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<*l<ili<i, i. p. 127. reformation of the Church was n very a It will be remembered, that in the different thing from the interference of a reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Parliament not consisting exclusively of the wlvole nation, and therefore, of course, churchmen. The question, as to how far the king and the Parliament, considered the laity ought to be consulted in draw- thcmsclves as members of the national ing up formularies or services, may U: Church. Ileiuv their Interference in the considered as open to discussion. INTRODUCTION. 17 very few words may be sufficient. To sign any document in a non-natural sense seems hardly consistent with Christian integrity or common manliness. But, on the other hand, a national Church should never be needlessly exclusive. It should, we can hardly doubt, be ready to embrace, if possible, all who truly believe in God, and in Jesus Christ whom He hath sent. Accordingly, our own Church requires of its lay members no confession of their faith, except that contained in the Apostles' Creed. 1 In the following pages an attempt is made to interpret and explain the Articles of the Church, which bind the consciences of her clergy, according to their natural and genuine meaning; and to prove that meaning to be both Scriptural and Catholic. None can feel so satisfied, nor act so straightforwardly, as those who subscribe them in such a sense. But, if we consider, how much variety of sentiment may prevail amongst persons, who are, in the main, sound in the faith ; we can never wish that a national Church, which ought to have all the marks of catholicity, should enforce too rigid and uniform an interpretation of its formularies and terms of union. The Church should be not only Holy and Apostolic, but as well, One and Catholic. Unity and universality are scarcely attainable, where a greater rigor of subscription is required, than such as shall insure an adherence and conformity to those great catholic truths, which the primitive Christians lived by, and died for. 1 See the Baptismal Service and the Visitation of the Sick. [The Articles were not adopted in the United States of America till September 12th, 1801, although a body of twenty Articles appears in the Proposed Book. Bishop White states that the subject had been seriously considered and discussed by the bishops, both in 1789 and 1792. In 1789, Bishop Seabury, the only bishop present besides Bishop White, " doubled of the need of Articles." In 1792, Bish- ops White and Claggett were in favour of adopting them, while Bishops Pro- voost and Madison were "directly against" them. Bishop Seabury still doubted, but was disposed to consider their adoption more favourably than in 1789. The latitudinarian objections of Bishops Provoost and Madison might well startle any man who found himself, even though on very different grounds, occupying the same position with them. In the General Convention of 1799, the subject was taken up " at the pressing instance of the deputies from Connecti- cut," and in consequence of instructions 3 to them " from the Convention of their Diocese." The only action, however, was that, of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. They appear to have appointed a committee who reported "a proposed body of Articles wholly new in form," which were printed in the Jour- nal. These articles were never voted on in the House in which they were report- ed, were never acted on by the bishops, and, indeed, were never seen by them till they appeared in print. The meas- ure was, in every aspect of it, injudi- cious, and even absurd. But, after all, it worked towards a good result, by " showing the impossibility of agreement in a new form," and exhibiting the inherent folly of the proposal. The feeling of opposition against any such attempt was a continually growing one ; and at last — with some alterations, which will be specified in their proper places — the English Articles were adopt- ed, in 1801. See Bishop White's Memoirs, &c., notes K and N. — J. IV.] ARTICLE I Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or pas- sions ; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness ; the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in the unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity : the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Defide in Sacrosanctam Trinitatem. Unus est vivus et verus Deus, aeternus, incorporeus, impartibilis, impassibilis ; immensae potentiae, sapientiae, ac boui- tatis ; Creator et Conservator omnium, turn visibilium, turn invisibilium. Et in unitate hujus divinae naturae tres sunt Personae, ejusdem essentiae, potentiae, ac aeternitatis : Pater, Filius, et Spiritu* Sanctus. Section I. — HISTORY. npHIS Article is evidently concerned with two somewhat distinct -*- subjects. First. The Nature and Essential Attributes of God in the general. Secondly. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. The First part is common to natural and revealed religion, and requires less either of illustration from history or demonstra- tion from Scripture ; it having been the universal creed, both of Jews and Christians, " God is one, living and true, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions ; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible." There have, however, been two classes of speculators, against whom we may suppose these words to be directed. 1. The obscure sect of the Anthropomorphites is reckoned as a heresy of the fourth century, and is said to have reappeared in the tenth, in the district of Vicenza in Italy. 1 Their opinion, as 1 See Suicer, s. v. dv#pw7ro/zop0(Tai, and unable to "occupy two distinct and Mosheim, Ecclesiast. Hist. Cent. x. places at once." The same statement pt. ii. ch. v. § 4. occurs in the Millennial Star. On the [This error has been revived by the Divine attributes, the profound work of Mormons. In the Latter-Day Saints' Cat- Dean Jackson, and the fourth chapter echism, or Child's Ladder, by Elder David of Mr. Owen's Introduction to the Study Moffat, God is described as an " intelli- of Dogmatic Theology, should be studied, gent, material personage, possessing both — J. W.] body and parts," possessing " passions," 20 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art L expressed by their name, was that God was in form as a man, material, and with body and members like our own. 2. The more important and dangerous error of the Pantheists may not be directly alluded to in the Article, but is plainly opposed by it. Pantheism has been the prevailing Esoteric doctrine of all Paganism, and, with various modifications, the source of a great part of ancient philosophy. 1 The Orphic Hymns have evident traces of it. Thales and the Eleatic School expressed it distinctly, and in the definite language of philosophy. 2 There can be little doubt, that it was the great doctrine revealed in the mysteries. The Egyptian theology was plainly based upon it. 3 It was at the root of the Polytheism of the Greeks and Romans ; and their gross idolatry was probably but an outward expression of its more mystic refinements. 4 The Brahmins and Buddhists, whose relig- ious systems still prevail amongst nearly half the human race, though also, exoterically, gross Polytheists, are yet, in their phi- losophy, undisguised Pantheists. 5 The Jewish Cabala is thought to have drunk deep of the same fountain. 6 When the Christian faith came in contact with Eastern phi- losophy, it is probable that Pantheistic notions found their way into its corruptions. Gnostics and Manichees, and possibly some of the later heretics, such as the Paulicians, had some admixture of Pantheism in their creeds. Simon Magus himself may possibly have used its language, when he gave himself out as " the great power of God." Its leading idea is, that God is everything, and everything is God. 7 Though all mind, whether of men or animals, is God, yet no individual mind is God ; and so all distinct personality of the Godhead is lost. The supreme being of the Hindoos is therefore neither male nor female, but neuter. 8 All the numberless forms of matter are but different appearances of God ; and though he is 1 Cudworth, Int. Syst. ch. iv. passim, worth adduces, and it is well worth especially §§ 29, 32, 33, 84. reading, shows that the Egyptians were " Cudworth, B. i. ch. iv. §§ 80, 81. genuine Pantheists. Tennemann's Manual of Philosophy, pp. * See Faber, Pagan Idolatry, B. I. ch. 69, 70. (Oxf. 1832.) m. • 'Eyw dpi ndv rb ytyovbc, nal flv, koi 6 See Sir W. Jones's Works, I. p. 252; iaoptvov ' nal rdv tpbv niniov oideic iru Maurice's History of Hindostan and Indian Qvyrdc uircKuXwpev : "I nni all that hath Antiquities, jxissim ; Faber, as above; been, is, and shall be, and my veil hath Mill's Pantheistic Theory. in) mortal ever uncovered." Inscription B Burton's Hampton Lectures, note 16. on the Temple of Saw, ap. Plutarch. De 7 "Jupiter est quodcumque vidos, quo- Iside. Again, rdv irpurov Bebv ry navfl cumquo moveris. Lucan. ix. 680. Se« rdv airbv vopifavotv. Plutarch, from Hec- also Virg. Eclog. in. 60, Georg. iv. 219, at»us, De Isideet Osiri. Sec Cudworth, jEn. vi. 724; Lucret. EX. 61. ii. ch. iv. pp. 170, 176. All that Cud- » Sir W. Jones'a Works, i. p. 249. Sec. I.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 21 invisible, yet everything you see is God. 1 Accordingly, the Deity himself becomes identified with the worshipper. " He, who knows that Deity, is the Deity itself." 2 Hence, as all living beings, are manifestations of, and emanations from the Deity, the devout Brahmin or Buddhist, while he believes that by piety man may become more and more truly God, looks forward, as his final con- summation and bliss, to Nirwana, or absorption in the Deity. This system of religion or philosophy, which has prevailed so extensively in heathendom, and found favour with the early phil- osophic heretics, and probably with the brethren of the free spirit in the twelfth century, 3 was taught in the seventeenth century by Benedict de Spinoza, a Portuguese Jew, 4 and has been called from him Spinozism. Some of the philosophic divines of Ger- many have revived it of late, and have taught it as the solution of all the Christian mysteries ; so that with them the Christ or God-man is not the individual personal Jesus : but mankind is God made man, the miracle-worker, the sinless one ; who dies and rises, and ascends into heaven, and through faith in whom man is justified. The history of the Second part of this Article, that is, of the doctrine of the Trinity, may be considered as almost equivalent to the history of Christianity. I. What degree of knowledge of it there may have been pre- viously to the coming of Christ, is a question of great interest, but of great difficulty. This question, as regards Scripture, must be deferred to the next section ; here it is considered by the light of history alone. It has been thought, with considerable reason, that there are distinct intimations of it (1) in the Jewish writings, (2) in the mythology of most ancient nations, (3) in the works of Plato and other philosophers. . 