate for sin and restore on repentance, and that the Apostles and first bishops ever exercised that power, shows that even great sins (for none other led to excommunication) do not exclude from pardon. Nay, "Baptism is m it*t£ a , the admission of us to the covenant of faith and repentance ; or as Mark the anchorite called it, 7rpo<£ao-ts con r»Js /icravoias, the introduction of repentance, or that state of life that is full of labour and care, and amendment of our faults ; for that is the best life that any man can live ; and therefore repentance hath its progress after baptism, as it hath its beginning before ; for first, ' repentance is unto baptism,' and then • baptism unto repentance.' .... Besides, our admission to the holy Sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper is a perpetual entertainment of our hopes, because then and there is really exhibited to us the Body that was broken and the Blood that was ' shed for the remission no other sacrament by which we can re- which they were once placed by the sac- store offenders to the same position in rament of baptism, which they were before their fall, and in 1 Bishop Jeremy Taylor, as above. Sec. II] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 391 of sins.' Still it is applied, and that application could not be necessary to be done anew, if there were not new necessities ; and still we are invited to do actions of repentance, ' to examine our- selves, and so to eat.' All which, as things are ordered, would be infinitely useless to mankind, if it did not mean pardon to Chris- tians falling into foul sins even after baptism." ] We may therefore conclude that, severe as some passages of Scripture are against those who sin wilfully against light and grace, and strict as the discipline of the early Church was against all such offenders, there is yet nothing to prove that heinous sin committed after baptism cannot be pardoned on repentance. The strongest and severest texts of Scripture seem to apply, not to per- sons who have sinned and seek repentance, but to apostates from the faith, who are stout in their apostasy, and hardened in sin. II. Our next consideration is the " Sin against the Holy Ghost." The statements of Scripture already considered have, as we have seen, been supposed by some to show that the sin against the Holy Ghost must be falling grievously after baptism. For, as it has been supposed that these statements make deadly sin after baptism the unpardonable sin, and our Lord makes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be unpardonable, and both our Lord and St. John (1 John v. 16) seem to speak as if there were but one unpardon- able sin, therefore deadly sin after baptism and the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost must be identical. The foregoing argu- ments seem sufficiently to have shown that this hypothesis is untrue. If we examine the circumstances under which our Lord uttered His solemn warnings concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, we may probably the better understand the nature of that sin. He had been casting out a devil, thereby giving signal proof of His Godhead. But the Pharisees, instead of believing and ac- knowledging His heavenly mission, ascribed His power to Satan and Beelzebub (Matt. xii. 24). Those who thus resisted such evidence were plainly obstinate and hardened unbelievers, such as, we may well believe, were given over to a reprobate mind, and such as no evidence of the truth could move to faith and penitence. Accordingly, many believe that by thus rejecting the faith, and as- cribing the works of our Lord's Divinity to the power of evil spirits, they had committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. 1 Jeremy Taylor, On Repentance, ch. ix. sect. 2. 392 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI. That they were very near committing that sin there can be little doubt. They had stepped upon the confines, they had uttered dar- ing and desperate blasphemy. They had reviled the holy Son of God. They had called His works of love and goodness the works of the devil, thereby confounding light with darkness. But still our Lord consents to reason with them. He still puts forth para- bles, by which to convince them that they were in error (Matt, xii. 23-30). And He would scarce do this, if there were no hope that they might repent, no possibility that they might be forgiven. And then He warns them. Warning and reasoning are for those who may yet take warning and conviction, not for those to whom they would be useless. And of what nature is His warning ? They had just blasphemed Him, disbelieved His mission, disregarded His miracles. Yet He tells them in gracious goodness, that all manner of sin and blasphemy which men commit shall be forgiven them, that even blasphemy against Himself, the Son of Man, shall be forgiven ; but then He adds, that, if they went farther still, and committed the same sin moreover against the Spirit of God, it should never be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come (vv. 31, 32). Now Christ was then present with them as the Son of Man. The glory of His Godhead was veiled under the likeness of sinful flesh. Those were " the days of the Son of Man ; " and " the Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." There is no doubt, that it must have been deadly wickedness which led men to doubt the truth of His doctrine when taught with such power from His sacred lips, and proved so mightily by the works which He wrought. But the full power of the Gospel had not been put forth ; especially the Spirit had not been poured on the Church, — a blessing so great, that it made it expedient for His disciples that even Jesus should go away from them in order that He might give it to them (John xvi. 7). But when the Spirit was poured forth, then all the means of grace were used ; Jesus work- ing without, and the Spirit pleading within. And in those whe received the word and were baptized, the Spirit took up His dwell- ing, and moved and ruled in their hearts. This then was a state of greater grace, and a more convincing st.ue of evidence to the world and to the Church, than even the bodily presence of the Saviour as the Son of Man. Accordingly, resistance to the means of grace, after the gift of the Spirit, was worse than resistance during the bodily presence of Christ. Resisting the former, re- Sec. IL] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 393 fusing to be converted by it, rejecting its evidence, and obstinate impenitence under its influence, was blasphemy against the Son of Man. Still even this could be forgiven ; for farther and yet greater means of grace were to be tried, even on those who had rejected Christ. " The Gospel was to be preached unto them, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven " (1 Pet. i. 12). But this mission of the Comforter was the last and highest means ever to be tried, the last and greatest dispensation of the grace of God. Those, therefore, who after this still remained obstinate, still rejected Christ in His kingdom, as they had rejected Him in His humility, still re- fused to be converted, ascribed the gifts of His Apostles and the graces of His Church, not to the Spirit of God, but to the spirit of evil, such men blasphemed not only the Son of Man — the Word of God when veiled in human flesh — but they rejected and blas- phemed the Spirit of God, and so had never forgiveness. This seems the true explanation of the sin against the Holy Ghost, namely, obstinate, resolute, and wilful impenitence, after all the means of grace and with all the strivings of the Spirit, under the Christian dispensation as distinguished from the Jewish, and amid all the blessings and privileges of the Church of Christ. And this view of the subject does not materially differ from the statement of St. Athanasius, namely, that blasphemy against Christ, when His manhood only was visible, was blasphemy against the Son of Man ; but that, when His Godhead was manifested, it became blasphemy against the Holy Ghost : nor from that of St. Augustine, that the sin against the Spirit of God is a final and obdurate continuance in wickedness, despite of the calls of God to repentance, joined with a desperation of the mercy of God. 1 III. The last subject to which we come is the question of Final Perseverance, or the Indefectibility of Grace. The Article says, " 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." The arguments which have been already gone into, concerning the grant of repent- ance and pardon to those who sin after baptism and the grace of God, sufficiently prove the latter clause of the above statement. Indeed the former clause may be considered as proved also ; for if there is a large provision in the Gospel and the Church for for- giveness of sins and reconciliation of those who, having received the Spirit, have fallen away, then must it be possible, that, " after 1 See the statement of their opinions in Sect. i. 50 394 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVL we have received the Holy Ghost, we may yet depart from grace and fall into sin." Jovinian indeed held that every truly baptized person could sin no more. But such an error has been very un- common in the Church, so uncommon that it is scarcely needful to prove that a person may have received grace and yet be tempted and fall into sin ; as David so grievously fell in the matter of Uriah, or as St. Peter, when he denied his Lord. . But the question, whether a person who has once received grace can ever fall finally and irrecoverably, has been much agitated since the days of Zuingle and Calvin ; and though possibly not expressly determined by the wording of this Article, it yet properly comes to be considered here. The doctrine of the Zuinglians and high Calvinists has been, that if a man has once been regenerate and endued with the Holy Ghost, he may fall into sin for a time, but will surely be restored again, and can never finally be lost. We have seen, on the con- trary, that St. Augustine and the more ancient predestinarians held that grace might have been given, but yet, if a person was not predestinated to perseverance, he might fall away. We have seen that the Lutherans held that grace given might yet be lost utterly. We have seen that the reformers of the Church of England, whether following St. Augustine in his views of predesti- nation or not, appear clearly to have agreed with him, and with Luther and the Lutherans, in holding that grace might be lost, not only for the time, but finally. 1. The passages of Scripture most in favour of the doctrine that those who have once been regenerate can never finally fall from grace, are such as follow. Matt. xxiv. 24, which must be set aside, if rightly translated. 1 Luke xxii. 32, which shows that our Lord prays for His servants. John vi. 39 ; John x. 27, 28 ; but these last must be compared with John xvii. 12, which shows, that though the true sheep of Christ never perish, yet some may, like Judas, be given Him for a time, and yet finally be sons of perdition. Rom. viii. 38, 39, xi. 29, show that God is faithful and will never repent of His mercy to us, and that, if we do not wilfully leave Him, no created power shall be able to pluck us out of His hand. They prove no more than this. Stronger by far are such passages as 1 Cor. i. 8, 9 ; Phil. i. 6 ; 1 Tho English version translates el Calvinistic theory is in the words it were, Svvarbv " if it were possible." The whole which are not in the Greek. Render it strength of the passage as favouring the " if possible," and the argument is gone. Sec. II] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 395 2 Thess. iii. 3. Yet they are addressed to whole Churches, all the members of which are not certainly preserved blameless to the end. The confidence expressed concerning the Philippians (Phil, i. 6) cannot have meant that it was impossible for any of them to be lost ; for St. Paul afterwards exhorts them to " work out their salvation with fear and trembling" (ii. 12), and to "stand fast in the Lord" (iv. 1). So that we must necessarily understand the Apostle's confident hope to result from a consideration of the known goodness and grace of God, and also of the Philippians' own past progress in holiness. " He conjectured," as Theophylact says, " from what was past, what they would be for the future." l The passages which speak of Christians as sealed, and having the " earnest of the Spirit," (see 2 Cor. i. 21, 22 ; Ephes. i. 13 ; iv. 30,) are thought to teach the indefectibility of grace ; because what is sealed is kept and preserved. But sealing probably only signifies the ratifying of a covenant, which is done in baptism. And though the giving of the Spirit is indeed the earnest of a future inheritance, it does not follow that no unfaithfulness in the Christian may deprive him of the blessing, of which God has given him the earnest and pledge, because a covenant always implies two parties, and if either breaks it, the other is free. So again Jas. i. 17 tells us of the unchangeableness of God, and 2 Tim. ii. 19 shows that He " knoweth them that are His." But neither proves that we may not change, nor that all who are now God's people will continue so to the end, though he knoweth who will and who will not. The expression " full assurance of hope " (Heb. vi. 11) has been thought to prove that we may be always certain of continuance, if we have once known the grace of God. But the Apostle does not ground the " assurance of hope " on such a doctrine. His words are : " We desire that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope to the end ; that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." This shows, that our assured hope will spring from a close walk with God, and that slothfulness, or a lack of diligence, is likely to impair our hope and disturb our assurance. The more diligent we are, the more hope we shall have ; our hope not being grounded on the indefectibility of grace, but on the evidences of our faith given by a consistent growth in grace. 1 and tuv trapeMevTuv Kal nepl t£/v (ie226vruv OTOxa£6/m>og. — Theophyl. in loc. quoted by Whitby, whom see. 396 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Abt. XVL Again, 1 Pet. i. 4, 5, speaks of an inheritance " reserved in heaven for those who are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation." The word " kept " is in the Greek foovpov/jievovi, i. e. " guarded as in a garrison." The figure represents believers as attacked by evil spirits and wicked men, but defended by the power of God, through the influence of their faith. It ,does not show that all believers are kept from falling away ; but that they are guarded by God through the instrumentality of their faith. " If" then " they continue in the faith " (Col. i. 23), " if they hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end " (Heb. iii. 14), then will " their faith be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one " (Eph. vi. 16), and will " overcome the world " (1 John v. 4). But, as it is expressly said that it is " through faith " that they are " kept " or " guarded," we cannot infer that their faith itself is so guarded that it can by no possibility fail. 1 But the strongest passage on this side of the question is 1 John iii. 9 : " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." From this Jovinian inferred that a regenerate man could never sin again ; but the Zuinglian and Calvinist infer, that the re- generate man having the seed of life in him, may indeed fall into sin, but is sure to recover himself again, and to be saved at the last. If the text proves anything about indefectibility of grace, it plainly proves Jovinian's rather than Calvin's position ; namely, that the regenerate man never falls into sin at all, not merely that he does not fall finally. The truth is, the Apostle is simply contrasting the state of the regenerate with that of the unregenerate, and tells us, that sin is the mark of the latter, holiness of the former. " He that doeth righteousness is righteous ... he that committeth sin is of the devil " (vv. 7, 8). Here is the antithesis. It is like the statement, " A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit " (Matt. vii. 18). This does not mean, that a good tree can never cease to be good, and so cease to bear good fruit. 3 So it is with that of St. Paul, " The carnal mind cannot be subject to the law of God " (Rom. viii. 7). But it is not meant, that a man of carnal mind may not be converted, and then love holiness and God's law. So Ignatius writes, " Spiritual men can- 1 See Whitby and Macknight on 1 Pet. — Hieron. In Matt. vii. 18, Tom. it. pt. i. 4, 5. ii. p. 26, cited by Dr. Hammond on 9 " Bona arbor non fert malos fructus, 1 John iii. 9. Quatudiu in bonitatis studio perseverat." Sec. II.] OF SLN AFTER BAPTISM. 397 not do the things of the flesh ; " J that is, obviously, so long as they continue spiritual. Just so St. John. He points out the difference between the righteous and the wicked ; namely, that the former do righteous- ness, the latter commit sin. Then he says, " Every one that is born of God 2 cannot sin, because of the seed of God which is in him." He is righteous, and therefore doeth righteousness ; he is a good tree, and therefore cannot bring forth bad fruit ; he is spiritual, and therefore cannot do carnal things. But this does not prove that he may not fall from grace, and so lose his title to be a son of God, and also that seed of God in his heart which keeps him from sin. " The regenerate man," says Jerome, " cannot sin so long as he continues in the generation of God .... but, if we admit sin, and the devil enters into the door of our hearts, Christ goes away." 3 2. So much of the arguments from Scripture by which the doc- trine that grace in the regenerate can never fail has been main- tained. Against this doctrine many passages of Scripture are alleged. (1) There are frequent statements of the condemnation and rejection of such as, having been in a state of grace, fall away from it, and which it is hard to believe are only meant to frighten us away from an impossible danger. Such are Ezek. xviii. 24 ; xxxiii. 18. Matt. v. 13. Matt. xxiv. 46-51, comp. Luke xxi. 34-36. Heb. x. 26-29, 38. 2 Pet. ii. 20-22. (2) There are declarations, that those only " who endure to the end " shall be saved, those " who keep their garments " shall be blessed; that "if we continue in the faith grounded and nettled, and be not moved away" we shall be presented holy in the sight of God. Matt. x. 22. Col. i. 22, 23. Heb. iii. 6. Rev. xvi. 15. Thus final salvation is promised not merely to present, but to continuing and persevering faith. 1 Ignat. Ad Eph. c. viii. filioli mei ; omnis, qui natus est ex Deo, 2 n&i 6 ycryewTifievog. Rosenmiiller says non peccat, ut non peccetis ; et tamdiu that it is the same as yevvriTog -fi\)S sc i at i 8 vos m generatione Domini per- T , . , v . 1rt A \ manere quamdiu non peccaveritis. Iramo, Job xiv. 1, or rsKvbv, as inverlO. And m fa 1 eneratione ft omini pe rseverant Dr Hammond observes that the perfect J eccare s non pos8unt . Q aiB enim com- participle indicates that we must not £ unicatio luc f et tenebris , Christo et refer the words "born of God to the Belial? gi SU8ceperimus Christum moment or instant of regeneration but fa h mo nostri pectoris, illico fugamus to the continuing state of regeneration. Diabomm . Si pe£caverimus, et per pec- It indicates not a transit, but a per- cati januam in ^ re88U8 fuerit D [ a J U8i manent condition, protinus Christusrecedit."-Hieron.^rf l ;. t I He Kvpioc %afi(3u- vet kavru kdvos kic [team k&vuv, uonep Xafi- liuvei dvi9pw7rof rfjv urrapxT/v avrov rift uku ' ical il-eXevoETai in tov bdvovc kiceivov uyta tiyiuv. — 1 Kp. ad Corinth. 29. - kv ayuiry kretetodnoav iruvref ol kkkEKrol rov Oeov. — Ibid. 49. * 'O navrenorrrrig Gedf ical AeanoTtic t£>v m>ev(iuTuv /cat Kvptoc iraotic oapubq, 6 kicke- jufisvoQ tov Kvpiov 'Itjoovv Xpiorov, koI ^udf 6i' avrov eIq Tuidv neptovawv, 6yn, k. t. A. — Ibid. 68. 4 'Iyrdrtof, 6 koI Qeotpopog, rj? EvTutyripkvy kv (ieyk&eL Oeov Harpbc; irTinpupan, ttj npu- opiaftivn npd aluvuv 6ia iravrbf e/f 66£av, rcapufwvov, urpEirrov, ijvu(dvr)v /cat kicXeXcy- uevijv, kv iru&Ei ukndivy, kv dcM/fian tov [larpbc ml 'lijoov Xptorov rov Qeoi ijfiuv, rij kKuXvaia ttj ufioaa/cap/aT^ ry ovoy kv 'EQkoifi r^f 'Afft'af, k. t. A. — Ignat. Ad Ephes. 1. • 'lyv&Tiof, 6 koI Qeapopof, fiyairnfuvy Qeu Uarpl 'Ivaov Xpiorov ktacfojoig iiyig, tq ovcry kv TpiMeaiv r^g 'Aaiac, knXeirr^ ical u|toi?£V — Ignat. Ad Trull. 1. w " Ecce Deus virtutum qui .... virtu- te sua potenti condidit ecclesiam suam quam benedixit: ecce transferet coclos ac montes, colles ac maria, et omnia plana (al. plena), flent electis ejus ; ut reddat illis repromissionetu quam repromisit," &c. — Lib. i. Pa. i. 3. 7 " Potes litec electis Dei reiuinciare ? " — Lib. i. 8 " Vade ergo et enarra electis Dei magnalia ipshis. Et dices illis quod bestia hsec figura est pressure superven- tune. Si ergo praeparaveritis tos, poter- itis etTugere illam, si cor venturum fuerit purum et sine macula Vte dubiis iis, qui audierint verba hsec et contemp- sciint; melius erat illis non nasci." — Lib. i. Vis. iv. 2. 9 '* Apostoli et episcopi et doctores et ministri, qui ingressi sunt in dementia Dei, et episcopatum gesserunt, et docu- erunt, et ministraverunt sancte et mo deste electis Dei qui dormiverunt quique adhuc sunt." — Lib. i. Pi*. III. 6. Sec. L] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 405 Here we have the elect spoken of as identical with the Church. We even find language which seems to prove that Hernias consid- ered the elect as in a state of probation in this world which might end either in their salvation or in their condemnation. " Then shall their sins be forgiven which they have committed, and the sins of all the saints, who have sinned even to this day, if they shall re- pent with all their hearts, and put away all doubts out of their hearts. For the Lord hath sworn by His glory concerning His elect, having determined this very time, even now, if any one shall sin, he shall not have salvation. " J On the other hand, in one pas- sage he seems to speak of a mansion of glory for the elect in the world to come : " The white colour represents the age to come, in which shall dwell God's elect ; since the elect shall be pure and spotless unto eternal life." 2 These are the principal passages in the Apostolical Fathers con- cerning election and predestination. It would be a great point gained, if we could clearly ascertain their sentiments on this subject. They lived before philosophy had produced an effect on the lan- guage of theology. Now there is no question on which philosophy is likely to have produced greater effect than on the question con- cerning God's eternal decrees. When, therefore, we come to the writings of such men as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Ori- gen, we naturally doubt, whether they speak the language of the Church in their days, or the language of their own thoughts and speculations. In the passages above cited, there is no marked trace of any of the three schemes which have been designated respectively as Cal- vinism, Arminianism, or Nationalism. One passage from Clement may seem to speak the language of Nationalism ; but it is only in appearance. That ancient father applies the term " nation " to the Christian Church ; but it is plain that he merely means, that, as the Israelites of old were chosen to be God's peculiar people, so now His Church is, as it were, a nation chosen out of the nations. He speaks indeed of " the number of God's elect being saved," as though there were a definite number of God's elect, who should be saved in the end ; language which, we shall see, is used also by i " Tunc remittentur illis peccata, quae peccaverit aliquis, non habiturum ilium jampridem peccaverunt, et omnibus salutem." — Lib. i. Vis. II, 2. Compare Sanctis qui peccaverunt usque in hodier- with this the passage cited in note 8 of num diem, et si toto corde suo egerint last page. poenitentiam, et abstulerint a cordibus 2 "Alba autem pars superventuri est Buis dubitationes. Juravit enim Domina- saeculi in quo habitabunt electi Dei, quo- tor ille, per gloriam suam, super electos niam immaculati et puri erunt electi Dei suos, praefinita ista die, etiam nunc si in vitam aeternam." — Lib. I. Vis. ir. 8. 406 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVTt Justin and Irenaeus. Whether this was intended in the sense which would be affixed to it by Augustine or Calvin, must be a question. We may almost certainly say, it was not so used by Justin Martyr. There is also one passage, the last quoted from Hermas, in which the term elect seems used of those who are chosen to life eternal. All the other passages from the apostolical fathers identify the whole Church of God with the election, and therefore the elect with the baptized. It is most undesirable to put any force on language of such importance as the language of writers in the apostolic age. But on a fair review of the whole, it can hardly appear that these fathers speak of election in any sense but one of the two following: either (1) as an election of individ- uals to the Church and to baptism, or (2) possibly as an election first to baptism, and then a further election out of the baptized to glory. On the first sense, the passages seem clear and decided ; on the second, it seems but reasonable to admit that there is great doubt. In the history of the doctrine of free will, 1 we saw that Justin Martyr ascribed free agency to all human beings, and argued that God does not cause actions, because He foresees them. 2 On the contrary, he defends Christians against the charge that they be- lieved in a fatal necessity. Our belief in the predictions of the prophet does not oblige us to believe that things take place accord- ing to fate. " This only," he says, " we hold to be fated, that they who choose what is good shall obtain a reward ; that they who choose what is evil shall be punished." 8 So again soon after, he says that " we assert future events to have been foretold by the prophets, not because we say that they should so happen by fatal necessity, but because God foreknew the future actions of all men." 4 And presently again he speaks of God deferring the punishment of the wicked, till the " foreknown number of the good and virtu- ous should be fulfilled." 6 Accordingly Bishop Kaye has concluded that, if Justin Martyr speaks anywhere of predestination to l\fe eter- nal, it is in the Arminian sense, or, as it has been called, exprce- visn meritis.* But when Justin Martyr especially speaks of God's election, he appears clearly to intend by it an election of individ- uals out of the world, and the bringing them by His calling to be 1 Art. x. Sect. i. p. 261. * Apol. i. p. 82 a. 2 Dial. p. 290. * kcu awreMO&y o opi^yiK rwv rpoeyvu- 8 <1AA' slfiapfuvijv (pa/iiv uirapafiarov rav- oftevuv airu uya$ ytyvo/ifvuv koI tvape mv clvai, ToTf tu koXu ixXeyofievotc, to a(ia tuv, k. r. X. — Apol. i. p. 82 d. Incri/ua ■ aal role 6/wiuc t<1 kvavria, ra u\ut ° Bp. Kaye's Justin 3/iortyr, p. 82. brixt'^a. — Apol. i. p. 81. Sec. I] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 407 of His peculiar people the Church. Thus, he is speaking of the Christian Church in antithesis to the Jewish, and he says, " We are by no means a despicable people, nor a barbarous nation, like the Phrygians and the Carians ; but God hath elected us, and has manifested Himself to those who asked not for Him. Behold I am God, saith He, to a nation that called not on my Name." Then, speaking of the calling of Abraham by the grace of Christ, he con- tinues, " By the same voice He hath called us all, and we have come out of the polity in which we lived, living evilly, after the manner of the other inhabitants of the world," ' &c. It is probable therefore that, to whatever cause Justin Martyr may have assigned the final salvation of Christians, their election he considered to be a calling in from the people of the world to be members of the Church of Christ ; as Abraham was called from among the Gentiles to be the founder of the chosen race. Irenaeus, like Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr, speaks of a definite number of persons w r ho shall be saved, and holds the opin- ion that the world shall last till this number is perfected. Yet he does not hint that any particular individuals were predestinated, of which that number should consist. 2 As regards predestination to eternal death, he clearly speaks of that as the result of God's foreknowledge of the wickedness of those whom He condemns, and says that the reason why God gave Pharaoh up to his unbelief was that He knew he never would believe. 3 He asserts too, that God puts no constraint on any one to believe ; but that, foreknow- ing all things, He has prepared for all fitting habitations. 4 Thus he was evidently no believer in the doctrine since called reproba- tion, nor in irresistible grace, or effectual calling. But it is probable that the meaning which he attached to the 1 Ovkovv ovk evKaracjipovTiTog drjfiog iafiiv, faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in ow5e (3ap(3apov (t>v7t.ov, ovde bnola Kapuv f) tenebris, quas ipsi sibi elegerunt ; quid uvT/<; iyevr/'dTj rolg (a/ enepuTuoiv Pharaonem, cum his qui cum eo erant, avrbv. 'Wov Qeog elfxi, cptjal tu edvei ol ovk tradidit eos suae infidelitati," &c — Lib. eiztKa?JaavTO rb ovofiu fiov .... Kal rjfmg iv. 48. <5e uTtavrag di' eneivT/g rfjg evTeg elg ijuTjv uvaarrjaovrai .... Iva rb subjiciet sibi quemquam : neque Deus av/ifierpov v?j>v rf/g npoopiaeug uirb Qcov coget eum, qui nolit continere ejus artem. avdpjn6rr)Tog anoTe'XEadsv rr)v ap/ioviav Qui igitur abstiterunt a paterno lumine TTiprjo-i) tov Uarpbg. — Adv. Hcer. II. 72. et transgressi sunt legem libertatis, per 8 " Deus his quidem qui non credunt, suam abstiterunt culpam, liberi arbitrii sed nullificant eum, infer t csecitatem. . . . et suae potestatis facti. Deus autem Si igitur et nunc, quotquot scit non credi- omnia praesciens, utrisque aptas prsepa- turos Deus, cum sit omnium praecognitor ravit habitationes," &c. — Lib. iv. 76 ; tradidit eos infidelitati eorum, et avertit Conf. Lib. v. 27, 28. 408 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVII. Scriptural term election was, that God chose and elected certain persons to baptism and to be members of His Church. In speak- ing of Esau and Jacob, as types of the Jewish and the Christian Church, he explains St. Paul's language, in the ninth of Romans, as meaning that God, who knoweth all things, was foretelling the rejection of the Jews, and the election of the Gentile Church. 1 Explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, he says that God first planted the vineyard of the human race by the creation of Adam and the election of the fathers ; then let it out to husbandmen, the Jews, surrounding it with a hedge, built a tower, and elected Jerusalem. But when they did not believe, He sent His Son, whom they slew. Then the tower of election being exalted and beautified, the vineyard, no longer walled round, but laid open to the world, is let to other husbandmen, who will bring forth the fruits. For the Church is everywhere illustrious ; every- where the wine-press is dug round, because those who receive the Spirit are everywhere. And soon after, he says that the same Word of God who formerly elected the patriarchs has now elected us. 2 Thus it appears that Irenseus looked on the Jews as formerly, and on the Christian Church as now, the elect people of God ; and so he calls " the Church the synagogue or congregation of God, which He hath collected by Himself." 8 Tertullian says little or nothing to guide us to his view of the doctrine of election, except that, in arguing against certain heretics, he maintains that it is unlawful so to ascribe all things to the will of God as to take away our own responsibility and freedom of action. 4 1 " In ea enim epistola quse est ad dationem quae est per Moysem ; sepem Romanos, ait Apostolus: Sedet Rebecca ex autem circumdedit, id est, circumtermi- uno concubitu habrns Isaac jxitris nostri; a navit eorum culturam ; et turrim sedifi- Verbo responsum accepit, ut secundum dec- cavit, Hierusalem elegit .... Non cre- tioiiem p/opositum Dei permaneat, non ex dentibus autem illis, &e tradidit operibiis, sed ex vocante, dictum est ei : Duo earn Dominus Deus non jam circumval- pupuli in ulero luo, el dua gentes in ventre, latum, sed expansam in universum mun- tuo, et populus populum superabit, et major dum aljis colonis, reddentibus fructus terciet minori. Kx quibus manifestum est temporibus suis, turre electionis exaltata non solum propbetationes patriarchanun, ubique et speciosa. Ubique enim prae- sed et partum Rebecca? prophetiam fuisse claraest ecclesia, et ubique circumfossum duorum populorum : et unum quidem torcular: ubique enim sunt qui suseipi- osse majorem, alterum vero minorem ; unt Spiritum .... Sed quoniam et pa- et alterum quidem sub servitio, alterum triarchas qui elegit et nos, idem est Ver- autein libcrum ; unius autem et ejusdem bum Dei," &c. — Lib. it. 70. patris. Unus et idem Deus noster et ■ " Deus sutil in synagoga, &c. De Pa- illorum ; qui est abseonsorum cognitor, tre et Filio et de bis qui adoptionem qui scit omnia antequam flant; et prop- perceperunt, dicit : hi autem sunt eccle- ter hoc dixit; Jacob dilexi, Esau autem sia. Ha?c enim est synagoga Dei, quam odio habui." — Lib. IV. 38. Deus, hoc est, Fdius ipse, per semetip- - " Plantavit enim Deus vineam hu- sum collegit." — Lib. in. 0. muni generis, primo quidem per plas- * " Non est bonte et solidse fldci, sic mationcm Ada.", et electionem patrum : omnia ad voluntatem Dei referre : et ita tradidit autem earn colonis per earn legis adulari unumquemque, dicendo nihil fieri Sec. I.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 409 Clement of Alexandria appears to have used the same language as his predecessors, concerning the Church as the election, and all Christians as the elect of God. He especially defines the Church as the general assembly of the elect. 1 So he quotes Hermas as saying, that the Church is held together by that faith by which God's elect are saved. 2 The Church, according to Clement, is the body of Christ, a holy and spiritual company ; but they who be- long to it, but live not uprightly, are, as it were, but the flesh of the body. 3 He holds the Church to be one, into which are col- lected all those who are righteous according to the purpose (/cai-a ■jrpoQzcTLv) ; and continues, that the Church is one, which collects together by the will of God those already ordained, whom God hath predestinated. 4 But then when we come to the ground or cause of God's elec- tion, we find that Clement seems to speak of it as being God's foreknowledge. Thus, in the last passage referred to, he says, the Church embraces " all whom God hath predestinated, having fore- known that they would be righteous before the foundation of the world." 5 So he speaks of each person as partaker of the benefit, according to his own will ; for the choice and exercise of the soul constitutes the difference of the election. 6 Accordingly, Bishop Kaye thinks, " it is evident that Clement must have held the doc- trine of predestination in the Arininian sense ; " 7 and Mr. Faber says, that " this prescientific solution is for the first time enounced by the speculative Clement of Alexandria." 8 Whether Justin and Irenaeus had in any degree enounced the same before, may be a fair question. The causation of sin they clearly refused to attribute to God, declaring that, where He is said to have hardened, it was because He foresaw the sinner was irre- claimable. And though Clement of Alexandria speaks more clearly than either of them, concerning God's foreknowledge as the sine jussione Ejus : ut non intelligamus oi Kara Trpo-deoiv d'ucaioi kyuaTateyovrcu . . . illiquid esse in nobis ipsis. Caeterum fiovtjv dvai ufiev ttjv upxaiav /cat Ka&o/UK^i/ exeusabitur omne delictum, si continued- enttXrjoiav . . . . <5t' kvoq rov Kvpiov avva- mus nihil fieri a nobis sine Dei volun- yovaav rove fjdri KarareTayfiivovc, ovc npou- tate." — De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 2. piaev 6 Qeoc . — Strom, vn. p. 899. See Bishop Kaye's view of Tertullian's 6 ovc Tzpoupioev 6 Qedc, duiaiovc iaofievovc opinion on this subject in his account of npb KaTa^oXrjc noo/iov kyvunwc. — Ibid. Tertullian, p. 341. B //eraAa/z/Sovei de i% evnodac frcaarof 1 rd adpoiap.a juv cKkenTGyv iKKTajaiav ijfiuv npdc b [iovXerai ' fast rf/v dutopav •caM). — Stromal, vn. p 846, Potter. rrjg EKkoyr/c agio. yevo^tevr) ipvxyc alpeaic re 2 'H to'lvvv Gvvexovoa ttjv eKKlrjoiav, ug Kal ovvaoKtioic Tveiro'tTjKev. — Strom, v. sub ihTjolv 6 not/j7jv, apsTT/ 7] nionr earl, 6i' rjc fine, p. 734. ouCpvTai ol e/cAf/cTot rov Qeov. — Stromat. 7 Bp. Kaye, Clement. Alex. p. 434. Lib. ii. p. 458, Potter. 8 Faber, Primitive Doctrine of Election, 3 See Stromat. Lib. vn. p. 885. p. 269. 4 uiav elvai Hyv aTiTjdij EKKXtjaiav, elg fyv 52 410 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVIL ground of His predestination, yet he does not differ from them in the view that the Church of God is composed of the elect peo- ple of God. Some divines of the Roman Communion 1 have endeavoured to discover the doctrines of St. Augustine in the writings of Clement ; but it is only because he ascribes the beginning, the continuance, and the perfection of religion in the soul, to the grace of God, that they have thence inferred that, as it is all of grace, so it must all be of absolute predestination. Yet every one, but slightly ac- quainted with the predestinarian controversy, must know, that the chief disputants on every side of this troublesome argument have all alike agreed in ascribing the whole work of religion in the soul to God's grace and the operations of His Spirit ; the question hav- ing only been, Is that grace irresistible or not ? Is the freedom of the will utterly extinguished by it, or not? The passage espe- cially referred to by Bossuet, in proof of the Austinism (so to speak) of Clement, is the prayer with which he concludes his Pcedagogue, and which is simply, — that God would grant us, that following His commandments we may become fully like Him, and that He would grant, that all passing their lives in peace, and being trans- lated into His kingdom or polity, having sailed over the waves of sin, may be borne through still waters by His Holy Spirit, and may praise God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; day and night unto the perfect day. And to this prayer he adds, that " Since the Pcedagogue (i. e. the Word of God) has brought us into His Church, and joined us to Himself, it will be well for us being there to offer up thanksgiving to the Lord, in return for His gracious guidance and instruction. 2 This passage, however, rather corre- sponds with what we have seen to be the general doctrine of Clem- ent, as probably of his predecessors, namely, that God's election brought men to baptism and to His Church, and that His grace, given to them there, enabled them, if not determined to quench the Spirit, to go on shining more and more unto the perfect day. From this time forth, although the belief in God's election of individuals into His Church, and a frequent identification of the Church with the elect, is observable in all the patristic writers of eminence ; yet when the question concerning the final salvation of 1 Bosouet, Defense de la Tradition et des iKKXt/oiav tipac Karatrn/aac 6 Tlaifayuydc Saints Peres, Tom. n. Liv. xil. chap. 26 ; airbc tavru napaxaTtdeTo r€> diAaoKOMxtj Lumper, Historia Theoloyico-Critica,Tom. koi naventOKomft A6y^», naXuf av exot i/fiaf it. p. 286. tvravda yevouivoxic, (lurddv ciixapurriac oUkai- 8 Padaqoy. Lib. in. sub fine, p. 811. oc, KaruXkrjAov uoreiov naifiayuyiac alvc* The concluding words are, hrcl de elc tt/v avanift^at Kvpiy. Sec. L] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 411 individuals was brought into contact with the question of the Divine decrees, that solution of the difficulty, since called Arminian, was generally adopted. Origen, the pupil of Clement of Alexandria, himself the greatest speculator of early times, and the great maintainer of the freedom of the will, adopted it in its fullest and most definite form. He expressly says, that God, who foresees all things, no more causes man's sins, nor forces his obedience, than one who looks at a per- son walking in a slippery place is the cause that he should stum- ble. 1 Such was the progress of opinion among the early Chris- tians, and so general was the spread of the foreknowledge theory in the third and fourth centuries, that our great Bishop Andrewes considered almost all the fathers to have believed in a foreseen faith, M which," he adds, " even Beza confesses ; " 2 and Hooker, himself an illustrious disciple of St. Augustine, says that " all the ancient fathers of the Church of Christ have evermore with uni- form consent agreed that reprobation presupposeth foreseen sin as a most just cause, whereupon it groundeth itself." 3 So much was this the case, that even St. Augustine himself, when first entering upon the question of predestination, taught that it was contingent on God's foreknowledge of the faith or un- belief of individuals. 4 But his farther progress in the Pelagian controversy, where he had to contend against those who grievously abused the doctrine of man's free will, led him to reconsider the questions concerning the grace of God and His predestination and purpose. Indeed he asserts, and that truly, that, before the Pela- gian controversy, he had written concerning free will almost as if he had been disputing against Pelagians. 5 But his statements con- cerning God's foreknowledge, as antecedent to his predestination, he absolutely retracts. 6 Thenceforth his belief appears to have been, 1 "Qonep el tic bpibv nva but uev uuaMav 3 Answer to a letter of certain English npoTrerf] bui bi rt)v npoireTetav avaloyioTU( Protestants. emflaivovTa bbov bliodijpac, nal Karalapoi 4 " Respondemus, praescientia Dei fac- Tienela&ai dTuodr/oavTa, ovxl alrioi tov o7u- turn esse, qua novit etiam de nondum (T&ov eice'ivy yiverai • ovtu vanriiov tov Qebv natis, qualis quisque futurus sit . . . Non TzpoeupanoTa bnoloc earai e/caaroc, nal tu( ergo elegit Deus opera cujusquam in alriac tov toiovtov avrbv eoea&ai nafioppv praescientia, quae ipse daturus, sed fidem nal on auapryaerai -ode ytvuoicei, nal narop- elegit in praescientia : ut quem sibi credi- dwoet riibe- Kal el XPV teyew ov tt/v npb- turum esse prsescivit, ipsum elegerit cui yvuoiv alriav tuv yivouevuv • ov yup kqxi- Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bona ope- ktetoi tov ■KpoEyvuo[dvov auoprnoouEvov b rando etiam vitam aeternam consequere- Qsbc, brav auapruvn • aKku napadoijbTepov tur." — Proposit. Ex. Epist. ad Romano* uev, ulirdec be epovuev, rb kabpevov oXtiov Expositio. Tom. III. pars 2, 916. tov Touivbe eivai ttjv nepl avrov ■Kpbyvuaiv ~° Retractationum, Lib. i. cap. ix. Tom. ov yap, eml eyvuoTai, yiverai., ukW lirel yive- I. p. 15. odai eueTiXev, eyvuarai. — Origen. Philocal. s "Item disputans quid elegerit Deus c. xxiii. in nondum nato .... ad hoc perduxi 2 Andrewes, Judgment of the Lambeth ratiocinationem, ut dicerem, Non ergo Articles. elegit Deus opera cujusquam in prcescientia, 412 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Abt. XVTI that Adam fell freely, 1 that, all mankind being born in sin, God's inscrutable wisdom and mercy, for good reasons, but reasons un- known to us, determined to rescue some from sin and damnation. 2 Accordingly, He prepared His Church, and predestinated some to be brought into the Church by baptism, who thereby became par- takers of regenerating grace. These, and these only, could be saved. 8 Yet there was a further decree, even concerning the re- generate, namely, that some of them should die before committing actual sin, and therefore be saved ; but that, of those who grew up to maturity, some should be led on by the grace of God to final per- severance, and therefore to glory : whereas others, not being gifted according to God's eternal purpose with the grace of perseverance, would not persevere at all ; or if they persevered for a time, would in the end fall away and be lost. 4 It would have been just that all should be damned ; it is therefore of free mercy that some should be saved. 6 God therefore graciously frees some, but leaves others by just judgment to perdition. 6 " Of two infants, both born in sin, why one is taken and the other left ; of two grown persons, why one is called so as to follow the calling, the other, either not called, or not called so as to follow the calling ; these are in the inscrutable decrees of God. And of two godly men, why to one is given the grace of perseverance, but to another it is not given, this is still more in the inscrutable will of God. Of this, however, all the faithful ought to be certain, that one was predestinated, and the other not," &c. 7 The baptized and regenerate may be called of the elect, when they believe and are baptized, and live according to God ; but they are not properly and fully elect, unless it is also ordained that they shall persevere and live holily to the end. 8 These statements of St. Augustine gave considerable uneasiness to many who agreed with him in his general views of doctrine. qua ipse daturusest; sed fidem elegit in prce- • De Dono Perseverantia, § 85 ; Tom. x. scientia, ut qiiem sibi crediturum esse prce- p. 889. scivit, ipsum elegerit cui Spiritum Sanctum 7 De Dono Perseverantia, § 21, Tom. x. daret, ut bona operando etiant vitam aternam p. 831 : " De duobus autem parvulis orig- consequeretur : nondum diligentius quae- inali peccato pariter obstrictis, cur iste siveram, nee adhuc inveneram qualis sit assumatur, ille relinquatur ; et ex duo- eleetio gratiae." — Retract. Lib. i. cap. bus setate jam grandibus, cur iste ita xxm. Tom. i. p. 85. vocetur, ut vocantem sequatur ; ille au- 1 De Corrept. et Grot. 28, Tom. x. p. tern aut non vocetur, aut non ita vocetur 768. inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei. Ex duo- a De Dono Perseverantia, 81, p. 887 ; bus autem piis, cur buic donetur persev- De Corrept. et Gratia, § 16, Tom. x. p. erantia usque in finem, illi non donetur 758. inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei. Illud ■ De Dono Perseverantia, 28, Tom. x. p. tamen fldelibus debet esse ccrtissimum. 882. hunc esse ex prsedestinatis, ilium noc * Ibid. § 1, Tom. x. pp. 821, 822; § 2, esse." p. 828 ; §21, p. 881 ; §§ 82, 88, p. 888. 8 De Correptione et Gratia, § 16, T un. • De Natura et Gratia, cap. v. Tom. X. X. p. 768. p. 129. Sec. I.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 413 The members of the monastery of Adrumetum were especially troubled by these discussions. 1 In consequence, St. Augustine wrote his treatises De Gbratia et Libero Arbitrio, and De Correptione et Gratia. In a short time, the clergy of Marseilles doubting the soundness of St. Augustine's view, Prosper and Hilary 2 wrote letters to him, stating the scruples of the Gallican clergy, thanking him in general for his defence of the truth, but saying that hitherto the Catholic faith had been defended, without recourse to such a theory of predestination. 3 The Gallican clergy state, that their own belief had hitherto been that God's predestination was founded on prevision of faith. 4 Of these Massilians there appear to have been two parties, one infected with Semi-Pelagian errors, the other sound and catholic. 5 Both, however, agreed in being startled and displeased with the doctrines of St. Augustine, and in esteeming them new and un- heard of. Among those who were thus dissatisfied, Prosper men- tions Hilary of Aries, 6 a bishop of the first learning and piety of that age. In answer to these letters Augustine wrote his two treatises, De Prcedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Per sever antiaz. He acknowledges, as in his book of Retractations, that he now saw more clearly than formerly ; 7 yet he says that he had implicitly taught the same doctrines before, but heresies bring out more clearly the truth. 8 He also says, the earlier fathers did not write much on these doctrines, because they had no Pelagius to write against. 9 Still he thinks that he can find support from passages in St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Ambrose. From St. Cyprian he quotes, " We must glory in nothing, as we have nothing of our own." 10 And again he refers to St. Cyprian's in- terpretation of the petition in the Lord's prayer, " Hallowed be thy Name," as meaning, that we pray that His name may be 1 See the correspondence of Augustine Hilar. § 8 ; Aug. Opp. Tom. x. p. 787. with Valentinus. — August. Opp. Tom. See also De Dono Persev. § 52, Tom. x. it. pp. 791-799. p. 850. a Generally supposed to be the Bishop * Ibid. § 4. of Aries, though the Benedictine editor 5 Epist. Prosper. § 3 ; Aug. Op. Tom. gives good reasons for thinking it may x. p. 779 ; De Pradestinat. § 2, p. 791. have been another person of the same e Epist. Prosper. § 9, p. 873. name. * £) e Prcedestin. § 7, Tom. x. p. 793. 3 " Quid opus fuit hujuscemodi dispu- 8 De Dono Persever. § 53, Tom. x. p. tationis incerto tot minus intelligentium 851. corda turbari ? Neque enim minus utili- 9 De Prcedestin. § 27, p. 808. ter sine hac definitione, aiunt, tot annis, 10 "In nullo gloriandum, quando nos- a tot tractatoribus, tot praecedentibus li- trum nihil sit." — Cypr. Ad Quirinum, bris et tuis et aliorum, cum contra alios, Lib. in. Cap. 4 ; August. De Prcedest. § turn maxime contra Pelagianos, Cathol- 7, Tom. x. p. 753 ; De Dono Persever. § 36, icam fidem fuisse defensam." — Epist. p. 841 ; § 48, p. 848. 41-1 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Akt. XVII sanctified in us. And this he further explains to signify that we pray that we, who have been sanctified in baptism, may persevere in that which we have begun. 1 Hence St. Augustine concludes that Cyprian held the doctrine of perseverance in the Augustinian sense of that doctrine. From Gregory Nazianzen he cites an exhortation to confess the doctrine of the Trinity, which concludes with an expression of confident hope, that God, who first gave them to believe, would also give them to confess the faith. 2 From Ambrose he alleges two passages. In one, St. Ambrose simply argues, that, if a man says he followed Christ because it seemed good to himself to do so, he does not deny the will of God, for man's will is prepared by God. 8 The other passage is as fol- lows : " Learn also, that He would not be received by those not converted in simplicity of mind. For if He would, He could from indevout have made them devout. Why they received Him not, the evangelist has himself related, saying, Because His face was as of one going to Jerusalem. For the disciples were desiring to be received into Samaria, but those whom God thinks good He calls, and whom He wills He makes religious." 4 These are the passages alleged by St. Augustine, in proof that more ancient fathers than himself held his view of predestination. With the exception of the last from St. Ambrose, it will appear to most people, that, if St. Augustine had not brought weightier ar- guments from Scripture than he did from the fathers, he would hardly have succeeded in settling his system so firmly in the minds of his followers. The language of the last passage indeed appears, at first sight, strongly to resemble the language of St. Austin. But it is by no means clear that even this passage does not accord with the views of those fathers who held the election of individuals to the Church and to baptismal grace, but believed that any farther predestination was from foreseen faith ; and it is capable of proof, 1 Cyprian, In Dominic. Orat. ; August, liominum. Ut enim Deus honoriflcctur De Dono Persever. § 4, p. 824. a sancto, Dei gratia est." — Ambros. 2 duoei yiip ev ol6a 6 rb npurov 6oi>c, kou Comment, in Lucam a pud Awjust. Ibid. rb ievrepov, nal (wlurra. — Greg. Nazianz. * *' Simul disco, inquit, quid recipi nol- Oratio 44 in Pentecosten. uita non simplici mente conversis. Nam " Gregorium addamus et tertium qui si voluisset, ex indevotis devotos fecisset. et credere in Deum, et quod eredimus, Cur autem non recvporint cum, evange- confiteri, Dei donum esse testatur .... lista ipse commemoravit, dieens, Quia Dabit enim, certus sum ; qui dedit quod pri- fades ejus erat euntis in Jerusalem. Dis- mum est, dabit et quod secundum est : qui cipuli autem recipi intra Samarium dedit credere, dnbit et confiteri." — Aug. gestiebant. Sed Deus quos dignatur vo- De Dono Perserer. 49, p. 849. cat, et quern vult religiosum faciet." — • " Quod cum dicit, non ncgat Deo vi- Ambros. Comment, in Lucam, Lib. vn turn : a Deo enim prseparatur voluntas apud Aw/ustin. Ibid. Sec. I. J OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 415 that such were in fact the views generally held by St. Ambrose. 1 This passage, if fairly interpreted, contains probably no contradic- tion of his other statements. It is, of course, a question of no small interest, whether St. Augustine's elders in the faith held the same doctrine with himself on the predestination of God, or whether he was the first to dis- cover it in Scripture. That so learned a divine could find no stronger passages in any of their writings than those just mentioned, is much like a confession of the difficulty of the proof. His own opinions must have great and deserved weight ; but if they were novel, we can hardly accept them as true. The passages already quoted from the earliest fathers are all we have to guide us in this question ; for it seems now an admitted fact, that from Ori- gen to St. Augustine irrespective individual election to glory was unheard of. Soon after the correspondence with the Massilian Christians, a. d. 430, St. Augustine died, " without any equal," says Hooker, " in the Church of Christ, from that day to this." Prosper fol- lowed in the steps of his great master with constancy and success ; but he exceeded him in the strength of his predestinarian senti- ments : for, whereas Augustine held that the wicked perish from their natural sins, being passed over in God's decree, but not act- ually predestinated to damnation, Prosper seems plainly to have taught the reprobation of the non-elect. 2 He drew up a book of sentences from the writings of St. Augustine ; 3 and with the aid of Celestine and Leo, Bishops of Rome, was successful in oppos- ing the Pelagian heresy. Not long after, we read of a priest named Lucidus, who, taking up Augustine's predestinarianism, carried it into lengths to which Augustine had never gone. Faustus, Bishop of Riez, who him- self was inclined to Semi-Pelagianism, succeeded in inducing him to recant. A synod was assembled at Aries, a. d. 475, where the errors of Lucidus were condemned, and his recantation was re- 1 See this very successfully shown by prasscivit, et prasdestinavit. Non enim Faber, Primitive Doctrine of Election, Bk. ante prsedestinavit quam praesciret, sed i. ch. viii. p. 168, &c. The following quorum merita praescivit, eorum praemia passage shows clearly, that he held the praedestinavit." — De Fide ad Gratianum, views of Clement and Origen concerning Lib. v. cap. 2, sub fine. God's prevision of faith as the ground Mr. Faber has clearly shown that else- of His predestination to glory. In dis- where St. Ambrose maintains the doc- cussing Matt. xx. 23, he writes: "Deni- trine of ecclesiastical election. que ad Patrera referens addidit : Quibus 2 Epist. ad Ruffinum, Cap. xiv. ; Ap- paratum est, ut ostenderet Patrem quo- pend. ad Op. Augustin. Tom. x. p. 168. que non petitionibus deferre solere, sed 3 See Appendix to Vol. x. of St. A* meritis, quia Deus personarum acceptor gustine's Works, p. 223, seq. non est. Unde et Apostolus ait, Quos 416 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVII. ceived. Some of these errors were, that " God's foreknowledge depresses men to hell, — that those who perished could not have been saved, — that a vessel of dishonour could never become a ves- sel of honour, — that Christ did not die for all men, nor wills all men to be saved." * In the year 529 was held the second Council of Orange, at which Caesarius of Aries presided. Its canons and decrees bear the signatures of fourteen bishops, and were approved by Boni- face II., Bishop of Rome. They are chiefly directed against the errors of the Semi-Pelagians. But to the twenty-five canons on this subject there are appended three declarations of doctrine. 1. That by the grace of baptism all baptized persons can, if they will, be saved. 2. That if any hold that God has predestinated any to damnation, they are to be anathematized. 3. That God begins in us all good by His grace, thereby leading men to faith and baptism, and that, after baptism, by the aid of His grace, we can do His will. 2 These propositions of the Council of Orange, coming immediately after canons against Semi-PeJagianism and exaggerated notions of free will, express as nearly as possible a belief in Ecclesiastical Election, (i. e. election to the church and to baptismal privileges,) but reject the peculiar doctrines of St. Austin. Some mention was made of Goteschalc in the history of the Xth Article. 8 He was a Benedictine monk of the convent of Orbais in the diocese of Soissons, about a. d. 840. He was a great admirer of St. Augustine, and revived his views of predestination ; though, like Lucidus, he appears to have gone much beyond his master. If we may believe the account of his doctrines given by Hincmar, he taught that there was a double predestination, of the elect to glory, and of the reprobate to death. God, of His free grace, has unchangeably predestinated the elect to life eternal ; but the reprobate, who will be condemned by their own demerits, He has equally predestinated to eternal death. 4 He taught also, that Christ did not die for those who were predestinated to damnation, but only for those who were predestinated to life. 6 Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, opposed him with great zeal, and summoned a council at Mentz, a. d. 848, which condemned Got- 1 Cone. Tom. iv. p. 1041. See also * Hincmar, De Pradestin. Cap. 5 ; Hooker's Works, edit. Keble, Oxford, Cave, Hist. Lit. Tom. i. p. 628. 1886 ; Vol. n. Appendix, p. 786, notes. 'Hincmar, Ibid. c. 27; Cave, Ibid. 2 Concil. iv. 1666 ; Appendix to Vol. Archbishop Usher wrote a history of tbe x. of St. Augustine's Works, p. 157. controversy concerning Goteschalc. * See above, p. 266. Sec. L] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 417 eschalc's opinions, and then sent him to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, who assembled a synod at Quiercy, which degraded him from the priesthood, obliged him to burn the tract which he had delivered to Rabanus Maurus in justification of his doctrines, and committed him to prison, where he lay for twenty-one years, and then died. 1 The discussions between Thomists and Scotists, among the schoolmen, have also been referred to under Art. X. 2 The former were followers of Thomas Aquinas, who himself followed St. Au- gustine. They appear to have held irrespective predestination to life ; but to have admitted neither reprobation, partial redemption, nor final perseverance, in the sense in which the two former were held by Lucidus and Goteschalc. 3 We saw, under Article X., how strongly Luther, in his earlier writings, spoke of the slavery of the human will, and the necessity under which it was constrained. 4 In the first edition of the Loci Theologici, Melancthon held language of the same kind. But in the second edition these expressions were all withdrawn ; and, as we saw in the last Article, Luther, later in life, condemned what are called Calvinistic views of election. Archbishop Laurence has shown, by abundant and incontrovertible evidence, that after the diet of Augsburg, a. d. 1530, when the famous Lutheran Confession was presented to the Emperor, Luther and Melancthon entirely abandoned the high views of absolute predestination which they had at first adopted. Luther continually exhorted his fol- lowers to abstain from all such speculations, and to believe that be- cause they were baptized Christians, they were God's elect, and to rest in the general promises of God. 5 Luther expressly approved 6 of the later edition of Melancthon's Loci Theologici, put forth a. d. 1535, in which his former views of predestination were retracted. 7 1 See Cave, as above; and Mosheim, de bonis salutaribus." — Aquin. Exposit. Cent. ix. pt ii. ch. III. in Rom. cap. 8 ; Laurence, p. 353. See 2 See above, p. 266. See also Neander, also the passages immediately following, ('. H. vm. p. 171. and the quotations from Aquinas ap. 8 Archbishop Laurence, in the learned Laurence, p. 152; where his view of per- notes to his Bampton Lectures, seems to severance seems exactly the same as contend that none of the schoolmen be- that which we have seen above to have lieved in predestination, in the absolute been St. Augustine's, and irrespective sense in which St. Au- 4 Above, p. 267. gustine held it. But it seems to me that 5 See Laurence, Bampton Lectures, the very passages which he quotes from note 6, to Serm. vn. pp. 355, seq. See Aquinas prove that he did hold Au- especially Lutheri Opera, vi. p. 355; gustine's view of predestination to life, Laurence, pp. 356, 357. though he clearly denied reprobation, 6 Preface to Vol. i. of his Works, and the certainty of individual persever- Wittenb. 1545 ; Laurence, p. 250. ance : e. g. " Deus habet praescientiam " See Laurence, p. 249; Serm. n etiam de peccatis ; sed praedestinatio est note 16. Serm. vn. note 7. 53 418 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVII. He himself speaks of the predestinarian controversies set on foot in his own time, as the work of the devil. 1 Melancthon too, in the strongest terms, condemned what he called the Stoical and Man- ichean rage, and urged all people to fly from such monstrous opinions. 2 The doctrine both of Luther and Melancthon, after their first change of opinion, appears to have been very nearly that which, we have reason to conclude, was the doctrine of the earliest fathers. They clearly taught that Christ died for all men, and that Gorf willed all to be saved. They held, that all persons brought to baptism and to the Church were to be esteemed the elect people of God, having been led to baptism by the gracious purpose of God. They taught too, that God's purposes were to be generally con- sidered, and His promises generally interpreted, i. e. as implying His general designs concerning Christians and the human race, and as concerning classes of persons, according to their respective characters. 3 Zuinglius was an absolute predestinarian, ascribing all things to the purpose and decrees of God ; but he materially differed from the Calvinist divines who followed him, in holding that God's mercies in Christ, though given irrespectively, and from absolute predestination, were bestowed not only on Christians, but on infants who die without actual sin, and on heathens, who " had grace to live a virtuous life, though ignorant of the Redeemer." 4 In the Council of Trent, when the question of predestination was discussed, no fault was found with the Lutheran statements on this head ; but several points were found for discussion in the writings of the Zuinglians. Many of the Trid^ntine divines took views of predestination similar to those of St. Augustine, though 1 Opp. Tom. v. p. 197. See under perire totum genus humanum, semper History of Article xvi. propter Filium per misericordium v<>- a See his language largely quoted, care, trahere et eolligere F.<'!. De Pradest. ; Laurence, p. 867. See 8 Luther's sentiments on universal other passages there to the same effect grace are shown by Archbishop Laurence, See also Faber, Prim. Port, of Elertion, pp. 160, 359. On his and Melancthon's p. 374, note : who brings numerous pas- belief in baptismal election see p. 167 ; sages from Ifetftltetbon to prove that lie e. f. " Quicquid hie factum est, id omne held election to baptismal grace, propter nos factum, qui in ilium credimus, * " Nihil restat, quo minus inter gentes et in nomen ejus baptizati, et ad salutem quoque Deus sihi deligat, qui observent destinati, atque electi sumus." — Luth. et post fata illi jungantur ; libera est Opp. Tom. vn. p. 856; Laurence, p. enim electio ejus." — Zuing. 0/>cr. Tom. 157. it. p. 871 ; Faber, Prim. f)oct. of Election. " De effectu electionis teneamus banc p. 878; Laurence, Serm. v. notes 1, 2, pp. consolationem ; Deum, volentem non 296-802 Sec. I.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 419 these were strongly opposed by the Franciscans. Catarinus pro- pounded an opinion much like that afterwards held by Baxter, that of Christians, some were immutably elected to glory, others were so left that they might or might not be saved. All agreed to con- demn the doctrine commonly called Final Perseverance. 1 Calvin, with the love of system and logical precision which was so characteristic of him, rejected every appearance of compromise, ar.d every attempt to soften down the severity of the high predes- tinarian scheme. Advancing, therefore, far beyond the principles of his great master, St. Augustine, he not only taught that all the elect are saved by immutable decree, but that the reprobate are damned by a like irreversible sentence, a sentence determined con- cerning them before the foundation of the world, and utterly irre- spective of the foreknowledge of God. 2 Nay ! God's foreknowledge of their reprobation and damnation is the result of His having pre- destinated it ; not His predestination the result of His foreknowl- edge. 3 The very fall of Adam was ordained, because God saw good that it should be so ; though, why he saw good, it is not for us to say. But no doubt He so determined, partly because thereby the glory of His Name would be justly set forth. 4 Those who are thus elect to glory, and those only, are called effectually, i. e. irre- sistibly ; whereas the non-elect, or reprobate, have only the exter- nal calls of the word and the Church. 6 Those thus effectually called, are endued with the grace of final perseverance, so that they can never wholly fall away from grace. 6 These views, with little variation, were adopted by the differ- ent bodies of Christians which were reformed on the Calvinistic model. Sufficient account has been given under Article X. of the principal proceedings of the Synod of Dart. The Remonstrants, who agreed with Arminius, and against whom that synod directed its decrees, had adopted that theory concerning God's predestina- tion which had been current among the fathers from Origen to 1 Sarpi, p. 197. hensibili, sed incomprehensibili ipsius 2 " Aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio judicio, vitae aditum praeoludi." — Ibid, aeterna prajordinata." — Instkut. in. xxi. in. xxi. 7. 5. " Quod ergo Scriptura clare ostendit 3 Instkut. in. xxi. 6. dicimus, aeterno et immutabili consilio 4 "Lapsus enim primus homo, quia Deum semel constituisse quos olim semel Dominus ita expedire censuerat : cur assumere vcllet in salutem, quos rursum censuerit, nos latet. Certum tamcn est exitio devovere. Hoc consilium quoad non aliter censuisse, nisi quia videbat electos in gratuita ejus raisericordia fun- nominis sui gloriam inde merito ill at- datum esse asserimus, nullo humanae trari." — Lib. in. xxiii. 8. dignitatis respeetu: quos vero damna- 5 Lib. in. xxiv. 1, seq. tioni addicit, his justo quidem et irrepre- 6 Lib. Hi. xxiv. 6, 7. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVII. Augustine. 1 They taught that God's predestination resulted from His foreknowledge. They ascribed all good in man to the grace of the Spirit of God ; but they held, that God determined to save eternally those who, He foresaw, would persevere in His grace to the end, and that He destined to damnation those who, He knew, would persevere in their unbelief. These views were rejected and condemned by the synod, which distinctly enunciated the five points of Calvinism. 2 The disputes on the same subject, which have prevailed in the Church of Rome since the Council of Trent, were all sufficently alluded to under Article X. 3 The doctrine of our own Reformers on this deep question, and the meaning of the XVIIth Article, have been much debated. The Calvinistic divines of our own communion have unhesitatingly claimed the Article as their own ; although the earnest desire which they showed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to introduce the far more express language of the Lambeth Articles, shows that they were not fully satisfied with the wording of it. On the other hand, the Arminians assert that the seventeenth Article ex- actly expresses their own views. The Arminians agree with the Calvinists in holding that God, by his secret counsel, hath predes- tinated some to life eternal, others to eternal death. They differ from them in that, whereas the Calvinists attribute this predestina- tion to God's sovereign, irrespective, and though doubtless just, yet apparently arbitrary will, the Arminians attribute it to His eternal foreknowledge. Now the Article says nothing concerning the mov- ing cause of predestination ; and therefore speaks as much the lan- guage of Arminius as' of Calvin. The latter clauses of the Article appear specially designed to guard against the dangers of the Cal- vinistic theory, and therefore the former cannot have been intended to propound it. Moreover the sentiments concerning election most prevalent in the Church before the Reformation were that God predestinated to life and death, not according to His absolute will, but according as He foresaw future faith or unbelief; and there being no ground for supposing that the English reformers had been mixed up with any of the predestinarian controversies of Calvin and the Swiss reformers, there is every ground, it is said, for sup- 1 Calvin himself owns that Ambrose, Part u. ch. iv. And for the decree* of Origen, and Jerome, held the Arminian Dordrecht on Predestination, see Syliogt view of election. — Imtitut. in. xxii. 8. Confess, p. 406. a See Mosheim, Cent. xvh. Sect. II. » Above, pp. 269, 270. Ch. II. § 11 ; Heylyn, Histor. Quinquartic. Sec. I.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 421 posing that the Article ought to be taken in the Arminian, not in the Calvinistic sense. In what sense the English reformers really did accept the doc- trine of God's election, and in what sense the XVIIth Article is to be interpreted, is truly a question of considerable difficulty. The language of Cranmer and Ridley, and of our own Liturgy, Articles and Homilies, is remarkably unlike Calvin's concerning effectual calling and final perseverance. 1 It is also clear, that the English Reformers held, and expressed in our formularies, with great clear- ness and certainty, the universality of redemption through Christ. 2 So that, in three out of five points of Calvinism, Particular Redemp- tion, Effectual Calling, and Final Perseverance, the English reform- ers were at variance with Calvin. Still, no doubt, it is possible that they may have been un-Calvinis- tic in all these points, and yet have agreed with St. Augustine on the general notion and causation of God's predestination ; for we have seen that Augustine's views were materially different from Calvin's. It is pretty certain that Calvin's system had not produced much influence, at the time the XVIIth Article was drawn up. It is true, the first edition of his Institutes was written early in his ca- reer ; and that contains strong predestinarian statements. But the great discussion on this head at Geneva, and the publication of his book De Prcedestinatione, did not take place till a. d. 1552, the very year in which the Articles were put forth. It has moreover been clearly shown, that the earlier Articles of the Church of England were drawn up from Lutheran models, agreeing remarkably with the language of Melancthon and the Con- fession of Augsburg. 3 Archbishop Laurence has plainly proved that the greatest intimacy and confidence existed between Cranmer and Melancthon ; that for a series of years during the reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. both the king and the leading re- formers were most desirous of bringing Melancthon to England, and that nothing but the death of Edward VI. prevented the estab- lishment of Melancthon in the chair of divinity at Cambridge, for- merly filled by Erasmus and Bucer. 4 All this must have been 1 Concerning effectual calling see par- — Catechism. " A full, perfect, and suffi- ticularly the original xth Article, quoted cient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction p. 271 ; and the whole History of Article for the sins of the whole world." — Prayer x. On Final Perseverance, see History of Consecration at the Holy Commun- of Art. xvi. ion. 2 " The offering of Christ once made 8 See Laurence's Bampton Lectures, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, passim, and the historical sections to sev- and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole eral of the foregoing Articles. worU." — Art. xxxi. "God the Son, 4 See Laurence, Sermon i. note 8, p. who hath redeemed me and all mankind." 198. 422 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XV H. pending at the very time the XVIIth Article was composed. • Nay ! there is even some reason to think that Cranmer was in- duced to draw up this Article by suggestion of Melancthon, who, when consulted by Cranmer (a. d. 1548) on the compilation of a public confession on this particular question, wrote recommending great caution and moderation, adding that at first the stoical dispu- tations about fate were too horrible among the reformers, and in- jurious to good discipline ; and urging that Cranmer " should think well concerning any such formula of doctrine." 1 From such facts it is inferred that the Lutheran, not the Calvin- ist reformers, had weight, and were consulted on the drawing up of this Article ; and that, as Lutheran models were adopted for the former Articles, so, although there is no Article in the Confession of Augsburg on predestination, yet the views of that doctrine cur- rent among the Lutheran divines were more likely to prevail than those among the Calvinists, who had as yet had no influence in Great Britain. The published writings of Cranmer and Ridley have remarkably little which can lead to an understanding of their own views of God's predestination. We hear that Ridley wrote a " godly and comfortable treatise " on " the matter of God's election ; " but it has never yet come to light. In the letter wherein he speaks of having prepared some notes on the subject, he says, " In these matters I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea, almost none otherwise than the very text doth, as it were, lead me by the hand." 2 Cranmer's writings are, even more than Ridley's, free from state- ments on God's predestination. But Archbishop Laurence has brought several passages from Latimer, Hooper, and other contem- poraneous divines of the Church of England, which show that they held decidedly anti-Calvinistic sentiments, and which prove that even the Calvinism of Bradford was of the most moderate kind. 8 If from the writings of the reformers we pass to the formularies of the Church, the Liturgy, the Catechism, and the Homilies, we shall find that they appear to view the election of God as the choos- ing of persons to baptism, the elect as identical with the baptized, or, what is the same thing, with the Church of Christ throughout 1 " Minis horrid© fuerunt initio Stoic® 2 Letter to Bradford in the Library disputationes apud nostras de Into, et of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, Hid (lisciplina) nocuerunt. Quare te rogo, ut ley's Remains, Parker Society's edition, p. de tali nliqua formula doctrinas cogites." 867. — Melancth. Epist. Lib. m. Epist. 44 ; * See Laurence, Sermon Tin. note 8, Laurence, p. 226. p. 889-894. 8kc I.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 423 the world. Thus, in the Catechism, every baptized child is taught to say, " God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God." In the Baptismal Service we pray that the child " now to be baptized, may receive the fulness of God's grace, and ever remain in the number of His faithful and elect children." In the daily service we pray, " Endue thy ministers with righteousness, and make thy chosen people joyful. O Lord, save thy people, and bless thine inheritance." Where God's inheritance, the Church, is evidently the same as His " chosen " or elect " people," whom we pray that He will bless, save, and make joyful. In the Burial Service, we pray God to " accomplish the number of His elect, and hasten His kingdom, that we, with all those departed," &c. Where the we appears to be connected with God's elect. In the Homily of falling from God all Christians are plainly spoken of as the " chosen " (i. e. elect) " vineyard of God," which yet by falling away may be lost. " If we, which are the chosen vineyard of God, bring not forth good fruits, that is to say, good works .... He will pluck away all defence, and suffer grievous plagues .... to light upon us. Finally, if these serve not, He will let us lie waste, He will give us over . . . . " &c. From all these considerations, it is more probable that an Article drawn up by Cranmer should have expounded the doctrine of ec- clesiastical or baptismal election, than that it should have contained the doctrine of Calvin or Arminius. For both the other documents drawn up by himself, and the writings of his great counsellor, Me- lancthon, exhibit the clearest evidence of their belief in such eccle- siastical election. Add to which, the early fathers, whose writings Cranmer most diligently searched, are very full of the same mode of explaining the truth. The question still remains, after all this historical probability, Will the wording of the Article bear this meaning ? or are we ab- solutely constrained to give another interpretation to it ? Persons but little acquainted with scholastic disputations and with the lan- guage of controversy are apt at first sight to think the XVIIth Ar- ticle obviously Calvinistic, though others, somewhat better read, are aware that it will equally suit the doctrine of Arminius : but both might be inclined to suppose that it could not express the opinions of Melancthon and of the majority of the primitive fathers, and what, we have seen reason to conclude, were Cranmer's own opin- ions. Let us see whether this is the case. In the first place then, the words of the concluding paragraph in the Article have been shown to bear so remarkable a resemblance 424 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVII. to the language of Melanethon (language particularly objected to by Calvin J ), that it could hardly have been accidental. " Further- more," it runs, " we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in holy Scripture ; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly de- clared to us in the word of God." The word generally is in the Latin generaliter, which means not for the most part, but universally or generically, i. e. as concerning classes of persons. Now Melane- thon writes, " And if other things may be nicely disputed concern- ing election, yet it is well for godly men to hold that the promise is general or universal. Nor ought we to judge otherwise concerning the will of God than according to the revealed word) and we ought to know what God hath commanded that we may believe," 2 &c. But in the beginning of the Article we read of " predestination to life," and of God's purpose " to deliver from curse and damna- tion : " expressions which may seem tied to the notion of election embraced by Augustine, Calvin, and Arminius, namely, predesti- nation to life eternal. It is, however, to be noted, that it would quite suit the way of thinking common to those who held ecclesi- astical election, to speak of election to baptism as election to life, and as deliverance from curse and damnation. For the Church of Christ is that body, which, having been purchased by the Blood of Christ, is destined to life eternal, and placed in a position of deliv- erance from the curse of original sin. Baptism is for the remission of sin. All baptized infants have been elected therefore to life, and delivered from curse and damnation. The election to life eter- nal indeed is mediate, through election to the Church, not imme- diate and direct. Every baptized Christian has been chosen out of the world to be placed in the Church, in order that he may be brought by Christ to everlasting salvation, as a vessel made to honour. He may forfeit the blessing afterwards, but it has been freely bestowed on him. All persons endued with such an excellent benefit of God are called according to His purpose by His Spirit. They are freely justified and made Sons of God by adoption (lan- guage specially used in the Catechism of baptized children) ; they be made like the image of the only-begotten, Jesus Christ, for the baptized Christian is said to be regenerate after the likeness of Christ. The next step in his course is to walk in good works ; the last to attain, by God's mercy, to everlasting felicity. 1 See Laurence, p. 180. cart, quam juxia Vtrbum revtlatum. et »oire ■ " Et si alia subtiliter de electione debemus, quod Deus prcoceperat, ut ore digputari fhrtasse posstint, tamen prodest damus." — Oprra, iv. p. 498 ; Laurence, piis tenere quod prtmissio tit universali*. pp. 172, 862, 868. Nee dehemus de voluntate JJei aliler judi- Sec. L] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 425 Such language then, which is the language of the Article, suits the baptismal theory as well as the Calvinistic theory ; and it has been contended with great force by Archbishop Laurence and Mr. Faber, that no other sense can be properly attached to it. On the whole, however, it seems worthy of consideration, whether the Article was not designedly drawn up in guarded and general terms, on purpose to comprehend all persons of tolerably sober views. It is hardly likely that Cranmer and his associates would have been willing to exclude from subscription those who symbolized with the truly admirable St. Angustine, or those who held the theory of prevision, so common among those fathers whose writings Cranmer had so diligently studied. Nor, again, can we imagine that anything would have been put forth markedly offensive to Melancthon, whose very thoughts and words seem em- bodied in one portion of this Article, as well as in so many of the preceding. Therefore, though Cranmer was strong in condemn- ing those who made God the author of sin, by saying that He enforced the will ; though he firmly maintained that Christ died to save all men, and would have all men to be saved ; though he and his fellows rejected the Calvinistic tenet of final perseverance ; they were yet willing to leave the field fairly open to different views of the Divine predestination, and accordingly worded the Article in strictly Scriptural language, only guarding carefully and piously against the dangers which might befal " carnal and curious persons." After long and serious consideration, I am inclined to think this the true state of the case. I am strongly disposed to believe that Cranmer's own opinions were certainly neither Ar- minian nor Calvinistic, nor probably even Augustinian ; yet I can hardly think that he would have so worded this Article, had he intended to declare very decidedly against either explanation of the doctrine of election. It seems unnecessary to do more than briefly allude to the pain- ful controversies to which this fruitful subject gave rise in the Church of England, since the Reformation. A sufficient account was given> under Article XVI., of the disputes which led to the drawing up of the Lambeth Articles, which, though accepted by Archbishop Whitgift and a majority of the divines at Lambeth, never had any ecclesiastical authority. The first four of these were designed to express distinctly the Calvinistic doctrines of election and reprobation ; though the bishops softened down a few of the expressions in Whitaker's original draught, so as to make 54 426 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVII. them a little less exclusive. 1 The Puritan party at Hampton Court wished that these " nine assertions orthodoxal " should be added to the XXXIX. Articles, and also that some of the expressions in the XXXIX. Articles which sounded most against Calvinism should be altered or modified ; but their wish was not obtained. 2 There have ever since continued different views of the doctrine of predestination amongst us, and different interpretations of this XVIIth Article. It were indeed much to be wished that such differences might cease ; but from the days of St. Augustine to this day, they have existed in the universal Church ; and we can scarcely hope to see them utterly subside in our own portion of it. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. TN investigating the Scriptural doccrine of Election, it is of the -*- utmost consequence to keep close to Scripture itself, and to keep clear of philosophy. The subject of God's foreknowledge and predestination must be full of difficulty, and our question can only be, what is revealed to us, not what may be abstract truth. 1 The Lambeth Articles, after revision 8. Nemo potest venire ad Christum, by the bishops, were as follows: — nisi datum ei fuerit, et nisi Pater eum 1. Deus, ab seterno, praedestinavit traxerit. Et omnes homines non trahun- quosdam ad vitam, quosdam reprobavit tur a 1'atre, ut veniant ad Filium. ad mortem. 9. Non est positum in arbifrio aut 2. Causa movens prsedestinationis ad potestate uniuscujusque hominis salvari. vitam, non est prsevisio fidei aut perseve- We saw under Article xvi. the altera- rantiae, aut bonorum operum aut ullius tions introduced by the Lambeth Divines rei quae insit in personis praedestinatis, into Propositions 5 and o, thereby ma- sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei. terially modifying the sense. The first 3. Prsedestinatorum definitus et certus proposition expresses a general truth, to est numerus, qui nee augeri nee minui which all assent. In the second Whitaker potest. had " Causa efficiens," which the bishops 4. Qui non sunt proedestinati ad sa- altered to " movens : " for the moving lutem necessario propter peccata sua cause of man's salvation is not in him- damnabuntur. self, but in God's mercy through Christ. 6. Vera, viva et justificans Fides, et So, instead of the last words in Whita Spiritus Dei justifleantisnonextinguitur, ker's second Proposition, " sett sola, H ub- non excidit, non evanescit, in electis, aut soliita, et simplex voluntas Dei," they put finaliter aut totaliter. " sed sola voluntas bcncplaciti Dei," be- 6. Homo vere fidelis, i. e. fide justifi- cause our salvation springs from God's cante pneditus, certus est, Plerophoria good pleasure and goodness. Yet even Fidei, de remissions peccatorum suoruin, so modified (and with such modifications et salute sempiterna sua per Christum. all their original force was lost) the Arti- 7. Gratia salutaris non tribuitur, non cles did not approve themselves to the communicatur, non conceditur universis Queen or the best of our then living hominibus, qua servari possint, si volu- divines. •rint. * Card well's Conferences, pp. 178, *eq Sec. II] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 427 The disputes between the Calvinists and Arminians took, unhap- pily, a metaphysical, almost more than a Scriptural turn. The Calvinists were unable to believe in the contingency of events certainly foreknown, and in the - absolute sovereignty of God, if limited by His knowledge of the actions of subordinate beings. The Arminians, truly contending that an action was not made com- pulsory because it was foreseen, held it inconsistent with the justice of God to destine some to be saved and others to be lost. Both argued from natural religion ; and both gave weighty reasons for their inferences. But both should have seen that there was a limit to all such investigations, which no human intelligence could pass ; and that those very arguments which reduced their adversaries to the greatest difficulties, might often, if pursued further, have told against themselves. It is quite certain that, if we carry out our investigations on such subjects to their fullest extent, we must at length reach a point which is impassable, but where we are at least as much in difficulty and darkness as at any previous step in our course. Thus, why God, who is all holy and merciful, ever permitted sin to exist, see- ing He could have prevented it ; why, when sin came, not only into the creation, but into this world, He did not wholly, instead of partially, remove its curse and power ; why the child derived it from its parent ; why the unsinning brute creation is involved in pain and death, the wages of sin ; why, whereas one half of the infants who are born die before the age of reason and responsibility, yet God does not cause all to die in infancy who, He foresees, will, if they live, live wickedly : — these and like questions, which puz- zle us as to the omnipotence, the justice, or the goodness of God, and which neither Scripture nor philosophy will answer, ought to teach us that it is not designed that we should be satisfied on these deep subjects of speculation, concerning which Milton has described even angelic beings as lost in inextricable difficulty. There is another line of reasoning, which has been taken in this controversy, somewhat more bearing on practical questions, and yet leading us beyond the reach of human intelligence. The Calvin- ist feels deeply that all must be ascribed to the grace of God, and nothing to the goodness of man. Therefore, he reasons, all holi- ness must come from an absolute decree ; for, if not, why does one accept grace, another refuse it ? If the grace be not irresistible, there must be something meritorious in him who receives, compared with him who resists. Both indeed may resist God's grace ; but he indeed who resists the least, so as not to quench the Spirit, must 428 <>F PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Abt. XVIL be considered as relatively, if not positively, meritorious. The Arniinian, on the contrary, admitting that merit is not possible for man, yet contends that the belief in an irreversible decree takes away all human responsibility, makes the mind of man a mere ma- chine, and deprives us of all motives for exertion and watchfulness. Even these arguments lead us to difficulties which perhaps we can- not solve. We are clearly taught to believe, that sinful man can deserve no good from God, and derives all he has from Him. We are also taught to feel our own responsibility in the use of the grace given us, and the necessity of exerting ourselves in the strength of that grace. There may be some difficulty in harmoniz- ing the two truths ; but we have no right to construct a system based upon one of them, and to the exclusion of the other. If we cannot see, as many think they can, that they form parts of one har- monious whole, we must be content to accept them both, without trying to reconcile them. Now the doctrine of Calvin rests on two premises : 1. That election infallibly implies salvation. 2. That election is arbitrary. The Arminians admit the first premiss, which is probably false, and reject the second, which is probably true. If we would fairly in- vestigate the question, we must begin by a determination not to be biassed by the use of words, nor to suffer ourselves to be led by a train of inductive reasoning. The former is a mistake which pre- vails extensively on almost all religious questions, and is utterly sub- versive of candour and truth ; the latter is altogether inadmissible on a subject so deep as that under consideration. To begin with the old Testament, a portion of Scripture too much neglected in this controversy, we read much there of God's election : and it is perhaps to be regretted, that our authorized translation has used the words choose, chosen, choice, in the old Tes- tament, and the words elect and election in the new Testament, whereas the original must be the same in both, and the ideas, con- tained under both phrases, identical. Now who are the persons spoken of in the old Testament as God's elect or chosen people ? Plainly the seed of Abraham, ttn children of Israel. Let us then observe, first, the ground of their election ; secondly, to what they were elect ? It is quite apparent, from innumerable statements of Moses and the prophets, that the cause or ground of God's election of the peo- ple of Israel was not, as on the Arminian hypothesis, foreseen faith, but God's good pleasure, springing from motives unknown to us. It was not for " their righteousness, for the uprightness of their Sec. II.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 429 heart, that they went in to possess the land." The Lord did " not give them the good land to possess for their righteousness : for they were a stiff-necked people" (Deut. ix. 5, 6). " Only the Lord had a delight in their fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them above all people" (Deut. x. 15). " The Lord will not forsake His people for His great name's sake ; because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people" (1 Sam. xii. 22). "I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people ... I have loved thee with an everlasting love ; therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee " (Jer. xxxi. 1, 3). "I have loved you, saith the Lord, yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us ? Was not Esau Jacob's brother ? saith the Lord ; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau" (Mai. i. 2, 3) : a passage, which, as ex- plained by St. Paul (Rom. ix. 13), clearly expresses God's purpose to chooste the seed of Jacob in preference to that of Esau, irrespec- tively of the goodness of the one or the other. The Arminian hypothesis, therefore, of foreseen faith is clearly inapplicable to the election spoken of in the books of the old Testa- ment. The cause and ground of it was plainly God's absolute irre- spective decree. But then to what was the election so often men- tioned there ? We have discovered its ground ; can we discover the correct idea to be attached to the action itself? It is evident that the whole Jewish nation, and none but they, were the objects of God's election. " O children of Israel .... you only have I known of all the families of the earth " (Amos iii. 1, 2). " Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God ; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth " (Deut. vii. 6). " The Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them, even you among all people, as it is this day " (Deut. x. 15). " The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments : and to make thee high above all na- tions which He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour ; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God" (Deut. xxvi. 18, 19). And, " What one nation in the earth is like thy people, like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a peo- ple to Himself? . . . For Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy peo- ple Israel, to be a people unto Thee for ever : and Thou, Lord, art become their God " (2 Sam. vii. 23, 24). " Blessed is the na- tion whose God is the Lord, and the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance" (Psal. xxxiii. 12). "The Lord hath 430 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVII chosen Jacob unto Himself, and Israel for His peculiar treasure " (Psal. cxxxv. 4). "Thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I li:t\c chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend ... I have chosen thee and not cast thee away " (Isai. xli. 8, 9). " Yet now hear, O Jacob, my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen " (Isai. xliv. 1). " For Jacob, My servant's sake and Israel Mine elect " (Isai. xlv. 4). " Considerest thou not what this people hare spoken, saying, The two families which the Lord hath chosen, He hath even cast them off? " (Jer. xxxiii. 24.) All these passages tell exactly the same tale, and explain to us the nature and object of God's election, as propounded under the old Testament. Were the Jewish people, who are thus constantly called God's elect, elected to an unfailing and infallible salvation of their souls ? Most assuredly not. Nay, they were not elected to infallible possession even of all the temporal blessings of God's peo- ple. Victory over their enemies, entrance into, in the first place, and then quiet possession of, the promised land were made contin- gent on their obedience to God's will (see Deut. vii., viii. passim). But that to which they were chosen, was to be God's " peculiar people," — to be " a holy people," consecrated to the service of God, — to have the covenant and the promises, and to be the Church of God. Yet still, there was " set before them life and death, cursing and blessing : " and they were exhorted to ** choose life : " "that they might dwell in the land which the Lord swan- to their fathers" (Deut. xxx. 19, 20). We see therefore, first, that the cause of God's election was ar- bitary ; secondly, that the election itself was to blessing indeed, but it was the blessing of privilege, not of absolute possession. And even of those chosen to be brought out of Egypt, and to become God's people in the wilderness, by abusing their privileges, all but two perished before they reached the promised land ; and those chosen to live in Canaan, as God's Church and people then on earth, were continually provoking God's indignation, and bringing down a curse instead of a blessing upon them. The seed of Abraham then, the children of Israel, were the only elect people of God at that time upon earth ; but their election was to the privilege of being God's Church, the subjects of His Theocratic kingdom, the recipients of His grace, and the deposi- taries of His truth. This is the whole nature of election, as pro- pounded to us in the Law and the Prophets. If there were any fur- ther election, and of what nature it may have been, as far as tin- old Testament went, was one of the " secret things, which belong to the Lord our God." Sec. n.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 481 Some people indeed argue, that, if one person or body of persons is predestined to light and privilege, and another is debarred from them, it is one and the same thing as if one was predestined to sal- vation and another to damnation ; for, if the one is not certainly saved, the other is certainly lost : and so, if election to glory be not taught, reprobation to damnation is. But this is, first of all, an ex- ample of that mode of induction which is so objectionable in ques- tions of this sort. And next, it remains to be proved, either that privilege leads of necessity to salvation, or that absence of privilege leads inevitably to damnation. However, it will, no doubt, be gen- erally conceded that the Jew was placed in a more favourable state for attaining salvation than the Gentile, and that, as we have seen, from an arbitrary decree of God. This, it will be said, is as incon- sistent with our ideas of justice, as anything in the system of Cal- vin or Augustine. Admit this, and you may as well admit all. The question, however, still remains the same ; not what men are willing to admit, but what the Bible reveals. This election to light and privilege is evidently analogous to those cases which we see in God's ordinary Providence : some born rich, others poor ; some nursed in ignorance, others in full light ; some with pious, others with ungodly parents ; and now too, some in a Christian, others in a heathen land ; some with five talents, others with but one. Why all this is, we cannot tell ; why God is pleased to put some in a position where vice seems all but inevitable, others where goodness seems almost natural, we know not ; nor again, as has been said before, why He does not ordain that all who He foresees will be wicked, should die in infancy. We know and see, that such is His pleasure. The secret motives of His will we are not told, and we cannot fathom. We are left to believe that, though hidden from us, they must be right. What we are taught is, how to avail our- selves of the privileges, whatever they may be, which we have ; to escape the dangers, and profit by the advantages of our position. This is practical, and this is revealed truth. To return to the old Testament. As we have seen, we there read much of election ; and it is always election of a certain body of persons, by an arbitrary decree, to the blessings and privileges of being of the Church of God. And we observe another thing, namely, that, whereas none but the Israelites were elected to such privileges then, there were yet many prophecies of a time when other persons, individuals of other nations, should be chosen by God, and made partakers of the same privileges with the Jews, — the same privileges enhanced and exalted. Nay, the Jews are 432 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Abt. XVII. threatened, as a body, with rejection from privilege for their sins ; a remnant only of them being to be retained in the possession of blessing ; and with that remnant, a host from other nations to be brought in and associated. When we come to the new Testament, we must bear in mind that the Apostles were all Jews, but their mission was to proclaim that the Jewish Church had passed away, and to bring in. converts to the Christian Church. Especially St. Paul had to found a Church among the Gentiles, and to bring the Gentiles into the fold of Christ. Nothing therefore could be more natural, or more in accordance with the plan of the Apostles, than, as it were, to apolo- gize to the Jews, and to explain to the Gentiles the new condition which the Almighty had designed for His Church in the world. It would be most natural that they should enlarge upon the truth that in God's eternal counsels there were general purposes of mercy for mankind, to be effected by means of bringing persons into Christ's Church, and therein by the graces of His Spirit con- forming them to the likeness of His Son ; that though hitherto His mercy in this respect had been confined to the Jews His further plans having been hid for ages and generations", yet now it was re- vealed that the Gentiles should with the Jews be fellow-heirs (see Col. i. 25, 26, Eph. iii. 5, 6) ; that, therefore, whereas heretofore the seed of Abraham had been the only chosen people of God, yet now the whole Catholic Church, composed of both converted Jews and Gentiles, were His chosen people ; and God, who, of His good pleasure, for a time elected only the Jews, had, by the same good pleasure, now chosen individuals both of Jews and Gen- tiles, to be members of His Church and heirs of the grace of life. In thus reasoning, it is most natural that the Apostles should con- stantly compare the state of Christians with the state of the Jews, and so continually use old Testament language, adopting the very expressions of Moses and the prophets, and simply applying them to the altered condition of the world, and to the enlarged condition of the Church. Thus, were the Jews constantly spoken of as a holy people, as called and chosen of God ? In like manner, St. Paul begins scarce any Epistle without calling the Church addressed in it either holy, called, or elect (see Rom. i. 6, 7 ; * 1 Cor. i. 9, 24 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Col. i. 2 ; 1 Thess. i. 4 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; 2 Tim. i. 8-10 ; Heb. iii. 1, &c). Were the Jews spoken of as "a peculiar people, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation " (Exod. xix. 5, 6) ? St. Peter addresses the Christian Church as » Khrnlc, iyioif, not aa in our version, " called to be saint*," but, u called, holy," as the Syriac. Sec. II.