1. The Jewish Targums and Philo-Judseus both speak fre- quently of the Word of the Lord. The latter may possibly have been indebted to philosophic sources. This can hardly be con- jectured with probability of the former ; and, although none of them are much earlier than the Christian era, there is no doubt 1 Sir W. Jones's Works, i. p. 252. nemann, p. 324. Giordano Bruno, in the Ward's Heliyion of the Hindoos, iv. 274. sixteenth century, a Dominican, was 2 Mill's Pantheistic Theory, p. 159. burnt at Rome as a heretic, A. d. 1600, 8 Mosheim, Cent. xu. pt. II. ch. v. for holding opinions very similar to Pan- § 10. theism. See Tennemann, p. 283. * Mosheim, Cent. xvn. §§ 1, 24; Ten- 22 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. L that they speak the language and contain the tradition of former ages. Passages, such as that in the Targum, in Psalm ex., where " the Lord said unto my Lord " is rendered " the Lord said unto His Word," and many like it, seem, at first sight at least, very clearly to indicate a notion of Personal plurality in the Divine Unity. 1 Yet, of late, a different opinion has prevailed concerning the signification of the term Memra or Word (v*i ntd^d) used in the Targums ; it being contended, that the phrase means not a distinct and separate Person, but is, in fact, only another form of the pronoun "Himself." 2 Both views have found able advo- cates, and may be supported by considerable arguments ; and therefore the question concerning the Jewish opinions on the Trinity must be considered as one which is not fully decided. 2. In the mythology of almost all nations, it is plain that the number three has been a sacred number. The triads of classical mythology (e. g. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades ; or again, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva in the Capitol) are well known. 8 More remarkable by far is the Trimourti of Hindostan. Christians have frequently believed that the Trimourti originated in some patriarchal tradition, whilst unbelievers have found in it an argu- ment against the Christian Faith, as being merely one develop- ment of the many speculations concerning God which have pre- vailed in India and elsewhere. In answer to the latter, it may be enough to say, that the whole significance of the Trimourti is utterly unlike that of the Trinity, the likeness being in num- ber only. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, were no tripersonal unity, but three distinct, created divinities, embodiments of the various powers of nature ; though subsequently both Vishnu and Siva were, by their respective votaries, identified with the Great Supreme. And, on the other hand, it is now well ascertained that the gods of the Trimourti were unknown to the Vedas and more ancient books of the Hindoos ; * so that the origin of a be- lief in them cannot be traced to primitive tradition, but must 1 See Allix's Testimony of the Ancient Mcnrva, who had temples in every" Ktrus- Jewish Church against the. Unitarians ; Hry- can city. ant's Opinions of PhiloJudceus ; Bull, Fid. * See especially Professor Wilson's A7<\ Def. i. i. 16-19. translation of the JUg I'm/./. The legend [See also Oxlee, On the Trinity, &c, a of Crishna, which teemed peculiarly to laborious, curious, and valuable work. — resemble some portions of Christian his- ./. M'| tory, occurs first in the lilimjavat (iita, a : I'.itrton's Bamplon Lectures, Lect. vii. work of about the third century a. D. p. 221, and note 98. Some part of it has prohahly been dirvet- 8 Cudwortli, B. i. ch. iv. § '27, p. 819, ly borr o wed from the Gotpelt, or Apoc- 8 82, p. 470. The Jupiter, Juno, and ryphal Goroela. The student may con- Minerva of the Capitol were the same as suit Rev. C. Hard wick's Vhiist and other the three great Gods, Tinia, Cupra, and Masters, Part II, Sec. I.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 23 more probably be ascribed to the speculations of later Indian Theosophists. 1 3. Plato and some other Greek Philosophers are generally- considered as having expounded a doctrine which bears some resemblance to the doctrine of the Gospels. 2 If it be so, we may, probably enough, trace his sentiments to some like source of patriarchal tradition or Jewish creed. Some think Plato had it of Pherecydes of Syros, who may perhaps have learned it from some Eastern source. Others, that, according to the testimony of Numenius, Plato gained a knowledge of Hebrew doctrine during his thirteen years' residence in Egypt. 3 But, on the other hand, it has been argued, that Plato's view of the Logos was utterly unlike the Christian belief in the Trinity. It is said, he never spoke of the Word or " Reason of God as a distinctly existing person ; it was only a mode or relation in which the operations of the Deity might be contemplated." 4 After the Christian Revela- tion, indeed, philosophic Christians, and still more philosophic heretics, early used Platonic terms to express Christian doctrine. Hence the language of philosophy became tinged with the lan- guage of Christianity : hence, too, at a very early period, the heretics, using the language of Platonism, corrupted Christianity with Platonic philosophy. Hence, again, St. John, who wrote after the rise of such heretics, uses language which they had introduced ; yet not in their sense of such language, but with the very object of correcting their errors. 5 It is clear then, that, in more ways than one, we may account for the fact that St. John used terms which had been used before the Christian Rev- elation ; and the sneer of the infidel, which hints that he learned his doctrine from Plato, becomes harmless and unmeaning. 6 II. When once the mystery of the Trinity had been revealed in the Gospel, it became the fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Yet we must not expect to find the first? Christian writers using the same technical language to express their belief in it, which afterwards became necessary, when heresy sprang up, and controversy gave rise to definite controversial terms. Unitarian writers have charged Justin Martyr (a. d. 150) with being the first 1 On the Trinity of Zoroaster and the asks, " What is Plato, hut Moses in At- Magi, see Cudworth, Intel!.. Syst. B. i. tic?" see Lardner's Test. o/Anc. Heathens, ch. iv. § 16, &c. On the appearance of a ch. xxxv. Allix's Judgment of the Jewish Trinity in the Egyptian Pantheism, see Church, ch. xxm. p. 286. § 18, ii. p. 194. * See Burton, Bampton T^ct. p. 213. 2 On Plato's Trinity, see Cudworth, B. 5 Burton's Bampton Lect. Lect. vn. i. ch. iv. § 24. ii. p. 300. § 34. in. and note 90. pp. 54, 82, &c. . 6 Gibbon's Decline and Fall, ch. xr. 3 On the statement of Numenius, who 24 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. I. to introduce " the Platonic doctrine of a second God " into Chris- tianity ; that is to say, they have admitted that Justin Martyr speaks of Christ as God, but deny that the Apostolic fathers held the doctrines of Trinitarianism. Such assertions, however un- founded, render the doctrines of the Apostolical fathers not a little important ; as it could hardly fail to puzzle us, if we found the earliest Christians and their most famous pastors ignorant of what we have learned to esteem the groundwork of the faith. There is certainly nothing in the subjects treated of by any of the Apostolical fathers, to lead them naturally to set forth a distinct acknowledgment of the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the Divinity of Jesus Christ ; and many expressions might occur of love to Christ and reverence for Him, without a distinct enuncia- tion of the doctrine of His Godhead. It is therefore the more remarkable and satisfactory, when we find, as we do, in all the works ascribed to those fathers commonly called Apostolical, pas- sages which seem distinctly to assert the Deity of Jesus Christ, and so, at least by implication, the doctrine of the Trinity. Ig- natius, especially, is so clear on this point, that the only possible way of evading the force of his testimony is to deny the genuine- ness of his epistles. A majority of learned men are of opinion that this question has been well nigh set at rest by Bp. Pearson in his Vindicice Ignatiance. 1 then impassible ; even Jesus Christ our Lord." (Eph. vii.) " Expect Him, who is above all time, eternal, invisible, though for our sakes made visible, who was intangible, impassible ; yet for our sakes became subject to suffering, endur- ing all manner of ways for us." (/</n. to Polifc. iii. ) " God, who was manifested by rlis Son Jesus Christ, who is the Eternal Word, not coming forth from si- lence." (Mag*, viii.) The Trinity of Persons in the God- head is plainly referred to in such pas- sages as these : — " Study that so .... ye may prosper in body and spirit, in faith and charity — in the Son, and in the Father, ami in the Spirit — in the beginning and in the end;" and again, " He subject to your bishop and to one another, as Jesus Chrilt to the rather, according to the flesh, and as the Apostles both to Christ and the Father, and the Holy Ghost." (Magn. xiii.) Poli/rarp speaks most clearly in the doxol'ogy ascribed to him. as some of his last words, in the Circular Epistle of the (Vuiirlt of Smyrna on the Martyrdom Of Polycarp. 1 The following passages exhibit some of the testimonies of the Apostolic fa- thers to the Divinity of Christ, and. by implication, to the doctrine of the Trin- ity : — Clemens Romanus. " The Sceptre of the Majesty of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the show of pride and arro- gance, though he might have done so." (1 Cor. xvi.) "Being content with the portion Goo had dispensed to you ; and hearkening diligently to His word, ye were enlarged in your bowels, having his 8CFFEMN08 always before your eyes." (1 Cor. ii. See also chapters xxxii. xxxvi. xlv. &c.) Igntiliut calls our Saviour " Jesus Christ our God," (in the Inscription to the Kpis- tles to the Ephesiana and Romans, also in Trail. 