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 433 " a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people, that they should show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvellous light ; which in times past were not a people, but now are the people of God." * So too, in his very first salutation of the Church, composed as it was of Jewish and Gentile converts, he calls them " strangers or sojourners, scat- tered abroad, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father " (1 Pet. i. 2) ; where, like St. Paul, he no doubt uses this expression with special reference to the objection which the Jews made to the calling of the Gentiles. They thought that God's plan was only to call the children of Israel. But no ! the Apostle speaks of the Church (a Gentile as well as a Jewish Church) as chosen and preordained, by a foreknown and predestinated counsel of God, kept secret hitherto, but now made manifest. 2 This mode of treating the question is nowhere more apparent than in the opening of the Epistle to the Ephesians. There St. Paul is addressing a Gentile Church. Having first saluted its mem- bers, as " the holy persons in Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus," he at once proceeds to give God thanks for having blessed the Christian Church with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus, according as He had chosen that Church in Him before the foun- dation of the world ; the object of such election being, that it might be made holy and without blame before him in love ; God having predestinated its members to the adoption of children (as the Jews had of old been children of God), through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph. i. 3-6). He then proceeds to speak of the Church's blessing in having redemption through the Blood of Christ, and says, that now God has made known His hitherto hidden will, that in the dispensation of the fulness of time all things were to be collected together under one Head in Christ, both things in heaven and things on earth (vv. 9. 10). And he continues, that in Him M we (that is, those who have believed from among the Jews) have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to His purpose," &c. " In whom ye also (ye Gentile Christians) trusted, after that ye heard of the word of truth " (vv. 11-13). 3 1 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10. St. Peter has here 2 Comp. 1 Pet. v. 13 ; where he speaks adopted the very words addressed to the of the whole Church at Babylon as " elect Jewish people in Exod. xix. 5, 6, xxiii. together with " those churches to whom 22, as rendered by the LXX. 'Eoecr&e \uoi he writes. "kabc nefjiovoioc unb nuvruv tuv kfhuv ... z The force of the 14th verse is almost v/ietc <5f eoe&de pot (3ao~i/ietov lepdrevfia koi lost in our translation ; its peculiarity i&voe uytov. consisting in its use and adaptation of the . 55 434 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Akt. XVII. The Apostle next proceeds to give thanks for their conversion and faith, and to pray for their further grace and enlightenment (Eph. i. 15, 16 ; ii. 10). He reminds them of their former Gentile state, when they were without Christ, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel (ii. 11, 12) ; and tells them, that now they are brought nigh by Christ, who hath broken down the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles, and reconciled both Jews and Gentiles to God in one body, preaching peace to the Gentiles, who were far off, and to the Jews, who were nigh (vv. 13-17). He says, that they are therefore now no longer far off from God, but are made fellow-citi- zens of the same city, the Church, with the saints, and of the same household of God, and are built on the same foundation, and all grow together to one holy temple in the Lord (vv. 18-22). All this was a mystery, in other ages not made known, but now re- vealed to apostles and prophets by the Spirit, namely, that it had been part of God's eternal purpose of mercy that Gentiles should be fellow-heirs with Jews, both members of the same body, the Church, and partakers of the same promise in Christ by the Gospel (iii. 3-6). The Churches, which the Apostles thus addressed as elect, and on which they impress the blessings and privileges of their election, are still treated by them as in a state of probation, and their elec- tion is represented, not merely as a source of comfort, but also as full of responsibility. Thus, to the Ephesians, of whose election we find St. Paul spoke so strongly in the first chapter, he says, " I . . . beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called" (Ephes. iv. 1). And he thenceforth continues thro u gh the whole of the remainder of the Epistle, teaching them how to live, so as not to forfeit their blessings — not to be 4k like children tossed to and fro " (iv. 14) — not to u walk henceforth as other Gentiles " (17) — -'not to grieve the Spirit (30) — not to be partak- ers with fornicators and unclean livers, who have no inheritance in God's kingdom (v. 1-7) — to " have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness " (11) — to " walk circumspectly, not old Testament language to the Christian one, who calls the Church Xadc el{ nept- Church. The words rendered in our m>ii}oiv. St. Paul, (Acts xx. 28,) speaking version, "until the redemption of the to the Ephesians, calls them the Church purchased possession," mean more likely of God, i/v Tztpunodjaaro 6ut tov Idiov aifta- " with reference to the ransom of God's TOf. The expression api>e;irs to mean peculiar people, or, of the people whom "the people whom God made His own," God hath made His own ; " dc unokvrpu- so first applied to the Jewish, afterwards aiv r% irepmoii/aecjc. See Exod. xix. 6, 6; to the Christian Church. See Schleus- xxiii. 22. So the LXX.read Malachi iii. ner on this word, Hammond, Rosenmiil- 17, where it appears prophetic of the ler and Macknight on Ephes. i. 14, and Gentile Church. Compare the language on 1 Pet ii. t). of St. Peter, quoted in the last note but Sec. II] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 435 as fools, but as wise " (15) — not to be " drunk with wine, but to be filled with the Spirit" (18) — to "put on the whole armour of God, that they might be able to stand against the wiles of the devil," knowing that they had a contest against wicked spirits; that so they might " be able to withstand in the evil day, and hav- ing done all, to stand " (vi. 11, 12, 13). Just similar is his language to other Churches. Thus, the Philippians, whom he calls " saints," he bids to " work out their own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. ii. 12 ; compare iii. 12-16). The Colossians, whom he speaks of as having been " translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son," he bids " to put on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved," all Christian graces (iii. 12-17) ; and to avoid all heathen vices (iii. 5-9) ; and that on the very principle that they were to consider themselves as brought into a new state in Christ (iii. 9, 10). The Thessalonians, whom he tells that he "knows their election of God" (1 Thess. i. 4), he warns against sloth and sleep (1 Thess. v. 6), urges them to put on Christian armour (v. 8, 9), exhorts them not to " quench the Spirit " (v. 19). And to Timothy he says of himself, that he " endures all things for the elect's sake ; " and that, not because the elect are sure of salvation, but in order that " they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory " (2 Tim. ii. 10). In exactly the same manner, St. Peter, as we have seen, ad- dresses those to whom he writes as " elect," and whom he calls " an elect generation," (1 Pet. i. 2 ; ii. 9) : but he still urges them to " abstain from fleshly lusts," (ii. 11) ; to " pass the time of their sojourning here in fear," (i. 17) ; to be " sober and watch unto prayer " (iv. 7) ; to " give diligence to make their calling and election sure " (2 Pet. i. 10) ; to " beware lest, being led away with the error of the wicked, they fall from their own stead- fastness " (2 Pet. iii. 17). All this is in the same spirit and tone. It is, allowing for the change of circumstances, just as the prophets addressed the Jews. The prophets addressed the Jews, and the apostles addressed Chris- tians, as God's chosen people, as elect, predestinated to the Church, to grace, to blessing. But then, they urge their blessings and election as motives, not for confidence, but for watchfulness. They speak to them as having a conflict to maintain, a race to run ; and they exhort them not to quench the Spirit, who is aiding them, to beware lest they fall from the steadfastness of their faith, to be sober and watch to the end. 436 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVU. Let us turn next to the Epistle to the Romans. In the ninth chapter more especially, St. Paul considers the question of God's rejecting the unbelieving Jews, and calling into His Church a body of persons elected from among Jews and Gentiles. The rejection of his fellow-countrymen he himself deeply deplores ; but tliere was a difficulty and objection arising, which he sets himself directly to solve. God has chosen Israel for His people. He had given them " an everlasting covenant, even the sure mercies of David." Could then the rejection of the Jews be explained consistently with God's justice, His promises, and His past dealing with His people ? Objections of this kind the Apostle replies to. And he does so by showing that God's dealings now were just as they had always been of old. Of old He gave the promise to Abraham, but afterwards limited it to his seed in Isaac. Then again, though Esau and Jacob were both Isaac's children, He gave the privileges of His Church to the descendants of Jacob, not to those of Esau ; and that with no reference to Jacob's goodness ; for the restriction of the promise was made before either Jacob or Esau were born ; exactly according to those words by Malachi, where God, speaking of His calling of the Israelites, says, " Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Rom. ix. 6—13.) This restriction therefore of God's promises, first to Isaac, and then to Jacob, corresponded exactly with His purposes now revealed in the Gospel, namely, to bring to Christian and Church privileges that portion of the Jews who embraced the Gospel, and to cast off the rest who were hard- ened in unbelief. From verse 14 to verse 19, St. Paul states an objection to this doctrine of God's election, which he replies to in verse 20. The objection he states thus, " Shall we say then that there is injustice with God ? " For the language of Scripture seems to imply that there is , God being represented as saying, " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," which shows that it is of God's mercy, and not of man's will. Again, it is said to Pharaoh, " For this cause have I raised thee up, that I might shew My pdoref in thee." So that it seems to be taught us, that God shows mercy on whom He will, and hardens whom He will. It may therefore be reasonably said, why does He yet find fault with the sinner ; " for who hath resisted His will ? " (vv. 14-19). This objection to God's justice the Apostle states thus strongly, that he may answer it the more fully. His reply is, that such complaints against God for electing the Jewish pepple, and placing Pharaoh in an exalted station, and bearing long with his wickedness, are presumptuous and arrogant. " Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against Sec. IL] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 437 God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus ? Hath not the potter power over the clay to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour ? " (vv. 20, 2L). 1 Shall man complain because God ordained the Jews for a place of eminence in His Church, or raised Pharaoh as king of Egypt to a position of honour, and yet a position in which he would only the more surely exhibit his wickedness ? We know not the secret motives of God's will. What if the real reason of all this were, that " God, willing to manifest His wrath, and to make His power known," as He did with Pharaoh, so now also has en- dured with much long-suffering the unbelieving Israelites, who are " vessels of wrath " already " fitted to destruction," in order " that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared for a position of honour, even on us, who are that Church of Christ, which He hath now called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles ? " (vv. 20-24). If we will cast aside preconceived doctrines and conventional phraseology, it will surely appear that such is the plain meaning of this memorable chapter. The Apostle is explaining the justice of God's dealings, in having long borne with the Jewish race, and now casting them off and establishing a Church composed partly of the remnant of the Jews, partly of Gentile converts. Herein He only acted as He had ever done, calling first the seed of Abra- ham His chosen, then the seed of Isaac, elected from the elect, and again (elected once more out of them) the seed of Jacob ; and as He had borne long with Pharaoh's wickedness, that He might make him the more signal monument of His vengeance, so perhaps it was with the Jews. He had borne long with them, partly in 1 See Jer. xviii. 2-10. " The scrip- taken ; the potter, according to his own tural similitude of the potter and the clay arbitrary choice, makes ' of the same is often triumphantly appealed to as a lump one vessel to honour, and another proof that God has from eternity decreed, to dishonour,' i. e., some to nobler and and what is more, has revealed to us that some to meaner uses ; but all for some He has so decreed the salvation or per- use ; none with the design that it should dition of each individual, without any be cast away and dashed to pieces : even other reason assigned than that such is so the Almighty, of His own arbitrary His will and pleasure : ' we are in His choice, causes some to be born to wealth hands,' say these predestinarians, 'as or rank, others to poverty and obscurity ; clay is in the potter's, who hath power some in a heathen and others in a Chris- of the same lump to make one vessel to tian country ; the advantages and privi- honour and another to dishonour,' not leges bestowed on each are various, and, observing, in their hasty eagerness to as far as we can see, arbitrarily dispensed ; seize on every apparent confirmation of the final rewards or punishments depend, their system, that this similitude, as far as we are plainly taught, on the use or as it goes, rather makes against them ; abuse of these advantages." — Archbp. since the potter never makes any vessel Whately, Essays on the Writings of St. for the express purpose of being broken and Paul. Essay m. on Election, an essay destroyed. This comparison accordingly full of clear and thoughtful statement* agrees much better with the view here and elucidations. 438 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVII. mercy, and partly that He might magnify His power, and show the severity of His justice. The same subject is kept in view, more or less, throughout the two following chapters. In the 11th he again distinctly recurs to the bringing of a portion of the Jewish race into the Church of Christ, not indeed the whole nation — but restricted again, as it once was in Isaac, and afterwards in Jacob. He instances the case in which all Israel seemed involved in one common apostasy, and yet God told Elias that there were seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Even so it was at the time of the Gospel. All Israel seemed cast off, but it was not so ; a remnant remained, a remnant was called into the Church, chosen or elected into it by the grace of God. " Even so at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." Rom. xi. 5. We may now proceed to the passage which, even more than any of the preceding, may be considered as the stronghold either of the Calvinist or the Arminian. Each claims it as unquestion- ably his own. The passage is Rom. viii. 29, 30 : " For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the im- age of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many breth- ren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called : and whom He called, them He also justified : and whom He justi- fied, them He also glorified." The Calvinist contends that the passage plainly speaks of pre- destination to eternal glory ; the various clauses showing the prog- ress, from the first purpose of God, through calling and justifying, to the final salvation of the elect soul. The Arminian replies, that, though it is true that the passage speaks of predestination to eter- nal glory, yet it is evidently on the ground of foreseen faith ; for it begins with the words " whom He did foreknow ;" showing that His foreknowledge of their acceptance of His grace was the motive of His predestination of their glory. That the Arminian has scarcely ground for this argument seems clear from the use of this word " foreknew " in Rom. xi. 2 ; where " God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew," can scarcely mean otherwise than " whom He had predestinated to be His Church of old." But then, though it seems that the passage speaks of an arbitrary pur- pose, yet it cannot be proved to have any direct reference to future glory. The verbs are all in the past tense, and none in the future, and therefore cannot certainly be translated as future. Either " whom He hath justified, them He hath glorified," 1 or " whom 1 ovc 61 tiuiaiuat, rovrovf xai tdo^aat. Sec. II] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 439 He justifies, them He also glorifies" would correctly render it ; since the aorist expresses either a 'past or a present. Hence the passage was uniformly understood by the ancients as referring not to future glory of Christians in the world to come, but to that pres- ent glorification of the elect, which consists in their participation in the high honour and privilege bestowed by God upon His Church. 1 And, as they viewed it, so grammatical accuracy will oblige us to understand it. And if so, then we must interpret the passage in correspondence with the language in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and in the chapter already considered in the Epistle to the Romans. " Those whom God in His eternal counsels chose before the foun- dation of the world, His elect people, the Church, He designed to bring to great blessings and privileges ; namely, conformity to the likeness of His Son, calling into His Church, justification, and the high honor and glory of being sons of God and heirs of the king- dom of heaven." 2 It would exceed our limits, if we were to consider all the pas- sages bearing on this doctrine in the Gospels and Acts of the Apos- tles. The parable of the vineyard (Matt. xx. 1-16), and of the wedding feast (Matt. xxii. 1-14), evidently speak the language of ecclesiastical election, the calling of the Jews, and then the elec- tion of the halt and maimed heathen from the highways and hedges into the Christian Church. 3 In the Acts, we read of God's " adding to the Church such as should be saved," (tovs o-a>£o//,€voi>s, those who were being saved,) where the words plainly mean that God brought into His Church those whom He chose to the privileges of a state of salvation 4 (Acts ii. 47). 1 See Faber, Prim. Doct. of Election, relate to this, but that there are also pas- who quotes, from Whitby, Origen, Clirys- sages which relate to a further election ostom, CEcumenius, Theodoret, Theoph- out of the elect, to glory. ylact, pseudo-Ambrosius, and Jerome, 3 The words with which these two as concurring in this interpretation of parables end, seem, at first sight, an ex- " glorified." ception to the use of the word elect in the 2 I have myself little doubt that this Scriptures ; namely, " Many are called, is the meaning of the passage, divested of but few chosen : " noTikol /iev kXvtoI, oki- conventional phraseology, which cramps yoi f5e kiikeKToi. It is, however, merely a our whole mind in these inquiries. But different application of the same term. I should wish to guard against dogma- Man}' are called to Christian privileges, tizing too decidedly on such passages, but only those who make a good use of I think this passage and one other (John them are chosen to salvation. Notwith- vi. 37-39) to be the strongest passages standing, then, a different application of in favour of the theory of St. Augustine ; the word chosen, the principle laid down and their full weight ought to be given appears to be precisely the same, them. Some sound and learned divines * rove outjo/ievovg. Dr. Hammond (on have thought, that the new Testament Luke xiii. 23, and 1 Pet ii. ti, in which evidently speaks of election to grace, and he is followed by Lowth on Isaiah i. 9, that most of the passages on the subject Ezek. vii. 6) considers this expression 440 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVIL In Acts xiii. 48, we hear of persons " believing, as many as were ordained to eternal life," which sounds at first much like the doctrine of Calvin. But in the first place, the word here rendered ordained, is nowhere else employed in the sense of predestinated; and if it is to be so interpreted here, we must perforce understand it as meaning, that they were predestinated to the reception of that Gospel which is itself the way to eternal life, and which, if not abused, will surely lead to it. Otherwise the passage would prove, that all those who heard the Apostles and embraced the Gospel and the Church, must have been finally saved ; a thing in the highest degree improbable, and wholly inconsistent with ex- perience. 1 In the Gospel of St. John we have two or three passages, supposed to speak markedly the language of Calvinism. 1. " All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me ; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out " (John vi. 37). 2. " And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day " (John vi. 39). 3. " Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ? " (John vi. 70). 4. " My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me : and I give unto them eternal fife ; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of My hand. My Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all ; and no (man) is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand " (John x. 27-29). 5. " Because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you " (John xv. 19). 6. " Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name those whom thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy Name : those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition ; that the Scripture might be fulfilled " (John xvii. 11, 12). Some of these passages, taken by themselves, undoubtedly bear a . very Calvinistic aspect, especially the second and the fourth. But if we take them altogether, they explain each other. The whole then seems a connected scheme. The Father gives a Church of disciples to His Son ; who also Himself chooses them :is synonymous witli the " remnant " or the words by || t ,«y^ OOCT1 r^Ui* 'escaped," <*vitl9, so often spoken of in , J*j» , , . ' -t qui sal vi fiebnnt in coatu vel ecclesia. the old Testament. The Syriac renders 8 gee Hammond on this verso, anc Sec. II.] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 441 from the world. Those that the Father thus gives to the Son, assuredly come to Him, and are joined unto his fellowship. 1 It is not the will of God that any of these should perish. " He willeth not the death of a sinner." " It is not the will of the Father that one of these little ones should perish." Whilst our blessed Lord was on earth with His Church, He preserved and guarded it by His presence ; and when He left it, He prayed the Father that He would guard and support His disciples, " not taking them from the world, but keeping them from the evil " (John xvii. 15). The faithfulness of God is pledged to support His tempted servants, and His greatness secures them against all dangers, and assures them, that none shall be able to take them out of Christ's hands. Yet that their final perseverance and sal- vation are not so certainly secured, as that, because they have been given to Christ they can never at last be condemned, is evidenced by the case of Judas Iscariot, who, in the third and sixth of the above passages, is numbered with Christ's elect, 2 and with those whom the Father had given Him ; yet still is mentioned, as one who, notwithstanding Christ's own presence and guidance, had fallen away and perished. He, like the rest, had been of Christ's sheep, elect to discipleship and grace ; but, having quenched the Spirit, and been unfaithful, he was not chosen to salvation. 3 Whatever then be philosophically true concerning man's free- dom and God's sovereignty and foreknowledge ; the question which is practical to us is, How far has God revealed in His word the grounds of His dealings with us ? If the foregoing investi- gation has been fairly conducted, we must conclude, that the reve- lation which has been given us concerns His will and purpose to gather together in Christ a Church chosen out of the world, and that to this Church and to every individual member of it He gives the means of salvation. That salvation, if attained, will be wholly due to the grace of God, which first chooses the elect soul to the blessings of the baptismal covenant, and afterwards endues it with also his notes on Luke xiii. 23 ; 1 Pet. It seems to me that, when all are com- ii. 6. pared together, no other sense can be 1 Compare John x. 16 : " Other sheep attached to them. Yet, as above noted, I have, that are not of this fold" (Gen- the passages marked 2 and 4, and Rom- tiles, not Jews) : 'them also I must bring, ans viii. 29, 30, are the passages most and they shall hear My voice : and there favourable to the theory of St. Augus- shall be one fold, and one shepherd." tine. And it is so fearful a thing to put 2 Compare, " I speak not of you all ; a strained interpretation on the words I know whom I have chosen," fmean- of Christ, in order to adapt them to a ing Judas). John xiii. 18. system, that I would not willingly err, d 1 cannot see that any force is put by pressing on others those interpreta- upon the passages from St. John by the tions which seem to me to be undoubtedly explanation and paraphrase in the text. true. 56 442 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Akt. XVII. power to live the life of faith. If, on the other hand, the proffered salvation be forfeited, it will be in consequence of the fault and wickedness of him that rejects it. Much is said of God's will, that all should be saved, and of Christ's death as sufficient for all men ; and we hear of none shut out from salvation, but for their own faults and demerits. More than this cannot with certainty be inferred from Scripture ; for it appears most probable that what we learn there concerns only predestination to grace, there being no revelation concerning predestination to glory. , The old Testament, our blessed Lord, St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John, and after them the earliest Christian Fathers, seem thus in perfect harmony to speak of God's election of individuals to His Church. Of any further election we cannot say that they did speak. New and more subtle questions were brought in by phi- losophers, like Clement and Origen, which were more fully worked out by the powerful intellect of St. Augustine, whose contact with philosophic heretics tempted him to philosophic speculations. In later times the disputations of the schoolmen still mingled meta- physics with theology ; till the acute but over-bold mind of Calvin moulded into full proportion a system, which has proved the fertile source of discord to all succeeding generations. In the hands of the great Genevan divine it was not allowed to be quiet and otiose, but became the basis and groundwork of his whole scheme of theology. Much of that scheme was sound and admirable ; but it was so made to bend and square itself to its author's strong view of predestination, that it lost the fair proportions of Catholic truth. Deep learning and fervent piety have characterized many who have widely differed in these points of doctrine. It is well for us, disregarding mere human authority and philosophical discussions, to strive to attain the simple sense of the Scriptures of God. But it is not well, when we have satisfied ourselves, to condemn those who may disagree with us; nor, because we see practical dangers in certain doctrines, to believe that all who embrace those doctrines must of necessity fall into evil, through the dangers which attach to them. Discussions on subjects such as this do not, perhaps, so much need acuteness and subtilty, as humility and charity. ARTICLE XVIII. Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ. They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he pro- fesseth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved. De speranda ozterna salute tantum in nomint Christi. Sunt et illi anathematizandi, qui dicere audent unumquemque in lege aut secta quam profitetur esse servandum, modo juxta illam et lumen natura; accurate vixerit, cum sacrae literse tantum Jesu Christi nomen praidicent, in quo salvos fieri homines oporteat. Section I. — HISTORY. fPHE early fathers with great unanimity assert, that salvation is ■* only to be had through Christ, and in the Church of Christ. So Ignatius says, " Let no one be deceived. Even heavenly beings and the glory of angels and principalities, visible and invisible, un- less they believe in the Blood of Christ, even for them is condem- nation." l " If any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God." 2 Irenseus says, " The Church is the entrance to life, all who teach otherwise are thieves and robbers." 3 " They are not partakers of the Spirit who do not come into the Church, but they defraud them- selves of life." 4 Origen says, "Let no one deceive himself; out of this house, i. e. the Church, no one is saved." 5 Cyprian, in speaking of the unity of the Church, says, that " Whoever is separated from the Church is separated from the 1 Mr/dels nXavciodo ■ nal tu inovpavia, Kac 7] <56£a tuv uyyskuv, nal 61 upxovTzq bpa- roi te not uoparoi, iuv fir) niOTevouoiv etc Td alfia Xpiarov, KQneivou; Kpioi( eariv. — Ad. Smyrn. vi. 2 'Euv (iij rig f) evrdf tov dvoiaorripiov, iarepelrai tov aprov tov Qeov. — Ad. Ephes. v. 3 " Hac (h. e. ecclesia) est enim vitae introitus ; omnes autem reliqui fures sunt et latrones." — Adv. Hcer. in. 4. 4 " Spiritus ; cujus non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecelesiam, sed semetipsos fraudant a vita .... ubi enim ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei." — Ibid in. 40. See the whole chapter. 6 "Nemo ergo sibi persuadeat, nemo seipsum decipiat ; extra banc domum, id est, extra ecelesiam, nemo salvatur." — Homil. in Jesum Nave, in. num. 5 444 OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION [Art. XVm. promise of the Church ; that if a man have not the Church for his mother, he hath not God for his father ; and that, as to be saved from the deluge it was needful to be in the ark, so to escape now, we must be in the Church." J Lactantius writes that, " if a person have not entered into, or have gone out of the Church, he is apart from salvation." 2 Statements in great number to the same purport might be quoted. The necessity of cleaving to Christ, of being baptized, and of be- longing to the Church, is much and constantly dwelt upon ; and so the rejection of baptism is often spoken of as excluding from life. In the Recognitions of Clement, a spurious but still a very early work, we find it argued from St. Matthew, that " if a person is not baptized, not only will he be deprived of Heaven, but will not be without danger in the resurrection, however good his life may have been." 3 St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, " No one can be saved without bap- tism except the martyrs." 4 St. Gregory Nazianzen held, that infants who die without bap- tism " will neither be glorified, nor yet be punished." 6 And so the pseudo-Athanasius says, "it is clear that baptized children of believers go spotless and as believers into the kingdom. But the unbaptized and heathen children neither go to the kingdom nor yet to punishment, seeing they have not committed actual sin."' 6 When the Pelagian controversy had arisen, the question was considerably agitated, as to how far it was possible for the unbap- tized to be saved. And as the Pelagians underrated baptism, their opponents naturally insisted on it more strongly. St. Augustine, the great anti-Pelagian champion, denounces, as 1 " Quisquis ab ecclesia segrcgatus consecutus, is non solum coelorum regno adultene jungitur, a promissis ecclesiaj fraudabitur, verutn et in resurreetione separatur. Nee pervenit ad Christi mortuorum non absque periculo erit eti- proemia, qui relinquit eeclesiam Christi. amsi bona? vita? ct recta; mentis praeroga- Alienus est, profanus est, liostis est. tiva muniatur." — Coteler. I. p. 601, c. Habere jam non potest Deum Patrem, 65; 6ee also p. 551, c. 10. qui Eeclesiam non habet matrem. Si * el tic fa) hu(3n rb j3uirriofM, aunjpiav potuit evadere quisquam qui extra arcam ovk tyet w^v povov ftapripctv, ol nal jwpff Noe fuit, et qui extra eeclesiam foris fue- rob idaroc TM/xfiuvovat rriv fiaaiXeiav. — Cat- rit, evadet." — De Unitate Ecclesia. Oxf. echo*, in. 7. 1082, p. 109. 6 rove 6e (litre 6o£aodyoeotiai, itijTe *oXa- 8 "Sola Catholica ecclesia est quae o&ioeodai nepl Toi> dixaiov Kpmw, uc uofpa- verum cultum retinet. Hie est fons veri- yiorovc fiiv, uirovi/povc <$t, ciAAa nadovrat tatis, hoc est domicilium fidei, hoc tern- nuKhov r^v fyfuav t) dpaauvrac. — Oratio XL. plum Dei : quo si quis non intraverit, vel Tom. i. p. 668. Colon. a quo si quis exierit, a spe vitaj ac salutis ° nldt ufHtmiara *al ru tdvunl, ofrre df Ktornre alien us est." — Lactant. Lib. IV. (3ao&eiav eloepxovTai • <1AA' oire niiXtv etc e. 80; see Pearson, On the Creed, p. 860. nokamv. afiapriav o&k Ivpainv. — Quattio- 1 " Si quis Jesu Baptisma non fuerit net ad Antiochum, Quaest. cxiv. Sec. L] ONLY BY THE NAME OF CHRIST. 445 a Pelagian error, the opinion that unbaptized infants could be saved. 1 He denies that any can be saved without Baptism and the Eucharist. 2 The Pelagians seem to have promised to infants un- baptized a kind of mean between Heaven and Hell. This Augus- tine utterly condemns ; 3 and he himself positively asserts that no one apart from the society of Christ can be saved. 4 Baptized in- fants, he says, at death passed into eternal life, unbaptized into death. 5 In the work of the pseudo-Ambrosius, which is generally attrib- uted to a writer of the name of Prosper, who is evidently a follower of St. Augustine, we read of some infants as regenerate to eternal life, others, unregenerate passing to perpetual misery. 6 The earlier fathers, however, though, as we have seen, strongly stating that baptism, faith in Christ, union with the Church, are the only appointed means of safety, held language far less severe than St. Augustine's on the possibility of salvation to the heathen and the unbaptized. Justin Martyr, for instance, appears to have had the notion that ancient philosophers received some revelation from the Son of God, and so were led to oppose Polytheism. 7 Similar views must have occurred to Tertullian, who looked on Socrates as having some insight into Divine truth ; 8 and thought that a kind of inspiration had reached the ancient philosophers. 9 Yet he seems to have believed the heathen generally under the dominion of the powers of darkness ; and Bishop Kaye thinks his opinion of the necessity of baptism must, if he had entertained the question at all, have led him to decide against the salvability of the heathen. 10 There may, however, exist a strong persuasion of the necessity of baptism, without a decided dogmatizing on the condi- tion of those to whom it has not been offered ; and, in any case, on subjects so profound as this, we cannot always insist that any author shall be consistent with himself. Clement of Alexandria, 1 See De Gestis Pelagii, c xi. Tom. x. vnb Xoyov (i.e. ratione) 7}teyx&W ravra, ak- p. 204. A& /cat kv fiapfiupoic vtt' ovtov tov Aoyov fiop- 2 De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, See as above, p. 345. " Ov yap uovov 'E?.?.t/oi diu. "Zukdutovc 440 OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION [Art XVIII. whose sympathies were strong with the ancient philosophers, speaks of the Law as given to the Jews, and philosophy to the Greeks, before the coming of Christ. He considers philosophy as having borrowed much from Revelation, and thinks it was capable by God's appointment of justifying those who had no opportunity of knowing better. 1 This charitable hope concerning the salvability of the heathen, though naturally less entertained by divines who, like Augustine, were engaged in opposing Pelagianism, is not confined to the ear- liest fathers. St. Chrysostom, in commenting on St. Paul's argu- ment in the second chapter of Romans, verse 29, evidently implies, that the religious and virtuous Gentile might have been saved, whilst the ungodly Jew would be condemned. 2 On the contrary, St. Augustine, with reference to the same passage, understood by the Gentile which does by nature the things of the Law, not the uninstructed heathen, but the Gentile Christian, who does by grace the things of the Law. 3 We have seen that Gregory Nazianzen and the pseudo- Athanasius believed in an intermediate state between Heaven and hell for heathens and infants unbaptized. In this they are followed by Pope Innocent III., and some of the schoolmen : and, no doubt, out of this arose the belief in a limbus for those children who die before baptism and before the commission of actual sin. To proceed to the period of the Reformation : the Council of Trent anathematizes all who deny that baptism is necessary to sal- vation ; 4 which however is not the same thing as deciding on the state of the unbaptized. Among the foreign reformers, Zuinglius believed that all infants and heathens might partake of God's mercies in Christ. 6 Luther denies in plain terms remission of sins to any without the Church. 6 But the Lutheran Confessions do not appear to say much on this head. Calvin, though appearing to think baptism the only means whereby elect infants could be regenerate and so saved, if they died," yet argues forcibly against such as consign all unbaptized in- fants to damnation. 8 Still he says of the visible Church, that we 1 T Hv fiiv ovv irpo rr/c tov Kvpiovnapovoi- 8 De. Spiritu et Litem, § 43, Tom. x. p. rtf el? fiiKawavvTiv "E'/Af/aiv uvayxaia d&noo- 108. Comp. Contra Julianum, Lib. iv. 28, fia. — Strom, i. p. 831. ^Ooaao^ia 6k ij 24, 26, Tom. x. p. 697. 'EMf/w/(7, olov npotcaduipei Kal npoeQitjuiilv * Scss. vn. Can. v. De Baptismo. \jwxtivus napa6oxT)v moreuq. — Strom, vn. 6 See on this subject under Art. xtii. p. 839. cIk6tu( ovv 'lov&aiou; piv vopoq, 8 Catechismus Major. Op. Tom. t. p. 'EA2?fft &k $&ooo$ia pe\pi "7C napovoiac, 629. ivreidev 6k i) Kkt/aiq r) v7ii "kaov. — Strom, vi. p. 828. * Ibid. iv. xvi. 26. - Clirysost. I loin. vi. m Epist. ad Rom. Skc. I.] ONLY BY THE NAME OF CHRIST. 447 have no entrance into life, unless she, our Mother, conceives us in her womb ; and without her bosom is no remission of sins or sal- vation to be hoped for. 1 Cranmer's Catechism was published by him a. d. 1548. It was translated from the Latin of Justus Jonas, a Lutheran divine. Sometimes in the translation alterations were introduced by Arch- bishop Cranmer, or under his direction, which are peculiarly cal- culated to show his own opinions. One strong passage on the subject of this Article is translated literally and with all the force of the original : " If we should have heathen parents and die without baptism, we should be damned everlastingly." 2 But another pas- sage, which cannot be considered stronger, if so strong, is left out in the translation, apparently because Cranmer was unwilling so decidedly to dogmatize on this question. 3 In the first Book of Homilies we read, " If a heathen man clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and do such other like works ; yet because he doth them not in faith for the honour and love of God, they be but dead, vain, and fruitless works to him. Faith it is that doth commend the work to God ; for, as St. Augustine .saith, whether thou wilt or no, that work which cometh not of faith is nought ; where the faith of Christ is not the foundation, there is no good work, what building soever we make." 4 Noel's Catechism is a work drawn up long after the putting forth of the Articles, and therefore not, like the writings of Cranmer and Ridley or the first Book of Homilies, historically calculated to elucidate the Articles ; yet from the approbation it received in the reign of Elizabeth, it has been looked on as of high authority in the Church of England. Its words on this subject are : — " M. Is there then no hope of salvation out of the Church ? 1 " Non alius est in vitam ingressus neque apud papisticam illam et titulo nisi nos ipsa (h. e. visibilis ecclesia) con- tenus ecclesiam inveniri." These words eipiat in utero, nisi nos pariat, &c. Ex- are omitted in page 125 of the English; tra ejus gremium nulla est speranda pec- yet the following words occur in the catorum remissio, nee ulla salus." — iv. same page : " Without the Church is no i. 4. remission of 6in." In the Confutation 2 Cranmer's Catechism, Oxford, 1829, of Unwritten Verities ( Works, iv. p. p. 39 of the Latin, p. 51 of the English. 510) Cranmer says, " To that eternal Sec Preface, p. xvi. salvation cometh no man but he that 3 The passage is in the Latin, p. 106. hath the Head Christ. Yea, and no man "Et ut firmiter crcdamus has immensas, can have the Head Christ which is not ineffabiles, infinitas opes et thesauros in His Body the Church." veros, primitias regni coclorum et vita? * First Part of Homily on Good Works. ajternae, tantum in ecclesia esse, nusquam Compare the language of St. Augustine, alibi, neque apud sapientes et philoso- Contra Julianum, Lib. iv. quoted undei phos gentium, neque apud Turcicam Art. xm. p. 332. illam tot millium hominum colluviem. 448 OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION [Art. XVHL " A. Without it there can be nothing but damnation and death." l The above - cited passages show, that the English reformers strongly held the doctrine that without Christ, without baptism, apart from the Church, no salvation is offered to man, and that if we reject them, we have no right to look for it. It might even seem that they took the strong views of St. Augustine against the salvability of the heathen or of infants unbaptizefl, under any circumstances. Yet there are some indications of reluctance to assume so decided a position. It has already been observed, that it is very possible to assert strongly that no other means of sal- vation are offered, that no other hope is held out, without deter- mining positively that all who are cut off from the means of grace, inevitably perish. Many of the fathers appear to have thought this a consistent view of the case. Calvin, as we have seen, denied salvation out of the visible Church, and yet would not allow that all unbaptized infants perish. And so Cranmer, though translating one strong passage from Justus Jonas, has left another out of his Catechism, probably because he would not pronounce definitely on the state of heathens and persons in ignorance. As to the wording of the Article itself, it comes naturally and properly between the Article on God's election of persons into His Church, and the Article which defines the Church itself. It condemns that latitudinarianism which makes all creeds and all communions alike, saying that all men may be saved by their own sect, so they shape their lives according to it, and to the law of nature. The ground on which it protests against this view of matters is, that the Scriptures set forth no other name but Christ's whereby we may be saved. The opinion here condemned therefore is, not a charitable hope that persons who have never heard of Christ, or who have been bred in ignorance or error, may not be inevitably excluded from the benefit of His atonement ; but that cold indifference to faith and truth which would rest satisfied and leave them in their errors, instead of striving to bring them to faith in Christ and to His Body the Church, to which alone the promises of the Gospel are made, and to which by actual reve- lation God's mercies are annexed. 1 M. Nullum* ergo salutis apes extra damnatio exitium atque interitus esse Eoclesiam? A. Extra earn nihil nisi potest." Sec. II.] ONLY BY THE NAME OF CHRIST. 449 Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. nnHE teaching of the Article will be sufficiently established, if * we show : — I. That Holy Scripture sets out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men may be saved. II. That salvation is therefore offered only in the Church. III. That accordingly, we have no right to say that men shall be saved by their own law or sect, if they be diligent to frame their life according to that law and the light of nature. I. The first proposition appears from such passages as these, " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life : and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him " (John iii. 36). " No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me " (John xiv. 6). " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. iii. 11). " There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all " (1 Tim. ii. 5, 6). " He is the propitiation for our sins : and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world " (1 John ii. 2). " This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life ; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (1 John v. 12). Compare Mark xvi. 15, 16 ; John i. 29 ; hi. 14, 15, 17 ; v. 40 ; x. 9 ; xx. 31 ; Acts xiii. 38 ; Rom. vii. 24, 25 ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19 ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; Heb. v. 9; xi. 6; xii. 2. "Neither is there salvation in any other ; for there is none other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts iv. 12). "To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins " (Acts x. 43). " Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house " (Acts xvi. 30, 31). II. The second proposition appears from this : — When our Lord had offered the propitiation, by which He 57 450 OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION [Art. XVIII. became the Saviour of mankind, He commissioned His Apostles to preach the Gospel and to found the Church ; and " He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature : He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 15, 16). Accordingly, when St. Peter's sermon at the feast of Pente- cost had produced a wonderful effect on those that heard it, so that they cried, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ? then Pe- ter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins " (Acts ii. 37, 38). And so, in like manner, whensoever persons were converted to the faith, they were at once baptized into the Church. Compare Acts viii. 12, 13, 36, 38 ; ix. 18 ; x. 47, 48 ; xvi. 33 ; xix. 5 ; xxii. 16, &c. Hence, St. Peter (1 Pet. iii. 21) speaks of baptism as saving us, like the ark of Noah ; for baptism places us within the Church, which, like Noah's ark, is the place of refuge for Christ's disciples in the flood of ungodliness around it. And St. Paul tells us, that, " As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. iii. 27). And as thus baptism, by placing us within the Church, puts us in a place of safety, a state of salvation, so it is the Church only which is said to be saved. Christ is called M the Head of the body the Church " (Col. i. 18), and so is said to be " the Saviour of the body " (Ephes. v. 23), of which He is the Head. He represents Himself as the Vine, and all members of His Church as branches of that Vine ; and then says, " I am the Vine, ye are the branches : he that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered " (John xv. 5, 6). Again we read, that " Christ loved the Church, and gave Him- self for it ; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church : " &c. (Ephes. v. 25, 26, 27). And accordingly, when first God's grace by the preaching of the Apostles was bringing men to Christ, and to the Christian faith, we are told that " the Lord added unto the Church daily such as were being saved "(tov? o-w^o/xtVovs) (Acts ii. 47). III. As to believe in Christ, to be baptized into His Name, and incorporated into His Church, are the appointed means to Sec. II.] ONLY BY THE NAME OF CHRIST. 451 salvation ; so to reject Him and continue in unbelief is the way to be lost. When the Gospel was to be preached, our Lord promised that those who believed so as to be baptized should be saved, or placed in a state of salvation ; but He added, " He that believeth not shall be damned " (Mark xvi. 16). So He said of those that rejected Him, " He that believeth not is condemned already, be- cause he hath not believed in the Name of the only-begotten Son of God ; and this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil " (John iii. 18, 19). " He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him ; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day " (John xii. 48). And to St. John He declared that " the unbeliev- ing .... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone " (Rev. xxi. 8). It is unnecessary to multiply proofs, that, as there is no salvation offered but by Christ and to those who believe and are baptized in His Name, so those who reject Him shall be rejected ; and that therefore we cannot hold out the hope of salvation to those who adhere to another sect or law, as though they might be saved by that, if only they lived up to its requirements. If it were neces- sary to add more, we might refer to those passages in which it is declared that, after the Gospel was come, the Law of Moses, being done away, could never give salvation to those who lived under it, (see Rom. iii. 9, 23 ; ix. 31, 32 ; Gal. ii. 16, 21 ; iii. 21, 22 ; v. 2, 4, &c.) If the Law of Moses could not justify, a law which did come from God ; much less can we believe that any other creed, of man's device, could be safe for any to abide in. The question concerning the salvability of the heathen need hardly be discussed. It is quite certain that Scripture says very little about them. Its words concern and are addressed to those who can hear and read them, not to those who hear them not. The fact appears to be, that no religion but Christ's, no society but His Church, is set forth as the means of our salvation. Those who have these means proposed to them, and wilfully reject them, must expect to be rejected by Christ. Whether there be any mercy in store for those who, nursed in ignorance, have not had the offer of this salvation, has been a question ; and it is not an- swered in this Article. If we have some hope that they may be saved, still we must certainly conclude, not that their own law or sect will save them, but that Christ, who tasted death for every man, 452 OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION. [Art. XVm. and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, may have mercy on them, even though they knew Him not. 1 1 Passages, such as Psalm ix. 17, " The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God," are brought forward as proving that all heathen na- tions shall be damned. Yet hell in this case is Hades, not Gehenna; and on the other hand, Rom. ii. 11-16, Acts xvii. 26, 27, 30, appear to prove that it is not impossible heathens may be capable of salvation. No doubt the reason why so little is said about them is, that it is im- possible that what is said can reach them. "I hold it to be a most certain rule of interpreting Scripture that it never speaks of persons, when there is a physi- cal impossibility of its speaking to them. .... So the heathen, who died before the word was spoken, and in whose land it was never preached, are dead to the word ; it concerns them not at all ; but, the moment it can reach them, it is theirs, and for them." — Dr. Arnold '« Life and Correspondence, Letter lxv. AETICLE XIX. Of the Church. De Ecclesia. The visible Church of Christ is a con- Ecclesia Christi visibilis est ccetus fide- gregation of faithful men, in the which liurn, in quo verbum Dei purum praedica- the pure word of God is preached, and tur, et Sacramenta quoad ea quae neces- the Sacraments be duly ministered, ac- sario exiguntur juxta Christi institutum cording to Christ's ordinance in all those recte administrantur. Sicut erravit Ec- things that of necessity are requisite to clesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, et the same. Antiochena ; ita et erravit Ecclesia Ro- As the Church of Jerusalem, Alex- mana, non solum quoad agenda, et eaere- andria, and Antioch, have erred, so also, moniarum ritus, verum in his etiam quae the Church of Rome hath erred, not credenda sunt, only in their living and manner of cere- monies, but also in matters of faith. Section I. — HISTORY. A FTER speaking of God's election, probably meaning thereby ■** election to the blessings of His Church ; after declaring that the promise of salvation is not to be held out to all persons of all sects and religions ; the Articles proceed to define the Church it- self, into which God predestinates individuals to be brought, and which is appointed as the earthly home of those who embrace the Gospel and would be saved. A distinct definition was naturally called for at the Reformation, when great schisms were likely to arise, and when the Church of Rome claimed to be the only true Church of God, and made com- munion with the Pope a necessary note of the Church. Such distinct definitions we may not always meet with in earlier times. Ignatius calls the Church, " the multitude or congregation that is in God ; " 1 says of the three orders of clergy, that " without these there is no Church ; " 2 and, " wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be ; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Cathdlic Church." 3 Justin Martyr identifies the Church with those called Chris- 1 rb h Qeu ttXtj^oc. — Trail. 8. 3 bnov uv avij 6 kTzioKonos, IkeI t6 nhrrtfoc 2 X u P l S tovtuv kKKTiTjaia ov KaXelrai. — earcj • uonep brrov av fy Xpiordc 'lrjoovs ixd jji Ibid. 3. nadoXiKT) iKuXijoia. — Smyrn. 8. 454 OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XIX tians, partakers of the name of Christ ; speaks of it as one syna- gogue and one assembly ; and says, it is as the daughter of God. 1 Irenaeus speaks of the Church as consisting of " those who have received the adoption ; for this is the synagogue of God, which God the Son has assembled by Himself." 2 It is the Paradise of God planted in the world ; and the fruits of the garden are the Holy Scriptures. 8 It is spread throughout the world, sown by Apostles and their followers, holding, from them, the one faith in the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, and General Judgment. 4 It is one, though universal. 6 Its Head is Christ. 8 It is a visible body, animated by one Spirit, everywhere preaching one and the same faith, one and the same way of salvation. 7 The tradition, or doctrine of the Apostles is carefully preserved in the Church, and the succession of pastors and bishops from the Apostles. 8 He says, the successors of the first bishops might be enumerated in many Churches ; and singles out more particularly the Churches of Rome and Smyrna, giving a catalogue of the bishops of Rome from St. Peter and St. Paul. 9 Tertullian speaks of the Church as composed of all the Churches founded by Apostles, or offsprings of Apostolic Churches, and liv- ing in the unity of the same faith and discipline. 10 The Church, according to Clement of Alexandria, is the assem- bly of the elect, 11 the congregation of Christian worshippers ; 13 the devout Christians being, as it were, the spiritual life of the body of Christ, the unworthy members being like the carnal part. 18 Origen says, the Church is the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God, the members being all who believe in Him. 1 * The 1 "On rolg tic avrbv morevovoiv, (if ovoi 8 Lib. m. cap. 8. Htq. ifjvxrj Kal ftia avvayuyri, Kal fug. eKKXtjoia 9 Ibid. 6 7uayo$ tov Qeov, (if ftvyarpl rr/ iKK?.tjoia Trj 10 De Priescript. flnretic. 20, 21. ii; bvofiaTog avTov ytvofdvg, Kal neTaoxoiiaT) u 06 vvv tov tokov uXXii to udpoio/M tup tov bvofieiTOC ai)TOv (Xpumavol yup nuvre( ckXcktuv, eKKXt)oiav koXu. — Strom. VII. p. Kalovfie^a), k. t. ~k. — Dial. p. 287. 846. - liter, in. 6. la Td u&potopa tuv tX'' v ~ u( morevei tovtoic (if fiiav ^f>vx^v Kai r^v ftevov, -njv naoav tov Qeov iKKAtjolav, (ufa) avrijv ixovoa KO(>6iav, Kai ovfi^uvur tovto 6i tovtov tov IvfiaTOf tivai (if bXov rovf 6i KTjpvooei, koI diduoKci, Kal napudiduoiv, (if iv tivoq tov( morevovTac. — Contra Celsum, ariua KeKTr/fiivTi. — Lib. i. cap. 8 ; also Lib. vi. 48. v. cap. 20. Sec. L] OF THE CHURCH. 455 visibility of the Church he expresses by saying that we should give no heed to those who say, " * There is Christ,' but show Him not in the Church, which is full of brightness from the East to the West, and is the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Cyprian calls the Church the Mother of all the children of God ; compares it to the ark of Noah, in which all, who would be saved, should take refuge ; and says that, whilst it puts forth its rays through all the world, yet it is but one light. 2 Athanasius we find speaking of Christ as the foundation of the Church ; 3 and of unfaithful Christians as the tares among the good seed. 4 Cyril of Jerusalem says, The Church is called Ecclesia (assem- bly), because it calls out and assembles together all ; just as the Lord says, " Assemble all the congregation to the door of the tab- ernacle of witness" (Lev. viii. 3). The Church is called Catholic, because it is throughout all the world ; because it teaches univer- sally all truth ; because it brings all classes of men into subjection to godliness ; because it cures all spiritual diseases, and has all sorts of spiritual graces. It is distinguished from sects of heretics, as the Holy Catholic Church, in which we ought to abide, as having been therein baptized. 5 Gregory Nazianzen calls it a Vineyard, into which all are sum- moned as to their place of work, as soon as they are brought to the faith ; into which, however, they actually enter by baptism. 6 St. Ambrose says, The faith is the foundation of the Church ; not St. Peter, but St. Peter's faith ; for the Church is like a good ship beat against by many waves ; but the true faith, on which the Church is founded, should prevail against all heresies. 7 As the remains of the great fathers, who flourished late in the fourth and early in the fifth century, are far more voluminous than those of their predecessors ; so also the increase of heresies, and 1 " Non debemus attendere eis qui 8 Contra Arian. in. p. 444, Colon, dicunt, Eccekic Christus, nonautem osten- * De Semente, p. 1064. dunt Eum in Ecclesia, quae plena est ful- 6 Cateches. xviii. 11, which see at gore ab oriente usque ad occidentem, quae length. plena est lumine vero, quaB est columna 6 Oratio Quadragesima, p. 650, Colon, et firmamentum veritatis." — Coram, in 7 " Fides ergo est Ecclesiae fundamen- Matthai. c. xxiv. See Palmer On the turn. Non enim de carne Petri, sed de Church, i. pt. i. ch. in. fide dictum est, quia portae mortis ei non ' " Ecclesia Domini luce perfusa per praevalebunt : sed confessio vincit infer- orbem totuin radios suos porrigit, unum num. Nam cum Ecclesia niultis tan- tamen lumen est .... Habere jam non quam bona navis fluctibus saepe tundatur, potest Deum Patrem, qui ecclesiam non adversus omnes haereses debet valere Ec- habet matrem. Si potuit evadere quis- clesiae fundamentum." — De Incarnationis quam qui extra arcam Noe fuit ; et qui Sacramento, cap. v. extra ecclesiam foris fuerit, evadet," &c. — De Unitate Ecclesiae, pp. 108, 109, Fell. 456 OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XIX. especially the schism of the Donatists, led to their speaking oftener and more fully of the Church and its blessings ; and this is observ- able more in the Latin than in the Greek writers. With Chrysostom, the Church is Christ's Body, and the thought of this ought to keep us from sin. And though the Head is above all principality and power, yet the body is trampled on by devils — so unworthy are members of Christ. 1 This body consists of all believers, some honourable, some dishonourable members. 3 It is both one and yet many ; and the regenerating Spirit is given to all in baptism. 8 With Rufinus, the true Church is that in which there is one faith, one baptism, and a belief in one God, Father, Son, and Spirit ; and the Church, thus pure in the faith, is spotless. 4 With Jerome and Augustine, the Church is the ark of Noah, which St. Peter said was a type of our salvation by baptism. But, as there were evil beasts in the ark, so bad Christians in the Church. 5 The meaning of Church (Ecclesia) is, according to Jerome, congregation.* It is not held together by walls, but by the truth of its doctrines. And where the true faith is, there is the Church. 7 Its head is in Heaven, but its members upon earth. 8 It is built on prophets and apostles ; 9 and there is no Church with- out a priesthood. 10 Augustine says, " The Church (Ecclesia) is so named from vocation or calling." u It is the New Jerusalem ; 12 the Robe of Christ ; 13 the City of the Great King ; u the City of God. 16 It is the field of God ; 16 in which, however, spring both tares and wheat. 17 It is not only visible, but bright and conspicuous. It is a city set on a hill, which cannot be hid. 18 It may be as clearly known, and as certainly recognized, as was the risen Body of 1 Horn. in. In Epist. ad Ephes. 10 " Ecclesia non autom, qu® non liabet 2 Horn. x. In Ephes. sacerdotes." — Adv. Lucifer. Tom. iv. p. 8 Horn. xxx. In 1 Corinth. 802. * Exjmitio in Symbolum Apostol. Art u " Ecclesia ex vocatione appellate." Sanctam Ealesiam Uatholicam. In Epist. ad Roman. Inchoata Expositio, 6 Hieronym. Adv. Lucifer. Tom. iv. Tom. in. pt. n. p. 925. p. 802: August. Enarr. in Psalm, xxiv. ia De Civitate bti, Tom. vn. p. 694. Tom. iv. p. 131. 1S Ibid. p. 462. B Comment. Lib. in. in Proverb, c. xxx. ; 14 Ibid. p. 479. Ecclesia enim congregatio vocatur. Tom. 16 Ibid. pp. 835, 610. V. p. 690. w Enarr. in Ps. cxxxiv. Tom. it. p. 7 " Ecclesia non parietibus consistit, 1497. ged in dogmatum veritato ; Ecclesia ibi 1T 6er»n. xv. de 8 v. Psalm xxv. Tom. est, ubi fides vcraest." — Comm. in Psalm, t. p. 89 ; Serm. cxxm. In I "1V71Y1 #'»■ PascJus, cxxxiii. Tom. 11. Append, p. 472. Tom. v. p. 967. 8 " Caput in ccelo, membra in terra." 18 Enarr. in Psalm, lvii. Tom. it. p. — Ps. xc. Tom. 11. App. p. 861. 647 ; Serm. xxxtii. De Proverb, cap. • Comment, in Ps. xvii. Tom. n. Ap- xxxi. Tom. r. p. 181. pendix, p. 893. Sec. I.] OF THE CHURCH. 457 Christ by St. Thomas. 1 The Church below consists of all be- lievers ; the Church above, of the angels of heaven. 2 The Church is not all pure and free from stain ; the just are mingled with the unjust. 3 The Church indeed now is washed with water by the word (Eph. v. 26) ; yet not to be " without spot or wrinkle " (Eph. v. 27), till the Resurrection. 4 After the Resurrection, the bad members shall be taken away, and there shall be none but the good. 5 No doubt, baptism cleanses those who receive it from all sin ; but after baptism fresh sins may be committed ; and there- fore, from that to the Judgment, there is constant need of remis- sion. 6 So essential are the Sacraments to the existence of the Church, that Augustine says the Church is formed by the two Sacraments, which flowed from the side of Christ, just as Eve was formed out of the side of Adam, who was a type of Christ. 7 It naturally strikes us, that the above and similar statements of the fathers concerning the Church are not, for the most part, of the nature of logical definitions. They are essentially practical, and even devotional in their character. Yet by comparing them together, we may find that the very definitions of our own Article are implicitly given by them. Thus we have heard their teaching, — that the Church is a visible body, capable of being known and recognized, — that the very word Church means congregation, — that it is a congregation of believers, or of the faithful, — that its great support and characteristic is the true faith preserved by it, — that baptism admits to it, — that it is essential to its existence to have a rightly ordained ministry, who are able to minister the Sac- raments, which Sacraments are even spoken of as forming the Church. 8 The Creeds do not exactly define, but give titles to distinguish the Church. The Apostles' Creed calls it the Holy Catholic Church ; and the Constantinopolitan Creed calls it One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Its unity depends on unity of foundation, 1 Enarr. in Ps. cxlvii. Tom. iv. p. 1664. dubio sacramenta sunt quibus formatur * " Ecclesia deorsum in omnibus fi- Ecclesia, tanquam Eva facta de latere delibus, Ecclesia sursum in angelis." — dormientis Adam, qui erat forma futuri." Enarr. in Psalm, cxxxvii. Tom. iv. p. — Serm. ccxix. cap. 14, In Vigiliis Pas- 1527. choe, Tom. r. p. 962. The same idea is 8 De Civitale Dei, i. 35; xvm. 48, 49; expressed by St. Chrysostom, Homil. in Tom. vn. pp. 30, 531. Johan. 85, Tom. II. p. 915. See under * De Perfectione Justitice, Tom. x. p. Art. xxv. 183 8 When St. Augustine says that the 5 Serm. cclii. In Diebus Pasch. Tom. Church is formed by the Sacraments, he v. p. 1041. means that we are first joined to the 6 De Gestis Pelagii, Tom. x. p. 206. Church by baptism, and preserved in 7 " Quod latus lancea percussum in spiritual life and church-communion by terra sanguinem et aquam manat ; procul the Eucharist. 58 458 OF THE CHURCH. [Abt. XIX. unity of faith, unity of baptism, unity of discipline, unity of com- munion. Its holiness springs from the presence of Christ, the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, the graces conferred upon its members by partaking of its Sacraments and living in its commun- ion. Its apostolicity results from its being built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, continuing in the doctrine and fellowship of the Apostles, holding the faith of the Apostles, governed and ministered to by a clergy deriving their succession from the Apostles. The designation Catholic, used in all the Creeds and throughout the writings of the fathers, originated probably in the universality of the Christian Church, as distinguished from the local nationality of the Jewish synagogue. The same Christian Church, one in its foundation, in its faith, and in its Sacraments, was spread universally through all nations. But, as sects and heresies separated by degrees from the one universal Church, forming small and distinct commun- ions among themselves ; the term Catholic, which at first applied to all who embraced the religion of Jesus, was afterwards used to ex- press that one holy Church which existed through all the world, undivided, and intercommunicating in all its branches, as contra- distinguished from heretics and schismatics. Hence Catholic, in one view of the term, became nearly identified with orthodox. And so, whilst the one Catholic Church meant the true Church throughout the world, yet the true and sound Church in a single city would be called the Catholic Church of that city, 1 its members would be called Catholic Christians, and the faith which they held in common with the universal Church, was the Catholic faith. Accordingly, St. Cyril admonishes his people, that, if ever they sojourned in any city, it was not sufficient to inquire for the Church, or the Lord's house ; for Marcionists and Manichees, and all sorts of heretics, professed to be of the Church, and called their places of assembly the House of the Lord ; but they ought to ask, Where is the Catholic Church ? For this is the peculiar name of the Holy Body, the Mother of us all, the Spouse of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 The unity and catholicity of the Church were imminently per- illed by the schism of the East and West, when the entire Latin Church ceased to communicate with the entire Eastern Church. From that time to this there has been no communion between them ; though possibly neither branch has utterly rejected the 1 Thue Constantine writes to the See Athanasii Opera, i. 772, 778, 779 ; Church of Alexandria: " Constantine Colon. Suicer, n. 14. the Great, Augustus, to the people of a Calecha. xvm. 12. the Catholic Church of Alexandria." — Sec. I.] OF THE CHURCH. 459 other from a share in the unity of the Church and of the faith. 1 The gradual corruption in the Western Church perilled still further unity and catholicity. The unity of communion was pre- served through the West of Europe ; but important points of faith and practice were corrupted and impaired. Hence the many pro- tests and divisions in Germany, England, and other parts of Europe, ending in that great disruption known as the general Reformation. At that period, some even of those who were sensible of the corruptions, felt that to adhere to the communion of Rome was essential, if they would abide in the fellowship of the Apostles and the unity of the Catholic Church. Others, as Luther, Melanc- thon, Zuinglius, held that sound faith and purity of doctrine were more essential to catholicity than undivided communion even with the bishops and existing Church of their own land; arguing that a Church could not be Catholic which did not soundly hold the Catholic faith, and duly administer the holy Sacraments. Luther indeed never wished to separate from the Church, but ever ap- pealed to a true general council ; and the Confession of Augsburg declared that the Lutherans differed in no Article of faith from the Catholic Church, 2 holding that the Churches ought jure divino to obey their bishops. Bishops, it is said, might easily retain their authority, if they would not command things contrary to good con- science. All that was sought was that unjust burdens should not be imposed, which were novel, and contrary to the custom of the Catholic Church. 3 Our own reformers had a less difficult part to play, for though, in order to return to primitive purity of faith, they were obliged to separate from most of the continental Churches, they were themselves, for the most part, the bishops and clergy of the na- tional Church ; and there was therefore no internal secession from the jurisdiction of the Episcopate, though there was necessary al- ienation from the great body of the Church. In this unhappy state of things, the Church, which remained in communion with Rome, arrogated to itself the name (too often since conceded to it) of the Catholic Church ; maintaining, that she was the one true Church, from which all others had separated off, — that communion with the see of St. Peter was essential to 1 On this subject consult Palmer, On 8 Syll. p. 157. See also Palmer, i. pt the Church, i. pt. i. ch. ix. sect. 2. i. ch. xn. § 1, p. 361. 3 Confess. August, a. d. 1531, Art. xxi. SyUoge, p. 133. 4G0 OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XIX. the unity, catholicity, and to the very existence of the Church, and that all who were separated from that communion were heretics and schismatics. This led naturally to definitions of the Church on the part of the reforming clergy and the reformed Churches. The Vllth Article of the Confession of Augsburg is evidently the origin of the XlXth Article of our own Church. There we find it said, that " There is one Holy Church to abide forever. And the Church is a con- gregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught, and the Sacraments rightly administered." ] Luther, in commenting on the Article in the Creed concerning the Holy Catholic Church, says, " Church, or Ecclexia, means prop- erly the congregation or communion of Christians ; " and expounds that Article of the Creed thus, " I believe that there is a certain congregation and communion of saints on earth, gathered together of holy men under one Head, Christ ; collected by the Holy Spirit, in one faith and one sentiment, adorned with various gifts, but united in love, and accordant in all things, without sects or schism. .... Moreover, in this Christianity we believe that remission of sins is offered, which takes place by means of the Sacraments and absolution of the Church." 2 Calvin defines the Visible Church as " the multitude of men diffused through the world, who profess to worship one God in Christ ; are initiated into this faith by baptism ; testify their unity in true doctrine and charity by participating in the Supper ; have consent in the Word of God, and for the preaching of that Word maintain the ministry ordained of Christ." 8 The English reformers have given, in works of authority, some definitions of the Visible Church, besides that contained in this Article. The second part of the Homily for Whitsunday (set forth early in Elizabeth's reign, therefore, after the Articles of 1552, but before the final sanction of the XXXIX. Articles by the Convoca- tion of 1562 and 1571) gives the following, as the notes of the Church : " The true Church is an universal congregation or fellow- ship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head corner-stone, Ephes. ii. And it hath always these notes or marks 1 Conf. August. Art. vn. SyUoge, p. initintur in Ejus fidcm : cornae participa- 125, also p. 171. tione unitatem in vera doctrina ct cari- a Catechimnus Major. Opera, Tom. v. tate testatur : consensionem liabet in p. 628. verbo Domini, atque ad ejus praedicatio- 8 " Universalem hominum multitudi- nem ministerium eonservat a Chritto in- nem in orbe diffusam quae unum se Deum stitutum." — Institul. Lib. i. s. 7. et Christum colere profltetur ; Baptismo Sec. L] OF THE CHURCH. 461 whereby it is known : pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline." Very similar are the statements of the Catechism of Edward VI. a. d. 1553, the year after the first draught of the Articles. " The marks of the Church are, first, pure preaching of the Gos- pel : then brotherly love : thirdly, upright and uncorrupted use of the Lord's Sacraments, according to the ordinance of the Gos- pel: last of all, brotherly correction and excommunication, or banishing those out of the Church that will not amend themselves. This mark the holy fathers termed discipline." 1 Noel's Catechism also enumerates, first, sound doctrine and right use of the Sacraments, and then the use of just discipline. 2 Bishop Ridley gave a definition exactly conformable to the above : " The holy Catholic or universal Church, which is the com- munion of saints, the house of God, the city of God, the spouse of God, the body of Christ, the pillar and stay of the truth ; this Church I believe, according to the Creed : this Church I do rever- ence and honour in the Lord. The marks whereby this Church is known unto me in this dark world, and in the midst of this crooked and froward generation, are these, — the sincere preaching of God's Word ; the due administration of the Sacraments ; charity ; and faithful observances of ecclesiastical discipline, according to the Word of God." 3 The difference which strikes us between these definitions and that of the Article is, that in them there is added to the notes in the Article, " the observance of ecclesiastical discipline," or, as the Homily terms it, of " the ecclesiastical keys." Now it is probable that the compilers of the Articles, who elsewhere made this use of the keys one note of the Church, omitted it in the Article itself, as considering that it was implied in the due administration of the Sacraments. For what is the power of the keys and the observance of discipline, but the admission of some to, and the rejection of others from, the Sacraments and blessings of the Church ? Where, therefore, the Sacraments are duly ministered, there too discipline must exist. 4 1 Enchirid. Thoeologicum, i. p. 26. sententia est ecclesiam unam tantum 2 Ibid. i. p. 276. esse, non duas, et illam unam et verain 8 Conferences between Nicholas Rid- esse ccetum hominum ejusdem Christia- ley and Hugh Latimer, Ridley's Works, nae fidei professione et eorundem sacra- Parker Society edition, p. 123. mentorum communione colligatum, sut 4 The definition of the Church by the regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac prat- Roman Catholic divines does not ma- cipue unius Christi in terris Vican'i Roma' terially differ from those of the Reform- ni ponlificis." — Controvers. General. Tom ers, except in one important point. II. p. 108, Lib. III. De Ecdesia, c. 2. Bellarmine gives it as follows : " Nostra 462 OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XIX It may be right to say something of the invisible Church. The Article says nothing of the invisible Church ; but as it uses the term " visible Church," it implies a contradistinction to something invisible. Now " invisible Church " is not a Scriptural term, but a term of comparatively late origin ; and there are two different views of its meaning. Some persons by it understand the saints departed, who, in Paradise or the unseen place (Hades), are no longer mili- tant and visible, but form part of the true Church of God, — the Church in fact in its purified and beatified condition, freed from its unsound members, and " without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing." Others, however, (and the Reformers were mostly of this opinion,) believed that within the visible Church we might conceive to exist a body of true saints, persons not only communicating with the outward Church, but, moreover, really sanctified in heart, who not only now partook of Church-privileges, but would forever reign with Christ. These formed the invisible Church, whom none knew but God ; whereas the visible Church was composed of faithful and unfaithful, of tares and wheat. 1 It is however certain, that the Article confines itself to the con- sideration of the visible Church, and gives us no authoritative state- ment concerning the invisible Church. And, indeed, the reformers themselves vary considerably in their statements on the subject, though the sad corruptions in the visible Church in their days led them naturally to apply some of the promises in Scripture to a secret body, and not to the universal Church. There does not ap- pear anything in the Liturgy or formularies of the Church which specially alludes to this distinction of the visible and invisible Church. The Church spoken of there is the Body of Christ, the ark of Christ's Church, and still the congregation of all who profess and call themselves Christians, the congregation of Christian people dispersed through the world, built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, the blessed company of all faithful people, into which a child is incorporated by baptism, of fellowship with which the 1 Calvin expounds this doctrine at ognized this distinction, although in St. length, Inst. Lib. iv. cap. i. It may be Augustine and some others there are fre- seen in the writings of the English Be- quent and evident allusions to the difler- formers, e. g. The Institution of a Christian ence of the body of the really faithful Man. See Formularies of Faith in the and the mere outward communion of the Reign of Henry VIII. n. 52; Edward VI. Church. St. Augustine mentions it as Catechism, Enchir. Theol. p. 24 ; Noel's an error of the Pelagians, that they looked Catechism, Ibid. p. 272 ; Cranmer's on the Church as composed of perfectly Works, in. p. 19; Ridley's Works, p. holy persons, Hares. 88. And after- 126. wards, Calvin attributes the same opin- The fathers do not appear to have rec- ion to the Anabaptists, Inst. iv. i. 18. Sec. L] OF THE CHURCH. 468 adult is assured by communion, and for all members of which we pray that they may be led into the way of truth, and so walk m the light of truth, that at last they may attain to the light of ever- lasting life. And so we pray " for all estates of men in God's Holy Church, that every member of the same, in his vocation and min- istry, may truly and godly serve Him," l that is, may be faithful, not unworthy members of the Body. II. The latter part of the Article concerns the errors of one portion of the Church, the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome claimed to be the whole Catholic Church. Here we declare our belief that she is but one branch or portion of the Catholic Church, and that an erring branch, erring not only in practice and discipline, but in matters of faith. This is illus- trated by reference to the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, all of which are said to have erred in doctrine as well as discipline ; and, like them, the Church of Rome is said to have erred. In what points Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch may be considered as having erred in matters of faith is a question which has been mooted by expositors of this Article. Dr. Hey thinks it was in favouring Arianism and condemning Origen. The great point on which the Western Church separated from the 1 Collect for Good Friday. Saints). "^O Almighty God, who hast The following are the other principal built Thy "Church upon the foundation expressions in the Liturgy and Prayers of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ concerning the Church : — Himself being the head corner-stone" " That it may please Thee to rule and (Collect for St. Simon and St. Jude). govern Thy holy Church universal in The Prayer " for the whole state of the right way," &c. (Litany). "More Christ's Church militant here in earth " especially we pray for the good estate of is a prayer for all states of men, kings the Catholic Church, that it may be so and councils, bishops and curates, all the guided and governed by Thy good Spirit, people in health or sickness. The first that all who profess and call themselves prayer for the child to be baptized asks, Christians may be led into the way of "that he, being delivered from Thy truth," &c. (Prayer for all Conditions wrath, may be received into the ark of of Men). " Who hast purchased to Thy-. Christ's Church." And after the bap- self an universal Church by the precious tism we thank God that He hath "incor- Blood of Thy dear Son. . . . Who of Thy porated him into His holy Church." So Divine Providence hast appointed divers in the Post- Communion we thank God orders in Thy Church " (Prayers for for feeding us in the Sacrament, thereby Ember Weeks). " Merciful Lord, we assuring us that we are very members heseech thee to cast Thy bright beams " incorporate in the mystical Body of of light upon Thy Church, that it being His Son, which is the blessed company enlightened by the doctrine of thy blessed of all faithful people." In the bidding Apostle and Evangelist St. John, may so prayer ministers are enjoined to move walk in the light of Thy truth that it the people to join them in prayer in this may at length attain to the light of ever- form : " Ye shall pray for Christ's holy lasting fife " (Collect for St. John's day). Catholic Church, that is, for the whole " O Almighty God, who hast knit to- congregation of Christian people dis- gether thine elect in one communion and persed throughout the whole world, and fellowship in the mystical Body of Thy especially for the Churches of England, Son Christ our Lord " (Collect for All Scotland and Ireland," &c. (Canon 56). 4 (VI OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XIX. Eastern was the doctrine of the procession of the Third Person of the Trinity. It was an acknowledged fact in the West, that on this point the Eastern Churches had erred. When therefore the Article, writing in condemnation of errors in the Church of Rome, speaks first of the errors of the Eastern Churches, perhaps it specially alludes to that point in which the Church of Rome would hold, in common with the Church of England, that these Churches had erred. So the statement would be a kind of argumentum ad hominem, a premise sure to be granted. But this part of the Arti- cle is directed against Romanist, not against Eastern or Alexan- drian errors, which are only introduced obiter. Some might expect the Article to have denounced the Church of Rome, not as a Church in error, but as the synagogue of Antichrist, an antichris- tian assembly, not an erring Church. No doubt, at times, such ie the language of the reformers, who, in their strong opposition to Romanist errors, often use the most severe terms in denouncing them. But in their most sober and guarded language, not only our own, but Luther, Calvin, and other continental reformers, speak of the Church of Rome as a Church, though a fallen and corrupt Church. Thus Luther says, " We call the Church of Rome holy, and the bishops' sees holy, though they be perverted and their bishops impious. In Rome, though worse than Sodom and Gomorrha, there are still Baptism- and the Sacrament, the Gospel, the Scrip- ture, the ministry, the name of Christ and God. Therefore the Church of Rome is holy." " Wherever," he adds, " the Word and Sacraments substantially remain, there is the holy Church, notwithstanding Antichrist reigns there, who, as Scripture wit- nesseth, sits not in a stable of demons or a pigsty, or an assembly of infidels, but in the most noble and holy place, even the temple of God." 1 Calvin, writing to Laelius Socinus, maintains the validity of Popish baptism, and says that he does not deny some remains of a Church to the Papists. 2 In another epistle to the MUM he writes, " When I allow some remains of a Church to the Papists, I do not confine it to the elect who are dispersed among them ; but mean, that some ruins of a scattered Church exist there ; which is confirmed by St. Paul's declaration, that Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God." 8 i Comment, in Galat. i. 2; Opp. Tom. * "Quod ecclesire reliquias manere in ▼.pp. 278, 279. papatu dico. non restringo ad electos qui ■ Calv. Zozino Epistola, p. 61, Amste- illic dispersi sunt: sed ruinas dissipate lod. 1667. ecclesia: illic extare intelligo. Ac ne Sec. I.] OF THE CHURCH. 465 As to the writings of our reformers, to begin with the reign of Henry VIII., the Institution of a Christian Man has, " I do be- lieve that the Church of Rome is not, nor cannot worthily be called the true Catholic Church, but only a particular member thereof" .... "and I believe that the said Church of Rome, with all the other particular Churches in the world, compacted and united together, do make and constitute but one Catholic Church or body." ' So the Necessary Doctrine, " The Church of Rome, being but a several Church, challenging that name of Catholic above all other, doeth great wrong to all other Churches, and doeth only by force and maintenance support an unjust usurpation." 2 In Cranmer's Catechism, after a denunciation of the great sin of worshipping images of the saints, it is said : " Thus, good chil- dren, I have declared how we were wont to abuse images; not that I herein condemn your fathers, who were men of great devo- tion, and had an earnest love towards God, although their zeal in all points was not ruled and governed by true knowledge ; but they were seduced and blinded partly by the common ignorance that reigned in their time, partly by the covetousness of their teachers," 3 &c. Here the members of the Church before the Ref- ormation are spoken of as pious, though ignorant and misled. So Cranmer frequently charges popery, not on the people, but on the Pope and the friars who deluded them. 4 In his appeal at his degradation, he says, " Originally the Church of Rome, as it were the lady of the world, both was and also was conceited worthily, the mother of other Churches." He then proceeds to speak of corruptions introduced into the Roman and afterwards into other Churches, " growing out of kind into the manners of the Church their mother ; " he says, there is no hope of Reformation from the Pope, and therefore from him appeals to a " free general council of the whole Church ; and adds, that he is "ready in all things to follow the judgment of the most sacred word of God, and of the holy Catholic Church." 5 So then, although the English, like the foreign reformers, fre- quently called the papal power Antichrist, the Man of sin, the Beast, &c, deplore and condemn the idolatrous state of the Church mihi longis rationibus disputandum sit, * Works, in. p. 365. " I charge none nos Pauli auctoritate contentos esse de- with the name of papists but that bo cet, qui Antichristum in templo Dei ses- well worthy thereof. For I charge not surum pronunciat." — Epist. p. 57. See the hearers, but the teachers, not the also Institut. iv. ii. 12. learners, but the inventors of the untrue 1 Formularies of Faith, p. 56. doctrine." 2 p. 247. 6 Works, iv. pp. 125, 126, 127. 8 Catechism, pp. 26, 27. 59 466 OF THE CHURCH. [Abt. XIX. before the Reformation, and of the Church which continued in union with Rome after the Reformation, and in consequence often use language which appears to imply that the Church of Rome was no true Church at all ; still they often speak, as this Article does, of the Church of Rome as yet a Church, though a corrupt, degenerate, and erring Church. Accordingly, the XXXth Canon declares : " So far was it from the purpose of the Church of Eng- land to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things that they held or practised, that, as the Apology of the Church of England confess- ed, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men : and only departed from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches, which were their first found- ers." The tone and temper of the Church of England appears there- fore to be that of a body earnestly and steadfastly protesting against Romanism, against all the errors, abuses, and idolatries of the Church of Rome, and the usuqiation of the See of Rome ; but yet acknowledging that, with a fearful amount of error, the Churches of the Roman communion are still branches, though corrupt branches of the universal Church of Christ. The divine who has been commonly considered as the most accredited exponent of the principles of the Church of England, thus speaks in her behalf: " In the Church of Christ we were (?. e. before the Reformation), and we are so still. Other difference between our estate before and now we know none, but only such as we see in Judah ; which, having some time been idol -ltrous, became afterwards more soundly religious by renouncing idolatry and superstition. . . . The indisposition of the Church of Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us from performing our duty to God; even as desire of retaining conformity with them could be no excuse if we did not perform our duty. Notwithstanding, so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with them. For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel, that they are in one respect enemies, but in another beloved of God (Rom. xi. 28) ; in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate touch- ing her grievous abominations, yet, touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly ac knowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ." 1 1 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. HI. i. 10. Sec. II.] OF THE CHURCH. 467 This is not the language of one great man ; but most consistent with it have been the sentiments of almost all those eminent writ- ers of our Church, who are known and reverenced as the great types of Anglican piety, learning, and charity. 1 It is infinitely to be desired that there should be no relaxation of our protest against error and corruption ; but the force of a protest can never be in- creased by uncharitableness or exaggeration. Let Rome throw off her false additions to the Creed, and we will gladly communi- cate with her ; but, so long as she retains her errors, we cannot but stand aloof, lest we should be partakers of her sins. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. THE word tKKXrjcrla, rendered Church, should, according to its derivation, signify persons called out from among others for some purpose. At Athens, the Ecclesia was the general assembly of the people, convened by the crier for legislation. In the old Testament, the word is often used by the LXX. to translate the Hebrew \>r\p, which commonly expresses the assembly or congre- gation of the people of Israel. 2 Accordingly, when adopted in the new Testament, it is used to signify the whole assembly or congregation of the people of God under the Gospel, as it had been before to signify the congregation of the people of God un- der the Law. And as o-waywyij, Synagogue, was the more fre- qxient word for the congregation of the Jews ; so perhaps our Lord and his Apostles adopted, by preference and for distinction's sake, the word fcicXiyaw, Church, for the congregation of Christians. 1. Now it is well known and obvious, that the word Congre- gation, as read in the old Testament, not only meant an assembly of the people gathered together at a special time for worship, but was constantly used to express the whole body of worshippers, the whole people of Israel, the congregation which the Lord had pur- chased (e. g. Ex. xii. 19. Lev. iv. 15. Num. xvi. 3, 9; xxvii. 17. Josh. xxii. 18, 20. Judg. xxi. 13, 16. Ps. lxxiv. 2). 1 The student may consult Palmer, xvi. 1-3; Lev. iv. 13, 14, 21; Num. On the Church, ch. xi. where he will find xvi. 3; xx. 6. In Psalm xxii. 22, "In quotations from Bp. Hall, Archbp. Usher, the midst of the Congregation will I praise Hammond, Chillingworth, Field, &c. Thee," is rendered by the Apostle, " In 2 V-^-5 is often rendered kKK^rjaia, as the midst of tlie Church will I praise r> iV* in m i« t a • q Thee " < Heb - "• 12 >- So St - Stephen Deut. ix. 10; xvm. 16 ; Judges xxi. 8 ; 8peaks of « the church in the wilder- 1 Kings vin. 65 ; 2 Chron. vii. 8, 12; ne88 » (Acts yii 38)> meanin - the con . often it is rendered owayoyy, as Exod. gre gation of the Israelites. 468 OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XIX. This too, mutatis mutandis, is the ordinary acceptation of the word Church, in the new Testament. It applies to the society of Cliristians, to those who believe in Christ, to those who live in Christian fellowship, and partake of Gospel privileges. For ex- ample : " Give none offence, neither to the Jews nor to the Gen- tiles, nor to the Church of God " (1 Cor. x. 32) .* " On this rock I will build My Church " (Matt xvi. 18). " Saul made havoc of the Church " (Acts viii. 3). "Persecuted the Church of God " (1 Cor. xv. 9). " The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved " (Acts ii. 47). " Fear came on all the Church " (Acts v. 11). " The Church is subject unto Christ " (Eph. v. 24).' " God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets," &c. (1 Cor. xii. 28). 2. But it also signifies the Church, or body of Christians in a particular town or country. Thus we read of " the Church which was at Jerusalem " (Acts viii. 1) ; " the Church which was at Antioch " (Acts xiii. 1) ; " the elders of the Church at Ephesus " (Acts xx. 17) ; " the Church of God which is at Corinth " (1 Cor. i. 2. Compare Rom. xvi. 1, 4 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; Col. iv. 16 ; Rev. ii. ; iii. &c. &c.) 3. It is used even for a single family of Christians, or a single congregation meeting for worship, as the first Christians did, in a private house, e. g. " Priscilla and Aquila, and the Church that is in their house " (Rom. xvi. 5. 1 Cor. xvi. 19) ; " Nymphas and the Church which is in his house " (Col. iv. 15) ; " The Church in thy house " (Philem. 2). And accordingly, at times we find the word used in the plural, as signifying the various congregations of Christians, whether in one single city, or throughout the world ; as Acts ix. 31 ; xv. 41. Rom. xvi. 4. 1 Cor. vii. 17 ; xi. 16 ; xiv. 33 ; xvi. 1, 19. Rev. i. 4, 11 ; ii. 23, &c. We may say therefore, that as the Congregation among the Jews signified either a body of worshippers, or more often the great body of worshippers assembled at the temple or tabernacle, or the great body of the Jewish people considered as the people of God ; so the Church amongst Christians signifies, in the new Tes- tament, either a single congregation of Christians, or the whole body of Christians in a particular place, or the whole bodj of Christians dispersed throughout the world. In our Article the word Church is interpreted Congregation, probably on the ground of the above considerations ; namely, 1 In this passage the " Church" is used to distinguish Christians from Jews and heathens. Sec. H.] OF THE CHURCH. 469 because such is the original meaning of the word, and such its application many times in Scripture. The Church is called " a Congregation of faithful men" caetus fidelium, because those of whom the Church is composed are the professed believers in Jesus Christ, that body of people " first called Christians in Antioch " (Acts xi. 26). The name which our Lord Himself most frequently uses for the Church is, " the kingdom of God," or " the kingdom of Heaven." The prophets constantly spoke of the Messiah as the King who should reign in righteousness (Isai. xxxii. 1), the King who should reign and prosper (Jer. xxiii. 5), the King of Israel, who should come to Zion, "just, and having salvation "(Zech. ix. 9). Daniel foretold that, when the Assyrian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian empires had passed away, and after the fourth great em- pire of Rome had been established, "the God of Heaven should set up a kingdom, which should never be destroyed " (Dan. ii. 44) ; that the Son of Man should have given Him " dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him " (Dan. vii. 14). These prophecies led the Jews to expect that Messiah should set up a temporal kingdom, with all the glory and splendour of the kingdoms of this world. Our Lord Himself, therefore, uses the language of the Prophets, and the language current among the Jews, continually calling the Church, which He was to establish, by the name of kingdom : " My kingdom," " kingdom of God," " kingdom of Heaven," though often correcting the mistaken views entertained of it, and explaining that His kingdom was not of this world. (See Matt, iii. 2 ; iv. 17 j xii. 28 ; xiii. 38. Mark i. 14 ; iv. 11, 26, 30 ; x. 15. Luke iv. 43 ; vii. 28 ; viii. 1 ; ix. 2, 62 ; xvi. 16. John iii. 3. Acts i. 3 ; &c.) Having premised thus much concerning the names or titles of that body of which the Article treats, we may next proceed to consider how the Scriptures prove the various statements of the Article. 1. That the Church is a visible body of believers. 2. That the pure word of God is held and preached in it. 3. That the Sacraments are duly ministered in it, according to Christ's ordinance. 1. First, then, the Church is a visible body of believers. This, we have already observed, does not interfere with the belief that there is a body of persons within the Church, known only to God, who differ from the rest, in being not only in outward 470 OF THE CHURCH. [Akt. XIX. privilege, but also in inward spirit, servants of Christ ; whom some have called the invisible Church, and who being faithful unto death, will enter into the Church triumphant. Nor does it interfere with a belief that the saints who are in Paradise, and perhaps also the holy angels of heaven, are members of the Church invisible, the company of God's elect and redeemed people. What we have to deal with here, is the Church of God, considered as Christ's ordi- nance in the world, for the gathering together in one body of all believers in Him, and making them partakers of the various means of grace. It is argued indeed in limine, that the Church and kingdom of Christ cannot be visible, because our Lord said, u The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say, Lo, here ! or, lo there ! for, behold the kingdom of God is within you " (Luke xvii. 20, 21). This, however, proves no more than this. The Pharisees, who had asked " when the kingdom of God should come ? " expected a kingdom of earthly glory, pomp, and splendour. Our Lord answered, that this was not the way in which His king- dom should come, not with observation, nor so that men should point out, Lo here ! as to a splendid spectacle. On the contrary, God's reign in the Church should not be like an earthly king's, but in the hearts of His people. 1 But it is plain, both from prophecy and the new Testament, that the Church was to be, and is, a visible company. " The mountain of the Lord's house was to be established on the top of the mountains, and all nations were to flow unto it " (Isai. ii. 2). Among the earthly kingdoms, Christ's kingdom was to grow up gradually, like a stone hewn without hands, till it became a moun- tain and filled the earth, breaking in pieces and consuming the worldly empires (Dan. ii. 35, 44). The kingdom of heaven in the Gospels is compared to a field sown with good and bad seed grow- ing together till the harvest ; to a marriage supper, where some have no wedding-garments ; to a net taking good and bad fish, not separated till the net be drawn to the shore ; by which we cannot fail to understand the outward communion of Christians in this world, in which the faithful and unfaithful live together, not fully separated till the Judgment (Matt. xiii. 24-30, 47-50 ; xxii. 11, 1 Many consider that the passage be noted that in the new Testament the ought to bo rendered not " within you," words Kingdom of God signify three but "amongst you," ivrbf fyiwv, i. e. things: — 1. The reign of Christ in His Though you expect to see some sign of Church on earth. 2. The reign of Christ a kingdom, yet in truth the kingdom of in the hearts of His people. 8. The God is already come among you, and reign of Christ in the eternal kingdom you have not recognized it. But it is to of glory. Sfc. It] OF THE CHURCH. 471 12). Such parables would be inapplicable to an invisible company, and can only be interpreted of a visible body. Our Lord distinctly commanded, that, if a Christian offended against his brother, the offence should be told to the Church (Matt, xviii. 17). But if the Church were not a visible and ascer- tainable body, such a thing could not be. Accordingly our Lord addresses His Church, as " the light of the world, a city set on a hill, that cannot be hid " (Matt. v. 14). St. Paul gives Timothy directions how to act as a bishop, that he might " know how to be- have himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the liv- ing God, the pillar and ground of the truth " (Tim. iii. 15). This would be unintelligible, if the Church were only an invisible spiritual society of faithful Christians, and not an outward organ- ized body. So, when first persons were brought in large numbers to believe the Gospel, we are taught that all those who were placed in a state of salvation were " added to the Church " (Acts ii. 47) ; evidently, from the context, by the rite of baptism. This again plainly intimates that the Church was a definite visible body of men. The same appears from such expressions as the following : " Fear came on all the Church " (Acts v. 11) ; " a great persecu- tion against the Church " (Acts viii. 1) ; " assembled themselves with the Church " (Acts xi. 26) ; " God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets" (1 Cor. xii. 28). The clergy are called "the elders of the Church "(Acts xx. 17. James v. 14) who are " to feed the Church of God " (Acts xx. 28), to "take care of the Church of God" (1 Tim. iii. 5). People are spoken of as cast out of the Church (3 John 10). The same thing appears again from what is said of local or national Churches, which, being branches of the one universal Church, are evidently and constantly spoken of as the visible society of Christians in their respective cities or countries. (See Acts xi. 22 ; xiii. 1 ; xiv. 23 ; xv. 3, 22. Rom. xvi. 1, 16, 23. 1 Cor. vi. 4 ; vii. 17 ; xi. 16 ; xiv. 33 ; xvi. 1, 19. Gal. i. 22. 1 Thess. ii. 14. Rev. i. 4, &c.) Accordingly, St. Paul, when he speaks of the unity of the Church, speaks not only of spiritual, but of external unity also ; for he says, "There is one body, and one spirit" (Eph. iv. 4). And our blessed Lord, when praying for the unity of His dis- ciples, evidently desired a visible unity, which might be a witness for God to the world ; " that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe," &c. (John xvii. 21). We conclude therefore that, as the primitive Church always 472 OF THE CHURCH. [Akt. XIX. held, so Scripture also teaches, that the Church is not merely a spiritual and mystical communion of faithful Christians, known only to God, but is a visible body of those who are outward followers of Christ, consisting partly of faithful, partly of unfaithful, but all professed believers in the Gospel. 2. The first characteristic given us of this body is, that the pure Word of God, or, in other language, the true faith, is kept and preached in it. The Church is called by St. Paul " the pillar and ground of the truth " (1 Tim. iii. 15) ; whence it is manifest that a main prov- ince of the Church is to maintain and support the truth. Our blessed Lord prayed for His disciples, that the Father would " sanc- tify them through His truth " (John xvii. 17). He promised to the Apostles that " the Spirit of truth should guide them into all truth " (John xvi. 13). He bade them " go and teach all nations " (Matt, xxviii. 19). And we learn of the first converted Christians, that they continued in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship " (Acts ii. 42). Accordingly, the Apostles speak of the faith as one (Ephes. iv. 5) ; of the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) ; urge Christians " earnestly to contend for " it (Jude 3) ; and desire their bishops " to rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith " (Tit. i. 13). Hence to introduce false doctrine or heresy into the Church is described as damning sin. St. Peter speaks of those " who privily shall bring in damnable heresies " (2 Pet. ii. 1). St. Paul classes heresies among the works of the flesh (Gal. v. 20). He says, " If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have re- ceived, let him be anathema" (Gal. i. 9). He bids Timothy with- draw himself from those " who teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness " (1 Tim. vi. 3, 5). And to Titus he says, " A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject" (Tit. iii. 10). St. John bids, u If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, re- ceive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed " (2 John 10). He says, " Whosoever abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God " (2 John 9). And calls all who " deny the Father and the Son," or " deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," not Christians, but Antichrists (1 John ii. 22. 2 John 7). Thus Scripture represents the Church as a body holding the truth, nay, " the pillar and ground of the truth ; " and heretics, or persons holding vital error, are spoken of as apart from God, to be Sec. n.] OF THE CHURCH. 473 rejected, and not received as fellow- Christians or members of Christ's Church. The wording of our Article, " the pure word of God," may be somewhat difficult. Some would confine the meaning of it within very narrow limits, others would extend it to an indefinite latitude. We must notice, that the expression is not, " the word of God is purely preached," but, " the pure word of God is preached." If the former words had been used, we might have doubted in what body of Christians God's Word was always purely preached, with no mixture of falsehood or error. But " the pure word of God " is preached, wherever the main doctrines of the Gospel are preserved and taught. The question, however, of " fundamentals " has always been considered difficult; and different persons have chosen to make different doctrines fundamental, according to their own pecu- liar views of truth. Hence, some have excluded almost all Chris- tians except themselves from holding the pure word of God ; others have scarcely shut out Arians, Socinians, or even Deists. We may be sure the Church intended to maintain the purity of Christian truth, yet without the narrowness of sectarian bigotry. The way in which her own formularies are drawn up, — the first five Arti- cles being almost a repetition and enforcement of the chief Articles of the Creed, and the eighth containing the Creeds themselves, — the question addressed to all members of the Church before admis- sion to baptism, in the Catechism and in sickness, as to whether they believed the Creed, — the repetition on every Sunday and holy- day of two of the Creeds, and once every month of the third, in the public service by the congregation, — the expressed adherence by the reformers to the decrees of the first four General Councils, — the general agreement to the same effect by the primitive Church, with which the reformers declared themselves to be in perfect ac- cordance and unison : — these, and the like considerations, make it nearly certain that the compilers of the Article would have, and must have intended, that all who truly believed the Creeds of the Church were so far in possession and belief of " the pure word of God " as not to have forfeited the character of Christians, or the fellowship of the Christian Church. 3. The next mark of the Church is, that " the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ's ordinance." We know, that, among the Jews, circumcision and the passover were essential to the existence of the people as the congregation of the Lord, and that he who rejected or neglected either was to be cut off from His people (Gen. xvii. 14. Exod. xii. 15). When the Lord Jesus 60 474 OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XIX. founded His Church, He appointed the two Sacraments to super- sede the two great ordinances of the Synagogue, namely, baptism, to initiate the convert or the child, the Eucharist, to maintain com- munion with Himself and with His people. The command which He gave to His Apostles was to " make disciples of all nations by baptizing them " (Matt, xxviii. 19) : that 13 to say, persons from all nations, who believed the Gospel, were to be admitted into the number of the disciples, the Church of Christ, by the Sacrament of baptism. We know that the Apostles acted on this command, ever receiving by the rite of baptism all who had been converted to the truth. (See Acts ii. 38, 41 ; viii. 12, 13, 36-38 ; ix. 18 ; x. 47, 48 ; xvi. 14, 15, 33 ; xix. 3, 5. Rom. vi. 3, 4. Gal. iii. 27. Col. ii. 11, 12. 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21, Ac.) Nay ! our Lord Himself declared, " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God " (John iii. 5). Whence it is quite clear, that a Christian Church must administer baptism according to our Lord's command and the ex- ample of the Apostles, for otherwise its members could not be " born of water." But our blessed Lord, moreover, commanded His Apostles to break the bread and bless the wine in remembrance of Him ; and declared the bread broken and the cup poured out to be His Body and Blood (Matt. xxvi. 26-30). Moreover, He declared that ex- cept a Christian received the grace of His Body and Blood, he had no life in him (John vi. 53). Accordingly, we ever find that the Apostles and the Apostolic Churches "continued stedfastly in the breaking of bread" (Acts ii. 42 ; xx. 7, 11. 1 Cor. x. 16, 17 ; xi. 17, &c.) ; believing and declaring, that the " cup which they blessed was the communion of the Blood of Christ, and the bread which they brake was the communion of the Body of Christ " (1 Cor. x. 16). These two Sacraments, therefore, Baptism and the Holy Com- munion, were the ordinance of Christ, essential to the existence of His Church, steadily administered by His first ministers, and received by His early disciples, as completely as Circumcision and the Passover in the old dispensation of the Jews. The Article therefore justly asserts, that it is a necessary note of the Church, that the Sacraments should be duly ministered, according to the ordinance of Christ. 4. There is still one more point to be noticed. The Article says the M pure word of God " is not only to be held, but to be "preached; " and that the Sacraments are to be " duly ministered Skc. II.] OF THE CHURCH. 475 according to Christ's ordinance." The first expression at once suggests the question, " How shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent ? " The second expression suggests the inquiry, How can sacraments be duly ministered? and, whom has Christ authorized to minister them? The definition evidently implies the consideration of a ministry : even as we saw both fathers and reformers mentioning a duly or- dained ministry as essential to the character of a Church. The present Article may possibly have less distinctly enunciated this, because in two future Articles the subject is specially treated. It is a truth hardly questioned, that our Lord did ordain a minis- try for the preaching of the word, and that those so ordained did exercise that ministry, and considered themselves as sent by Christ to fulfil it. (See Matt. x. ; xxviii. 19, 20. Luke x. 1, 16. John xx. 21, 23. Acts xx. 20 ; xxvi. 17. 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; ix. 16, 17 ; xii. 28. 2 Cor. i. 1. Gal. i. 1. Eph. iv. 11, 14. Phil. i. 1. Col. iv. 17. 1 Tim. iii. 1. Tit. i. 5. 1 Pet. v. 1, &c. &c.) It is also quite certain that those to whom He gave authority to bap- tize, and those whom He commanded to bless the cup and break the bread in the Communion, were His commissioned and ordained Apostles (see the institution of the Eucharist in Matt, xxvi, and of Baptism in Matt, xxviii). Moreover, we never hear of any one in the new Testament, except a minister of God, attempting to baptize or to administer the Holy Communion. We know equally well, that the practice and belief of the Primitive Church was that none but bishops and presbyters should minister the Communion, and, ordinarily at least, none but bishops, priests, or deacons, should preach or baptize. Thus then we conclude, that to the right preaching of the Word, and to the due administration of the Sacraments according to Christ's ordinance, a ministry, such as Christ ordained, is necessary, and therefore is included in the definition of this Article. Moreover, as Baptism was to be with water, and the Eucharist with bread and wine, these elements must be used in order that they be duly administered ; and, with the elements, that form of words which Christ has prescribed, at least in the case of Baptism, where a distinct form has been given. And so, the Sacraments, to be duly administered, need first the right elements, then the light form of words, and lastly, a ministry according to the ordinance of Christ. 5. It has been already noticed, that the definitions of the Arti- cle may be fairly considered as including the statement given in 476 OF THE CHURCH. [Akt. XIX. the Homily and in other partly authoritative documents, that one note of the Church is discipline, or the power of the Keys. For, if tlic Sacramento be duly ministered, unfit persons must be shut out from them ; and if there be a duly constituted ministry, that ministry must have the power of the Keys committed by Christ to His Church. But, as this subject falls more naturally under Arti- cle XXXIII., we may defer its fuller consideration for the present. The formularies of our Church have expressed no judgment as to how far the very being of a Church may be imperilled by a de- fect in this particular note of the Church ; as by mutilation of the Sacraments, imperfect ordination, or defective exercise of the power of the Keys. At the present time, these questions force themselves on us. But the English Church has been content to give her decision as to the right mode of ordaining, ministering Sacraments, and exercising discipline, without expressing an opinion on the degree of defectiveness in such matters which would cause other communions to cease from being Churches of Christ. II. " The Church of Rome hath erred, not only in living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." So many of the Articles specially enter upon the errors of the Church of Rome that the subject may require very brief notice here. By " matters of faith " probably it is not intended to express articles of the Creed. Had the Church of Rome rejected the Creeds, and those fundamental articles of the faith contained in them, the Church of England would probably have considered her distinctly as a heresy, and not as a corrupt and erring Church. But there are many errors which concern the faith of Christ, besides those which strike at the very foundation, and would over- throw even the Creeds themselves. Amongst these we may reckon all those novelties and hetero- doxies contained in the Creed of Pope Pius IV., or of the Council of Trent. They are thus reckoned up by Dr. Barrow : 1. Seven Sacraments. 2. Trent doctrine of Justification and Original Sin. 3. Propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass. 4. Transubstantiation. n. Communicating under one kind. 6. Purgatory. 7. Invocation of Saints. 8. Veneration of Relics. 9. Worship of Images. 10. The Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. 11. Swearing Obedience to the Pope. 12. Receiving the decrees of all synods and of Trent. 1 It is true that these do not involve a denial of the Creeds, but 1 Barrow, On the Pope's Supremacy, p. 290, conclusion. Sec. H.] OF THE CHURCH. 477 they are additions to the Creeds, and error may be shown in excess, as well as in defect of belief. They are to be received by all mem- bers of the Church of Rome, as articles of faith. They are not with them mere matters of opinion. Every priest is required to swear that they form parts of the Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved. 1 Now the Church of England holds all of them to be false : several of her Articles are directed against these very doctrines as fabulous and dangerous ; and therefore she must con- clude, that " the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in living and manner of ceremonies, but also in " those very points which she herself has declared to be " matters of faith." 1 The Creed of Pope Pius IV. begins fession of all this as " the true Catholic with a declaration of firm faith in the faith, out of which no one can be saved." various Articles in the Nicene, or Con- " Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra stantinopolitan Creed ; and then con- quam nemo salvus esse potest .... tinues with a like declaration of firm sponte profiteor ac veraciter teneo, spon- faith in the twelve novelties enumerated deo, voveo ac juro. Sic me Deus adju- in the text. It finally rejects and anathe- vet et haec sancta Dei evangelia." Con- matizes all things rejected and anathe- cil. Trident. Canones et Decreta, pp. 370- matized by the Council of Trent. And 373, Monast. Guestphalorum, 1846. concludes with a solemn vow and pro- ARTICLE XX. Of the Authority of the Church. De Ecclesice Authoritate. Tiik Church hath power to decree Habet Ecclcsia ritus sive caeremonia* rites or ceremonies, and authority in con- statuendi jus, et in fidei controversiis troversies of faith ; and yet it is not law- authoritatem ; quamvis Ecclesia; non li- ful for the Church to ordain anything cet quicquam instituere, quod verbo Dei that is contrary to God's word written, scripto adversetur, nee unutn scripture neither ma}- it so expound one place of locum sic exponere potest, ut alteri con- Scripture that it be repugnant to another, tradicat. Quare licet Ecclesia sit divi- Wherefore, although the Church be a norum librorum testis et conservatrix, at- witness and a keeper of Holy Writ ; yet, tamen ut adversus eos nihil decernere, as it ought not to decree anything against ita prater illos nihil credendum de neces- the same, so besides the same ought it sitate salutis debet obtrudere. not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation. Section I.— HISTORY. rpHE history of this Article is famous, owing to the dispute con- ■*■ cerning the first clause of it : " The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith." The Article of 1552 (then the XXIst Article) had not the clause. Moreover, the first draught of the Articles in Elizabeth's reign (a. d. 1562) had it not. In this form the Articles were signed by both houses of convocation ; and the original document so signed, is now in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Yet this document had never synodical authority, for it never received the ratification of the crown. Before the royal assent was given, some alterations were made : namely, the addition of this clause, and the omission of Article XXIX. The clause itself was taken from the Lutheran Confession of Wurtemberg, from which source Arch- bishop Parker derived most of the additions which were made in Queen Elizabeth's reign to the Articles drawn up by Crammer in the reign of Edward VI. 1 It is supposed that the Queen's wish induced the council to make this alteration. And when it had been made, the Latin edition of R. Wolfe was published in 1563, printed by the Queen's command, and with a declaration of her 1 In the Wurtemberg confession are hoec ecclesia habeat jus interpretande the words : " Credimus et confltemur Scriptune." — Laurence, Bamp. Led. p. quod .... hsec ecclesia habeat jus judi- 286. candi de omnibus doctrinis .... quod Sec. I.] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 479 royal approval. This copy, therefore, is considered as possessed of full synodical authority. The fine English edition, printed by Jugge and Cawood in 1563, has not the clause, 1 and this is very probably the copy of the Articles submitted to Parliament, which passed an Act (13 Eliz. Cap. 12) giving the authority of statute law to what had already received the authority of the Queen and convocation. After this, the printed copies varied, some omitting, but most retaining the clause. It does not appear that any English copy received the authority of convocation till 1571 ; and then, no doubt, the copy corresponded with one of those printed by Jugge and Cawood, with the date 1571. Dr. Cardwell gives an accurate reprint of one of these, containing the disputed clause. 2 Yet there were other editions, put forth by the same printers, with the same date 1571, some retaining, others omitting the clause. From that time the greater number of editions have the clause. Dr. Cardwell enumerates editions of 1563, 1571, as omitting it ; and as retaining it, editions of 1563, 1571, 1581, 1586, 1593, 1612, 1624, 1628, and all subsequent editions. 3 All subscriptions, therefore, and acts of Parliament, after this period, had reference to the Ar- ticle with the first clause as forming part of it ; and not to the form in which it was first passed by convocation, before the Queen's sanction was obtained. Important as the question concerning this clause has been thought, it is truly observed that that portion of it concerning rites and ceremonies is fully expressed in Article XXXIV. ; and that that portion which concerns controversies of faith is virtually con- tained in the latter part of this Article itself. It is not necessary to spend much time in proving that the primi- tive Church claimed a certain authority, both in matters of cere- mony and in controversies of faith. This is self-apparent from the fact, that, when any disputes arose, whether of doctrine or of discipline, synods and councils continually met to decide upon them, and declare the judgment of the Church. Where a judgment is pronounced, authority must be claimed. The first general council of Nice was assembled for the express purpose of giving the judg- ment of the Church, represented by the fathers of that council, on a most important point of doctrine, namely, the Deity of the Son 1 Though it had not this clause, in- given by Dr. Cardwell, Synodalia, 1. p. eerted at the Queen's desire, yet it 53. omitted Art. xxix. , expunged by the 2 Synodal. 1. p. 98. Queen's desire. The Articles were 3 See CardwelPs Synodalia, 1. pp. 34, therefore, as so passed by Parliament, 53, 73, 90, &c. ; and the authorities re- only thirty-eight in number. They are ferred to by him. 480 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THF, CHURCH. [Art. XX. of God, and on a matter of ceremony, namely, the time of keeping Easter. The Epistle of Constantine to the Churches, written as it were from the council, urges all Christians to receive the decrees of the bishops so assembled as the will of God. 1 The fathers certainly taught that the authority of the Church was to be obeyed and received with deep respect. Irenasus says, " Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God .... but the Spirit is truth." 2 Tertullian, " Every doctrine is to be judged as false which is opposed to the truth taught by the Churches, the Apostles, Christ, and God." 3 St. Cyril says, "The Church is called Catholic, because it teaches universally, and without omis- sion, all doctrines needful to be known." 4 Passages to the same purport might be abundantly multiplied, if evidences of so well- known a fact could be required. When controversies arose, whether about doctrine, or about rules and ceremonies and Church-ordinances, such as the keeping of Easter, the rebaptizing of heretics, or the enforcing of discipline on the lapsed, it could hardly be but that the Church should ex- ercise some discretion, and pronounce some judgment. Most of the canons of the early councils will be found to be on matters of discipline ; and as Scripture generally left them undecided, it was necessary for the representatives of the Church to use the best judgment they could upon them. To this end they strove, looking for the guidance of the Spirit, following Scripture where it gave them light, and on those points on which Scripture was silent, following that rule unanimously adopted at Nice, " Let the ancient customs prevail," to. uf>\a?.a Wt] Kpareirtofi Yet, that the fathers held the authority of Scripture to be pri- mary and paramount, and considered that the Church had no power to enact new articles of faith, nor to decree anything which was contrary to the Scriptures, has already been shown sufficiently, and the proof needs not to be repeated here. 6 The power of the Church they held, not as an authority superior or equal to the Scriptures, but as declaratory of them when doubtful, and decretory on matters of discipline. 1 Euseb. De Vita Constantin. in. 20. ?rwf airavra tu etc yvuoiv uvdpuKuv IX&tiv 8 "Ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus bfe'ikovra doy/xara. — Catedut. xvm. 11. Dei ; et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic ecclesia et See Palmer, On the Church, n. pt. iv. ch. omnia gratia. Spiritus autem Veritas." iv. — Lib. in. cap. 40. 8 The principle of observing tradi- 8 Omnem vero doctrinam de mcndacio tionary ceremonies, where Scripture is prajudicandam quae sapiat contra veri- silent, is laid down by Tertullian, De Co- tatem Ecclesiarum et Apostolorum et rona, c. 8, 4, 6. See Palmer, n. pt. it. Christi et Dei." — De Prcescript. Haret. c. ch. iv. 21. "See above, p. 147, *•?. Article vi. * M rd iidaoiceiv KadoXucue Kal aveXXti- Sect I. III. Sec. I.] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 481 The reformers in general did not deny such authority to the Church, to interpret Scripture in case of disputes upon doctrine, nor to adopt or retain ceremonies of ancient custom or human institution, not contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Thus the Confession of Augsburg says, " We do not despise the consent of the Catholic Church .... nor are we willing to patronize im- pious opinions, which the Church Catholic has condemned." 1 It declares that there are indifferent ceremonies, which ought to be observed for the good order of the Church. 2 But on the other hand, it pronounces that " the bishops have no power to decree anything contrary to the Gospel." 3 Calvin, denying that the Church has any power to introduce new doctrines, yet gladly admits, that when a discussion concern- ing doctrine arises, no more fit mode of settling it can be devised than a meeting of bishops to discuss it. And he mentions with approbation the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus. 4 The language of the English reformers is still plainer. The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer gives reasons why the Church abolished some and retained other ceremonies ; and though it speaks of ceremonies as but small things in themselves, it yet declares that the wilful transgression " and breaking of a common rule and discipline is no small offence before God." Cranmer appealed to a general council, protesting, " I intend to speak nothing against one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, or the authority thereof; the which authority I have in great rever- ence, and to whom my mind is in all things to obey :" 6 and declar- ing, " I may err, but heretic I cannot be ; forasmuch as I am ready in all things to follow the judgment of the most sacred word of God, and of the holy Catholic Church." 6 He declares his agreement with Vincentius Lirinensis, who taught that " the Bible is perfect and sufficient of itself for the truth of the Catholic faith, and that the whole Church cannot make one article of faith ; al- though it may be taken as a necessary witness of the same, with these three conditions, that the thing which we would establish thereby hath been believed in all places, ever, and of all men." 7 In short, his judgment appears to have been clearly, that " every 1 " Non enim aspernamur consensum 3 Sylloge, p. 154. catholicse Ecclesise .... nee patroeinari * Instit. iv. ix. 13. impiis aut seditiosis opinionibus volumus, 5 Appeal at his Degradation, Works, quas ecclesia Catholica damnavit." — iv. p. 121. Confess. August. 1540. Art. 21 ; Syllo>;c, ° Ibid. p. 127. p. 189. 7 Answer to Smythe's Preface, ill. p. 28. 2 Pars i. Art. xv. 1531 ; Si/lloye, p. 127; 1540, p. 174. 61 482 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. [Art XX. exposition of Scripture in which the whole Church agreed," was to be received ; but that the Church had no power to decree Articles of faith without the Scripture, though rites indifferent she might decree. 1 The origin of the dispute about the first clause in this Article was the repugnance of the Puritan divines to the use of the sur- plice and other Church ordinances. This feeling arose in the reign of Edward VI., and the controversies gendered by it con- tinued to rage fiercely in Elizabeth's. The Puritans contended, not only that the Church could not enact new articles of faith, but that no rites nor ceremonies were admissible but those for which there was plain warrant in the new Testament. It is probable that Elizabeth and her councillors wished to have a definite asser- tion of the power of the Church to legislate on such points ; and therefore insisted on the distinct enunciation of the principle by the clause in question, notwithstanding that it was virtually in- cluded in other statements or formularies. The controversy reached its height in the reign of Charles I. ; and one of the charges against Archbishop Laud was, that he had introduced this clause into the Articles, it not having been previously to be found there. 2 On the subject itself the great work of Hooker was com- posed ; one main and principal object of that work being to prove the right which the Church Catholic and particular national Churches have to legislate on matters indifferent, and to enact such rites and ceremonies as are not repugnant to the teaching of Holy Writ. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. SPHERE are contained in this Article three positive or affirmative, -*• and two negative or restraining assertions. I. The affirmative are : — 1. The Church is a witness and keeper of Holy Writ. 2. The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies. 3. The Church hath authority in controversies of faith. 1 See especially iv. p. 229, quoted * That this charge is unfounded has abore, in p. 185, under Article vi. See already appeared, also Works, in. pp. 609, 517; iv. pp. 77, 126, 178, 228, 226, &c. Sec II.] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 483 II. The restraining assertions are : — 1. It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written. 2. Besides the written word, she ought not to enforce any- thing to be believed for necessity of salvation. I. 1. The Church is a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, for- asmuch as that unto it, as unto the Jews of old, " are committed the oracles of God " (Rom. iii. 2). As the Jews had the Old Testament Scriptures " read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day " (Acts xv. 21) ; so the Christian Church has the Scriptures of both Testaments read continually in her assemblies. In no way can she more truly fulfil her office of " pillar and ground of the truth " than by preserving and maintaining those Scriptures in which the truth is to be found. The Scriptures are a sacred deposit left to the Church, to guard and to teach. The manner in which the ancient Churches collected and preserved the sacred writings, and handed them down to us, and the abundant evidence which we have that they have been received by us in their integrity, were considered at length under Art. VI. 1 We, the children of the Church, must, in the first instance at least, receive the word of God from her. She, by our parents and her ministers, puts the Bible into our hands, even before we could seek it for ourselves. To her care her Lord has intrusted it. She keeps it, and testifies to us that it is the word of God, and teaches us the truths contained in it. Her ministers are enjoined " to hold fast the form of sound words " (2 Tim. i. 13) ; " to preach the word instant in season and out of season " (2 Tim. iv. 2). And so she leads us, by preaching and catechizing, and other modes of instruc- tion, to take the Bible in our hands, and read it for ourselves. In these and many similar modes, the Church is a witness, as well as a keeper of Holy Writ. We can hardly conceive a state of things in which it could be otherwise. If the Church had not carefully guarded the Scriptures at first, they would have been scattered and lost, and spurious writings would have partially taken the place of the true. If she did not, by her teaching and her ministry, witness to us that the Scriptures were from above, and so lead us to read and reverence them, we should be obliged to wait till the full maturity of reason and manhood before we could learn what was the word of truth, and should then have patiently to go through for ourselves all the evidence which might 1 See Art. vi. Sect. u. 484 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. [Am\ XX be necessary to convince us that the Bible, and not the Koran or the Veda, was that which contained " the lively oracles of God." 2. The Church has power to decree rites and ceremonies. In the term " rites and ceremonies " of course we do not include things of the same nature as Sacraments, or other ordinances of the Gospel. Two Sacraments were ordained of Christ, and the Church cannot make others like them. Ordination is from Christ's authority, and we learn from Scripture that it is to be performed by imposition of hands. The Church cannot alter this, either by dispensing with it, or putting something different in its room. By " rites and ceremonies," therefore, are meant things comparatively indifferent in themselves, — the adjuncts and accidents, not the essence and substance of holy things. Certain rules are specially prescribed to us in Holy Scripture for regulating public worship, and for ministering the ordinances of God. But these rules are mostly general, and the carrying out of them must be regulated by some authority or other. The rules given are such as the following : " Let all things be done decently and in order " (1 Cor. xiv. 26, 40). Yet how to arrange all things so that they should be done decently and in order, we are not always told. Occasionlly, indeed, the Apostles gave something like specific directions ; as, for instance, St. James's command not to allow the poor to sit in a low place, and the rich in a good place (James ii. 1, 10) ; St. Paul's directions about the seemly adminis- tration of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi. 17-33) ; and again, St. Paul's command that men should be uncovered and women veiled (1 Cor. xi. 4-16), and that women should keep silence in the churches (1 Cor, xiv. 34). Yet, though in these few points there may be something like fixed rules laid down, the Church is gener- ally left to arrange so that in her public worship all things should be done " decently, in order, and to edifying," without specific di- rections for every particular. Nay ! St. Paul, when so strongly insisting on men being uncovered and women covered, concludes by arguing that, if any people are disposed to be contentious on this head, they ought to yield their own judgment to the customs of the Church. M If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God" (1 Cor. xi. 16). Thus, therefore, the very principle laid down in Scripture seems to be that the Church should order and arrange the details of public worship, so as may be most calculated to honour God and edify the people ; just as St. Paul left Titus at Crete u that he might set in order the things which were wanting " in the Church of that land Sec II.] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 485 (Tit. i. 5). Indeed, unless by authority some rules for public worship were made, decency and order could never exist. Thus, whether prayer should be of set form or extempore — whether the minister should wear a peculiar dress — whether baptism should be by immersion or by pouring — whether at the Eucharist we should kneel or sit, and numerous other like questions, have all reference to rites and ceremonies. If the public authority of the Church could not enjoin anything concerning them, what utter confusion might exist in our assemblies ! At one time prayer might be ex- tempore, and at another from a prayer-book. One minister might wear a surplice, another an academic gown, a third his common walking-dress, and a fourth a cope, or some fantastic device of his own. One person might kneel, another stand, and another sit at receiving the Communion. Would any one coming in to such an assembly " report that God was in us of a truth ? " And with the variety of opinion and feeling among Christians, much worse than this might easily occur, if the Church had no power to decree its rites and ceremonies. Yet we are taught concerning this very matter of decent solemnity, that " God is not the author of con- fusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints" (1 Cor. xiv. 33). Thus then the injunctions of the Apostles, and the absolute necessity of the case, lead to the conclusion that the Church must have " power to decree rites and ceremonies." And we may add, that all bodies of Christians, however opposed to ceremonial, have yet exercised the power of decreeing rites for their own bodies. However bare and free from ornament their public worship may be, yet in some way or other it is ordered and regulated, if it be public worship at all. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are min- istered with some degree of regularity ; preaching and praying are arranged after some kind of order; and how simple soever that order may be, it is an order derived from the authority of their own body, and not expressly prescribed in Scripture. Scripture teaches all things essential for salvation ; but all minutiae of cere- monial it neither teaches nor professes to teach. Such therefore must be left, in some degree, to the authority and wisdom of the Church. 1 3. The Church has, moreover, authority in controversies of faith. This statement of the Article as necessarily follows from the nature of the case as the two already considered. It is only ne- 1 See on this subject more especially Hooker, Eccl. Pol. Bk. m. 486 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XX. cessary to keep in mind the qualifications which the latter part of the Article suggests. Our Lord gave authority to His Church to bind and to loose, and to excommunicate those who would not hear the church. The Apostles enjoined that heretics, persons that teach false doctrine or deny the truth, should be shunned, excommunicated, and put out of the Church. 1 Now, if the Church has no power to determine what is true and what is false, such authority would be a dead letter, and the Apostles' injunctions would be vain. All here- tics claim Scripture as on their side. If the Church is not allowed to exercise authority in controversies of faith, she could never re- ject heretics, unless indeed they went so far as to deny the truth of Scripture altogether. In order therefore to exercise that dis- cipline and power of the Keys which Christ committed to her, the Church must have authority to decide on what is truth, and what is falsehood. The Church is a society founded by God, for the very purpose of preserving, maintaining, and propagating the truth. If she had no power to discern truth from error, how would this be possible ? Her ministers are enjoined to teach and to preach the truth of the Gospel ; not simply to put the Bible into the hands of the people, and leave them to read it. Their commission is, "Go and teach all nations .... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you " (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20). They are " by sound doctrine to convince the gainsayers " (Tit. i. 9). They are H to feed the Church of God " (Acts xx. 28) : to give " the house- hold of God their portion of meat in due season " (Luke xii. 42). The chief pastors of the Church are to •* commit to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," that truth which they have themselves received (2 Tim. ii. 2). And they are enjoined to " rebuke men sharply, that they may be sound in the faith " (Tit. i. 13). All this implies authority, — authority to declare truth, to main- tain truth, to discern truth from error, to judge when controver- sies arise, whether one party is heretical or not, and to reject from communion such as are in grievous falsehood and error. There are promises to the Church, and titles of the Church, which confirm these arguments. The Church is called " an holy temple in the Lord .... a habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph. ii. 21, 22). Individual Christians believe that they shall » Matt, xviii. 17, 18. Acts xx. 80. 2 Thcss. xii. 6. 1 Tim. i. 8 ; Ti. 8. Tit i 11 ; iii. 10. See Art xix, Sect. u. 6. Sec. II.] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 487 be guided into truth by the indwelling Spirit of God ; how much more therefore that Church which is not only composed of the various individual Christians, who are partakers of the Spirit, but is also itself built up for God's Spirit to dwell in it ? Our blessed Lord promises to His Church, that " the gates of hell shall never prevail against it " (Matt. xvi. 18) ; and that He will be with its pastors " always, even unto the end of the world " (Matt, xxviii. 20). Such a promise implies the constant presence, assistance, and guidance of Him who is the Church's Head, and His assur- ance that the power of evil shall never be able to destroy the faith of the Church, or take away God's truth from it ; for, if once the faith of the Church should fail, the Church itself must fail with it. Hence the Church, having always the presence and guidance of Christ, the indwelling of His Spirit, and the assurance that the gates of hell shall never prevail against her ; we must conclude that the Church will be guarded against anything like universal or fundamental error. And so we may say, that she not only is authorized to give judgments in matters of faith, but also has a promise of direction in judging. This further appears from the Church being called " the pillar and ground of the truth " (1 Tim. iii. 15). Bishop Burnet contends that this is a metaphor, and that we must not argue too much on metaphor. But, if we never try to understand the figures of Scrip- ture, we must neglect a very large and most important portion of Scripture. Indeed, almost all that is taught us about God and the world of spirits is taught us in figurative language, because it is above our common comprehension, and therefore conveyed to us by parables and metaphors. And the figure here is a very obvious one. It may mean a little more, or a little less, but its general meaning is plain enough. And that meaning surely is, that God has appointed His Church in the world, that it may hold fast, sup- port, and maintain the truth: and not only is it ordained for this end, but as all God's ordinances are surely fitted for their purpose, so the Church is qualified also to uphold the truth which is com- mitted to it. Therefore we conclude, that by God's appointment, and accord- ing to plain language of Scripture, " the Church hath authority in controversies of faith." II. But the authority of the Church is not a supreme and inde- pendent authority. In matters of faith, it is the authority of a judge, not the authority of a legislator. Truth comes from God 488 01 THE AUTHuxUTY OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XX. not from the Church. The written word of God is the record of God's truth ; and no other record exists. He alone is the Legis- lator, and the Scriptures contain the code of laws which He has ordained. To maintain those laws and the truth connected with them, and, so far as possible, to enforce them, is the duty of the Church. But she has no authority either to alter or to add to them. She may judge therefore, but it must be according to the laws which have been made for her. She has authority, but it is an authority limited by the Scriptures of truth. Such is the nature of all judicial power. We say the judges of the land have authority to pronounce judgments ; but they must pronounce their judgments according to the law. They have no power to alter it, no power to go beyond it. The only power which they have, is to enforce and administer ; and, where it is obscure or doubtful, to do their best to interpret it. 1 This is exactly the limitation which we find that the Article truly assigns to the authority of the Church. She has power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith ; but in thus doing : — 1. She must not ordain anything contrary to God's word writ- ten, nor explain one place of Scripture so as to contradict another. 2. Besides the written word, she ought not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation. The first limitation is self-apparent, if we admit the word of God to be the word of God. For whatever authority be assigned to the Church, it would be fearful impiety to give it authority superior to God Himself. It is probable, that this limitation is more particularly intended to apply to the power of ordaining ceremonies, as the second applies to articles of faith. If so, it means that the Church may ordain ceremonies in themselves in- different, but she may not ordain any which would be repugnant to the written word. Thus for example, it would mean that forms of prayer, clerical vestments, and the like, are within the province of the Church to decide upon ; but image-worship, or the adoratioi. of the host, being contrary to the commandments of God, are be- yond her power to sanction or permit. The second limitation applies to doctrine, and is almost a repeti- tion of a portion of Article VI. already considered. 2 It denies to 1 In the parly councils, it was cus- contained the rules by which the deci- tomary to place the Gospels on a throne sions of the council must be framed. or raised platform in the midst of the * " Holy Scripture containeth all thinps assembly, to indicate that in them were necessary to salvation, so that whatso Sec. 11.] OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 489 the Church the power to initiate in matters of faith. She may not enforce upon her children new articles for which there is no au- thority in the Bible ; but may interpret Scripture, and enforce the articles of faith to be deduced from thence. Hence we may see that the Article determines that there is but one supreme primary authority, that is to say, the written tra- dition of the will of God, the holy Scriptures, His lively oracles. The authority of the Church is ministerial and declaratory, not absolute and supreme. And the decisions of the Church must always be guided by, and dependent on, the statements and in- junctions of the written word of God. 1 ever is not read therein, nor may be its true light, and in the light in which proved thereby is not to be required of our Church has constantly viewed it : any man, or be thought required of any " Far am I, by what I have now said, from man, that it should be believed as an ar- endeavouring to weaken or undermine tide of faith, or be thought requisite or the rights of ecclesiastical authority. We necessary to salvation." — Art. vi. do readily acknowledge that every Chris- 1 Neither the right nor the duty of Pri- tian Church in the world has a rightand rate Judgment, if properly understood, is authority to decide controversies in re- interfered with by the statements of this ligion that do arise among its members, Article. It is the duty of every Chris- and consequently to declare the sense of tian to search the Scriptures in order to Scripture concerning those controversies, learn God's will from them. Yet this And though we say that every private neither supersedes the propriety of indi- Christian hath a liberty left him of exam- viduals paying deference to the judgment ining and judging for himself, and which of the whole Church, nor does it preclude cannot, which ought not to be taken from the Church from forming a judgment, him ; yet every member of a Church It is the right and the wisdom of every ought to submit to the Church's deci- citizen to acquaint himself with the laws sions and declarations so as not to oppose of bis country, and to endeavour to render them, not to break the communion or the them an intelligent obedience. Yet this peace of the Church upon account of does not take away from a competent them, unless in such cases where obedi- authority or tribunal the right of pro- ence and compliance is apparently sinful nouncing according to them. The fol- and against God's laws." — Archbishop lowing words of an eminent English di- Sharp, Works, v. p. 63. Oxf. 1829. vine seem to put the whole question in [One great difficulty concerning the authority of the Church in matters of faith arises from the fact that many people seem to expect to hear the Church speaking with definite precise statements in answer to every doubt that may arise, or every question we may choose to put to her ; or else they imagine that to be what is or ought to be claimed by the believers in an authoritative Church. But observe : — 1. The only Church that claims to possess that kind of authority has contradicted herself, repeatedly. (See Janus, " The Pope and the Council, cap. III. sect. 3.) 2. That kind of power was never promised to the Church. (St. Matt xvi. 18, xxviii. 20.) 3. The promises referred to justify us in expecting a general indefectibility, not a special and particular infallibility. 4. This is all that is possible without a second Incarnation ; for which, accordingly, Dr. Manning (The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost) against all facts, contends. 5. This authority, is not a vague thing of no practical consequence, but covers all the essentials of Doctrine and Discipline. 6. The voice of the Church is not gathered from a single utterance, but from gen- eral consent or from a single utterance ratified by general consent according to the rule of S. Vincent of Lerins. Common, caps. n. in. — J. W.