7, Horn. iii. ) speaks of " the blood of God," (Eph. i.) "the passion of my God," (Rom. vi.) says, " I glorify God, even Jesus Christ." (Smyrn. i.) "When God was manifested in human form («.-- dnuTtivuc) for newness of eternal life." (Eph. xix.) "There is one Physician, both fleshly and spiritual, made and not made, Cod incarnate ; true life in death ; both of Mary and of God ; first passible, Sec. I.] OF THE HOLY TRINITY. 25 Justin Martyr, a. d. 150, is the first early Christian writer of whom we have any considerable remains. If he does not state the doctrine of the Trinity in the form of the Nicene or Athana- sian Creeds, he yet clearly and constantly asserts that the Son is God, of one substance and nature with the Father, and yet numer- ically distinct from Him. 1 The word Trinity occurs in a treatise attributed to Justin Martyr (De Expositione Fidei) ; but this work is generally allowed to be spurious. The first use of tins term is therefore commonly ascribed to Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, a. d. 181, who speaks of the three days of creation, which preceded the creation of the sun and moon, as " types of the Trinity, namely, of God, His Word, and His Wisdom." 2 " For this, and for all things else, I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, by the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all succeeding ages, Amen." Martyrdom of Polyc. xiv. On this passage see Waterland, n. p. 232. A vindication of Clement of Rome and Polycarp from the imputation of Arianism mav be found in Bull, F. D. ii. 3,2. Barnabas, whose Epistle, though per- haps not the work of the Apostle of that name, is doubtless the work of one who lived nearly contemporaneously with the other Apostolical fathers, writes : " For this cause the Lord was content to suffer for our souls, although He be the Lord of the whole earth ; to whom God said before the beginning of the world, ' Let us make man in our image.' " (Bamnb. c. v.) Again, "You have in this, also, the glory of Jesus, that by Him and for Him are all things." flu iv Avtu navra, nal eig Avtov (c. Xii. See Bull, F. D. i. 2, 2.) Hennas, who is reckoned an Apostolical father, and was certainly a writer not later than the middle of the second cen- tury, has the following : " The Son is indeed more ancient than any creature, inasmuch as He was in counsel with the Father at the creation of all things." (Simil. ix. 12.) " The Name of the Son of God is great, and without bounds, and the whole world is supported by it." (Si/nil. ix. 14.) Concerning the genuineness of the seven shorter Epistles of Ignatius, see Pearson's Vindiciai Icrnat. in the second f olume of Cotelerii Patres Aposlolici. A Synopsis of his Arguments is given in Dupin's Eccles. Hist., in the Life of Igna- 4 tius. See also Bp. Horsley's Works, iv. p. 133. Dr. Burton ( Testimonies of the Anle-Nicene Fathers, p. 14) enu- merates the following, as great names to be ranked on the same side witli Bp. Pearson in holding that the genuineness of these Epistles lias been fully proved. I. Vossius, Ussher, Hammond, Petavius, Grotius, Bull, Cave, Wake, Cotelerius, Grabe, Dupin, Tillemont, Le Clerc, Lard- ner, Horsley, &c. On the opposite side he reckons Salmasius, Blondel, Dallaeus, Priestley. Since the discovery of the Syriac Ver- sion of the Epistles of Ignatius, and their publication by Mr. Cureton, a new con- troversy has arisen; namely, whether the three Epistles in the Syriac be the only genuine, and the seven shorter Greek Epistles deserving of acceptance only so far as they agree with the Syriac. Whatever may be the ultimate fate of this controversy, it is most satisfactory to know that even the three Syriac Epis- tles contain some of the strongest of those passages, in the Seven Greek Epis- tles, which prove the writer's belief in the true Deity of Christ. 1 An example of his mode of speaking may be seen in the following short pas- sage from Apol. i. c. 63 : " They, who say that the Son is the Father, are con victed of neither knowing the Father, nor of understanding, that the God of the universe has a Son, who, being the First-born Word of God, is also God." Of Justin's sentiments on the Logos and the Trinity, see Bull, F. D. n. 4; Water- land, m. pp. 157, 246; Burton's Testimo- nies of Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 30 ; Bp. Kaye's Just. Mart. ch. II. where also, in the Appendix, is an account of the opin- ions of Tatian, Athenagoras, and The- ophilus of Antioch. 2 Ad Autolycum, Lib. n. p. 106. tvikh 26 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. L Irenaeus, a. d. 185, gives something like regular forms of creeds, greatly resembling the Apostles' Creed (see i. 9, iv. 33). His statements of the Deity of Christ are singularly clear, and he ex- pressly tells us that the Scriptures would never have given to any one absolutely the name of God, unless he were truly God. 1 There is a well-known passage in a heathen author, somewhat earlier than Irenaeus, (the Philopatris of Lucian,) which shows the received doctrine of the Church, at which he sneers, more plainly perhaps than if the words had been those of a Christian. There is a doubt whether the work is Lucian's or not ; but its genuine- ness is not of much consequence, if, as is generally admitted, it was either his writing, or that of some contemporary of his. 2 Tertullian, a. d. 200, both distinctly propounds the doctrine of the Trinity, and is the first Latin who uses the term Trinitcus. 8 We might trace the chain onwards through Clement of Alex- andria, Origen, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Dionysius, and so down to the Council of Nice. Some may see in the bold speculations of Origen the germ of heresy even on the important doctrine of the Trinity ; and Dionysius of Alexandria, in his zeal against Sabellius, appears to have been led into some heedless expressions. There is, however, little doubt that Origen was a firm believer in the Trinity ; and the expressions of Dionysius, which called forth the censure of his brethren, were afterwards fully and satisfactorily explained. Thus all the early fathers who continued in the com- munion of the Catholic Church, are unanimous in their testimony to the faith of that Church in one God and three Persons in the Godhead. Some, even, who were charged with schism or heresy, as Monta- nus and Novatian, were yet clear and decided in their language on TJfc Tpurfoc, too Qeov, teal rod Aoyov airov, Dr. Hey, in his lectures on the First ical ttiq Hofyiac airov. On his doctrine, Article, observes that the charge, which consult Bull, F. D. n. 4, 10. the heretics made against the Catholics, 1 Iron. in. c. vi. § 1 ; Burton, Ante-Ni- of holding three Gods, is to him the cene Fathers, p. 68, where see the testi- strongest evidence that the Catholics mony of Irenaeus at length ; also in Bull, held the doctrine of the Trinity. F. D. i: 6, and Beaven's Account of Ire- Tertullian distinctly illustrates the con- natu, ch. iv, substantiality of the Persons in the God- 2 The passage is — Kpi. Kal riva tiro- head, by introducing the comparison of (tocuiiai ye; TV>t. 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€vrj<s, Only-Begotten, as though it meant Begotten by God alone, yevinrjOeU irapa fxovov? Here we see a second and created God introduced into the Christian Theology. The Patripassians, on the one hand, had denied the Trinity of Persons ; the Valentinians and Manichees, on the contrary, are accused of saying that there were three unconnected, independent Beings in the Godhead. 4 But Arianism taught distinctly the existence of one, or two beings, who were to be worshipped as God, and yet were neither one nor of the same nature with the Father. The inevitable ter.dency of this was either to direct Polytheism, or more probably and naturally to Humanitarianism. 5 The Council of Nice, consisting of 318 bishops, was summoned in 325 by Constantine the Great ; which condemned Arianism, established the doctrine of the homo-ousion (i. e. that the Son was consubstantial with the Father), and drew up the Creed which now bears the name of Nicene, with the exception of the clauses which follow the words " I believe in the Holy^ Ghost." Arian- ism, thus checked for a time, soon revived again. Constantine was convinced that Arius had been unjustly banished, and re- called him. His son Constantius, who ruled first in the East, and then over the whole empire, and afterwards Valens, who 1 He avoided saying " time " (xpov°C ) ', * The Apostolical Canons mention and because he appears to have admitted that condemn certain persons, who baptized the production of the Logos was before in the name of three unoriginated prin- all time. See Neander, Church History, ciples, Tpelc uvapxovc. Can. Apost. c. 49. iv. p. 4. London, Bonn, 1851. And the first Council of Bracara says 2 Pearson, On the Creed, Art. I. p. 135. that the Gnostics and Priscillianists in- (fol. Lond. 172-3.) troduced a Trinity of Trinities. See 8 This was the fallacy of Eunomius. Bingham, B. xi. ch. in. § 4. See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. n. p. 138. 6 See Newman's Arians, ch. n. $ 6. 82 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Art. L ruled also in the East, favoured the Arians. Partly by this pow- erful patronage, partly by subtilty of argument, and partly in consequence of the prevalence of Judaizing or philosophic doctrine, this dangerous heresy, or some modification of it, spread exten- sively, especially in the Eastern Churches. The famous Athana- sius, Bishop of Alexandria, exhibited unbounded zeal and courage in defending the Catholic faith, and suffered greatly from the persecution of the Arians. There then arose a variety of sects, with more or less of the Arian tenets ; such as the Eusebians, Anomoeans, Semi-Arians. The latter adopted as their symbol the term hmoi-ousios, of like substance, instead of homo-ousios, of one substance. From among the latter sprang Macedonius. The pure Arians, and those who symbolized with them, — the Anomoeans, and Eunomians, and Semi-Arians, — appear to have held that the Holy Ghost, like the Son, was a created being. Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, whose followers were called Macedonians, or Pneumatomachi, seems to have been more ortho- dox on the Person of the Son, but to have esteemed, like the Arians, that the Holy Ghost was a creature. 1 This heresy was condemned at the second General Council at Constantinople, a. d. 381 ; which added to the Nicene Creed the clauses which follow "I believe in the Holy Ghost." 2 With this Council the struggles between the Catholics and the Arians ended. Arianism thence- forth became a heresy excommunicated and detached from the Church. 