\ ARTICLE XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils. De Authoritate Conciliorum generalium. General Councils may not be gather- Generalia concilia sine jussuet volun- id together without the commandment tate Principum congregari non possunt ; and will of Princes. And when they be et ubi convenerint, quia ex hominibus gathered together (forasmuch as they be constant, qui non onirics Spiritu et Ver- an assembly of men, whereof all be not bo Dei reguntur, et errare possunt, et governed with the Spirit and Word of interdum errarunt etiam in his quae ad God), they may err, and sometimes have Deum pertinent; ideoque qiue ab illis erred, even in things pertaining unto constituuntur, ut ad salutem necessaria, God. Wherefore things ordained by neque robur habent, neque authoritatem, them as necessary to Salvation have nei- nisi ostendi possint e sacris Uteris esse ther strength nor authority, unless it desumpta. may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scriptures. [This Article is omitted in the American Revision, "because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles." Not a very sufficient reason for an unfortunate omission. As some persons have argued from the omission, in 1562 and 1571, of Articles XLI. and XLII. of 1552, that the Church of England intended to allow Millenari- anism and Universalism, so others have urged, that, by omitting this Article, the American Church, if it did not assert, at least allowed the infallibility of a General Council. The one line of argument is worth as much as the other, both being worthless. — J. W.] V\7E saw, in considering the last Article, that our Lord Jesus " ■ Christ had given a certain promise of guidance and inde- fectibility to His Church, by which we may conclude, that the whole Church shall never utterly fail or be absorbed in one gulf of error. We saw too, that the Church had a right to judge in controversies of faith, so as to expel from her communion those whom she determined to be fundamentally wrong. If these premises be true, the voice and judgment of the Church universal must be of great value and importance, not as superseding but as interpreting Scripture. And this voice of the Church has been considered to be audible, in the general consent of Christians of all, and more especially of early times. Those doctrines which the Church of Christ at all times, everywhere, and universally, has received, have been esteemed the judgment of the Catholic Church. This is the universality, antiquity, and Art. XXI.] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 491 agreement, the " semper, ubique et ab omnibus " of Vincentius Lirinensis. 1 It is true, no doctrine of the faith has been received so universally that it never has been spoken or written against. But a large number of doctrines (all, in fact, clearly enunciated in the Creeds) have been upheld by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning to the present day. There never was a time, not even the short-lived but fearful reign of Arianism, in which the Church in general did not hold all these doctrines ; and those who dissented from them formed a comparatively small, if not always an insignificant, minority. And as regards these funda- mental truths, there would never be any difficulty in following the rule which Vincentius gives in explanation of his own canon, namely, " If a small part of the Church holds a private error, we should adhere to the whole. If the whole be for the time infected by some novel opinion, we should cleave to antiquity. If in anti- quity itself there be found partial error, we should then prefer universal decisions before private judgments." 2 This rule will embrace all the Articles of the Creeds of the Church. But new errors may arise, and men's minds may be sadly perplexed by them, and difficulties of various kinds may spring up, in which the voice of the Christian Church may never have plainly spoken ; and the question may almost of necessity occur, Shall the abet- tors of such or such an opinion be esteemed heretics or not, be continued in, or rejected from, the communion of Christians? In such cases, which may be cases of great emergency, the only way in which the Church can speak is by a council of representatives. Among the Jews, questions of importance and difficulty were referred to the Sanhedrim, a council of seventy-one elders, which sat at Jerusalem. In the Christian Church, the first example of such an assembly is what has by some been called the first general council, held by the Apostles and elders and brethren at Jerusa- lem, concerning the question of circumcising the Gentile con- verts (Acts xv.). Afterwards we hear of no council for some considerable period. But during the third century several provincial synods sat, for the 1 Vincentius Lirinens. Commonit. c. 2. tiquitati inhsereat, quae prorsus jam non * " Quid igitur faciet Christianus Ca- potest ab ulla novitatis fraude seduci. tholicus, si se aliqua ecclesiae particula Quid si in ipsa vetustate, duorum aut ab universalis fldei communione praecid- trium hominum, vel certe civitatis unius erit \ Quid utique nisi ut pestifero cor- aut etiam provinciae alicujus error depre- ruptoque membro sanitatem universi cor- hendatur ? Tunc omnino curabit ut pau- poris anteponat 1 Quid si novella aliqua corum temeritati vel inscitiae si qua sunt contagio non jam portiunculam tantum, universaliterantiquitus universalis Con sed totani pariter ecclesiam commaculare cilii decreta praeponat," &c. — Commonit conetur 1 Tunc etiam providebit, ut an- c. 3. 492 OF THE AUTHORITY [Art. XXI determining of matters either of doctrine or discipline. Thus Victor held a council at Rome, a. d. 196, concerning the keeping of Easter ; in which year other councils were held, in other places, on the same suhject. St. Cyprian held several councils at Car- thage, on the subject of the lapsed, and the rebaptizing of heretics (a. d. 253, 254, 255.) Councils were held at Antioch, a. d. 264, 265, to condemn and excommunicate Paul of Samosata. And many others for similar purposes were convened, in their respective provinces, during the third and early part of the fourth century. Yet hitherto they were but partial and provincial, not general councils of the whole Church. At last, during the disturbances which were created by the propagation of the Arian heresy, Con- stantine the Great, having been converted to Christianity, and giv- ing the countenance of the imperial government to the hitherto persecuted Church of Christ, summoned a general council of all the bishops of Christendom, to pronounce the judgment of the Church Catholic concerning the Divinity of the Son of God. The council met a. d. 325. The number of bishops that assembled at this great synod is generally stated to have been 318, besides priests and deacons. The council decided by an immense majority for the doctrine of the* o/aoovo-iov, drew up the Nicene Creed, and published twenty canons on matters of discipline. 1. This was the first general or oecumenical council. Following this were five others, also generally received as oecumenical. 2. The council of Constantinople, summoned by the Emperor Theo- dosius, a. D. 381, which condemned Macedonius, and added the lat- ter part to the creed of Nice. 3. The council of Ephesus, called by the younger Theodosius, a. d. 431, which condemned Nestorius. 4. The council of Chalcedon, called by Marcianus, a. d. 451, which condemned Eutyches. 5. The second of Constantinople, summoned by the Emperor Justinian, A. d. 553, confirmatory of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. 6. The third of Constantinople, con- vened by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, a. d. 680, which condemned the Monothelites. These six are the only councils which have been acknowledged by the Universal Church. There are two or three others, called oecumenical by the Greek Church, and many called oecumenical by the Latin Church, which, however, have never received universal approval. 1 Even the fifth and sixth have not been quite so univer- 1 The Greeks number eight general her son Constantine, a. d. 787, and the councils, adding to the above six the sec- fourth of Constantinople, a. d. 869, un- ond council of Nice under Irene and der the Emperor Basil. Art. XXI.] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 498 sally esteemed as the first four. The fifth, though generally ac- knowledged in the East, was for a time doubted by several of the Western bishops. Gregory the Great said he reverenced the first four synods as he did the four Evangelists ; evidently considering those four as far more important than those which followed them. 1 And the reformers, both foreign and Anglican, and probably the divines of the English Church in general, have more unhesitatingly received the first four, than the fifth and sixth councils ; though it has been thought that the reason for this may be, that the fifth and sixth were considered as merely supplementary to the preceding two, and therefore as virtually included in them. 1. These few well-known and unquestioned facts are, of them- selves sufficient to give us an insight into the nature, constitution, and authority of general councils. In the first three centuries no general council was ever held. The reason of this may be mani- fold. In the first century Apostles were yet alive, whose inspired authority could have been subject to no appeal. Indeed the meet- ing of Apostles and elders at Jerusalem may be called a council ; but its force is derived, not merely from Christ's promise of guid- ance to His Church, but also from His assurance of inspiration to His apostles. Then, too, the Church was small ; Jerusalem was the visible centre of unity ; the Apostles gathered together there could readily, by common consent, meet and unite in expression of their decisions. But a century later, and the Church was spread from India in the east, to Gaul and Lusitania in the west ; from Ethiopia southward, to the remotest northern Isles of Britain. There was singular difficulty in all its bishops meeting in one spot. A general gathering of all the spiritual heads of Christendom would have been, like enough, a signal for general persecution. There was no one power which could summon all together, and which all would be bound to obey. 2 And therefore it would have been morally, and perhaps physically impossible to gather a council from all portions of the Church. But when not only was the Roman empire subject to one man, but that one man became the patron and protector of the Church, his power enabled him to enjoin all bishops who were his subjects to meet him, or to send deputies to a general synod ; and his safe-conduct assured against the violence, at least of heathen persecutors. Hence, by the very nature of the case, general coun- 1 Gregor. Epist. ad. Joann. Constan- the Pope has since claimed and exer- tinop. Episc. Epistol. Lib. i. c. 24. cised ; though this is not the place t« 2 I must assume that the Bishop of prove tlie assumption. Rome had not that supremacy which 494 OF THE AUTHORITY [Art XXI. cils were at first never summoned, and when summoned, it was by " the commandment and will of princes." Formidable heresies had risen before, but at first they were suffi- ciently met by the zeal and energy of catholic bishops ; then local synods condemned and suppressed them. But the rise of Arianism required a more stringent remedy, and a more distinct declaration of the voice of the Church. The evils of Arianism were not con- fined to Arius and his followers. Macedonians, Nestorians, Euty- chians, Monothelites, all sprang out of the same grievous controver- sies ; and the six general synods were successively summoned for the end of pruning off these various offshoots of the one noxious plant. So then general synods were the result of peculiar exigencies, and were summoned by the only power which could constrain gen- eral obedience, — obedience that is of meeting to deliberate, not, it is to be hoped, of deciding according to the imperial standard of truth. This constituted them, so far as they were so, general and oecumenical. When the Bishop of Rome had attained to the full height of his sacerdotal and imperial authority, claiming an universal dominion over the Church of Christ, by virtue of succession to the primacy of St. Peter,* he began to exercise the power, for many centuries enjoyed only by the emperors, of calling together general councils of the Church, himself presiding in them. The question of presidency we may lay aside, as we have to deal only with the right to summon. Now, it is quite true that there was no inherent and inalienable right in the Roman emperor, nor in any other sec- ular prince, to summon ecclesiastical synods. Therefore the bare fact of their being summoned by the emperor, gave them no spe- cial authority. But the imperial was the only power which could command general obedience. Hence, when the emperor sum- moned, all portions of Christendom obeyed ; and so a council, as nearly as possible oecumenical, was gathered together. But when the Pope claimed the same authority, the result was not the same. The bishops of the Roman obedience felt bound to attend, when the chief pontiff summoned them ; but the eastern prelates felt no such obligation, and the bishops belonging to the ancient patriar- chates of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria refused to attend to a command issuing from the Patriarch of Rome. The ground, therefore, on which this Article asserts that princes only have a right to summon general councils is that such only have power t<> compel attendance at them. Neither the Greek nor the reformed Churches admit the authority claimed by the Pope, and therefore Art. XXI.] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 495 their bishops would not assemble at his command. There is no single individual governor, nor any ten or twelve ecclesiastical gov- ernors, who, if they agree together, could with authority summon a council. All bishops are de jure equal and independent, and might refuse to obey citations from other bishops ; and their refu- sals would invalidate the authority of the council called. At the time of the Reformation there was a great effort to call a free general council. Luther appealed to such. So did our own Cranmer. But it was to a real and free council. The pope sum- moned the Council of Trent ; but the reformers refused to acknow- ledge his authority to call it, or to admit that, so called, it was a real council of the whole Church. Soon after the Church of Eng- land had thrown off the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, decla- rations to the above effect were made by English bishops and by convocation. The words of the latter are, " We think that neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any one prince of what estate, degree, or preeminence 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." 1 Their argu- ment is, that when the Roman emperor had absolute and universal control, his commandment alone was sufficient to insure the attend- ance of bishops from all quarters of the world. But now there is no such supreme authority. The pope claims it ; but it is an usur- pation. The only conceivable mode of insuring universality now would be, that all Christian princes in all parts of Christendom should agree together to send bishops to represent their respective Churches ; and such an agreement would correspond with the an- cient mode of convoking councils, as nearly as in the present state of things is possible. 2 A supreme spiritual authority, such as is claimed by the pope, we do not acknowledge ; but as all bishops are subject to their respective sovereigns, the joint will of all Chris- tian princes might produce an oecumenical synod ; but no other plan of proceeding seems likely to do so. 2. But when councils are gathered together, from whence do they derive their authority ? There is no distinct promise of infal- 1 " The judgment of Convocation con- 2 See also " The Opinion of certain of cerning general Councils." It is signed the Bishops and clergy of this realm, by " Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cantu- subscribed with their hands touching ariensis, Johannes London, with thirteen the general Council," probably a. d. bishops ; and of abbots, priors, arch- 1537. It is signed by Cranmer as arch- deacons, deans, proctors, clerks, and other bishop, eight other bishops, the Abbot ministers, forty-nine." See Appendix to of Westminster, and three others. — Cranmers Works, iv. p. 258 ; also Bur- Jenkyns's Cranmer, iv. p. 266. net, Reform, i. App. B. iii. No. 5; Col- lier, Eccl. Hist. ii. App. 2037. 496 OF THE AUTHORITY. [Art. XXL libility to councils in Scripture. Nay ! there is probably no distinct allusion to councils at all. To the bishops and rulers of the Church indeed there is a promise of Christ's guidance and presence, and Christians are enjoined to " obey " and " follow the faith " " of those who have the rule over them." 1 Hence the judgment of our own spiritual guides is much to be attended to ; and when our spiritual rulers meet together and agree on matters either of doc- trine or discipline, there is no question but that their decisions are worthy of all consideration and respect. Yet infallibility is cer- tainly not promised to any one bishop or pastor, and though they are assured of Christ's presence and guidance, yet promises of this kind are all more or less conditional ; and it is only to the univer- sal Church that the assurance belongs, " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Individual bishops, we know, may err. Hence assemblies of individual bishops may err ; because, though they have the grace of ordination, yet all may not be pious men, " gov- x*ned with the Spirit and word of God." 2 If indeed all the chief pastors of the Church could meet together and all agree, we might perhaps be justified in considering their decision as the voice of the universal Church ; and the promises of Christ to His Church are such as might lead us to believe that that Church could not universally be heretical, and therefore that its universal judgment must be sound. But no synod ever had, nor perhaps ever can have, such conditions as these. Those hitherto held have consisted of a minority of the bishops of the whole Church ; and most important portions of the Church have been but very slenderly represented. Though, therefore, one bishop may be supposed to represent many others ; yet even in political matters we often feel an assembly of deputies to speak but imper- fectly the voice of a people, and in ecclesiastical and spiritual things this must be much more probable. We cannot say then, that the whole Church speaks by the voices of a minority of her bishops, even when they are quite agreed. Again, it is not quite certain that our Lord's promises to His Church render it impossible that the major part of that Church should for a time be corrupted by error. God gave many and great promises to Israel ; and yet at one time there were but seven thousand knees that had not bowed to Baal. The promises indeed assure us that the Church shall not become totally corrupt, nor 1 Heb. xiii. 7, 17. Compare Acts xx. ing of the Article. — Ridley's Works, p. 28-81 ; Tit. i. 18 ; iii. 10, &c. 180, Parker Society edition, Cambridge, 3 8ee the sentiments of Bishop Ridley 1841. to this effect, corresponding to the word- Art. XXI.] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 497 continue so finally. But we have seen, that Vincentius himself supposes the possibility of the Church for a time being largely, and indeed in the greater part of it, led astray by some novelty of doc- trine. Now a council composed of a minority of bishops of the Church might, in a corrupt age, consist of those very bishops who had embraced the novelties, from which the great body of the Church was not then exempt. What would then be the value of the decisions of such a council ? We may perhaps reasonably hope, that the gracious and superintending Providence of Christ, would never allow the Church, which is His Body, and of which He is the present and animating Head, to be so represented, or misrepresented. But there is nothing in the nature of councils to assure us against such an evil. Councils have hitherto always consisted of a minority. Even that minority has not always been unanimous ; and it might be, that the same minority might repre- sent the worse, instead of the sounder part of the Church, in a corrupt and ignorant age. We hear enough of councils, even in the best ages, to know that the proceedings at them have not always been the wisest, or the most charitable ; that some of those who attended them were not the most highly to be respected ; and that other motives, besides zeal for the truth, have had too much influence in them. The words of Gregory Nazianzen are famous : " If I must write the truth," he says, " I am disposed to avoid every assembly of bish- ops ; for of no synod have I seen a profitable end ; rather an addi- tion to, than a diminution of, evils ; for the love of strife and the thirst for superiority are beyond the power of words to express." 1 Every reader of Church history must feel that there is too much truthfulness in this picture. The question then arises, of what use are universal synods? and what authority are we to assign them ? The answer is, that so far as they speak the language of the universal Church, and are accredited by the Church, so far they have the authority, which we saw under the last Article to be inherent in the Church, of deciding in controversies of faith. Now we can only know that they speak the language of the Church when their decrees meet with universal acceptance, and are admitted by the whole body of Christians to be certainly true. Every general council which has received this stamp to its decisions may be esteemed to speak the 1 e#w fjh> ovTug. el del Tukrjde^ yputyeiv, At yap ckoveuciai ml diXapx'.ai • OX bnug uare navra avKkoyov (pevyeiv emo~Konuv, on fujde (poprtKbv VTro7tii(3ric ovtu ypuovra • icdl H7)de[iiag ovvodov reTvng eifiov xpyorov • fiySe "koyov Kpeirrove^, k. t. 2.. — Fpist. 55, Pro- }.vou> uokuv /iu?Jmv eoxwcviac,?/ irpoo&rjKTjv. copio. Tom. i. p. 814, Colon. 1690. ft* iOS OF THE AUTHORITY [Aw. XXI language of the universal Church ; and as in some cases the judg- ment of the universal Church could not otherwise have been elic- ited, therefore we must admit their importance and necessity. Now the first six, or at least the first four, general councils have received this sanction of universal consent to their decisions. Their decrees were sent round throughout the Christian world ; they were received and approved of by all the different national Churches of Europe, Asia, afld Africa ; the errors condemned by them were then, and ever have been, counted heresies ; and the creeds set forth by them have been acknowledged, reverenced, and constantly repeated in the Liturgy, by every orthodox Church from that time to this. 1 Thus then the true general synods have received an authority which they had not in themselves. " It is," as the Lutheran Confession expresses it, " the legitimate way of healing dissension in the Church to refer ecclesiastical controversies to synods." 2 But those synods have universal authority only when they receive catholic consent. When the Church at large has universally re- ceived their decrees, then are they truly general councils, and their authority equal to the authority of the Church itself. Supposing then a synod to assemble, and to draw up articles of doctrine, or rules of discipline, even though it have been legally assembled by an authority qualified to convene it, and to insure attendance at it, still we hold it possible that it should err, not only in its mode of reasoning, or in matters indifferent, but " even in things pertaining to God." Hence, when its decrees came forth, especially if they concerned things " necessary to salvation," we should not esteem them to have strength nor authority " until they were compared with Holy Scripture, and could be declared to be taken out " of it. The council itself would be bound to de- cide on the grounds of Scripture, no power having the right to pre- scribe anything as " requisite or necessary to salvation, which is not read therein, nor maj'be proved thereby." The Church would be bound to examine the decisions of the council itself, on the grounds of Scripture, and would not be justified in receiving (fame decisions unless it found that they were " taken out of Holy Scrip- ture." But when the Church had fully received, and stamped 1 Not only episcopal churches have so see Cor. Jess. August. Art. xxi. ; Sylfot/e, admitted the decrees of the general p. 189; Calvin, tnstitut. iv. ix. 8, 18. councils, but that the reformers and re- - " Hsee est usitata et legitima via in formed bodies of Christians in Germany, ecclesia dirimendi dissensiones, videlicet Switzerland, &c. have admitted them, ad synodos referre controversias ecclest- may appear both from their con fissions asticas." — Con/. August, ubi supra, and the writings of their divines — a -at. in Cesar, jurta Jin. lit. c. 3. " Pro anima ejus orat, et refri- u Epirt. n. 8, Ad Faustinum. gerium interim adpostulat ei, et in prima 7 Horn. 41. in 1 ad Corinth. resurrectione consortium, et oflvrt an- ' Consti'iit. ApostoL Lib. vm. cap. 12. nuis diebus dormitionis ejus."— De Mo- 9 s^atpETur rrjr navayiar, axpuvrov, vrce- nogamia, c. 10. pevTioynutvng deanoivric r/fiuv Qeotokov kol 1 Lib. ix. In Horn. xii. uemap&Evov Mapiac. — Chrysost. Liturq. » Epist. 34, Edit. Fell, 39, p. 77- Grcec. 604 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXIL ment ; a and it is not too much to affirm, that none of the ancient prayers had anything like an allusion to a Purgatory. Nay, even in the ancient Roman missals were the words, " Remember, O Lord, Thy servants which have gone before us with the sign of faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace ; To them, O Lord, and to all that are in rest in Christ, we beseech Thee to grant a place of refreshment, of light and peace." 2 It has been so common to admit the false premiss of the Ro- manist divines, (namely, that prayer for the dead presupposes a Pur- gatory,) that it is to many minds difficult to understand on what principles the early Christians used such prayers. One of those principles was, doubtless, that all things to us unknown are to us future. Present and future are but relative ideas. To God noth- ing is future ; all things are present. But to man, that is future of which he is ignorant. As then we know not with absolute certainty the present condition or final doom of those who are de- parted ; their present condition is relatively, and their final doom, absolutely, future to our minds. Hence, it was thought, we are justified in praying that it may be good, even though the events of their past life may have already decided it. Again, the Resur- rection is yet to come, and therefore the full bliss of the departed is yet future. Hence the ancients prayed for a hastening of the Resurrection, much in the spirit of our own Burial Service, and of the petition in the Lord's Prayer, " Thy kingdom come." 8 Thus St. Ambrose prayed for the Emperors Gratian and Valen- tinian, that God would " raise them up with a speedy resurrec- tion." 4 And the Liturgies constantly ask a speedy and a happy resurrection to those who have died in the Lord. 6 Another portion of these prayers was Eucharistic or thanks- giving ; whereby they gave God thanks both for the martyrs and for all that had died in the faith and fear of God ; 6 and these com- 1 See this shown in very numerous simos juvenes matura resurrectione sus- instances by Archbishop Usher, Ansioer cites et resuscites." — Ambros. De Obit, to a Jesuit, ch. vn., and by Bingham, E. Valentin!, in ipso fine: Usher, as above. A. Bk. xv. ch. in. § 16. 6 See numerous examples, quoted by 2 " Memento etiam, Domine, famulo- Usher as above. rum famularumque tuaruin. qui nos prae- 6 " The term of evxapioritptoc eix*}* '» cesserunt cum signo fldei, et dormiunt in thanksgiving prayer,' I borrow from the senium pacis. Ipsis, Domine, et omni- writer of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, bus in Christo quiescentihus, locum ref- (l)ionys. Eccles. Hierarch. cap. vn.) who, rigerii lucis et pacis ut indulgeas depre- in the description of the funeral observ- camur."— IIUJ. Patr. Gr. Lat. Tom. II. ances used of old in the Church, inform- p. 129, quoted by Usher and Bingham, eth us, first, that the friends of the dead as above. accounted him to be, as he was. blessed, 8 See Bp. Bull, Sermon III. Works, because that, according to his wish, he i. p. 71, Oxf. 1827. had obtained a victorious end, and there- * " Te quajso, summe Deus, ut charis- upon sent forth hymns of thanksgiving to Sec. I.] OF PURGATORY. 505 memorations of the departed were thought most important, as tes- tifying a belief in the doctrine of "the Communion of Saints," and that the souls of those who are gone hence are still living, still fellow-heirs of the same glory, and fellow-citizens of the same king- dom with ourselves. 1 These were the chief reasons for prayers for the dead in public Liturgies. In the more private devotions, the solicitude which had existed for beloved objects whilst on earth was still expressed for their souls, when they had gone hence and were in the middle state of the dead. For, though they held that " what shall be to every one at the day of judgment is determined at the day of his death," 2 yet they thought it not unreasonable to pray that even those who they hoped were safe might not lose that portion of blessedness which they supposed to be in store for them. 3 There were also some private opinions, — as that the " more abundant damnation" of the damned might be lessened, 4 — that there was a first resurrection, at which some eminent saints rose before the rest, and to this they prayed that their friends might attain, 5 — that all men, even the best and holiest, had at the day of judgment a baptism of fire to go through, which should try their works, even though they should be saved in it: of which baptism more pres- ently. Such private and particular opinions influenced the prayers of those who adopted them ; but they were all unconnected with the doctrine of purgatory. 6 The prayers for the dead, thus early prevalent, were in process of time, in the Roman Church, converted into prayers for souls in purgatory. At the beginning of the Reformation, it was first proposed to eradicate all traces of this doctrine from the Liturgies, but to retain such prayers for the dead as were accordant with primitive practice and belief. Accordingly, the first Liturgy of Edward VI. contained thanksgiving for all those saints " who now do rest in the sleep of peace," prayer for their "everlasting peace," the Author of that victory, desiring that 5 This was a Millenarian opinion, and they themselves might come unto the was held by Tertullian. — De Monogam. like end." — Usher, as above. cap. 10; Cont. Marcion. Lib. in. cap. 25; 1 Epiphan. Hares, lxxv. n. vn. Bingham, Ibid. 2 " Quod enim in die judicii futurum 6 The student should by all means read est omnibus, hoc in singulis die mortis Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, ch. vn. On impletur." — Hieronym. In Joel, cap. 2; Prayer for the Dead; and Bingham, Bk. Usher, Ibid. xv. ch. in. §§ 15, 16. See also Field, Of 3 See this exemplified in the prayer of the Church, Bk. in. c. 9, 17 ; Jer. Tay- St. Augustine for his mother Monica. — lor, Dissuasive from Popery, pt. i. ch. i. Confess. Lib. ix. cap. 13, quoted by Bing- § i v. ; Bramhall, Answer to M. De la Mille- ham, Lib. xv. ch. m. § 16. tiere, i. p. 69, of the Anglo-Catholic Li- 4 "Ut tolerabilior sit damnatio." — brary; Bull's Works, i. Serm. in. &c. Aug. Enchirid. ad Laurent, cap. ex. Bing- ham, Ibid. 64 506 OF PURCxATORY. [Aut. XXII and that " at the day of the general resurrection all they which be of the mystical body of the Son, might be set on His right hand." But the reformers afterwards, fearing from what had already occurred that such prayers might be abused or miscon- strued, removed them from the Communion and Burial services. Yet still we retain a thanksgiving for saints departed, a prayer that we, with them, may be partakers of everlasting glory, and a request that God would " complete the number of His elect, and hasten His kingdom, that we, with all those who are departed out of this life in His faith and fear, may have our perfect consumma- tion and bliss in His eternal and everlasting glory." Such com- memorations of the dead sufficiently accord with the spirit of the primitive prayers, without in any degree laying us open to the danger that ill-taught or ill-thinking men might found upon them doctrines of deceit or dangerous delusions. We have seen then, that the doctrine of the ancients concern- ing the intermediate state was inconsistent with a belief in purga- tory, and that their custom of praying for the dead had no con- nection with it. Yet we may trace the rise of the doctrine itself by successive steps from early times. In the first two centuries there is a deep silence on the sub- ject. At the end of the second, Tertullian considered that Para- dise was a place of divine pleasantness appointed to receive the souls of the just. 1 But early in the third century, Tertullian had left the Church, and joined the Montanists ; and there is a passage in one of his treatises, written after he became a Montanist, which deserves attention. In that treatise (JDe Anima) he indeed clearly speaks of all the righteous as detained in inferis, waiting in Abra- ham's bosom the comfort of the resurrection ; 2 and says, that doubtless in the intermediate state (penes inferos') are punishments and rewards, as we may learn from the parable of Dives and Lazarus. 8 This appears inconsistent with any purgatorial notion ; yet some consider that he had an idea of the kind, because he ex- plains twice in this treatise the words, " Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the very last farthing," to mean, that even " small offences are expiated by delay of resurrection." 4 He 1 Apol. i. 46, quoted above. " In summacareerem ilium quem evan- a Tertull. De Anima, 65. gelium demonstrat inferos intcllipimus, 8 Ibid. 58. t>t novissimum quadrantcm, modicum 4 " Ne . . . . judex te tradat angelo exe- quoque delictum mom resurreetionis cutionis, et ille te in earcerem mandet illic luendum interpretamur ; nemo dubi- inferum, undo non dimittaris, nisi mod- tabit animam nliquid pensare penes infe- ico quoque delicto mora resurreetionis ros salva resurreetionis plenitudinc per expenso. — Ibid. 85. carnem quoque." — Ibid. 58. Sec. I] OF PURGATORY. 507 seems, however, to consider that they will be more fully punished at the judgment. 1 And even this interpretation of Scripture, which is evidently very different from the doctrine of purgatory, he says that he derived, not from the teaching of the Church, but from Montanus. 2 Contemporary with Tertullian, though somewhat his junior, was Origen. If Tertullian derived a notion somewhat resembling pur- gatory from a heretic, Origen derived a notion also bearing some resemblance to it from a heathen. His views of the nature of the human soul were borrowed from Plato. He believed it to be im- mortal and preexistent, always in a state of progress or decline, and ever receiving the place due to its attainments in holiness, or defection to wickedness. Hence, he did not believe the purest souls of the redeemed, or the holy angels themselves, incapable of sinning, nor the very devils out of all hope of recovery. 3 In ac- cordance with this theory, he was obliged to consider that all the pains of the damned were merely purgatorial, and that their sins would be expiated by fire. 4 To this he applied those passages of Scripture which speak of " a fiery trial," and of the fire as to " try every man's work of what sort it is " (1 Cor. iii. 13-15). He held that at the day of judgment all men must pass through the fire, even the saints and prophets. As the Hebrews went through the Red Sea, so all must pass through the fire of the judgment. As the Egyptians sank in the sea, so wicked men shall sink in the lake of fire : but good men, washed in the blood of the Lamb, even they, like Israel, must pass through the flood of flame ; but they shall go through it safe and uninjured. 5 All must go to the fire. The Lord sits and purifies the sons of Judah. He who brings 1 See the concluding words in the last- sages above quoted from his treatise De cited passage. Mortalitate. So the following : " Quod in- 2 "Hoc enim Paracletus (h. e. Monta- terim raorimur, ad immortalitatem morte nus) frequentissime commendavit, si quis transgredimur ; nee potest vita aeterna sermones ejus ex agnitione promissorum succedere, nisi liinc contigerit exire. charismatum admiscuit." — Ibid. Non est exitus iste, sed transitus : et tem- There is a passage in Cyprian (Epist. porali itinere decurso, ad aeterna transgres- 55 ad Antonian. p. 109, Oxf. 168'2) from sus." — De Mortal itate, 12, p. 164. "Am- which it is supposed that he adopted this pleetamur diem, qui assignat singulcs view of Tertullian, whom he called " his domicilio suo, qui nos istinc ereptos, et Master." Rigaltius has shown that the laqueis sseeularibus exsolutos Paradiso language thus used by Cyprian applies to restituit et regno." — Ibid. 14, p. 166. the penitential discipline of the Church, A De Principiis, Lib. i. cap. 6, n. 3, not to a purgatorial fire after death. It Hieronym. In Jonce Proph. c. m. ; Au- is true, the wording of this passage looks gustin. De Ciuit. Dei, Lib. xxi. c. 17, like Tertullian's reasoning. But Cyp- Tom. vn. 637. See Laud against Fisher, rian's language is so constantly opposed § 38. to the notion of purgatory, that it is scarce- 4 Origen, De Principiis, Lib. n. cap. ly possible that he should have consist- 10, n. 5; Homil. in Levitic. vii. n. 4. ently held that doctrine. See the pas- 6 Homil. in. in Ps. xxxvi. num. I 508 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXIL much gold with little lead, shall have the lead purged away, and the gold shall remain uncorrupted. The more lead there is, the more burning there will be. But if a man be all leaden, he shall sink down into the abyss, as lead sinks in the water. 1 This theory of Origen is so far from being the same with the Romanist's purgatory, that, first of all, he places it instead of hell ; and secondly, so far from looking for it between death and the res- urrection, he taught that it would take place after the resurrection, at the day of judgment. Yet to this speculation, the offspring of human reason and Platonic philosophy, we may trace the rise of the doctrine on which the Church of Rome has erected so much of her power, and which has been so fatally pregnant with super- stition. The theories of Origen were interesting, his character and learning were captivating ; and so his name and opinions had much weight with those who followed him. Accordingly, we find eminent writers both in the East and West embracing his specula- tions. Lactantius held all judgment to be deferred till the resur- rection ; then eternal fire should consume the wicked, but it should try even the just. Those who had many sins would be scorched by it, but the pure would come off scathless. 8 Gregory Nazian- zen, with the same idea, speaking of various kinds of baptism, Moses's baptism, Christ's baptism, the martyr's baptism, the bap- tism of penitence, adds, " and perhaps in the next world men will be baptized with fire, which last baptism will be more grievous and of longer duration, which will devour the material part like hay, and consume the light substance of every kind of sin." 8 Am- brose again, using almost the words of Origen, says, " that all must pass through the flames, even St. John and St. Peter." 4 And elsewhere he adopts Origen's illustration of the Israelites and Egyptians passing through the Red Sea, comparing it with the passage of all men through the fire of judgment. 6 Hilary too speaks of all, even the Virgin Mary, as to undergo the trial of fire at the day of judgment, in which souls must expiate their offences. 6 Gregory Nyssen in like manner speaks of " a purgatorial fire after our departure hence," and of "the purging fire, which takes away the filth commingled with the soul." 7 1 Homil. in Exod. vi. num. 4. 6 In Psal. 86. * Lactant. vn. 21. e " Cum ex omniotioso verbo rationem 8 rvxov IkeI rw nvpl fiaimodrioovTai ru simus prsestituri, diem judicii concupis- TtXEvraitf) (ianriapan rCi imnovurip^ xal cemns, in quo subcunda sunt gravia ilia (MKpoTEpw, 6 iaP™v, r^v vfajv, koi expiandse a peccatis animre supplicia," danavd iraarjc trnhg kov$6t7)t(i. — Greg. &c. — Hilar. In Ps. 118, lit. OimiL Nazianz. Orotio xxxix. juxta finem. 7 fteril rffv IvdivAe luraviioraoiv, Ad "wf * Serm. XX. in Psal. 118. rov tca&aooiov nvodf ^wvttaf. — Orat. Pe Sec. L] OF PURGATORY. 509 All these views spring from the same source, and tend to the same conclusion. They arise from Origen's interpretation of 1 Cor. iii. 13-15 ; and they imply a belief, not in a purgatory be- tween death and resurrection, but in a fiery ordeal through which all must pass at the day of judgment, which will consume the wicked, but purify the just. We come now to St. Augustine. His name is deservedly had in honour, and his opinions have borne peculiar weight. He too, like Origen and Ambrose, speaks of the fire of judgment, which is to try men's works. 1 But he goes further still. In commenting on the passage of St. Paul, so often referred to, (1 Cor. iii. 11- 15,) he says, that if men have the true foundation, even Jesus Christ, though they may not be pure from all carnal affections and infirmities, these shall be purged away from them by the fire of tribulation, by the loss of things we love, by persecution, and in the end of the world by the afflictions which antichrist should bring ; in short, by the troubles of this life. But then he adds, that some have supposed that after death some further purging by fire was awaiting them who were not fully purified here, and he says, " I will not argue against it ; for perhaps it is true." 2 He does not set it forth as an article of faith. He does not speak of it as a doctrine of the Church. He does not propound it as an acknowledged truth. He does not lay it down as a settled opinion. He merely alleges it as a probable conjecture. He holds it to be uncertain, whether all tribulation is to be borne here, or some hereafter ; or whether some hereafter instead of some here. But he thinks perhaps some such opinion is true. He says at least, it is not incredible. 3 The very mode in which he sets forth his doubts and queries shows that no certain ground could be taken upon the subject, as deduced from undoubted language of Scripture, or primitive teaching of the Church. In fact, he acknowledges the Mortuis, Tom. in. p. 634, Paris, 1638. portaverunt, sive ibi tantum, sive ideo hie rov /cadapoiov irupdc tov kyjux&evra tq ifrvxy ut non ibi, saicularia, quamvis a damna- frvnov unoKadrtpavTog. — Ibid. p. 635. See tione venialia concremantem ignem tran- Laud against Fisher, § 38. sitoriae tribulationis inveniant, non redar- 1 De Civitate Dei, xvi. 24, xx. 25, Tom. guo, quia forsitan verum est." — De Civit. vn. pp. 437, 609. Dei, xxi. 26, Tom. vn. p.649. 2 "Post istius sane corporis mortem, 8 " Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam donee ad ilium veniatur, qui post resur- fieri, incredibile non est, et utrum ita sit quceri rectionem corporum futurus est damna- potest, et aut inveniri aut latere, nonnullos tionis ultimus dies, si hoc temporis inter- fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium vallo spiritus defunctorum ejusmodi ig- quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia nem dicuntur perpeti, quem non sentiant dilexerunt, tanto tardius citiusque sal- illi qui non habuerunt tales mores et vari." — Enchiridion ad. Laurent, cap. 69, amores in hujus corporis vita, ut eorum Tom. vi. p. 222. See also De Fide et ligna, fcenum, stipula consumatur ; alii Operibus, cap. 16, Tom. vi. p. 180. rero sentiant qui ejusmodi secum sedificia 510 OF PURGATORY. . [Art. XXII. great difficulty of the passage in St. Paul, simply speaks of the purgatorial view as having been suggested, and thinks it not impos- sible or improbable. In this form of it, it was in fact an evident novelty in the days of St. Augustine. 1 A century and a half later, Pope Gregory I. laid it down dis- tinctly, that " there is a purgatorial fire before the judgment for lighter faults." 2 From this time a belief in purgatory rapidly gained ground in the Western Church. Visions and apparitions of the dead were appealed to, as witnesses for the existence of a state of purgation for those souls who were detained in prison wait- ing for the judgment. 3 Thomas Aquinas and other schoolmen dis- cussed the subject with their usual ingenuity, and more fully ex- plained the situation of purgatory, its pains, and their intensity. But the Greek Church, divided from the Latin on other points, was never agreed with it on this. In the year 1431 met the synod of Basle, which promised much reformation, and effected none. Thither a deputation had come from the Emperor of Constantinople ; and by it a hope was excited that the breach between the two long-divided branches of the Church might now be healed. Eugenius IV. Bishop of Rome, who at first endeavoured in 1437 to translate the Council of Basle to Ferrara, now strove to remove it to Florence (a. d. 1439). Only four of the Bishops left Basle at his command, the rest con- tinuing their sitting there till 1443, forming a council acknowledged as oecumenical by great part of Europe, though opposed to the pope. However, several Italian bishops met at Florence, and were joined by the Greek emperor and some bishops from the East. In this synod the Greek deputies were induced to acknowledge, that the Bishop of Rome was the primate and head of the Church, that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and that there is a purgatory. These decrees were signed by about sixty-two Latin bishops, by John Palseologus the emperor, and by eighteen Eastern bishops. On their return to Constantinople the Greek prelates were received with the greatest indignation by those 1 We must by no means imagine that tion, not from suffering by the fire. — the fathers uniformly interpreted this pas- See Horn. ix. in 1 Corinth. sage of the Corinthians either of a purga- - " l)e quibusdam levibus culpis esse torial Are at judgment, or before the judg- ante judicium purgatorius ignis creden- incnt. For example, St. Chrysostom dus est." — Gregor. Dial. Lib. iv. cap. distinctly expounds it of a probatory, 89. Also In Psalm, iii. Panitent. in prin- not a purgatory fire; and understands rip. : Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. vi. ; that those who suffer loss are those who Ixiwl aqainst Fislier, § 88. are damned eternally, and that their " be- 8 See Jer. Taylor, Dissiutsire fiom Po- ing saved yet so as by fire " means that pert/, pt. I. ch. 1. § 4, Vol. x. p. 156, Works, they shall be preserved from annihila- London, 1822. Sec. I.] OF PURGATORY. 511 whom they might be supposed to represent. The decrees of Flor- ence were utterly and most summarily rejected in the East, the synod was altogether repudiated, and has never since been rec- ognized. The patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, who were represented by deputies in the council, joined in the protest against it. To this day the Eastern Church has never acknowledged it, nor does it accept any of its decrees, whether con- cerning the Procession, the Pope, or Pui'gatory. 1 The Council of Trent, a. d. 1563, professing to be " taught by the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures, and tradition of the fathers," de- creed, that there is a purgatory, and that souls there detained are aided by the sacrifice of the altar. It, however, forbade the people to be troubled with any of the more subtle questions on the sub- ject. 2 The divines of the Church of Rome have not been so careful as the council to avoid entering into minute discussion. Bellar- mine has a whole book on the circumstances of purgatory. In this, he first discusses for whom purgatory is reserved. Then he argues that souls there detained can neither merit nor sin ; then, that they are sure of salvation. Then he resolves the question, Where is purgatory ? Next he discusses, whether souls pass straight from purgatory to Heaven, or whether there be a Paradise besides. He discusses how long purgatory lasts, of what nature is its punishment, whether its fire is corporeal, (which he solves in the affirmative,) whether demons torment the souls there, (which he leaves in doubt). And lastly, he teaches how prayers aid the souls in purgatory, and what kind of prayers they should be. 3 2. Pardons or Indulgences. These, in the sense intended by this Article and taught by the Church of Rome, sprang out of the doctrine of Purgatory. In the Primitive Church, when Christians had lapsed in persecu- tion, or otherwise incurred the censure of the Church, it was not uncommon for the bishops to relax the penances which had been enjoined on them, either when there was danger of death, or at the intercession of the martyrs or confessors in prison, or from some other worthy cause. 4 Very early, the custom of martyrs interced- ing appears to have been abused ; and the high esteem in which martyrdom was held, led to the precipitate reception of their prayers 1 Concil. Tom. xm. ; Fleury, liv. ; 2 Sess. xxv. Decretum de Purgatorio. Gibbon, ch. lxvi. lxvii. ; Usher, as 3 Bellarmin. De Purgatorio, Lib. u. above; Palmer, On the Church, pt. iv. ch. 4 Tertullian Ad Marty res, c. i. ; Cypr. xi. § 5. Ep. 15 ad Marti/res ; Euseb. FT. E. v. 2. 512 OF PURGATORY. [Art.XXIL for offenders, to the interruption of the right discipline of the Church. 1 The Council of Ancyra, and, soon after, the Council of Nice, gave bishops express authority to restore offenders to communion, and to shorten the term of their penitential probation, on consid- eration of past good conduct or present tokens of true repentance. 2 This was reasonable enough. But all good is liable to abuse. In process of time, liberal almsgiving was accepted in lieu, or at least in mitigation of penance ; the beginning of which custom is charged, though probably without justice, on our own Archbishop Theodore. 3 Here was a loop-hole for all evil to creep in. The subsequent sale of indulgences easily rose out of the permission to substitute charity to the poor or to the Church for mortification and humiliation before God. But the obtaining of such exemptions is a wholly different thing from the modern doctrine of the Roman Church concerning indul- gences. Indulgences indeed now are said to be exemptions from the temporal punishment of mis. But in the term temporal punish- ment are included not only Church-censures, but the pains of pur- gatory ; and it is held, that the Bishop of Rome has a store or treasure of the merits of Christ and of the saints, which, for suffi- cient reasons, he can dispense, either by himself or his agents, to mitigate or shorten the sufferings of penitents, whether in this world or the world to come ; 4 this power not, of course, extending to the torments of hell, which are not among the temporal punish- ments of sin. Some of the Roman Catholic divines acknowledge that no mention of such indulgences is to be found in Scripture or in the fathers. Many of the schoolmen confess that their use began in the time of Pope Alexander III., at the end of the twelfth century. Indeed, before this time, it is hardly possible to discover any traces of them. The first jubilee, or year of general indulgence, is said to have been kept in the pontificate of Boniface VIII., 1300 years after Christ. And the famous bull, Unigenitus, was issued by Pope Clement VI. fifty years after the first jubilee, 1 See Tertullian, De Pudicit. c. 22. Unigenitus .... declaravit, extare in a Concil. Ancyran. Can. v. ; Concil. Keel, tliosaurum spiritualem ex pnssioni- Nicsen. i. Can. xn.; Marshall's Peniten- bus Christi at sanctorum conrlatum." — tied Discipline, eh. III. § 2. liellarmin. !>>• l\\rhJgm4M; Lib. i. rap. 2. 8 Theodore became Archbishop of " Restat igitur ut passionos sanctorum, Canterbury, a. d. 670. The custom of si ullo modo dispensari default, extra purchasing exemption of penance by sacramentum solum, IdqiM per solutio- almsgiving can be proved to be of great- nem solius reatus pcrme temporalis

  • - er antiquity than this. See Marshall, as pensari debeant." — Ibid. cup. '■'■ above. See also cap. 10, where Indulgences *"Recte Clemens VI. Pont, in Con- are shown to apply either to penance in stitutione, Extravagantis, quae incipit this life or purgatorial pains in tlie next. Sec. LI OF PURGATORY. 513 a. d. 1350. 1 It was not without discussion and opposition that this custom grew and prevailed. 2 It reached its greatest height of corruption in the Pontificate of Leo X., when Tetzel, the agent of that pope, openly selling indulgences in Germany, roused the spirit of Luther, and so hastened the Reformation. This led to more formal discussion and consideration of the grounds of it. The Council of Trent decreed, that " the treasures of the Church should not be made use of for gain, but for godliness." 3 It de- clared, that " the power of granting indulgences was given by Christ to His Church," that, according to ancient usage, "it is to be retained in the Church ; " and it anathematizes those " who assert that indulgences are useless, or that the Church cannot grant them." Yet it enjoins moderation in their use, lest " by too great facility in granting them ecclesiastical discipline be ener- vated ; "• and forbids all abuses, whereby profit has been sought by them, and through which scandal has arisen from heretics. 4 II. 1. " Worshipping and adoration as well of images as of relics." We have strong testimony from the earliest times against anything like image-worship, or the use of images or pictures, for the exciting of devotion. Irenseus speaks of it as one of the errors of some of the Gnostics, that they had images and pictures, which they crowned and honoured, as the Gentiles do, professing that the form of Christ, as He was in the flesh, was made by Pilate. 5 Clement of Alexandria repeatedly speaks of the impropriety of making an image of God, the best image of whom is man created after His likeness. 6 Origen quotes Celsus as saying that Chris- tians could not " bear temples, altars, and images ; " and proceeds to justify the forbidding of statues and images, showing that Chris- tians rejected them on a higher principle than the Scythians and nomad tribes of Libya. 7 He contends, that it is folly to make images of God, whose best image are those virtues and graces which the Word forms within us, and by which we imitate Him, 1 Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive from Popery, the Carpocratians with worshipping im- ch. i. § 8, Vol. x. p. 138 ; Bellarmin. be ages of Christ, together with those of the Indulgentiis, Lib. i. cap. 2. philosophers, as the Gentiles do. So 2 See Bp. Taylor, as above, who refers Augustine (Hceres. vn.) accuses them to Franciscus de Mayronis and Durandus of worshipping images of our Lord, of as having disputed against it. See also St. Paul, Homer, and Plato. Bellarmine, as above. 6 Strom. Lib. v. 5, Tom. n. p. 662, Lib. 8 Sess. xxi. cap. ix. vi. 18, Tom. n. p. 825, Lib. vn. 5; Tom. 4 Sess. xxv. Decretum de Indulgentiis. n. p. 845, &c. 8 Iren. Adv. Hcer. i. 24, adfinem. Comp. 7 Cont. Cels. Lib. vu. 62, seq. Epiphan. Hares, xxvn. n. 6, who charges 65 514 OF PURGATORY. [Art XXIL the " First-born of every creature," in wbom, of all things, is the highest and noblest image of the Father. 1 So Minucius Felix asks " What should I form as an image of God, when, if you think rightly, man is himself God's image ?" 2 Exactly in like manner argues Lactantius : " That is not God's image which is made with man's fingers, with stone or brass: but man himself, who thinks and moves and acts ; " and he says, " it is superfluous tc make images of gods, as if they were absent, when we believe them to be present." 8 Athanasius as plainly condemns the adora- tion of images, whether in their use the Supreme Being be to be worshipped, or only angels and inferior intelligences. 4 The Romanist divines lay great stress on the early mention of the use of the sign of the cross" and of emblematical figures. But, how far either of these are from resemblance to the later use of images, it is impossible that any one can be unmindful. Symbols of the faith were unquestionably very early adopted, perhaps from the very first ; and have been retained, not only in the Anglican, but in the Lutheran and other reformed communions. Tertullian speaks of the symbol, on a chalice, of the Good Shepherd carrying the lost sheep on his shoulders. 5 This was not even a figure of our Saviour, but merely an emblem of Him ; and this is the only instance ever mentioned by writers of the first three centuries. The sign of the cross, we learn from the same father, was constantly made by the first Christians on their fore- heads, at their going out and coming in, at meals, at bathing, at lying down and rising up ; and all this, he says, had been handed down by ancient custom and tradition. 6 But though they thus used the sign of the Cross, to remind them of Him who was cru- cified, it was not to worship it. " We neither worship crosses, nor wish for them," says Minucius Felix ; 7 for the heathens had charged upon Christians that they paid respect to that instrument of pun- ishment which they deserved. 8 But the cross was esteemed em- blematical of the doctrine of the Cross, and a badge to distinguish Christian from heathen men. If ever the early Christians were likely to have worshipped the cross, it was when the Empress Helena, mother to Constantine the Great, found, or thought she found the true cross on which our Lord was crucified. But how little was this the case, we learn from the words of St. Ambrose. i Cont. Cels. Lib. Til. 18. * De Pudicit. c. 7. 3 Minuc. Felic. Octavius, p. 818. Lujjd. " De Corona At. c. 8. Batav. 1672. 7 Octav. p. 284. 8 Irutit. ii. 2. • Ibid. p. 86 ; Tertull. Apol. c. 16. * Orat. cont. Gente*. Tom. i. p. 22, Col. 1686. Sec I] OF PURGATORY. 515 He tells us that Helena found the nails with which our Lord was crucified, and placed one in the crown worn by Constantine. " Wise Helena," he says, " who exalted the cross on the head of kings, that Christ's cross might be adored in kings." * But then he remarks that Helena worshipped that great King who was cru- cified, " not the wood on which He was crucified ; that would be a heathenish error, a \*anity of impious men ; but she worshipped Him who hung upon the cross." 2 In vain therefore is the ancient use of the cross, or even the respect paid to the figure of it, alleged as a proof of the antiquity of image-worship. Indeed, it has not been the cross, but the Crucifix, the figure of the crucified Saviour, which has tempted to an idolatrous worship of it. We have seen that it was charged against the Gnostics as an error, that they had an image of our Saviour, and paid it honour as the heathen do. Eusebius tells us that the people of Paneas had a statue, said to have been erected by the woman who was healed of an issue of blood, and supposed to be a likeness of our blessed Saviour. Eusebius remarks on it, that it is no great won- der if the heathen who were healed by our Saviour should have done such things as this, when pictures of St. Peter, and St. Paul, and of Christ Himself, were said to be preserved ; all this being after the heathen manner of honouring deliverers. 3 It is true, Sozomen tells us, that, when Julian had removed this statue, and the heathen had insulted it and broken it in pieces out of hatred to Christ, the Christians gathered up the fragments and laid them up in the Church. 4 But it follows not, because the Christians of his day did not wish to see a statue which was esteemed a likeness of our Saviour treated with contempt, that they therefore intended to adore it. They did not set it up in the Church to worship, but simply brought in the fragments there, that they might not be insulted. It is not improbable that, about the beginning of the fourth cen- tury, there was some inclination to bring pictures into churches ; for at the Council of Eliberis in Spain, a. d. 305, one of the canons ordered, that " no picture should be in the church, lest that, which is worshipped or adored, be painted on the walls." 5 At the latter 1 " Sapiens Helena, quae crucera in et vanitas impiorum, sed adoravit Ilium sapite regum levavit, ut crux Christi in qui pependit in ligno," &c. — Ibid. regit>U8 adoretur." — Ambros. De Obitu 3 uc einbg ruv naTunuJv wrraimyvTuutTUf Theodosii, juxta fitiem. ola ourf/pac e&vucy avvr/deiq nap' kavrolg 2 " Habeat Helena quae legat (h. e. tit- tovtov rifiuv elwdoTuv rbv rpbnov. — H. E. ulum in crucera a Pilato inscrifitum) unde vn. 18. srucem Domini recognoscat. Invenit 4 Sozomen. v. 21. argo titulum, Regem adoravit, non lig- 6 Concil. Eliber. can. 36 : " Placuit uum utique, quia hie gentilis est error, picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne 516 OF PURGATORY. [Abt. XXH end of the fourth century, we are told that Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, to keep the country-people quiet, when they met to celebrate the festival of the dedication of the church of St. Felix, ordered the church to be painted with portraits of martyrs and Scripture history, such as Esther, Job, Tobit, &C. 1 Nearly at the same time, or a little earlier, Epiphanius, going through Anablatha, a village in Palestine, " found there a veil hang- ing before the door of a church, whereon was painted an image of Christ, or some saint — he did not remember which. When he saw in the church of Christ an image of a man, contrary to the authority of Scripture, he rent it, and advised that it should be made a winding-sheet for some poor man." 2 Here we have the strong testimony of a bishop and eminent father of the Church, not only against image -worship, but even against the use of pic- tures in the house of God. At the end of the fourth century again, St. Augustine says that he knew of many who were worshippers of tombs and pictures, and who practised other superstitious rites. But he says, the Church condemns all such, and strives to correct them as evil chil- dren. 8 He himself declares, that it is impiety to erect a statue to God in the CJmrch. 4 He contends against the argument of the heathens, that they only used the image to remind them of the be- ing they worshipped, saying that the visible image naturally arrested the attention more than the invisible deity ; and hence the use of such an outward symbol of devotion is calculated to lead to a real worship of the idol itself, even of the gold and silver, the work of men's hands. And then he answers the objection, that Christians in the administration of the Sacraments had vessels made of gold and silver, the work of men's hands. " But," he asks, " have they a mouth, and speak not ? have they eyes, and see not ? or do we worship them, because in their use we worship God ? That is the chief cause of the mad impiety, that a form like life has so much power on the feelings of the wretched beings as to make it- quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus Lib. xv. c. 14, 4, S). See Bingham, at depingatur." — See Jer. Taylor, Dissua- above. sire, pt. i. ch. i. § 8 ; Bingham, E. A. * " Novi multos esse sepulcrorum et Bk. vm. ch. viii. § 6. picturarum adoratores, &c quos et 1 Paulin. Natal. 9, Felicis ; Bingham, ipsa (Rcclesia) condemnat, et quotidie Bk. vm. ch. vm. § 7. tanquam malos Alios corrigere studet." 2 Epiphan. Epist. ad Johan. flierosol. — De Moribus Ecclesia, i. c. 84, §§ 74, 76, translated by St. Jerome. Ep. 60 : Bel- Tom. i. p. 718. larmine (De lmagin. Lib. u. c. 9) argues * Ue Fide et Symbolo, c. vn. Tom. vi. p Chat the passage is an interpolation. But 157; Oomp. De Consensu Evangelist, I. it it in all the MSS., and its genuineness 16, Tom. in. pt. u. p. 11. is admitted by Petavius (De Incarnation. Sec. I.j OF PURGATORY. 517 self to be worshipped, instead of its being manifest that it is not living, and so ought to be contemned," 1 &c. From all this it is manifest, that in the fourth century, among ignorant Christians, a tendency to pay reverence to pictures or images was beginning to appear in some parts of the Church ; the Church herself and her bishops and divines strongly opposing and earnestly protesting against it. Towards the close of this century, and afterwards, we hear of pictures (not statues) introduced into churches. Yet these pictures were not pictures of our Lord and His saints, but rather historical pictures of Scripture subjects, such as the sacrifice of Isaac, or of martyrdoms, or, as we saw from Paulinus, of Job and Esther, and other famous characters of old. About the same time, pictures of living kings and bishops were admitted into the church, and set up with those of martyrs and Scripture histories. But as with the dead, so neither with the living, was worship either probable or designed. 2 However, danger of this kind soon arose. By degrees not pictures only, but statues were brought in. And in the sixth century, we find that Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, ordered all the images in the churches of his diocese to be defaced and broken ; whereupon Gregory the Great writes to him, to say that he approved of his forbidding images to be worshipped, but that he blamed him for breaking them, as they were innocent of themselves, and useful for the instruction of the vulgar. 3 In the eighth century arose the famous Iconoclastic controversy of Constantinople. Philippicus Bardanes, the emperor, with the consent of John, patriarch of Constantinople, began by pulling down pictures from the churches, and forbade them at Rome as well as in Greece. Constantius, Bishop of Rome, opposed him, and ordered pictures of the first six councils to be placed in the porch of St. Peter's. The controversy, thus kindled, raged during the reigns of several subsequent emperors, especially of Leo the Isau- rian, and his son Constantine Copronymus, who were zealous Icon- oclasts, and the Empress Irene, as zealous for the opposite party, who were called Iconoduli. In the reign of Constantine Coprony- mus, a council was summoned at Constantinople, a. d. 754, called by the Greeks the Seventh General Council, but rejected by the Latins, which condemned the worship and all use of images. In 1 In Psalm, cxiii. ; Serm. n. §§ 4, 5, 6. vetuisses, omnino laudavimus : fregisse 2 See Bingham, E. A. Bk. vm. ch. vero reprehendimus," &c. — Gregor. Lib. riu. §§ 9, 11. ix. Ep. 9 ; Bingham, as above ; Jer. 3 " Quia sanctorum imagines adorari Taylor, as above. 518 OF PURGATORY. [Abt. XXII the reign of Irene, a. t>. 784, the second Council of Nice was sum- moned by that empress, which reversed the decrees of the Council of Constantinople, and ordained that images should be set up, that salutation and respectful honour should be paid them, and incense should be offered ; but not the worship of Latria, which is due to God alone. 1 The decrees of this synod were sent by Pope Adrian into France, to Charlemagne, to be confirmed by the bishops of his kingdom ; Charlemagne having also received them direct from Greece. The Gallican bishops, having thus a copy of the decrees, composed a reply to them, not objecting to images, if used for his- torical remembrance and ornament to walls, but absolutely con- demning any worship or adoration of them. 2 This work (the Libri Carolini) was published by the authority of Charlemagne and the consent of his bishops, a. d. 790. 3 Charlemagne also consulted the British bishops, a. d. 792, who, abhorring the worship of images, authorized Albinus to convey to Charlemagne, in their name, a refutation of the decrees of the second Council of Nice. In 794, Charlemagne assembled a synod at Frankfort, composed of 300 bishops from France, Germany, and Italy, who formally rejected the Synod of Nice, and declared that it was not to be esteemed the seventh general council. 4 It has been shown, indeed, that the Synod of Nice was not received in the Western Church for five cen- turies and a half ; and it was very long before there was any real recognition of image- worship in the West, except in those Churches immediately influenced by Rome. 6 In 869, the Emperor Basil assembled another council at Con- stantinople, attended by about one hundred Eastern bishops and the legates of Pope Adrian. This confirmed the worship of images, and is esteemed by Romanists as the eighth general council. Yet it is wholly rejected by the Eastern Church, and was evidently for a long time not acknowledged in the West. 6 It was rejected by 1 In the vnth Session a profession of * The Caroline books are still extant, faith was read and signed by the legates The Preface may be seen in Mr. Har- and bishops, deciding that images of vey's learned and useful work, EccUtua Christ, tlit- Virgin, and the saints, should Anglicana Vinder Catholicus. be exposed to view and honoured, but not 4 See Dupin, Ercl. Hist. Cent vm. ; worshipped with Latria ; but that lights Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. vm. pt 2, should be burned before them and incense ch. 8 ; Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. x. ; offered to them, as the honour so bestow- Bp. Bull, Corruption of Church of Rom*, ed upon the image is transferred to the Works, II. p. 276, &c. ; Palmer, On the original. Church, part iv. ch. x. § 4. a " Dum nos nihil in imaginibus sper- 6 Palmer, as above, namus nisi adorationem . . . non ad ado- 6 Palmer, On the Church, pt. iv. ch. x. randum, sed ad memoriam rerum gesta- § 6. rum et venustatem parietum habere per- mittimus. — Lib. Carol. Lib. in. c. 16. Sec. L] OF PURGATORY. 519 the next Council of Constantinople, held a. d. 879, which itself also is rejected by the Western Church. The Council of Trent, which is supposed to fix the doctrines of the Roman Church, enjoins that " Images of Christ, the Virgo Deipara, and the saints, shall be retained in churches, and due honour and veneration given to them, not because any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be worshipped, nor because anything is to be sought from them, or faith reposed in them, as by the Gentiles, who placed their hope in images ; but because the honour which is paid to them is referred to their pro- totypes ; so that by means of the images, which we kiss and bow down before, we adore Christ and reverence the saints, whose like- ness they bear." • 2. The worshipping of relics is so much connected with the adoration of images and invocation of saints, that we may pass it over the more briefly. No doubt, there was an early inclination to pay much respect to the remains of martyrs. We know from all antiquity, that the custom prevailed of meeting at their tombs and celebrating the days of their martyrdom. We find that the Smyrnasan Christians were disappointed at not being allowed the body of Polycarp, as many desired to be able to take it away. Yet they indignantly repudiated the notion that they could worship it. 2 The importance attached to the finding of the true cross by St. Helena is an example of a similar feeling. As the bones of Elisha restored a dead man to life, so the ancients early believed that miraculous powers were often conferred on the dead bodies of the martyrs. Such Gregory Nazianzen attributes to the ashes of St. Cyprian, and speaks of his body as a benefit to the community. 3 A little later, Vigilantius, a Gaul by birth, but a presbyter of the church of Spain, declaimed against the veneration which men had in his time learned .to pay to the tombs and relics of the martyrs. It is probable, that he charged his fellow Christians with practices of which they were not guilty ; yet it is not unlikely, that in the more rude and ignorant neighbourhoods, that, which was at first but natural respect, was even then approaching to mischievous superstition. St. Jerome wrote fiercely against him, most distinctly and vehemently repelling the charge that Christians worshipped the relics of the saints. " Not only," he says, " do we not worship relics, but not the sun, the moon, angels nor archangels, cherubim nor seraphim, nor any 1 Sess. xxv. De Invocatione, Sfc. Sancto- a Martyr. Polycarpi, c. 17. rum et Sacris Imaginibus. 3 (hat. xvm. Tom. i. pp. 284, 285. 520 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXII name that is named in this world or in the world to come ; lest w« should serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. We honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may wor- ship Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants, that their honour may redound to their Lord's." 1 His contemporary, St. Augustine, seems to have been more alive than St. Jerome to the growing evil. He graphically describes and complains of the custom, then beginning, of people wandering about and selling rel- ics, or what they said to be relics, of those who had suffered mar- tyrdom. 2 Still it has been proved, that, in the early ages, the Church never permitted anything like religious worship to be offered to the relics of the saints. 8 The respect paid to them sprang from that natural instinct of humanity, which prompts us to cherish the mor- tal remains, and all else that is left to us, of those we have loved and honoured whilst in life ; and the belief of the sacredness and future resurrection of the bodies of Christians, joined with the wish to protect them from the insults of their heathen persecutors, added intensity to this feeling. With the progress of image-worship and of the invocation of the saints, grew (and perhaps still more rapidly) the undue esteem of relics, to which sanctity seemed to belong : until at length the relics of saints were formally installed amongst the objects of worship, and set up with images for the veneration of the faithful. 4 3. The Invocation of Saints. For this practice no early authority can be pleaded, but against it the strongest testimony of the primitive Christians exists. They assert continually, that we should worship none but God. Thus Justin Martyr : " It becomes Christians to worship God only." 6 Tertullian : " For the safety of the Emperor we invoke God, eter- nal, true, and living God .... Nor can I pray to any other than to Him, from whom I am sure that I may obtain, because He alone can give it." 6 Origen : " To worship any one besides the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is the sin of impiety." " Lactantius 1 Hieronym. Epist. 87, ad Ripartum. 6 rbv Qebv povov del irpoonwclv. — A}x>l. Tom. iv. part n. p. 279. i. p. 68. 2 M Alii membra mnrtyrum, si tamen " " Nos pro salute iroperatorum De- martyrum, venditant." — De Op. Mnnach. um'invocamus seternum, Deum verum, c. 28, Tom. vi. p. 498. Deum vivum . . . Ha;c ab alio orare non 3 See on this subject Bingham, E. A. possum, quam a quo me scio consecutu- Bk. xxiii. cap. iv. §§ 8, 9 ; also (referred rum, quoniam et ipse qui solus praestat." to by him) Dallneus De Objecto cultus ReJig- — A/>oi. o. 80. iosi, Lib. iv. " " Adorare quempiam propter Patrom * See Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv. ; et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum impieta Bellarmin. De Reliquiit Sanctorum, Lib. tis est crimen." — Comment, in Epist. ad iv. &c. Roman. Lib. I. n. 16. Comp. In Jesun Sec. I.] OF PURGATORY. 521 complains of the extreme blindness of men (i. e. heathens), who could worship dead men. 1 And Athanasius argues from St. Paul's language (1 Thess. iii. 11), that the Son must be God, and not an angel or any other creature, since He is invoked in conjunction with His Father. 2 In the circular Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, narrating the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, which took place about a. d. 147, it is said, that the Jews prevented the giving of the body to the Christians for burial, " lest forsaking Him who was crucified, they should begin to worship this Polycarp ; " " not considering," writes the Church of Smyrna, " that neither is it possible for us to for- sake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all who are saved in the whole world, the spotless One for sinners, nor to worship any other." 3 No doubt, the early Christians, believing in " the communion of saints," had a lively conviction that saints departed were still fellow- worshippers with the Church militant, and thought that those in Paradise still prayed for those on earth. 4 But it does not there- fore follow, that they considered that those who joined with us in prayer, ought to be themselves addressed in prayer. On the con- trary, we have express evidence that those who believed the saints at rest to pray for the saints in trial, believed that they did so with- out being invoked. So Origen, " When men, purposing to them- selves things which are excellent, pray to God, thousands of the sa- cred powers join with them in prayer, though not themselves called on or invoked." 5 Nay! he is here specially arguing against Cel- sus, who would have had men invoke others of inferior power, after the God who is over all ; and he contends that, as the shadow fol- lows the body, so if we can move God by our prayers, we shall be sure to have all the angels and souls of the righteous on our side, and that therefore we must endeavour to please God alone. 6 In the same book he repeatedly denies that it is permitted us to worship Nave, Horn. vi. 3 : " Non enim adorasset, * e. g. Origen writes : " Ego sic arbi- nisi agnovisset Deura." tror, quod omnes illi. qui dormierunt ante 1 " Homines autem ipsos ad tantam nos, patres pugnent nobiscum, et adju- caecitatem esse deductos, ut vero ac vivo vent nos orationibus suis. Ita namque eti- Deo mortuos pra?ferant." — Instit. n. c. i. am quendam de senioribus magistris au- 2 vvv 61 i) roiavTT] 66ou; deinvvot ttjv tvo- divi dicentem," &c. — In Jesum Nave, TTjra tov Harpdc Kai tov Tiov ovk av yovv Horn. xvi. 5. ev^ano tuq Aa/Mv irapa tov TLarpdc Kai tuv b uare roXfidv rjfWjQ teyeiv, dri avdpCmoijc 'Kyytfoxv rj napa tlvos tuv u?iXuv KTia/ia- fieri npoaipeoeug irpondefievoif tu Kpeirrova, tuv, ovd' av elnoi «f, dun ooi 6 Qebc Kai evxo/iivotg tg> Bey, (ivpiac boat okXtjtoi owei- "KyyeTiOC,. — Contra Arian. Orat. iv. x ovTaL ovvafiecc lepal. — Cont. Celsum, Lib. 8 ovde trepov nva aEpecr&ai, — S". Poly- vm. c. 64. rarpi Martyrium, c. 17 ; Coteler. Tom. II. 6 Cont. Cels. Lib. vm. c. 64. p. 200. 522 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXIL angels, who are ministering spirits, our duty being to worship God alone. 1 And whereas Celsus had said, that angels (cW/iovcs) be- longed to God, and should be reverenced, Origen says, " Far from us be the counsels of Celsus, that we should worship them. We must pray to God alone who is over all, and to the only-begotten Son, the first-born of every creature, and from Him must ask, that, when our prayers have reached Him, He, as High Priest, would offer them to His God and our God, to His Father, and the Father of all who live according to His word." 2 St. Athanasius observes, that St. Peter forbade Cornelius to wor- ship him (Acts x. 26), and the angel forbade St. John, when he would have worshipped him (Rev. xxii. 9). " Wherefore," he adds, " it belongs to God only to be worshipped, and of this the angels are not ignorant, who, though they excel in glory, are yet all of them creatures, and are not in the number of those to be adored, but of those who adore the Lord." 8 In like manner the Council of Laodicea, held probably about A. d. 364, 4 forbids Christians to attend conventicles where angels were invoked, and pronounces anathema on all such as were guilty of this secret idolatry, inasmuch as they might be esteemed to have left the Lord Jesus, and given themselves to idolatry. 6 Theodoret tells us, that the reason why this canon was passed at Laodicea was because in Phrygia and Pisidia men had learned to pray to angels ; and even to his own day, he says, there were oratories of St. Michael among them. 6 We hear of another early example of an heretical tendency to creature-worship, which seems almost providentially to have been permitted, in order that there might be an early testimony borne against it. Epiphanius tells us that, whereas some had treated the Virgin Mary with contempt, others were led to the other extreme of error, so that women offered cakes before her, and exalted her to the dignity of one to be worshipped. 7 This, he says, was a doc- trine invented by demons. " No doubt the body of Mary was holy ; but sha was not a God." Again, " The Virgin was a vir- 1 Cont. Ceh. viii. num. 85, 67. 6vopu£eiv ical owu!;eiq iroielv • unco avnyoptv- 2 Ibid. num. 26. See the like argu- rat. el tic ovv cvpedt) ravrg iy Kenpv/ifjevy ment, Cont. Cels. v. num. 4. el6uXo\arpeig (T^oAaCuv, foru uvaticfia, bri 8 Athanas. Cont. Arian. Orat. in. Tom. tyicariXiire rbv Kvpiov quuv 'Inooiiv Xptordv, I. p. 894. rdv Tldv tov Qeov, nal eidokoXarptiQ irpo- * The date is uncertain, some placing of/XQev. it as early as a. d. 814, others as late as 6 Theodoret, In Coloss. ii. ami iii. ; A. d. 872. Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. ix.; Suicer, 6 Concil. hoodie. Can. xxxr. s. v. ayyeXoc. 'On ob del ^ptonovodf kyKaraXeineiv rrjv 7 Hares. 79. luxXqaiav roi &eov nal amevai ical byyiXovc Sec. L] OF PURGATORY. 523 gin, and to be honoured ; yet not given us to be worshipped, but herself worshipper, of Him who was born of her after the flesh, and who came down from Heaven and from the bosom of His Father." He then continues, that " the words ' Woman, what have I to do with thee ? ' were spoken on purpose that we might know her to be a woman, and not esteem her as something of a more excellent nature, and because our Lord foresaw the heresies likely to arise." Again he says, " Neither Elias, though he never died, nor Thecla, nor any of the saints, is to be worshipped." 1 If the Apostles " will not allow the angels to be worshipped, how much less the daughter of Anna," i. e. the blessed Virgin. " Let Mary be honoured, but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be worshipped. Let no man worship Mary." 2 " Therefore though Mary be most excellent, holy, and honoured, yet is it not that she should be adored." 3 Thus early did the worship of the Virgin show itself, and thus earnestly did the Christian fathers protest against it. 4 Gregory Nazianzen flourished nearly at the same time with Epi- phanius, towards the end of the fourth century. Archbishop Usher says, that his writings are the first in which we meet with any- thing like an address to the spirits of the dead. 5 It is worth while to see how this is. First, then, let us premise, that he expressly^ declares all worship of a creature to be idolatry. He positively charges the Arians with idolatry, because they, not believing the Son of God to be fully equal and of one substance with the Father, yet offered prayers to Him. 6 It is plain, therefore, that any ad- dress made by him to the departed could not be intended to be of the nature of that inferior worship, which the Arians offered to the Son, believing Him only the chief of the creatures of God. Yet it is clear that he believed, though not with certainty, that departed saints took an interest in all that passed among their friends and brethren on earth. 7 He had even a pious persuasion that they still continued as much as ever to aid with their prayers those for whom they had been wont to pray on earth. 8 And he ventures to think, if it be not too bold to say so, (d p-rj roXp-qpov tovto €«retv,) 1 aire tic tuv iyiuv npooKvveiTai. Virgin ; but the tract is known to be spu- 2 kv Tiy.Tji earu Mapia, 6 6h Haii/p, koI rious, and vraa evidently written after the Xibg /cat uyiov Hvevpa irpooicvveiodu, ttjv rise of the Monothelite heresy. Mapiav pr/delc irpooKweiru. 6 Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. IX. 8 koI el naXKLorri rj Mapia kol iyia nal 6 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xl. Tom. I. p. TETiprjfiEVT), u/JC ova tic rb irpoanvveicr&ai. 669. 4 Bellarmine quotes a passage from 7 koi yap ire'ido/iai rue ruv iyiuv ipvxui Athanasius (DeDeiparaVirgine,adjinem) tuv ijfierepov aicr&uveodui. — Epist. 201, which would, if genuine, prove that St. p. 898. Athanasius sanctions the worship of the 8 Orat. xxiv. p. 425. 524 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXT1. that the saints, being then nearer to God, and having put off the fetters of the flesh, have more avail with Him than when on earth. 1 In all this he does not appear to have gone further than some who preceded him ; nor is there anything in such speculations beyond what might be consistent which the most Protestant abhorrence of saint-worship and Mariolatry. Let us then see how it influenced him in the addresses which he is supposed to have made to the departed. In his first oration against Julian, speaking rhetorically, he addresses the departed emperor Constantius, " Hear, O soul of the great Constantius, if thou hast any sense or perception of these things, thou and the Christian souls of emperors before thee." 2 So, in his funeral oration on his sister Gorgonia, he winds up thus : " If thou hast a care for the things done by us, and pious souls have this honour of God, that they perceive such things, re- ceive this our oration, in the place of many funeral rites." 8 Yet these addresses, so far from resembling the prayer in after-times offered to the saints, do in themselves effectually bear witness that no such prayers were ever at that time sent up to them. In oratorical language, in regular oratorical harangues, Gregory ad- dresses himself to the souls of the departed. In one case he, as it were, calls on the soul of Constantius to witness ; in the other he addresses his sister, and trusts that she may be satisfied with the funeral honours done to her. But in both instances he ex- presses doubt whether they can hear him, and in neither does he make anything like prayers to them. All good things are liable to abuse ; and the affectionate interest which the first Christians felt in the repose of the souls who had gone before them to Paradise, their belief that they still prayed with them and for them, no doubt, in course of time engendered an inclination to ask the departed to offer prayers for them, and so by degrees led to the Mariolatry and saint-worship of the Church of Rome. We have seen, however, the clearest proofs that noth- ing of the sort was permitted or endured in the first four centuries. Later than that, we have distinct evidence in the same direction from those great lights of the Church, St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine. The former protests against angel- worship as the most fearful abomination, and attributes its origin to the inventions of the devil. 4 St. Augustine replies to a charge brought by the Man- 1 Oral. xix. p. 288. Myoc, * a * tovto rai( ioiaic Vfjatf U &eov 2 "Akovc Kcii r) tov peyakov Kuvaravriov yepa(, tuv toiovtuv iiraur&dvea&ai, 6exou> ifiX?), £ J r*C alotiyoig, oacu re irpb airov nal rdv Tjfterepov Xoyov, uvrl imXKuv ical daodiuv QiXoxpurrot. — Orat. in. p. 50. rrpd noXtev tvrafiuv. — Oral. XI. p. 189. * el 6i tc( aol /cat raw fiptripuv iart * 6 dtu/JoAof tu twv iyyftuv hrttoi/yaye. Sec. I] OF PURGATORY. 525 ichees, that the Catholics worshipped the martyrs, saying that Christians celebrated the memories of martyrs to excite themselves to imitation, to associate themselves in their good deeds, to have the benefit of their prayers ; but never so as to offer up sacrifice (the sacrifice of worship) to martyrs, but to the God of martyrs. " The honour," he continues, " which we bestow on martyrs, is the honour of love and society, just as holy men of God are hon- oured in this life ; but with that honour which the Greeks call Latvia, and for which there is no one word in Latin, a service proper to God alone, we neither worship nor teach any one to wor- ship any but God." J Unhappily, some even of this early time, whose names are de- servedly had in honour, were not so wise. St. Jerome, the con- temporary of St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine, gave too much encouragement to the superstitions which were taking root in his day. Vigilantius, whatever his errors may have been, seems wisely to have protested against the growing tendency to venerate the rel- ics and bones of the martyrs, and even called those who did so, idolaters. St. Jerome repudiates indeed all idolatrous worship. " Not only do we not worship and adore the relics of martyrs, but neither sun nor moon, nor angels, nor archangels, cherubim nor seraphim, nor any name that is named, in this world or in the world to come, lest we should serve the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever." But he earnestly defends the sanctity of the martyrs' relics. Vigilantius had argued, that the souls of Apostles and martyrs were either in the bosom of Abra- ham, or in a place of rest and refreshment, or beneath the altar of God (Rev. vi. 9). But Jerome contends, that " they follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth (Rev. xiv. 4) ; and as the Lamb is everywhere present, so we may believe them to be ; and as demons wander through the earth, can we argue that the souls of martyra must be confined to one place ? " On the contrary, he thinks that they may frequent the shrines where their relics are preserved, and where their memorials are celebrated. He expresses belief in miracles wrought at the tombs of martyrs, and that they pray for us after their decease. He defends the custom of lighting torches (3aoK26 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXIL before the martyrs' shrines, denying that it is idolatrous to do so. 1 Here, though such language is far different from what we read in after-ages, we yet clearly trace the rise and gradual progress of dangerous error. The temptation to turn the mind from God to His creatures is nowhere more likely to assail us than in our devotions. The mul- titude, converted from .heathenism, who had all along worshipped deified mortals, readily lapsed into the worship of martyrs. The noxious plant early took root, and though for a time the wise and pious pastors of the Church kept down its growth, still it gained strength and sprang up afresh ; until in ages of darkness and igno- rance it reached a height so great, that, at least among the rude and untaught masses, it overshadowed with its dark branches the green pastures of the Church of Christ. It is unnecessary to trace its progress. It grew steadily on, though still checked occasionally. During the Iconoclastic contro- versy, one of the canons of the Council of Frankfort forbade not only image-worship, but the invocation of saints (a. d. 794) ; which, however, had been upheld by the opposite party at the sec- ond Council of Nice (a. d. 787). Our Article especially condemns the " Romish doctrine " of in- vocation of saints, for which, of course, we must consult the de- crees of the Council of Trent. That council simply enjoins, that the people be taught " that the saints reigning with Christ offer their prayers for men to God, and that . it is good and useful to in- voke them as suppliants ; and for the sake of the obtaining of benefits from God through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour, to have recourse to their prayers." The calling this idolatry it declares to be impious. 2 The creed of the council has one article, " As also that the saints reigning with Christ are to be venerated and invoked, and that they offer up prayers for us to God, and that their relics are to be venerated." * This is the mildest statement of the doctrine. Unhappily the practice has far exceeded it ; and that too in the public and author- ized prayers of the Romish Church. It would be an irksome task 1 Epist. 87, ad Riparium, Tom. iv. pt. eorum orationes, opem auxiliumquc con- II. p. 279. fugere," &c. — Sees. xxv. De Invocation* 4 " Docentes eos, sanctos una cum Sanctorum, fire. Christ*) regnantes orationes suas pro ho- 8 " Similiter et sanctos una cum Christo minibus offerre, bonum atque utile esse regnantes venerandos et invocandos esse, suppliciter eos invocare, et ob benencia eosque orationes Deo pro nobis offerre, impetranda a Deo per Filium ejus Jesum eorumque reliquias esse venerandaa." — Christum, Dominum Nostrum, qui solus Bulla Pii IV. Super Forma Juramenti noster Redemptor et Salvator est, ad Professionii Fidei. Sec. L] OF PURGATORY. 5$7 to collect the many expressions of idolatrous worship with which the Blessed Virgin is approached ; and they are too well known to make it necessary. It is desirable to observe the distinctions which Romanist divines make between the worship due to God, and that paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints. They lay it down, that there are three kinds of worship or adoration : first, latria, which belongs only to God ; secondly, that honour and respect shown to good men ; thirdly, an intermediate worship, called by them dulia, which belongs to glori- fied saints in general, and hyperdulia, which belongs to the human nature of Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin. 1 They determine, that the saints are to be invoked, not as prima- rily able to grant our prayers, but only to aid us with their inter- cessions ; although they admit, that the forms of the prayers are as though we prayed directly to them ; as for instance in the hymn : — Maria mater gratiae, Mater misericordise, Tu nos ab hoste protege, Et hora mortis suscipe. They say, moreover, that the saints pray for us through Christ, Christ prays immediately to the Father. 2 .It has seemed unnecessary to say anything of the views con- cerning the various subjects of this Article, as entertained by the different Protestant communions. All the reformed bodies of Eu- rope have agreed in condemning the belief in purgatory, image- worship, and saint-worship. The Calvinistic bodies are more rigid than the Church of England and the Lutherans, in their rejec- tion of all outward symbolism and emblems in their worship and places of worship. The Lutherans retain, not only the cross, but pictures and the Crucifix in their churches ; but, of course, they exhibit nothing like adoration to them. The Church of Eng- land has retained the cross as the symbol of redemption, and has encouraged the architectural adornment of her churches, but she has generally rejected the Crucifix, and whatever may appear to involve the least danger of idolatrous worship. 1 See Bellarmine, De Sanct. Beatit. Lib. i. cap. 12. 2 Ibid. c. 17. 528 OF PURGATORY. [Abt. XXIL Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I. 1. Purgatory. On this subject, and indeed on all the subjects of this Article, the burden of proof evidently lies with those who maintain the affirmative side of the question. If there be a purgatory, and if saints and images be objects of adoration, there should be some evidence to convince us that it is so. The proofs from Scripture ajleged in favour of purgatory are of two kinds : — (1) Passages which speak of prayer for the dead. (2) Passages which directly bear upon purgatory. (1) The passages alleged in favour of. prayer for the dead are : 2 Mace. xii. 42-45 : where Judas is said to have " made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin." Tobit iv. 17 : " Pour out thy bread," i. e. give alms to obtain prayers from the poor, " at the burial of the just, but give nothing to the wicked." 1 Sam. xxxi. 13 : " They took their bones and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days." This fasting is supposed to have been for the souls of Saul and his son. 1 Cor. xv. 29 : " Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead ? " that is, who fast and weep, being baptized in tears for the dead. 2 Tim. i. 16, 18 : " The Lord give mercy to the house of One- siphorus .... The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day." Where it is contended that Onesiphorus must have been dead, for St. Paul, who prays for present and future blessings to other people, here evidently prays for the be- reaved family of Onesiphorus, and for Onesiphorus himself, that he may be blessed at the day of judgment. In answer to all this we may say, that the only clear passage in favour of prayer for the dead is from the apocryphal book of Mac- cabees, which, not having the authority of Scripture, is merely of the force of Jewish tradition. But how little Jewish traditions are to be regarded in proof of doctrine, our Lord's condemnation of them is evidence enough. It certainly may be argued from this that the Jews sometimes used prayers for the dead, which no doubt was the case. But it would be very difficult to show that any sect among them believed in a purgatory. Of all the passages Sec. H.] OF PURGATORY. 529 from the canonical Scriptures, the last cited (from 2 Tim. i. 18) is the only one that has any appearance of really favouring prayer for the dead. No doubt, some Protestant commentators (e. g. Grotius) have believed that Onesiphorus was dead. But if it be sO, St. Paul's words merely imply a pious hope that, when he shall stand before the judgment-seat "in that day," he may "obtain mercy of the Lord," and receive the reward of the righteous, and not the doom of the wicked. There is certainly nothing in such an aspiration which implies the notion that he was, at the time it was uttered, in purgatoiy, and that St. Paul's prayers might help to deliver him from it. On the contrary, if the words be used con- cerning one already dead, they will furnish a proof from Scripture, in addition to the many which have been brought from antiquity, 1 that prayer for the dead does not of necessity presuppose a belief in purgatory. The early Christians undoubtedly did often pray for saints, of whose rest and blessedness they had no manner of doubt. Hence it would be no proof of the doctrine of purgatory, even if fifty clear passages, instead of a single doubtful one, could be brought to show that the Apostles permitted prayer for the dead. (2) The passages which are brought as directly bearing on purgatory, are Ps. xxxviii. 1 : " O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath ; neither chasten me in Thy hot displeasure." " Wrath " is said to mean eternal damnation; "hot displeasure," to mean purgatory. Ps. lxvi. 12 : " We went through fire " (i. e. purgatory) " and through water " (i. e. baptism) ; " but Thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place." Isai. iv. 4: "When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jeru- salem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." 2 Isai. ix. 18. Mic. vii. 8, 9. Zech. ix. 11 : " As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water." This is interpreted of Christ's descent into hell, to deliver those who were detained in the limhts patrum. Mai. iii. 3 : " He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver ; and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them," &c. 1 See Section I. i. 1. not interpret it of purgatory, but of that 2 Bellarmine cites Augustine (De Civit. trial by fire which Origen, and others Dei, Lib. xx. c. 25) as interpreting this after him, supposed was to take place at of purgatory. Augustine, however, does the judgment-day. 67 630 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXH. Matt. xii. 32 : " It shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, neither in the world to come ; " i. e. evidently in purgatory, for in hell there is no forgiveness. Matt. v. 22 : Our Lord speaks of three kinds of punishments, the judgment, the council, and hell. The latter belongs to the world to come ; therefore the two former must. Hence there must be some punishments in the next world besides hell. Matt. v. 25, 26 : " Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him ; lest at any time the adversary de- liver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." The last words show that the prison must be purga- tory, a temporal, not an eternal punishment. Otherwise, how would anything be said about coming out of it ? 1 Cor. iii. 12-15 : " Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble ; every man's work shall be made manifest : for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire." Luke xvi. 9, xxiii. 42, are also quoted ; but it is difficult to see how they can be made to bear on the question. Also Acts ii. 24, where our Lord is said to have " loosed the pains of death," t. e. to have delivered the souls from limbus. And Phil. ii. 10, Rev. v. 3, which speak of beings "in Heaven and earth and under the earth." Where, " under the earth," it is contended, must mean purgatory. These are all that are alleged by Bellarmine as proofs from Scripture that there is a purgatory between death and judgment. He adds, however, arguments from the fathers, whose sentiments have been already considered, and many from visions of the saints, which it will be unnecessary to consider. 1 His principal argument from reason is, that, although sins are forgiven to all true penitents for the merits of Christ, yet it is as regards their eternal, not their temporal punishment ; for we know that many devout penitents have to suffer the temporal punishments of their sins, though the eternal be remitted. Thus natural death, which is the result of sin, the temporal wages of sin, befals all men, those who are saved 1 Bellarmine, Of Purgntorio, Lib. i. c. 3-8, &c. Sec. II.] OF PURGATORY. 531 from, as well as those who fall into, death eternal. So David had his sin forgiven him, but still his child died. Eternally he was saved, but temporally punished. Now it often happens that per- sons have not suffered all the temporal punishment due to their sins in this life ; and therefore we must needs suppose, there is some state of punishment awaiting them in the next. 1 It appears at first sight, to a person unused to believe in pur- gatory, almost impossible that such a doctrine could be grounded on such arguments. If indeed the doctrine were proved and es- tablished on separate grounds, then perhaps some of the passages quoted above might be fairly alleged in illustration of it, or as bear- ing a second and mystical interpretation, which might have refer- ence to it. But what is fair in illustration may be utterly insuffi- cient for demonstration. It is not too much to assert, that only one of the texts from Scripture cited by Bellarmine can be alleged in direct proof. If he rightly interpret 1 Cor. jii. 12-15, that may be considered as a direct and cogent argument ; and then some of the other passages might be brought to illustrate and confirm it. But if that were put out of the question, we may venture to say even Roman Cath- olic controversialists would find the Scriptural ground untenable. The passages in St. Matthew (v. 26, xii. 32, " Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing," and, u It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come ") may indeed be supposed to speak of tem- poral punishments in the next world. But if they prove anything, they prove more than the Roman Catholic Church would wish, namely, that the pains of hell are not eternal ; for it is evidently hell which is the punishment of unrepented and unpardoned sin. Those who go to purgatory, are, on the showing of its own advocates, those who have received forgiveness of their sins, but need the pur- gation of suffering, either here or hereafter, to fit them for Heaven The truth is, that the words of our Lord indicate merely, first, that as a great debtor is imprisoned till he has paid the last farthing, so a man who is not delivered here from the burden of his sins must remain in punishmemt for ever, as his debt is too heavy ever to be paid off; and next, that he who sins against the Holy Ghost has never forgiveness ; and it is added, " neither in this world, neither in the world to come," to impress more forcibly both the fearfulness and the eternity of his condemnation. To recur, then, to 1 Cor. iii. 12-15 ; Bellarmine himself quotes 1 Bellarmine, De Purgatorio, Lib. i. cap. 11. 