8 It found refuge for some time with the Gothic invaders of the Empire, who persecuted the Catholics ; but at length declined and became extinct. After this, we hear of a sect of Tritheists in the sixth century, the principal defender of whose doctrine was Philoponus of Alexandria. 4 The discussions between the Nominalists and Realists of the Middle Ages often led to something like erroneous statements of the Trinitarian question. The Nominalists were charged with teaching Tritheism, and, their founder, Roscellinus, was con- 1 " Maccdoninni sunt a Macedonio Con- 2 With the exception of course of the Btniitiii!i|i<>lii;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, ET<nreivuoev eavrdv, yevo/xevog vnr/Koog piixP 1 davarov, ■davarov 6s crravpov. " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (or, did not parade, covet, or pique Himself on the being equal with God) ; but emptied Himself (of his glory) by taking the form of a servant, (and that) by being made in the likeness of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." The participles express the manner in which the actions of the verbs were effected. He, being in the form of God, emptied Himself of His divine glory. How 1 Why, by taking the form of a servant. And how did He take the form of a servant? By being made in the likeness of men. And then, being no longer in the glory of God, but in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself. How? By becoming obedient unto death. Hence it appears, that, as He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to death, so He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, and He took the form of a servant by being made man. The taking the form of a servant, then, was the becoming man, the assuming human nature : " the form of a servant " was the nature of man. It follows that the " form of God " was the nature of God. It must be admitted that ovx ip^ayftdv yyTjaaro is an unusual expression ; but to the interpretation "did not make a parade of, or pique Himself on the being equal with God," the few parallel expressions which are to be found seem most favour- able. On the whole passage see Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, Macknight, Rosen- muller, Middleton, in loc, Suicer, s. v. dpnay/xog ; Pearson, On the Creed, p. 122, fol. ; Waterlaud, n. Serm. v. p. 89. 48 OF THE HOLY TRINITY. [Abt. L before He was made in the likeness of men, He was not in the form of a servant. But who of all created beings is not in the form of a servant ? Who, but the uncreated God, is not a servant of God ? If therefore Christ was, before His incarnation, not a servant, nor in the form of a servant, then, before His incar- nation, He must have been God. The passage then requires us to interpret it as follows : " Take, for your example of humility, Jesus Christ. He, being in the form and nature of God, thought it not robbery to be (or, piqued not Himself on being) equal with God ; but emptied Himself of His Divine glory, inasmuch, as He, being Lord of all, yet assumed the form of a servant, by being made in likeness of men ; and when He was thus found in fashion no longer as God, but as man, He humbled Himself yet further, by becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." In the famous passage in 1 Tim. iii. 16, we read, " God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." It is indeed true that there are three readings of the first word, which is in our version God. Yet whichever reading may be the true, the whole drift of the passage and its context clearly express the Deity of Him of whom the Apostle writes, that is of Jesus Christ. 1 There is another passage, in Acts xx. 28, which I couple with the last, because here too the reading is in doubt. St. Paul ex- horts the elders of Ephesus " to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood." 2 So strongly does this 1 The state of the question is nearly ties the question concerning the reading this : — of A. 6f is the reading of C*F.G. 17. 73. The reading of VSS. is in favour of a 181. 6 of D*. Beds of D*** J. K. relative, the Latin rending quod, the other and of nearly all cursive MSS. 6f, except the Arabic (Polygl.) and B. E. H. are defective in this place, Slavonic, which have Geor. and supply no evidence at all. The Latin fathers followed the Vulgate The reading of A has been very much in reading quod, except Hieron. In Etai. disputed. At present A reads Geof, but liii. 2, who reads &f. the lines which distinguish GC from OC Of the Greek fathers, some are doubt- arc in a newer and coarser ink than the ful. Ignat. Ad E/>h. 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, <i/Uu hath His being from God. koI irarepa idiov iXeye rbv Qe6v. Compare 7 J OF THE SON OF GOD. [Art. II and again, " As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself" (John v. 26). From which we learn that the mode of existence which the Father possessed from all eternity, He communicated to the Son. All created beings have their existence from, and their life in, God. But the Son, who is uncreated, derives indeed His Being from the Father, but it is a Being of the same kind as the Father's, and therefore not dependent, like a creature's, but independent, self-existent, having life in itself. Accordingly the Son is farther called "the Brightness of His Father's glory, the express Image of His Person," Heb. i. 3 ; words which in the Greek indicate a relation of the Son to His Father, like that of brightness to light, like that of the impression of a seal on wax to the seal, to which it answers. 1 Now the communication of the nature of God, thus made by the Father to the Son, may be called a proper generation. Nay! it is more proper than any earthly generation. For, in human generation, the son indeed derives his nature from his father, but it is in a manner according with the imperfection of humanity. Man's generation is in time, and, as connected with that which is material, results, in part at least, from that property of matter called divisibility. The son too, in human beings, when derived from the father, becomes separate from him. But this is not so with God. God's eternal perfections He, from all eternity, communicated to His Son. " So also the Divine Essence, being by reason of its simplicity not subject to division, and in respect of its infinity incapable of multiplication, is so com- municated as not to be multiplied, insomuch that He, which pro- ceedeth by that communication, hath not only the same nature, but is also the same God. The Father God, and the Word God ; Abraham man, and Isaac man : but Abraham one man, Isaac another man ; not so the Father one God, and the Word another ; but the Father and the Word both the same God. Being then the propriety of generation is founded in the essential similitude of the son unto the father, by reason of the same which he receiv- eth from him ; being the full, perfect nature of God is communi- cated unto the Word, and that more intimately, and with a greater unity or identity than can be found in human generation ; it follow- eth, that this communication of the Divine nature is the proper 1 Origen, commenting on these words Films, ex ipso inseparahiliter velut splen- :>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 <f>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<pdopav. Scripturas, et sepultus secundum easdem, . . . Atu tovto ev (ihv ipvxy Qcov rj kputtjolc hie quoque legi satisfecit, forma humanaj tov daviiTev fkveTo, nal il- pdov uvuaTaaic mortis apud inferos functus, nee ante lyiveTO, nai rale \pvxalc ev-nyytTd&To • kv 6i ascendit in sublimiora ccelorum, quam aufuiTi Xplotov rj 6&opu naTT/pyslTO, k. t. 1. descendit in inferiora terrarum," &c. — Athanas. De Salut. Advent. Jes. Christ. * " Quod a morte non vinceretur, nee et adv. ApoUinnrium. Tom. i. p. 645. 94 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Abt. HL Apollinarians denied the existence of a natural human soul in Jesus Christ. 1 Now the true doctrine of our Lord's humanity, namely, that "He was perfect man, of a reasonable soul and hu- man flesh subsisting," was most strongly maintained by asserting the Article of His descent to Hades. For whereas His Body was laid in the grave, and His Soul went down to Hades, He must have had both Body and Soul. 2 Accordingly, the fathers with one consent maintain the descent of Christ's Soul to Hell. II. The Scriptural proof of our Lord's descent to Hades rests chiefly on three passages. One is the difficult verse, 1 Pet Hi. 19, which was generally esteemed by the fathers to apply to this sub- ject, and was thought conclusive by the reformers of the reign of Edward VI. Yet, as many of our most learned divines have denied its application, I shall defer the consideration of the question till we come to speak of the object of Christ's descent Another passage is Eph. iv. 9 : " Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" It is undoubted, that both Jews and Greeks placed Hades, according to their popular notions, beneath the earth, or in the lower parts of the earth ; and it is not improbable that the Apostle may have used this popular language to express our Lord's descent or passage to the place of disembodied souls. It is undoubted, too, that some of the fathers and creeds adopted these words, or words similar to them (Va K<nw«pa), 3 to express the doctrine of the de- scent to Hades. And Bishop Pearson has truly observed, that this exposition of the passage "must be confessed so probable that there can be no argument to disprove it" Yet there is also no question, that the Apostle's language might be used to express merely the fact of the incarnation, or of the burial of Christ. The " lower parts of the earth" may mean only the place beneath, t. e. the earth itself, in contradistinction to the heights of Heaven. Although, then, both these passages may, and we may not be far 1 See an account of their doctrines un- chro cum carne, totus in inferno cum an- der Art. It. § I. ima ; ac per hocplenus fuit ubique Chris- * Most pertinent is the passage of tus, quia non est Deus ab humanitate Fulgentius, Ad Trarimund. Lib. in. c. 84, quam susceperat separatus," &c. quoted by Pearson, p. 288 : " Humanitas So Hilary, In Ps. cxxxviii. " Quam vera Filii Dei nee tota in sepulchro fuit, descensionem Dominus ad consummation nee tota in inferno ; sed in sepulchro se- nem veri hominis non recusavit" cundum vernm carnem Cltristus mortuus 8 See Pearson, pp. 226, 228. Irenmus, jacuit, ct secundum animam ad infernum Origen, Atbanasi us, Jerome, all quote Christus descendit : . . . secundum di vini- this passage to prove or express the de- tatem vero suam, qusa nee loco tenetur, scent into hell, nee fine concluditur, totus fuit in sepul- Art. III.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 95 wrong in saying that they both very probably do, refer to our Lord's descent to the place or state of departed souls ; yet, seeing this application is open to doubt, it may be well to rest the doc- trine on a passage the force of which can hardly be evaded. The passage is Acts ii. 27-31. St. Peter there quotes the sixteenth Psalm, " Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades («s aSovj, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption ; " and he ex- plains it, that the Psalmist " spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His Soul was not left in Hades, neither His Flesh did see corruption." 1 In which explanation by the Apostle it is plain that the soul is in antithesis to the flesh, and Hades to corruption; so that the miracle of our Lord's resurrection was the consequence of His Flesh not being suffered to be corrupted in the grave, and His Soul not being suffered to remain in Hades. That is to say, our Lord had a human nature like our own. When human beings die, the soul leaves the body ; the latter is laid in the grave, the former passes to the intermediate state of souls. With ordinary men, the body sees corruption, the soul is left in Hades till the Judgment. But with Christ, though He fully passed into the state of death, yet death did not retain dominion over Him. Although, therefore, His Body was laid in the sepulchre, it saw not corruption ; al- though His Soul went to Hades, where other souls go, yet God did not leave it there, but it was on the third day reunited to the Body, and so the Body was raised from the grave. If it be necessary to add anything to this passage, we may further remark, that, as it has already been shown that Paradise is the state of the departed souls of the redeemed, so our Lord's promise to the thief upon the cross, that he should be with Him that day in Paradise, proves clearly that our Lord, and with Him the repentant thief, passed from the cross into the state of the souls of the dead, which, as has been shown, is called Hades or hell. It was, indeed, into the happy division of Hades called Para- dise, or Abraham's bosom ; but still it was to part of Hades. 2 We now come to the Third division of our subject, to consider what was the object- oi our Lord's descent to Hades. 1 " Et Dominum quidem came mortifl- 2 So the author of the Homily on Dives catum venisse in internum satis constat, and Lazarus, attributed to Chrysostom : Neque enim contradict potest vel pro- " Dicat mihi aliquis, in inferno est Para- phetias quae dixit, Quoniam non derelinques disus ? Ego hoc dico, quia sinus Abrahae animam meam in inferno; quod ne aliter Paradisi Veritas est; sed et sanctissimum quisquam sapere auderet, in Actibus Paradisum fateor." — Homil. in Luc. xtl Apostolorum idem Petrus exponit." — De Divite. Tom. u. Oper. Chrysost. Latin. Augustin. Epist. clxiv. Tom. n. p. 574. Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. vm. 9G OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Aht. III. I. Historically, we must consider this subject as briefly as we can. 1. It has already been seen, that many of the fathers looked on the belief in our Lord's passage to Hades as necessary for the acknowledgment of the verity of His manhood and of His death. This indeed appears to have been the universal sentiment of the primitive Church ; and, accordingly, the descent to Hades was urged by the fathers against the Apollinarian heresy. 1 2. But, though this may be said to have been the universal sentiment of the early Christians, there were also various opinions current among them, as to what our Lord did during His stay among the souls of the dead. Almost universal appears to have been the belief, that the Spirit or Soul of Christ preached the Gospel to the souls of the dead. 2 Hernias, who is reckoned apostolical, has set forth the doctrine, that not only Christ preached to the spirits in Hades, but that the Apostles too preached, to those who had died before them, the name of the Son of God. 8 In this he is followed and quoted by Clement of Alexandria. 4 Irenajus, again, says that he heard from a certain presbyter, who heard it from those who had seen the Apostles, that our Lord descended to the places beneath the earth, and preached His Gospel to those who were there ; and all believed in Him who had foretold His advent, — the just, the prophets, the patriarchs; whose sins He forgave, as He does ours. 6 The passage of Scripture on which this general belief of the early Christians was founded is 1 Pet. iii. 19. Justin Martyr and Irenams also quote a passage from Isaiah or Jeremiah, which is not extant in any copies of the Bible. The passage is this, " The Lord God remembered His dead, who slept in the sepulchral earth, and descended to them to preach His salvation." 6 Justin elm the Jews with having erased it from the LXX. Of the spurious- ness of the text there can be no doubt; but it sufficiently shows the judgment of those fathers who quoted it, concerning the doc- trine which it was adduced to prove. Thus far then the early Christians appear almost unanimous. 1 See under the second division of this 8 Lib. m. Simil. ix. c. xvi. Coteler. i. Article pnssnges from Irenseiu, Tertul- p. 117. lian, Athanasius, Fulgcntius. See also * Stromal, vi. Potter, pp. 768, 764. Pearson, p. '238. See Bp. Kuye'a Clement of Alexandria, a KadiKdfievof iv role Karuricroti rob Qdov p. 189. WW. i"il (kanrifwtac role iiceioe nveifiaetv. b Iren. Lib. iv. c. 46. — Cyril. Alex. Horn. Paschal, xx. Usher, ° Justin. M. Dial. § 72, p. 898. Iren. Answer to a Jesuit, ch. vm. Hi. 28. iv. 89. v. 81. Art. III.] OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 97 On the purpose or end of Christ's preaching, however, there ex- isted no small difference. (1) The earlier fathers seem generally to have held, that no change took place in the condition of souls after our Lord's descent among them, and in consequence of His preaching to them. Jus- tin Martyr held, that all souls still remain in Hades : the just in a happy, the unjust in a wretched place, and so shall remain to the Judgment. 1 Irenaaus and Tertullian are clearly of the same opin- ion. The former says, 2 that "no disciple is above his master," and thence infers that, as our Lord went to Hades, so all His servants shall go thither. Tertullian asserts that " Heaven is not open until the end of the world," 3 and that all men are in Hades, either comforted or tormented. 4 Accordingly, he says that our Lord's descent to Hades was, that the patriarchs might be made partakers of Him. 6 (2) But, on the other hand, many of the early Christians were of opinion that our Lord, when He descended to Hades, delivered some who were there, and carried them thence to some better place. Some thought that the prophets and patriarchs were in Hades till the coming of Christ, and that after that they were translated to a better place, called Paradise ; whilst others again believed that our Lord preached His Gospel to the souls of the dead, and that those who believed in Him were saved and delivered from Hades, those who rejected Him were condemned. There seem traces of this opinion in the above-noticed passage of Hermas, commonly called an apostolical father, and in Clement of Alexandria, who followed him. Origen, however, appears to be the first who distinctly propounded the opinion, that, after the coming of Christ, the souls of the just, instead of going to Hades, pass at once to some better place, called Paradise. 6 1 See the passages quoted in the note tinere debemus definitutn a Deo resurrec- under the First head, i. 3, p. 87, note 1. tionis nostra tempus,pranuntiatum a pro- 2 "Nunc autem [Dominus] tribus die- phetis, et sic resurgentes assurai." — Ire- bus conversatus est ubi erant mortui. . . nae. y. 31. Cum enim Dominus in medio umbra; mortis 8 De Anima, c. lv., quoted above. abierit, ubi animal mortuorum erant, ... * De Anima, c. lviii. inanifestum est quiaet discipulorum ejus, 5 " Descendit in inferiora terrarum, ut propter quos et haec operatus est Domi- illic patriarchas et propbetas compotes sui nus, at ipvxal inzipxovrai elc rbv juoparov] faceret." — De Anima, c. LV. toitov tov upia/ievov avralq. . . . Nemo enim ' See also Ado. Ufarcion. Lib. iv. c. est discipulus super mayistrum : perfectus art- xxxiv. Also Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 262. tern omnis erit sicut magister ejus. Quomodo B This is apparent, as the opinion of ergo magister noster non statim evolans Origen, in the whole of the 2d Homily abiit, sed sustinens definitum a Patre re- on the 1st Book of Kings, known as the surrectionis suae tempus, ... post triduum Homily De Engastrimylho. There he resurgens assumptus est ; sic et nos sus- argues that the soul of Samuel, which 13 OF THE DESCENT INTO HELL. [Art. III. Accordingly, the later fathers generally adopted the notion, that, till Christ's death, the patriarchs and prophets were in Hades, but afterwards (from the time that Christ promised to the thief on the cross that he should be with Him in Paradise) they passed into Paradise, which therefore they distinguished from Hades. 1 Hades indeed they looked on as a place of rest to the just, but Paradise as far better. 2 Here, of course, we begin to perceive the germ of the doctrine of the Iambus Patrum. Yet that the notion entertained by the fathers was vastly different from that of the mediaeval Church, will be sufficiently apparent to any one who will read the nt> 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<l apnd inferos tuisse, donee co* inde sanguis Christi et ad ea loca desevnuua erueret. pro.'iecto deineeps boui tidcles ett'uso illo pretio jam rcdempti, prorsus inferos ne sciunt, donee etiam receptis eorporibus. bona recipiant mm mereiitur." — August. De Civil. />•>', 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<j> 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 <f>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 piypa<j>TfV. — 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<j>&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 <pv<rtic6v. It does so read in a Greek translation of the Book of Common Prayer, printed at Cambridge in 1665, and published with the Apocrypha and New Testament The concluding words of the rubric arc Kal rb cp v a < k b v tov "Zurripos fip.uv XpioroD aup.a Kal ai/j.a iv T(5 oZpavw Kal ovk £v8d8e etal • rrj tov (pvciKOv XpiffTOv o&yMros a.