532 OF PURGATORY. [Abt. XXII. St. Augustine l as saying that it is one of those hard passages of St. Paul, which St. Peter speaks of as wrested by unstable men to their destruction, and which St. Augustine wishes to be interpreted by wiser men than himself. If so, it is hardly prudent or modest to build such a doctrine as purgatory upon it. Bellarmine himself recounts many different interpretations of the different figures in the passage, as given by different fathers and divines. That all the fathers did not interpret it of purgatory is most certain ; for St. Chrysostom has already been quoted as interpreting it of eternal damnation. But more than that, those fathers whose interpretation seems most suitable to the Romanist belief, do not understand the passage of purgatory, but of a purgatorial or probatory fire, not be- tween death and judgment, but at the very day of judgment itself, when all works shall be brought up and be had in remembrance before the Lord. This has already been shown in the preceding section. And indeed it is not possible justly to give an interpreta- tion of the passage nearer to the Romish interpretation than this. The expression " the day " is understood by all who interpret it of the next life to mean " the day of judgment." " The day " can- not certainly be well understood of the hidden and unrevealed state of the dead in the intermediate and disembodied state. If, therefore, the passage refers to the next world at all, it must mean that at the day of judgment all works shall be revealed, and tried, as it were, in the fire. Those who have built on the right founda- tion shall be saved ; though, if their superstructure be of an infe- rior quality (whatever be meant by the superstructure), it shall be lost. This might indeed be made to suit the doctrine of Origen, but is utterly inapplicable to the doctrine of purgatory. But even Origen 's doctrine it will not well suit, if the context be fully considered. St. Paul had been speaking of himself and Apollos, as labourers together in the work of evangelizing the world and building the Church (vv. 5-9). The Church he de- clares to be God's building (ver. 9), even a temple for the indwell- ing of the Spirit (ver. 16). Now he says, the only possible founda- tion which can be laid is that which has been laid already, even Jesus Christ, (ver. 11). But the builders (i e. ministers of Christ), in building the Church on this foundation, may make the superstructure of various materials, some building of safe and pre- cious materials, gold, silver, and precious stones ; others of less val- uable or less durable, wood, hay, and stubble. What then must be the meaning of this ? Clearly, either that, in building up the l De Fide ti Operibus, c. 16. Sec. II] OF PURGATORY. 533 Church, they may upon the foundation, Christ, build sounder or less sound doctrines, — or, (which seems a still more correct inter- pretation of the figures,) that they may build up soundly instructed and confirmed believers, or, by negligence and ignorance, may train less orthodox and steadfast Christians. There is evidently nothing about the good or bad works of Christian men built on the founda- tion of a sound faith. It is the good or bad workmanship of Chris- tian pastors in building up the Church of Christ. To proceed then : when the Christian minister and master-builder has thus finished his work, the day will prove whether it be good or bad. If his building be stable, it will endure, and he will be blessed in his la- bours and "receive a reward " (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 17). But if his superstructure be destroyed ; if those, whom he has built up in the faith prove ill instructed and unstable, he will himself suffer loss, he will lose those disciples, who would have been " his crown of rejoicing in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ at His coming " (1 Thess. ii. 19) ; and even he himself will escape, as it were, out of the fire. 1 It may be that the fiery trial means " the day" of judgment : for then all men's works shall be manifested ; and the building of the Christian pastor or Apostle shall be then proved good or evil, by the characters and works of those whom he has con- verted and taught. But, as whatever doth make manifest is called " the day," therefore many think, and that with much ground of reason, that " the day " here spoken of was that day of trial and persecution which was awaiting the Church. That day was indeed likely to prove the faithfulness of the converts, and therefore the soundness of the pastor's building. St. Paul often speaks of un- sound teachers ; and if they had built up unstably, the day of persecution was likely to reveal it, to show the hollowness of their disciples, and to cause them loss. And such a trial would be " so as by fire." Elsewhere the term " fiery trial " is applied to perse- cution and affliction. St. Peter speaks specially of the trial of faith by affliction, as being like that of gold in the furnace, the very same metaphor with that used here by St. Paul (1 Pet. i. 7) ; and, again with the same meaning, tells the Christians that they should not " think it strange concerning the fiery trial which was to try them," but to rejoice, as it would the more fit them to partake of Christ's glory. But whether we interpret the day and the fiery trial of persecu- tion here or of judgment hereafter, there is no room in either for 1 uc dih irvpbc. The expression is " so an escape from great danger. See Gro- as by fire ; " a proverbial expression for tius and Rosenmiiller, in be. 534 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXIL purgatory. Purgatory is not a time of trial on earth, nor is it at the time of standing before the Judgment-seat of Heaven. There- fore it is not the fiery trial of St. Paul, nor is it the day, which shall try of what nature is the superstructure erected by the master- builders on the one foundation of the Christian Church. If then the texts alleged in favour of purgatory fail to establish it, we may go on to say that there are many which are directly op- posed to it. It was promised to the penitent thief, " To-day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise " (Luke xxiii. 43). St. Paul felt assured, that it was better " to depart, and to be with Christ " (Phil. i. 23), " to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord " (2 Cor. v. 8) ; having no apprehension of a purgatorial fire, in the middle state ; apparently laying it down as a principle con- cerning pious men, that whilst " at home in the body they are absent from the Lord ; " and that they may be confidently willing to leave the body, that they may be with the Lord (see 2 Cor. v. 6-9). Not one word about purgatory is ever urged upon Chris- tians, to quicken them to a closer walk with God. All the other " terrors of the Lord " are put forth in their strongest light " to persuade men ; " but this, which would be naturally so powerful, and which has been made so much of in after-times, is never brought forward by the Apostles. Nay ! St. John declares that he had an express revelation concerning the present happiness of those, that sleep in Jesus, namely, that they were blessed and at rest. " I heard a voice from Heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth ; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours " (Rev. xiv. 13). When we couple such express declarations as these with the ex- hortations not to grieve for the dead in Christ, the general assur- ances concerning the blessedness of the death of the righteous, and concerning the cleansing from all sin by the blood of Christ, and then contrast them with the very slender Scriptural ground on which purgatory rests, it will be scarcely possible to doubt, that that doctrine was the growth of after-years, and sprang from the root of worldly philosophy, not of heavenly wisdom. Compare Luke xxi. 28 ; John v. 24 ; Eph. iv. 30 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13, &c. ; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; 1 John i. 7 ; iii. 14. 2. Pardons or Indulgences. The doctrine of pardons, and the custom of granting indulgences, rest on two grounds, namely, 1, purgatory, 2, works of supereroga- tion. Indulgences, as granted by the Church of Rome, signify a remission of the temporal punishment of sins in purgatory ; and the Sec. II.] OF PURGATORY. 535 power to grant them is supposed to be derived from the superabun- dant merits of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints. It is ar- gued by Romanist divines that (1) A double value exists in men's good deeds, first of merit, secondly of satisfaction : (2) A good deed, as it is meritorious, cannot be applied to another ; but, as it is satis- factory or expiatory, it can : (3) There exists in the Church an infi- nite store of the merits of Christ, which never can be exhausted : (4.) And, in addition to this, the sufferings of the Virgin Mary (herself immaculate) and of the other saints, having been more than enough for their own sins, avail for the sins of others. Now, in the Church is deposited all this treasure of satisfactions, and it can be applied to deliver the souls of others from the tem- poral punishment of sins, the pains of purgatory. 1 That such a power exists in the pope is argued from the command to St. Peter, " to feed the sheep of Christ," and the promise to him of the keys of the kingdom, of authority to bind and to loose. That the good deeds of one man are transferable to another, is thought to be proved by the article of the Creed, " I believe in the communion of saints," and by the words of St. Paul, " I will very gladly spend and be spent for you " (2 Cor. xii. 15) ; " I endure all things for the elect's sake " (2 Tim. ii. 10) ; " I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the Church " 2 (Col. i. 24). Both the doctrine of purgatory and that concerning works of supererogation have already been considered ; and we have seen that they have no foundation in Scripture. Hence the practice of granting indulgences, which rests on them, must necessarily be con- demned. The Romanist divines admit that indulgences free not from natural pains, or from civil punishments. 3 They never profess that they can deliver from eternal death. Hence, if there be no purgatory, there can be no room for indulgences. If there be, as they state, an infinite store of Christ's merits committed to the Church, one would think it needless to add the sufferings of the Virgin Mary and of the saints. As to the claim, to dispense the benefits of these sufferings, founded on the prom- ise of the keys to St. Peter, I hope to consider more at length the whole question of binding and loosing, of retaining and remit- ting sins, and of the pope's succession to St. Peter, under future Articles. Suffice it here that we remember, 1, that there is no 1 Bellarraine, De Indulgentiis, Lib. i. passage, Col. i. 24, was considered under cap. ii. 2, 3, 7. Art. xiv. p. 351, note. 5 Ibid. Lib. i. c. 3. The last -cited B Bellarrain. Ibid. Lib. i. c. 7. 536 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXII. foundation for the figment of purgatory in Scripture, and that its gradual rise is clearly traceable ; 2, that none of the saints, not even the Blessed Virgin, were free from sin, nor able to atone for their own sins ; 3, that works of supererogation are impossible ; 4, that therefore indulgences, partly derived from superabundant works of satisfaction performed by the saints, and having for their object the freeing of souls from purgatory, must be unwarranted and useless. II. 1. The Worshipping and Adoration of Images. We can readily believe that the champions of image - worship would find a difficulty in discovering Scriptural authority for their practice. But it rather surprises us to learn that their whole stock of argument is derived from the old Testament ; in which no sin is so much condemned as the worship, nay, even the making of idols. The distinction between idols and images, it seems hard to un- derstand. That images may lawfully be placed in temples, is ar- gued from the fact that Moses was commanded to make the Cher- ubim of gold, and place them on each side of the mercy-seat, (Ek. xxv. 18) ; and that Solomon carved all the walls of the temple " round about with carved figures of Cherubim " (2 Kings vi. 29), and "he made a molten sea — and it stood upon twelve oxen — and on the borders were lions, oxen, and Cherubim " (1 Kings vii. 23, 25, 29). l That the second commandment 2 does not forbid making images, but only making them with the object of worshipping them, is also contended ; and thus far we have no reason to com- plain. There may be a superstitious dread, as well as a supersti- tious use, of outward emblems. No doubt, much as the Jew was bidden to hold idolatry in abhorrence, he was not only permitted, but commanded to place emblematical figures in the house of the Lord. It is further said, that the brazen serpent which Moses set up by God's ordinance in the wilderness (Num. xxi. 8, 9) was an example of the use of images for religious purposes. This was a 1 See Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Tri- only in epitome ; and that so, having utnphante, Lib. II. cap. ix. ; Controvert, joined the first and second together, she Tom. ii. p. 771. virtually omits the second, recounting a The second commandment is joined them in her catechisms, &c. thus, 1 Thou with the first, according to the reckoning shalt have none other gods but me. of the Church of Rome. This is not to 2 Thou shalt not take the Name of the be esteemed a Romish novelty. It will Lord thy God in vain. 8 Remember be found so united in the Masoretic Hi- that thou keep holy the Sabbath day, bles; the Masoretic Jews dividing the &c. By this method her children, and tenth commandment (according to our other less instructed members, are often reckoning) into two. What the Roman ignorant of the existence in the Deca- Church deals unfairly in is, that she logue of a prohibition against idolatry, teaches the commandments popularly Sec. IL] OF PURGATORY. 537 figure of the Lord Jesus, the expected Messiah ; and the wounded Israelites were taught to look up to it for healing and deliverance. But beyond this it is said, that the Jews actually did adore the Ark of the Covenant, and that in so doing they must have adored the Cherubim which were upon it. And this most strangely is in- ferred from the words, " Exalt ye the Lord your God, and worship at His footstool ; for He is holy " (Ps. xcix. 5) ; where the Vulgate reads, Adorate scabellum ejus, quoniam sanctus est; or, as some quote it, quoniam sanctum est. 1 With every desire to feel candid towards those who are opposed to us, it is difficult to know how to treat such arguments as these. We willingly concede, that the iconoclastic spirit of the Puritans was fuller of zeal than of judgment ; for if the figures of Cherubim were commanded in the temple, figures of angels and saints and storied windows in our cathedrals could scarcely be impious and idolatrous. But when we are told that the existence of such sym- bols near the mercy-seat involved a necessity that the Jew should worship them, we scarcely know whither such reasoning may carry us. If the Cherubim in the temple were worshipped, why were the golden calves of Jeroboam so foully idolatrous ? It is mostly considered, that Jeroboam borrowed these very figures from the carvings of the sanctuary. How could that be holy in Jerusalem, which was vile in Dan and Bethel ? Nay ! the sin of Jeroboam was specially, that he made the calves to be worshipped ; whereas in the temple they were not for worship, but for symbolism. As for the brazen serpent, it was no doubt, like the Cherubim, a proof that such symbols are allowable ; and was also the instrument (like the rod of Moses) by which God worked wonderful miracles. But when it tempted the people to worship it, Hezekiah broke it in pieces (2 Kings xviii. 4), as thinking it better to destroy so venerable a memorial of God's mercies, than to leave it as an incentive to sin. The argument from Ps. xcix. 5, is the only one which Bellar- mine (in many learned chapters on the subject) alleges in direct proof from Scripture that images are not only lawful, but adorable. Even if the Vulgate rendering (adorate scabellum) were correct, it would be a forlorn hope, with which to attack such a fortress as the second commandment. But the Hebrew (Dirrb lirjjgtjJn) is far more correctly rendered by the English version, " Bow down be- fore His footstool." Though to fall down before God may be to worship Him, yet to fall down before his footstool is not necessarily 1 See Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Triumph. Lib. I. c. xm. Lib. ii. c. xn. Tom. II. pp. 708, 781. 68 538 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXII to worship His footstool. Hence the word may at times be prop- erly translated, " to worship ; " but here such a translation is alto- gether out of place. In short, if the Roman Church had never approached nearer to idolatry than the Jews when they worshipped in the courts of the temple, within which were symbolical figures of oxen and cherubim, than the high priest, when once a year he approached the very ark of the covenant and sprinkled the blood before the mercy-seat, or than the people in the wilderness, when they looked upon the bra- zen serpent and recovered, there would have been no controversy and no councils on the subject of image-worship. But when we know, that the common people are taught to bow down before stat- ues and pictures of our blessed Saviour, of His Virgin Mother, and of His saints and angels ; though we are told that they make prayers, not to the images, but to those of which they are images, yet we ask, wherein does such worship differ from idolatry ? No heathen people believed the image to be their God. They prayed not to the image, but to the god whom the image was meant to represent. 1 Nay ! the golden calves of Jeroboam were doubtless meant merely as symbols of the power of Jehovah ; and the peo- ple, in bowing down before them, thought they worshipped the gods " which brought them up out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings xii. 28). But it is the very essence of idolatry, not to worship God in spirit and in truth, but to worship Him through the medium of an image or representation. It is against this that the second com- mandment is directed : " Thou shalt not make to thyself any gra- ven image, nor the likeness of anythimg that is in heaven or earth, or under the earth — Thou shalt not bow down to it, nor worship it." And it is not uncharitable to assert, that the ignorant peo- ple in ignorant ages have as much worshipped the figure of the Virgin and the image of our Lord upon the cross, as ever ignorant heathens worshipped the statues of Baal or Jupiter, or as the Isra- elites worshipped the golden calf in the wilderness. It must even be added, painful as it is to dwell on such a subject, that divines of eminence in the Church of Rome have taught unchecked, that to the very images of Christ was due the same supreme worship which is due to Christ Himself, — even that latria, with which none but the Holy Trinity and the Incarnate Word must be approached. 8 1 See this exactly stated, Arnob. ado. est theologorum sententia " (says Azorius Gentes, Lib. vi. the Jesuit) " imagincm eodem honore et 2 See this proved by numerous pas- cultu honorari et coli, quo colitur id ou- tages from distinguished Romanists by jus est imago." — Jo. Azor. Institul. ilo- Archbishop Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, red. Tom. i. Lib. ix. cap. 9. chap. x. Dublin, 1624, p. 449. " Constant Sec. n.] OF PURGATORY. 539 Bellarmine himself, who takes a middle course, states the above as one out of three current opinions in the Church, and as held by- Thomas Aquinas, Caietan, Bonaventura, and many others of high name ; x and though he himself considers the worship of latria only improperly and per accidens due to an image, yet he says that " the images of Christ and the saints are to be venerated, not only by accident or improperly, but also by themselves properly, so that them- selves terminate the veneration, as in themselves considered, and not only as they take the place of their Exemplar." 2 If this be not to break one, and that not the least of God's commandments, and to teach men so, it must indeed be hard to know how God's com- mandments can be broken, and how kept. Even enlightened heathenism seldom went so far as to believe the worship to be due properly to the idol itself, and not merely to its original and prototype. It is unnecessary to recite the Scriptures which speak against idolatry and image-worship ; they are so patent and obvious. See for example, Exod. xx. 2-5 ; xxxii. 1-20. Levit. xix. 4 ; xxvi. 1. Deut. iv. 15-18, 23, 25 ; xvi. 21, 22 ; xxvii. 15 ; xxix. 17. 2 Kings xviii. 4 ; xxiii. 4. Ps. cxv. 4. Isai. ii. 8, 9 ; xl. 18, 19, 25 ; xlii. ; xliv. ; xlvi. 5-7. Acts xvii. 25, 29. Rom. i. 21, 23, 25. 1 Cor. viii. 4 ; x. 7 ; xii. 2. 1 John v. 21. Rev. ix. 20. 2. Worshipping and Adoration of Relics. The arguments brought from Scripture to defend relic worship are — that miracles were wrought by the bones of Elisha (2 Kings xiii. 21), by the hem of Christ's garment (Matt. ix. 20-22), by " the shadow of Peter passing by " (Acts v. 15), by handkerchiefs and aprons brought from the body of St. Paul (Acts xix. 12), — that the rod of Aaron and the pot of manna were preserved in the tem- ple, — that it is said (in Isai. xi. 10), " In Him (Christ) shall the Gentiles trust, and His sepulchre shall be glorious ; " In Eum gentes sperabunt, et erit sepulchrum Ejus gloriosum? 1 De Eccles. Triumph. Lib. IX. c. xx. ; 802. He goes on to show, that it should Controvers. Tom. n. p. 801. Thomas neither be said nor denied (especially in Aquinas says :" Sic sequitur quod eadem public discourses), that images should reverentia exhibeatur imagini Christi et be worshipped with latria (c. xxn.). ipsi Christo. Cum ergo Christus ado- The images of Christ improf>erly and by retur adoratione latriae consequens est accident receive latria (c. xxxm.). He quod ejus imago sit adoratione latriae concludes by saying : " Cultus, qui per adoranda." — Summa, pt. in. quaest 25, se, proprie debetur imaginibus, est cul- Artic. 3. See Usher, as above. tus quidem imperfectus, qui analogice 3 "Imagines Christi et sanctorum vene- et reductive pertinet ad speciem ejui randae sunt, non solum per accidens, vel cultus, qui debetur exemplari." — c. xxv. improprie, sed etiam per se proprie, ita ut p. 809. ipsae terminent venerationem ut in se 8 Bellarmin. De Eccl. Triumph. Lib. Il> considerantur, et non solum ut vicem cap. m. ; Cont. Gen. Tom. II. p. 746. gerunt exemplaris." — Ibid. c. 21, p. 640 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXH The last argument is derived solely from the Latin translation. The Hebrew, the Greek, the Chaldee, and other versions, have " His rest," or " His place of habitation shall be glorious." Onnpp aVdVawis). Even if it meant the sepulchre, which it does not, it would not follow that because it was glorious or hon- ourable, therefore it should be adored. There can be no question, that God has been pleased to give such honour to His saints, that in one instance the dead body of a prophet was the means of re- storing life to the departed, that in another, handkerchiefs brought from an Apostle were made instruments of miraculous cure. But we have no instance in Scripture of the garments or the bones of the saints being preserved for such purposes. All evidence from Holy Writ goes in the opposite direction. The Almighty buried the body of Moses, so that no man should know where it lay, Deut. xxxiv. 6 ; which seems purposely to have been done, that no super- stitious reverence should be paid to it. The bones of Elisha, by which so wonderful a miracle was wrought, were not preserved for any purpose of worship or superstition. The body of the holy martyr St. Stephen was by devout men " carried to his burial, and great lamentation was made over him ; " but no relics of him are spoken of, nor of St. James, who followed him in martyrdom. Their bones were evidently, like those of their predecessors the prophets, left alone, and no man moved them (2 Kings xxiii. 18). The pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were preserved as memo- rials of God's mercy ; but no one can imagine any worship paid to them. And the only relic to which we learn that worship was paid, namely, the brazen serpent, was on that very account broken in pieces by Hezekiah ; and he is commended for breaking it (2 Kings xviii. 4), though of all relics it must have been the noblest and most glorious, reminding the people of their deliverance from Egypt, and giving them assurance of a still more glorious deliver- ance, to which all their hopes should point. But the veiy first principle of Scripture truth is, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve " (Matt. iv. 10). And though by degrees a superstitious esteem for the relics of martyrs crept into the Church, yet we have clear evidence that for some time no undue honour was paid to them, and that when it was, the pious and learned, instead of fostering, strove to check the course of the error. The contemporaries of St. Polycarp indignantly denied that they wished for his body for any superstitious purposes, or that they could worship any but Christ. 1 And St. Augustine reproved the 1 See especially Martyr. Polycarp. c. 17, referred to abore. Sec. II.] OF PURGATORY. 541 superstitious sale of relics, which, by his day, had grown into an abuse. 1 Yet the Roman Church has authoritatively condemned such as deny that the bodies of martyrs or the relics of the saints are to be venerated. 2 And some of her divines have even sanc- tioned the paying of the supreme worship of latria to the relics of the cross, the nails, the lance, and the garments of the crucified Redeemer. 3 3. Invocation of Saints. The divines of the Church of Rome defend this practice as fol- lows : — (1) Saints, not going to purgatory, go straight to Heaven, where they enjoy the presence of God. (2) Being then in the presence of God, they behold, in the face of God, the concerns of the Church on earth. (3) It is good to ask our friends on earth to pray for us ; how much rather those who, being nearer God, have more avail with Him. (4) The Scripture contains examples of saint- worship. (1) The first position is sought to be established from Scripture, thus, — The thief on the cross went straight to Paradise, i. e. to Heaven ! (Luke xxiii. 43). " We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle be dissolved, we have a house not made with hands, eter- nal in the heavens " (2 Cor. v. 1, comp. ver. 4). " When He as- cended up on high, He led captivity captive " (Eph. iv. 8). " Having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ " (Phil. i. 23). ** The way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing " (Heb. ix. 8). " Ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to the general assembly of the first-born who are written in heaven . . . and to the spirits of just men made per- fect " (Heb. xii. 22, 23). " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit " (Acts vii. 59). White robes are given to the martyrs who cry from un- der the altar, i. e. the glory of the body after the resurrection (Rev. vi. 11). " These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple " (Rev. vii. 14, 15). 1 Augu8tin. Tom. vi. p. 498. vestium Christi, et imago crucifixi sunt 2 Concil. Trident. Sess. xxv. De In- latria veneranda." — Joh. de Turrec. vocatione, Veneratione, et Reliquiis Sane- In Festo Invent. Cruets, q. 3 ; Beveridge, torutn. on Artie, xxu. 8 " Reliquiae crucis, clavorum, lanceae, 542 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXil. It is admitted that in the old Testament the saints, being as yet in the limbus patrum, and therefore not in Heaven, could not be prayed to ; l but since Christ's descent into Hell and resurrection from the dead, all who die in Him, if not needing to go to purga- tory, go straight to glory, and therefore, reigning with Christ, may be invocated. It must be remembered, that these arguments for the immediate glorification of the saints run side by side with arguments for a pur- gatory. The latter is an absolutely necessary supplement to the former : without it, the Roman Catholic divines could not get rid of the force of the arguments in favour of an intermediate state. The two must therefore succeed or fail together. Now, it is unnecessary to repeat the arguments already brought forward against purgatory, or those (under Article III.) in proof that souls go, not straight to Heaven after death, but to an intermediate state of bliss or woe, awaiting the resurrection of the dead. All we need consider now is this. Do the above texts of Scripture con- travene that position ? The first proves, that the thief went with our Saviour where He went from the Cross ; that is, not to Heaven, but to Hades, to the place of souls departed, which, in the case of the redeemed, is called Paradise. Our Lord went not to Heaven till he He rose from the grave. 2 The second proves that, when this body is dissolved, we may yet hope, at the general Res- urrection, for a glorified body. But the context proves clearly, that, between death and judgment, the souls Of the saints remain without the body, in bliss, but yet longing for the resurrection. (See 2 Cor. v. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10). The passage from Ephes. iv. only proves that Christ conquered death. That from Phil. i. shows that the disembodied spirit in Paradise is admitted to some presence with its Saviour ; as does that from Acts vii. Heb. ix. 8, merely teaches that Christ is the way to Heaven, a way not manifested under the old Law. Heb. xii. speaks of the Church as composed of the first-born, whose names are in God's book, and as having fellowship with the angels, and with departed saints, who have fin- ished their course. The first passage from the Apocalypse (vi. 11), if taken in its context (see Rev. vi. 9), is a strong proof that even martyrs are in a state of expectant, not of perfect bliss ; and if the white robes really mean the glorified body at the resurrection, then 1 " Notandum est ante Christi adven- Testamento ut diceretur, Sancte Abra- tum qui moriebantur non intrabant in ham, ora pro me : Bed solum orabant caelum, nee Deum videbant, nee copnos- homines ejus temporis Deum." — Bel- cere poterant ordinarie preees suppliean- larmine, De Ecdes. Triumph. I. 19. bum. Ideo non fuit consuetum in V. ■ See above, pp. 88, 96, &c Sec. II.] OF PURGATORY. 543 must we believe yet more clearly than ever, that the very martyrs remain " under the altar" until the time of the resurrection of the just. The second passage (from Rev. vii. 14, 15) is probably a prophetic vision of the bliss of the saints, after the general judgment, and therefore plainly nihil ad rem. It is said by the Romanists that a few heretics have denied the immediate beatification of the saints, Tertullian, Vigilantius, the Greeks at Florence, Luther, Calvin ; * and it is inferred that all the orthodox fathers have maintained it. 2 Tertullian is here a heretic, though, when he seems to favour purgatory, he is a Catholic divine. But the truth is, even their own divines have allowed, that a very large number of the greatest names of antiquity believed that the saints did not enjoy the vision of God till after the general judg- ment. Franciscus Pegna mentions, as of that persuasion, Irenseus, Justin M., Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Origen, Ambrose, Chrys- ostom, Augustine, Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, Theodoret, Aretas, CEcumenius, Theophylact, and Euthymius. 3 And our own great Bishop Bull pronounces it to have been the doctrine of the whole Catholic Church for many ages, " that the souls of the faith- ful, in the state of separation, though they are in a happy condition in Paradise, yet are not in the third Heaven, nor do enjoy the beatific vision till the Resurrection .... Nay, this was a doctrine so generally received in the time of Justin Martyr, that is, in the first succession of the Apostles, that we learn from the same Justin that there were none but some profligate heretics that believed the souls of the faithful, before the Resurrection, to be received into Heaven. (Dialog, cum Tryphone, pp. 306, 307. Paris, 1636)." 4 Yet this immediate beatification of the saints is the very foun- dation of saint-worship. That can be but a slender foundation for so vast a superstructure, which the first fathers and the greatest writers of antiquity (even our enemies being the judges) could not find in the word of God, and did not believe to be true. Conced- ing the utmost that we can, we must yet maintain that the evi- dence from Scripture is far more against, than in favour of, this foundation, and that the first and greatest of the fathers utterly rejected it. (2) If the first position cannot be established, of course the sec- 1 See Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Tri- Inquisitor, comment. 21, apud Usher, umphante, I. 1 ; Controv. Gener. Tom. II. Answer to a Jesuit, chap. ix. ; who quotes p. 674. also Thomas Stapleton to the same pur- 2 The testimonies in favour of it from port. the fathers are cited, Bellarmine, ubi su- 4 Bull, Vindication of the Church ofEng* ftra, Lib. i. c. 4, 5. . land, § xn. 8 Fr. Pegna, in part. n. Directorii 544 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXII. ond must fall ; though even if the first were granted, it does by no means seem to follow that the second would stand. For even if saints departed always behold the face of God, it does not certainly follow that thereby they have the omniscience of God. That they continue to take an interest in their fellow- worshippers, children of the same Father, members of the same body with themselves, we may reasonably believe ; but that they know all the prayers which each one on earth utters, even the secret silent prayer of the heart, we cannot at least be certain — or rather we should think most improbable. (3) It is said that saints on earth pray for each other, and ex- hort one another to pray for them, (Heb. xiii. 18, James v. 16) ; why not then ask the saints in light to pray for us, who, nearer the throne of God, have more interest with Him ? Yet, who does not see the difference between joining our prayers with our brethren on earth, so through the one Mediator drawing nigh to God in common supplication for mercies and mutual inter- cession for each other, and the invocating saints above, with all the circumstances of religious worship, to go to God for us, and so to save us from going to Him for ourselves ? If, indeed, we could be quite certain, that our departed friends could hear us, when we spoke to them, there might possibly be no more evil in asking them to continue their prayers for us, than there could be in asking those prayers from them whilst on earth, — no evil, that is, except the danger that this custom might go further and so grow worse. This, no doubt, was all that the interpellation of the martyrs was in the early ages ; and if it had stopped here, it would have never been censured. But who will say that Romish saint-worship is no more ? In the Church of Rome, when it is determined who are to be saints, they are publicly canonized, i. e. they are enrolled in the Catalogue of Saints ; it is decreed, that they shall be formally held to be saints, and called so ; they are invoked in the public prayers of the Church : churches and altars to their memory are dedicated to God ; the sacrifices of the Eucharist and of public prayers are publicly offered before God to their honour ; their festivals are cel- ebrated : their images are painted with a glory round their heads : their relics are preserved and venerated. 1 They are completely invocated as mediators between God and man ; so that those who fear to go to God direct, are encouraged to approach Him through the saints, as being not so high and holy as to inspire fear and 1 Bellarmine, DeEcclesia Triumph, i. 7. Sec. H.] OF PURGATORY. 545 dread. 1 Herein the very office of Christ is invaded, " the One Mediator between God and man " (1 Tim. ii. 5) ; a High Priest, who can " be touched with the feeling of our infirmities," and through whom we may " come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need " (Heb. iv. 15, 16). Nay, more than this, direct prayer is made to the saints for protection and deliverance ; and even in prayer to God Himself, He is reminded of the protection and patronage of the saints. 2 And we know, that, not only among the vulgar, but with the authority of the most learned, and those canonized saints, prayers have been put up to the Blessed Virgin, to use a mother's authority, and command her Son to have mercy upon sin- ners. 3 What support can all this derive from the injunctions to us in Scripture to pray for one another, and the assurances that " the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much " ? (4) Next it is alleged, that Scripture contains positive exam- ples of the worship of saints and angels. Bellarmine cites the following : — Ps. xcix. 5 : " Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool ; for He is holy," (Adorate scabellum pedis ejus, quoniam sanctum est) : a passage which has been already considered. Gen. xviii. 2, xix. 1, Abraham and Lot bow down to the angels. Numb, xxii. 31, Balaam, when he saw the angel, " fell flat on his face." 1 Sam. xxviii. 14, " And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself." 1 Kings xviii. 7, " And as Obadiah was in the w r ay, behold Elijah met him, and he knew him, and fell on his face, and said, Art thou that my Lord Elijah ? " 2 Kings ii. 15, " When the sons of the prophets saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest upon Elisha : and they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the 1 One reason alleged in favour of published by authority of Thomas Bishop saint-worship is " Propter Dei reveren- of Cambysopolis, and Nicholas Bishop of tiara : ut peccator, qui Deum offendit. Melipotaraus, Sept. 25, 1845. quia non audet in propria persona adire, 8 " Imperatrix et Domina nostra ben- occurrat ad sanctos, eorum patrocinia ignissima, jure matris impera tuo dilec- implorando." — Alexand. de Hales, Sum- tissimo Filio Domino nostro JesuChristo, ma, pt. iv. quaest. 26, memb. 3, artic. 5. ut mentes nostras ab amore terrestrium Vide Usher, ubi supra. ad ccelestia desideria erigere dignetur." 2 " Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty — Bonaventura, Corona B. Marin Vir- God, that Thy faithful, who rejoice under ginis. Oper. Tom. vi. the name and protection of the most " Inclina vultum Dei super nos : coge blessed Virgin Mary, may, by her pious Ilium' peccatoribus misereri." — Id. in intercession, be delivered from all evils Psalterio B. Marice Virginis, Ibid. here on earth, and be brought to the See Archbishop Usher, as above, who eternal joys of Heaven. Through." — gives many passages at length from Ber- "Coll. for the Feast of the name of B. nardin de Bustis, Jacob de Valentia, Ga- V. Mary ; " " Missal for the Laity," briel Biel, &c, to the like effect. 69 546 OF PURGATORY [Art. XXII ground before him." Josh. v. 14, 15 ; when Joshua knew that he was in the presence of the Captain of the Lord's host, M he fell on liis face to the earth, and did worship." The angel did not forbid him to worship him, but said, " Loose thy shoe from off thy foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy." Dan. ii. 46, " The king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel ; and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odour to him." 1 Now, in the first place, it is certainly not a little strange, that, whereas the divines of the Church of Rome tell us that no prayers were offered to the old Testament saints, because they were in the limbus patrum, and not in Heaven ; 2 yet, in their Scriptural proof of saint-worship, they bring all their arguments from the old Tes- tament only. There must be something rotten here. And we need not go far to see what the ground of their preference for such a line of argument is. The Eastern form of salutation to princes, honoured guests, and elders, was, and still is, a profound prostra- tion of the body, which is easily construed into an act of religious worship. Now Abraham and Lot evidently (from the context and from Heb. xiii. 2) did not know that the angels who appeared to them were angels. They thought them strangers on a journey, and exercised Eastern hospitality to them. They perceived that they were strangers of distinction, and exhibited Eastern tokens of respect. Thus, u being not forgetful to entertain strangers, they entertained angels unawares." The same may be said of all the above instances, except per- haps the last two. Falling down at the feet was the common mode of respectful salutation, and that especially when fav were to be asked. Thus Abigail fell at the feet of David (1 Sam. xxv. 24) ; Esther fell at the feet of Ahasuerus (Esth. viii. 8") ; the ser- vant is represented as falling at the feet of his master (Matt, xviii. 29). This was no sign of religious worship. Even Balaam, though he fell down before the angel, by no means appears to have worshipped him. He fell down from fear, and in token of respect. The case of Joshua, when he met the Captain of the Lord's host, may be different. It is well known to have been the belief of many of the fathers, and of many eminent divines after them, that the Captain of the Lord's host was the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the eternal Son of God. 8 And it is certainly as fair tc 1 Bellarmin. De Eccles. Triumph, i. 18 ; » See Justin M. Dialapu, p. 284 ; Euteb. Cmt. Gen. Tom. if. p. 708. H. E. i. 2. * See Bellitrmin. Ibid. i. 19, as quoted above. Sec. II.] OF PURGATORY. 547 infer from the worship paid to him, that he was God, as to infer from it, that worship ought to be paid to any beside God. We are reduced then to one single instance, and that the in- stance of an idolatrous king, who soon afterwards bade every one worship a golden image. He indeed appears, in a rapture of as- tonishment, to have fallen down to worship the prophet Daniel — not a glorified saint reigning with Christ — but one of those old fathers, who had to abide after death in the limbus, until our Lord's descent to Hades should rescue them. But is there no instance in the new Testament ? The new Tes- tament is ever the best interpreter of the old. Are there no ex- amples of the worship of saints or angels there? The Roman Catholic divines have not adduced any ; but their opponents cannot deny that there are some cases of such worship recorded, and those too of a worship which cannot, be explained to mean merely bowing down in token of respect to a superior. One example is that of Cornelius : " as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshipped him " (Trpoa-eKvvrjcrev'). This is very like the case of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel ; but with this advantage over it, that Cornelius was no idolater, and St. Peter was not a prophet of the old Testament, for whom the schoolmen tell us a limbus was in store, but the chief of the Apostles, to whom the keys of the kingdom were committed, from whom the Roman Pontiff inherits his right to forgive and retain sins, and who (on their showing) at death was sure of pass- ing straight to the highest kingdom of glory, thenceforth to reign with Christ, and to receive the prayers of the faithful. How then does St. Peter, whose authority none will question, treat the wor- ship of Cornelius ? " Peter took him up, saying, Stand up : I my- self also am a man " (Acts x. 25, 26). We may remember another case somewhat similar, though not quite identical, when " the Apostles Barnabas and Paul rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things ? we also are men of like passions with you " (Acts xiv. 14, 15). But perhaps we shall be told that it was latria not dulia, that the men of Lycaonia meant to pay to them. However, we are not confined to saint-worship in the new Tes- tament ; we can discover manifest traces of an gel- worship too. Twice, one whose example we may rarely refuse to follow, the blessed Apostle St. John, fell down to worship the angel, who showed him the mysteries of the Apocalypse. The same word (TrpoaKwrjaai) is used here as was used of Cornelius and St. Peter, 548 OF PURGATORY. [Art. XXIL and as is used (in the LXX.) of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel (7rpo. dria, p. 463. 12 " Alius hodie episcopus, eras alius : 2 'kvriipvxov ty£> tu/v viroTaaoopcvuv, k. hodie diaconus qui eras lector ; hodie r. K. presbyter, qui eras laicus. Nam et lai- 8 Ignat. Ad Poly c. c. 6. ciss-accnlotuliamunerainjungunt." — O* 4 Ado. ther. m. 2. Pro- script, c. 41. 6 " I lulicmiis annumerare eos, qui ab IS See the last passage ; also iJe Fupa, Apostolis instituti sunt Kpiscopi in eccle- c. 11. •iis, et successorcs eorum usque ad nos." M "Dandi (baptismum) quidem habet — in. 8. jus summu8 sacerdos, qui est episcopus; • Ibid. di-hinc prcsbyteri et diaconi, non tamen 7 kuv nf)caj3vTepoi jj, kuv duiicovoi, kuv sine episcopiauctoritate, propter et clesia Ixukuc — Stromal. Lib. in. p. 652. honorem." — Dt Bapliimo, c. 17. Sec. I.] IN THE CONGREGATION. 553 He speaks of receiving the Eucharist only from the presbyters. 1 The office of the bishop was, according to him, of apostolic institu- tion ; and in the Catholic Church the successions of the bishops could be traced to the Apostles, as the succession at Smyrna from Polycarp, placed there by St. John, that at Rome from Clemens, placed there by St. Peter. 2 It is true that Tertullian claims for all Christians, that they are priests, and contends that, in places where there are no clergy, laymen may exercise the priestly offices, may baptize, and even celebrate the Eucharist. But this is only in case of extreme neces- sity ; his strong assertion of this is in a tract, written after he had seceded from the Church ; and, even allowing the utmost possible weight to the passage, it does not prove the non-existence of a dis- tinct order of the clergy, but only that, in case of absolute neces- sity, that distinction was not to be observed. 3 Origen is very express on the office of the clergy, 4 on the power of the keys as committed to them, 5 on the duty of obedience to them. 6 We are now arrived at the Cyprianic age, when no one doubts that the distinction between lay and cleric was strongly marked and much insisted on. Some have contended, that the distinction was not from the first : but none can deny, that by this time it was universally accepted. Hilary the deacon, whose commentaries on St. Paul's epistles are appended to the works of St. Ambrose, is indeed cited as saying that, in the beginning, in order to increase the Church, the power to preach and baptize was given to all, but that, when the Church spread abroad, a more regular constitution was ordained, so that none of the clergy were permitted to intrude into offices not committed to themselves. 7 But this does not prove even that Hilary thought the distinction of lay and cleric not to be Apostolical. It is most probable from the context, that by the word all, omnibus, he means not all the faithful, but all the clergy ; 1 " Eucharistiic sacramentum non de Deo ordinatus est pater? Non subjiciar aliorutn nianu quam praesidentiuni sumi- presbytero qui mini Domini dignatione mus." — De Corona, S. propositus est ? " 2 De Prescript, c. 32. " " Ut cresceret plebs et multiplicare- 8 De Exhort. Castitat. c. 7. See also tur omnibus inter initia concessum est De Baptismo, c. 17. And consult Bp. et evangelizare et baptizare et Scripturas Kayo's Tertitliian, p. 224 ; and Bingham, in ecclesia explanare. At ubi autem E. A. Bk. i. oh. v. sect. 4. omnia loca circumplexa est ecclesia, con- * See If omit. n. in Numer. ; Homil. venticula constituta sunt, et rectores et xiii. in Lucam. caetera officia in e-cclesiis sunt ordinata, 8 In Matt. Tom. XIX. num. 14. ut nullus de clero auderet, qui ordinatus 6 Homil. xx. in Lucam. " Si Jesus non esset, praesumere officium, quod sci- JTilius Dei subjicitur Joseph et Marias, ret non sibi creditum." — Hilar. Diac. In ego non subjiciar episcopo, qui mini a Epist. Eph. c. iv. v. 12. 70 554 OF MINISTERING [Art. XXIU. who at first performed all sacred functions indiscriminately, but afterwards were limited according to their distinctions of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. And even if he meant that all the faithful had at first a ministerial commission ; yet still he clearly intended to fix the more regular constitution of the Church to the Apostolic age, before the close of which the Church might be said to have spread itself everywhere, and therefore needed regular establish- ment. 1 So that this passage makes nothing against the Apostolical origin of the order of clergy, and their distinction from the laity. 2 So necessary did the fathers consider the office of the ministry, that St. Jerome tells us, " There is no Church where there are not priests." 3 And St. Chrysostom says, " Since the Sacraments are necessary to salvation, and all these things are performed by the hands of the priesthood, how, without them, shall any man be able to avoid the fire of hell, or to obtain the promised crown ? " 4 The opinions of Christians of all ages, and almost all sects, have been in favour of the necessity of a distinct call to the ministry, and of an order regularly set apart for the executing of that office. Luther condemns it as an error invented by the devil, that men should say that they have a talent from the Lord, and therefore must of necessity assume the office of preaching. They should wait, till they are called to the ministry. If their Master wants them, He will call them ; •' If they teach uncalled, it will not be without injury to themselves and their hearers ; for Christ will not be with them." 5 The Confession of Augsburg speaks of the ministry of the word and Sacraments as divinely instituted ; con- demns the Anabaptists, who teach that men can receive the Spirit, without the external word ; and says, that none may minister the word and Sacraments, not rightly called to it. 6 The Helvetic Confession of the Zuinglians declares the office of minister to be " ancient and ordained of God ; not of recent, or of human ordi- nation." 7 Calvin says, that " no one must be accounted a minister 1 See Bingham, Book i. c. v. § 4, and kKJ3£(ih]Tvfij3ov%oi tov tmoitcmov,