\r]9tia ivdv- tiov 6v, iv kv\ xpivoi iv w\fi6ai t6itois ir\)jv (v6t virdpxov. There can, therefore, be no contradiction between St. Paul's words and the rubric, unless it can be proved that tyvxv and tpvo-is are synonymes. I am Indebted for the above extract to the Rev. Mr. Hart, of Trinity College. — J. W.] [It seems impossible to understand St. Luke xxiv. 36-49, of any other time than the evening after the Resurrection, consequently not immediately before the Ascen- sion. The argument on page 112, though becoming in consequence less striking, is not materially weakened. — J. W.] ARTICLE V. Of the Holy Ghost. De Spiritu Sancto. The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Spiritcs Sanctus, a Patre etFilio pro- Father and the Son, is of one substance, cedens, ejusdem est cum Patre et Filio majesty, and glory with the Father and essentia?, majestatis et glorias, verus et the Son, very and eternal God. aeternus Deus. Section L — HISTORY. rpHE subjects of this Article to be treated on are — I. The ■*■ Divinity; II. The Personality; III. The Procession, of the Holy Ghost. Those early heretics who denied the Divinity of the Son of God, seem generally to have disbelieved the Personality of the Holy Spirit, and to have looked on Him not as a Person, but as an efficacy, power, or emanation from God. This heresy appears to have been as early as Simon Magus him- self, and his immediate followers, the Gnostics. The like opinion would, of course, naturally prevail among those speculators who afterwards acquired the name of Sabellians, such as Praxeas, Noetus, Sabellius, Beryllus, Paulus Samosatenus. 1 The Arians, on the contrary, appear to have taught that the Spirit was a separate Person from the Father and the Son, but that He was, as they held the Son to be, but a creature. Nay, as they held the Son to be a creature created by the Father, so they are said to have taught that the Spirit was created by the Son, and hence called Him KTia-^a ktio-iacltos, the creature of a creature. 2 1 See the account of these heretics, Art. i. § i. ; and the authorities referred to in the notes. See also Pearson, On the Creed, Art. vm. p. 322, note. Suicer, ii. p. 774. 2 Td uyiov Tlvev/xa nrio/M KTiofiarog <j>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 <ti/A- Creed to be used in the Liturgy of the Tukyew) oidi rd Uvevpa el pi} 6 Tide k§ ov Spanish Church. (Bingham, ibid. § 7.) lapPuvei, Kal 6 Ilar^p it; ov iKiropeverai. With regard to the insertion of the words Kpiph. Hares, lxxiv. 10, Tom. i. p. 898. Filioque in the Confession of the Council Colon. — fui) de ohte 6 &ebf, ovkovv (ui) tic of Bracara, it now appears that they are futff 6 Tld(, eyti yap elpi r) uXr/deia Kal ij not genuine, but foisted into it in later £u^, rd 6e iiytov Uvevpa nap' ap^orepuv, times. See Waterland, Hist, of Athan Uvevpa Ik Tlvevparoc. Hares, lxxiv. 7, Creed, Works, it. p. 138, note. Tom. i. p. 896. Sec. I.] OF THE HOLY GHOST. 123 such addition ought to be made to the creeds of the Church. Nay, so important did he deem a strict adherence to the symbols in their original form, that he caused the Constantinopolitan Creed, in the very words in which it had been penned at the council, to be graven on silver plates, both in Latin and Greek, and so to be publicly set forth in the Church. 1 Afterwards, however, Pope Nicolas the First had a violent controversy with Photius, patriarch of Constantinople. Ignatius, who had been deposed from that see, and succeeded by Photius, appealed to Pope Nicolas, who took the part of Ignatius, and excommunicated Photius ; who in his turn assembled a council at Constantinople, in 866, and excommunicated Nicolas. Subse- quently Ignatius having been recalled by Basilius the Macedonian, and Photius degraded, a council was held at Constantinople (a. d. 869), which is called by the Latins the eighth (Ecumenical Council, in which the controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches were hushed for the time. Among the subjects which had been introduced into this unhappy discussion, the most prominent was the question concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost; Photius charging the Latins with having adulterated the Creed of Constantinople by the addition of Filioque, and the Latins vigorously defending themselves concerning this and other charges. 2 On the death of Ignatius, A. D. 878, Photius was again restored to the patriarchal see, when John the Eighth was Bishop of Rome. On his accession he again renewed the controversies with the West ; and in a council held at Constantinople, a. d. 879 (owned by the Greeks as the eighth (Ecumenical), it was declared that the addition of Filioque should be taken away. Leo the Philos- opher afterwards again deposed Photius, and confined him in an Armenian convent, where he died in the year 891 . 3 The contest between the Churches, now suspended for a time, was revived in the year 1053, by Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople. Between him and Leo IX., Bishop of Rome, a violent contest arose, both on the subject of their respective juris- dictions and concerning the doctrines in dispute between the two great branches of the Church. Cerularius wrote, in his own name and that of Leo Bishop of Achrida, a strong letter to John Bishop of Trani in Apulia, charging the Latins with various errors. Leo 1 Pearson, On the Creed, p. 325 ; Mo- was a principal champion of the Latins sheim, Cent. ix. pt. n. ch. m. § 18. in this dispute. 2 The famous Ratramn, whose book on 3 Mosheim, Cent. ix. pt. u. ch. ill. the Eucharist exercised so important an §§ 27-32 ; Pearson, as above, influence on the English Reformation, 124 OF THE HOLY GHOST. [Abt. V. therefore summoned a Council at Rome, and excommunicated the Greek Churches. Constantine Monomachus, the emperor, in vain strove to quench the flame of discord ; and though legates were sent from Rome to Constantinople, instead of endeavouring to allay the strife, they solemnly excommunicated Cerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents, who, in their turn, in a public council excommunicated them. 1 Thus arose the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, which has never since been healed. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. HPHE first I. and second II. heads of this Article concern the -*- Divinity and the Personality of the Holy Ghost. Both these were treated under the First Article, and it is not necessary to repeat the arguments here. It may be enough to add that among the strongest passages of Scripture in proof of these doctrines will be found the following : — Divinity. Matt. xii. 32. Acts v. 3, 4. 1 Cor. iii. 16 ; com- pare 1 Cor. vi. 19. Personality. Matt. xii. 32 ; xxviii. 19. John xiv. 16, 26 ; xvi. 8, 13. Acts v. 3, 4. Rom. viii. 26. 1 Cor. xii. 11. Eph. iv. 30. 1 John v. 7. III. The third division of the subject is concerning the Proces- sion of the Holy Ghost ; the Article, after the Latin versions of the Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Creed of St. Athanasius, assert- ing that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. The distinction between the three Persons in the Godhead was set forth in treating on the First Article. The relation of God the Son to God the Father, how that from all eternity God the Son derived His being from God the Father, by a proper but ineffable generation, was set forth in the first part of the Second Article. Now, whereas it is certain that the Scriptures ever speak of the Second Person of the Trinity as the Son of God, and as begot- ten of the Father, so it is equally certain that they speak of the Spirit as coming forth or proceeding from the Father, but never as begotten of Him. The early Christians, observing this distino 1 Mosheim, Cent. xi. pt n.ch. in. §§ 9-11. Sec II.] OF THE HOLY GHOST. 125 tion, cautiously adhering to the language of inspiration, and striv- ing to imbibe the notions conveyed by it, ever taught that it was peculiar to the Father to be underived and unbegotten; to the Son, to be begotten ; to the Holy Ghost, to be proceeding. 1 1. That the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father scarcely needs to be proved. In Matt. x. 20, He is called " the Spirit of the Father." In Rom. viii. 11, He is called " the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead." In John xiv. 26, " the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost," is promised, as to be sent "by the Father in Christ's name." In John xv. 26, we read of the " Comforter . . . even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father." Compare also Matt. iii. 16. Acts v. 9. 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11, 14 ; iii. 16 ; vi. 19, &c. Accordingly, there never has been any doubt, among those who admit the doctrine of the Trinity, that as the Son is begotten of the Father, so the Spirit proceeds from the Father. 2. But though the doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father is thus unquestionable, it has been seen, that the Greeks doubted the propriety of saying that the Holy Spirit pro- ceedeth from the Son as well as from the Father. They doubted it, as it seems, merely because in John xv. 26, it is said " that the Spirit of truth proceedeth from the Father," and there is no passage of Scripture, which, in the same express terms, says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Son. Yet if we except this one expression of John xv. 26, every other expression whatsoever, from which we infer that the Spirit pro- ceedeth from the Father, is used in like manner concerning His relation to the Son. For example : — (1) Is He called " the Spirit of God," " the Spirit of the Fa- ther," " the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus ? " In like manner He is called " the Spirit of Christ," " the Spirit of the Son," " the Spirit of Jesus Christ." Thus we read, Rom. viii. 9, " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ ; " where it is evident the Apostle means the Holy Spirit of God spoken of in the preceding sentence. Gal. iv. 6, " God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son." Phil. i. 19, " The supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. i. 11, " The Spirit of Christ," which was in the prophets. And so surely is this the case, that the Greeks themselves were even willing to call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son ; con- fessing that " He proceedeth from the Father, and is the Spirit of 1 Idtov Uarpbg /jh> 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/<n is the same with SiSao-Keiv,' say the gramma- rians ; and the TrapaSoOeiaa 7ricrris in St. Jude, ' the faith once deliv- ered,' is the same which St. Paul explicates by saying, 7rapa8oWs as eSt8ax^T/Te, 'the traditions,' that is, 'the doctrines ye were taught.' And St. Irenaeus (Lib. in. ch. iv.) calls it a tradition apostolical, that ' Christ took the cup,' and said, ' it was His Blood,' and to believe in one God, and in Christ ' who was born of a Virgin,' was the old tradition ; that is the thing which was delivered, and not at first written, ' which was kept by the barbarians.' " 1 It may be added, that the very words of St. Paul, in the passage now alluded to, prove in themselves that tradition, according to him, was not necessarily oral tradition, or traditions floating in the Church ; for he calls his own Epistles, or the doctrine contained in them, tradition, — "traditions, which you have been taught either by word or by our Epistle." What therefore the Apostle here 1 Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive from Popery, Part n. Bk. I. Sect. 3. 136 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI. enjoins on the Thessalonians is simply, that, as lie had taught them by preaching, and as he had enjoined them by letter, so they should believe and live. This instruction, thus received, was the tradition to which he alludes. But it by no means follows, be- cause, before Scripture was completed, the Apostles gave oral and epistolary instruction, to which their hearers were to attend, that therefore, after the Scriptures were completed and collected, there must be left, floating about, a stream of traditional truth, which is not to be found in those Scriptures, thus completed and collected. Before the Scriptures of the new Testament were written, there must of course have been need of tradition, or instruction by word of mouth ; and such instruction coming from inspired Apostles was, no doubt, of as much value as what they committed to writing. But the question is, whether they delivered anything essential to our salvation, which they, or some of them, did not subsequently put down in writing, so that it should be carefully preserved, and be a constant witness in the Church. Certainly neither this, nor any of the before-cited passages of Scripture, prove that they did. 1 Once more, it is said that Christ promised to His Church, " The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it," Matt. xvi. 18 ; " I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," Matt, xxviii. 20 ; " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven," Matt, xviii. 18, &c. ; and that these promises prove that a certain infallibility should reside in the Church, which both makes it a sure keeper of the truth, and renders all its traditions and decrees of sacred authority. But we may reply, that, even if we concede that the whole Church, fully represented, might so claim the promise of Christ to be present with it, and to guide it, that it should not fall into errors in matters of faith ; yet it follows not, that it would be authorized to preserve or to decree any truth which cannot be proved from Scripture. Ancient councils settled many points of faith, and drew up creeds and confessions ; but they professed them to be accordant with, and capable of proof from, Scripture. And though the Church is a keeper and a wit- ness of Holy Writ, and may expound Scripture for the instruction of her children, and in such expositions may look for the promise 1 The passages from Scripture which Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. II, ; Bp. have been quoted in the text are all al- Patrick's Discourse about Tradition, in the leged by Bollarmine, De Verbo Dei non first volume of Gibson, Preservative Scripto, Lib. iv. against Popery, p. 190; Van Million's On the proper meaning of the word Hampton Lectures, Sermon in. Tradition, see Jer. Taylor as above ; Sec. L] FOR SALVATION. 137 of Christ and the guidance of His Spirit ; it by no means follows, that she has authority to add to " the faith once delivered to the saints," or to set up any standard of doctrine besides that written word of God which is intrusted to her, and to which she is to look as the source of all heavenly wisdom and truth. 2. And here we may dismiss the arguments from Scripture, which have been brought to prove that Scripture does not contain all doctrine necessary for salvation and godliness. We proceed to consider those passages which appear to prove the direct contrary, namely, that all things, of necessity to be believed, are contained in, or may be deduced from, the written word. The following are amongst the texts commonly alleged : — "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it." Deut. iv. 2. " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Ps. xix. 7. " Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal life : and they are they which testify of Me." John v. 39. "From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. hi. 15-17. These passages appear to prove the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures. But it is argued against this inference, that, with regard to the first two passages, they speak of God's command- ments and God's law, whether written or unwritten. 1 The third passage may be, and very likely ought to be, translated, not " search," but " ye search the Scriptures." And all the passages relate to the old Testament, not to the new ; for neither could the Jews search the new Testament Scriptures, nor could Timothy have learned the new Testament from his childhood ; since none of the books of the new Testament were then written. If, there- fore, these passages prove the sufficiency of Scripture, they prove that the old Testament was sufficient without the new, and there- fore prove too much. The passages indeed prove, that all which comes from God is perfect, and very necessary for instruction ; but do not fully prove that nothing but Scripture is necessary. 1 Bellarmine indeed argues that the not " speak," as he renders it, but rnUQ passage from Deut. iv. 2 applies only to „ commanc r » as our translators mve it"— the unwritten word : " the word which I ™\ ? %Z' n v i tr ^ n . slat0 ™ P v * 7. 7" .peak unto you." The word however is ^eUarmin. De Verba Dei non bcripto, lab. 18 138 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI Another argument is drawn from the following passages : — " Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us ... . it seemed good to me also .... to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." Luke i. 1-4. " These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His Name." John xx. 31. These texts do certainly seem to show that the object of writing the Gospels was expressly that men might not be left to the uncertainty of tradition. Many had taken in hand to set forth an account of the Gospel history : St. Luke therefore was moved to commit it carefully to writing, that no vague accounts might mis- lead Theophilus, but that by the written word he might " know the certainty of those things wherein he had before been catechetically instructed." Very similar to this is the language of St. Peter : " I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance," 2 Pet. i. 15. It is true that these three passages only apply to the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, and the Epistles of St. Peter, and perhaps with them to the Gospel of St. Mark ; but they nevertheless give the reasons for writing Scripture, and are, as far as they go, a strong presumption against the vagueness and uncertainty of oral, and in favour of the cer- tainty of written, tradition. Again, ignorance and error in religion are traced to ignorance of Scripture : " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God," Matt. xxii. 29. The peculiar privilege of the Jews is said to be that " to them were committed the oracles of God," Rom. iii. 1, 2. In matters of doubt, all appeals are made to Scripture. The Berceans are praised, because they " searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so," Acts xvii. 11. So under the old Testament it was " to. the law and to the testimony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them," Isai. viii. 20 ; where the law and the testimony must mean the Law of Moses, and the testimony of God given by the Prophets. Lastly, there is special reprobation of all traditions which add to Scripture or take from it. The passage in the end of the Apocalypse (" If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book," &c, Rev. Sec. I] FOR SALVATION. 139 xxii. 18, 19) may indeed apply only to that book itself, and to the uncoiTupted preservation of its text. But we cannot have read the Gospels, without seeing how much those who used Jewish tradi- tions are censured and condemned : " Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ? " " In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt. xv. 3, 9, comp. Mark vii. 7-13. It is true, the traditions spoken of were Jewish, not Christian traditions. But the principle was much the same. The Pharisees claimed such traditions as divine. They professed, that they were the unwritten word of God, handed down from the time of Ezra, through the doctors of the Law, and the members of the Great Synagogue. They did not deny the value of the written word, but added the unwritten traditions to it. These they considered, not as corrupting, but as completing the truth. Yet our Lord declared that they " made the word of God of none effect by their tradition " (Mark vii. 13). And thus we may fairly infer that our Lord condemns the general principle of making any addition to the written word, by doctrines professedly handed down from father to son. We see, at least, no difference in principle between the oral traditions of the Jewish, and the oral traditions of the Christian Church. II. We come next to show, that reason is in favour of the Anglican, in opposition to the Roman rule on this subject. 1. The English Church does not hold that unwritten truth is less true than written truth ; and if we could be certain that any unwritten doctrine came from Christ and His Apostles, we should receive it with the same reverence that we pay to the written word. But the reason why we rest our faith upon the written word is this : We know that it came from God ; but we have , no certain knowledge that any unwritten tradition did. The former we know to be the mid-day light, the other may be but an ignis fatuus, and lead us into error. And let it once more be clearly understood, that the question is not, what value there may be in the testimony of the Early Church to certain doctrines of the faith ; not, how far early tra- ditions may be useful for the interpreting of Scripture ; not, how far we may be right to adhere to the primitive example, in matters of discipline and ceremony, even those for which we have no Scriptural authority; but it is, whether besides, parallel with, and independent of the Scripture, there is in the Church a doc- trina tradita, a doctrine handed down from Christ or His Apos- 140 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Abt. VI ties, of equal authority with Scripture, and demanding equal re- spect. As has just now been said, when we search for authority in favour of any doctrine, we can tell at once where to go, if Scrip- ture be our rule. But if we have to depend on something besides, where must we look ? The former rule is contained in a small compass, is easily accessible, and with proper assistance may be understood. The latter js to be searched for through many folio volumes ; is, at last, not certainly to be found ; and is at least as difficult as Scripture itself to be understood and explained. Or, if it be said, that it is not in the writings of the fathers, but in the stream of Church tradition, a deposit which was intrusted to the Church and has never been lost by her ; we can only reply, that this is even less certain than traditions which may be searched out from ancient writings, and from them proved to have anciently existed. Tradition by word of mouth is a thing proverbially un- certain. In peculiar conditions of society, or for a short time, it may be sufficient for the preservation of truth. But it is evidently unfitted for a body like the Catholic Church ; which was to pervade all nations, extend throughout all ages, weather the storm of igno- rance and barbarism at one time, and bear up against the scorching and withering glare of learned infidelity at another. The very fact that the Scriptures were written, and the history of their writing, seem to prove their sufficiency and perfection. When first revelation was given to man, men's lives were so long that there was little danger lest the light of truth should be lost. Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, were in fact all but con- temporaries. Seth the son of Adam lived to within fifteen years of the birth of Noah. Tradition therefore may have sufficed for them ; and yet we have reason to believe, that, even then, the faith was much corrupted. Again, the sons of Noah must have been contemporary with Abraham, to whom another revelation was given ; yet Abraham's fathers had become idolaters. And in the few generations from Abraham to Moses the faith again appears to have been corrupted, if not lost ; although from the death of Joseph to the birth of Moses not seventy years had passed. Thus, when the world and the Church were under the most favourable circum- stances for preserving tradition of the truth unimpaired, it pleased God to leave the world, with occasional revelations indeed, but mostly with only traditional knowledge of the truth. Yet, even so, such knowledge was soon corrupted, and easily lost. After that, God gave a fuller revelation to Moses, and enjoined that it should Sec. I.] FOR SALVATION. 141 be committed to writing ; and the book of the Law was deposited in the most sacred place of the Sanctuary, and most carefully guarded and watched, as of inestimable value. Thenceforward, when any great prophet was sent to Israel, though, during his lifetime, he orally taught the people, yet his words were ever committed to writing, that they might be preserved after his death. Nor do we know anything now concerning the teaching of any of the prophets, save only what is handed down to us, not by oral, but by written, tradition, namely, the Scriptures of the old Testament. Most similar was the case with the Christian Church. At first, whilst our Lord and His Apostles were on earth, their per- sonal teaching, and that of those taught by them, might have sufficed. Yet, even then, errors and perversions were creeping in ; and if they had not committed the substance of their teaching to writing, the false traditions of the Judaizers, the Cerinthians, or the Gnostics, might have come down through the Church, instead of the true traditions of the disciples of Christ. But we learn from ancient writers, that what the Apostles preached by word of mouth they committed, or caused to be committed to writing, lest the substance of their preaching should be lost. 1 If tradition com- mitted to the Church had been sufficient to preserve the truth, then the writing of the four Gospels, and of the other parts of the new Testament, would have been superfluous. But from the known and well-proved insufficiency of the former, the Apostles, under the guidance of the Spirit, had recourse to the latter mode of insuring a source and a rule of faith. " The Apostles at first owned these writings ; the Churches received them ; they transmitted them to their posterity ; they grounded their faith upon them ; they proved their propositions by them ; by them they confuted heretics ; and they made them the measure of right and wrong : all that collective body of doctrine, 1 E. g. Merci de rr)v tovtuv (i*. e. tov Tooovtov eireTrfifiipev toZq twv uKpoaruv Tlirpov kcu tov TlavTuov) e!-odov Mupnoc, 6 tov Uerpov diavoiaig evoefieiaz 6eyyo$, uf (*/} (iadriTTis nal &p/4TjvevTT)c Tlerpov, nal avrbg rrj eloanal- inavug lx nv upKelo&ai ukotj, /xrjde ra bnb Uerpov KTjpvooo/ieva kyypdtyuq tj/juv ttj uypatpu tov -&eiov Krjpvyfiarog didaoncMa • Tcapade6<j)K£. -»-Iren. Hear. in. 1. rrapatM/aeai <5e navroiaic Mapicov, ov rd So again : " Hanc fldera annuntians evayyiJuov Qeperai, anokov&ov ovto Uerpov Joannes Domini discipulus, volens per Inrap^acu, ug uv nal 6ui ypaffic vnofiv-qfia Evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum -njg diH Tuoyov napadcr&eiaric avrolc Kara- qui inseminatus erat hominibus errorem, ^cfi/'Oi didaoicaXiac • fjj) rtpbrepov re uvel- et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nico- vat q Karepyao-ao&ai rbv avdpa, nal Tavnj laitse . . . omnia igitur talia circumscrib- alriovq ysveodai r^f tov Xeyo/ievov Karh ere volens discipulus Domini, et regu- lAapnov svayyeMov ypa$7j(. — Euseb. H. lam veritatis constituere in ecclesia ... E. ii. 15. He gives this account on sic inchoavit in ea quae erat secundum the authority of Papias and Clemens Evangelium doctrina: In principio erat Alexand. Verbum. . . ." — Hares, in. 11. 112 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI of which all Christians collectively made public confessions, and on which all their hopes of salvation did rely, were all contained in them, and they agreed in no point of faith which is not plainly set down in Scripture." * Now Scripture having been thus evidently designed to correct the uncertainty and supply the deficiency of tradition, it is un- reasonable to suppose that God would have suffered Scripture itself, the more certain guide, to be imperfect, and to need the less certain guide, tradition, to supply its defects. Yet, if Scripture itself does not contain the sum and substance of our religion, and all necessary articles of faith, this would be the case. But as a matter of fact, Scripture has ever been adduced, by divines of all schools and all communions, as capable of proving all the great doctrines of the faith, and all the important rules of duty. We can either prove by it, or deduce from it, the great doctrines concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Sanctification of the Spirit, Original Sin, Justification, the grace of the Sacraments, the privileges of the Church, the Com- munion of Saints, the Judgment of the great day, and other weighty and cardinal points of faith. And though different schools have differed as to how Scripture should be interpreted on some of these points, yet all have agreed that the true doctrine con- cerning them may be gathered from Scripture, if interpreted aright. Whatever value, therefore, we may attribute to a Traditio Hermeneutica, to traditional interpretations of Scripture ; we ought to be satisfied that all things " to be required of any man as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation," are so contained in Scripture that they may be either " read there- in, or may be proved thereby." Several things, indeed, all men allow, are contained in Scripture, which are not absolutely necessary to salvation, although they may tend to edification ; and if the lesser matters were inserted there, how can we suppose that the greater would be omitted? Nay, although the Church of Rome often appeals to tradition, as a necessary part of Divine Revelation, yet it may well be ques- tioned, whether even she pretends that any very important truth is to be derived from tradition alone. And assuredly we may safe- ly assert, that there is a total absence of all evidence to prove that there is even professedly any tradition extant to which we are indebted for the knowledge of any great doctrine of the faith, in- dependently of the written word. 1 Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. n. Bk. i. Sect. 8. Sec. L] FOR SALVATION. 143 2. The principal arguments from reason in favour of the Romany ist, and against the Anglican view of this subject, are as follow : — (1) Tradition was the first rule. From Adam to Moses all was traditional ; and from the coming of Christ to the completion of the Canon of the new Testament, tradition must have been the principal guide of the Church. Scripture, therefore, which came in afterwards, cannot supersede that which was before it, and which, at first, was sufficient without it. This argument has already been virtually answered by anticipa- tion. The duration of men's lives before the time of Moses, and the presence and personal teaching of inspired Apostles before the writing of the new Testament, were great safeguards against error. The fact, that, as these safeguards were withdrawn, God's Prov- idence ordered that the Scriptures should be written and pre- served, shows of itself that tradition, which might have been sufficient then, would not be sufficient now. We do not say that Scripture supersedes tradition, but that it is itself the surest tra- dition, and the only one on which we can safely rely. It is in fact the Patriarchal, Levitical, and Apostolical tradition,, preserved in its safest and only certain form. (2) It is said that Scripture, was not written systematically, but casually, as circumstances occurred, in casual memoirs and occasional letters ; and therefore cannot be looked on as a sys- tematic collection of doctrine and morality. This, however, is no proof that the whole sum of necessary truth may not be extracted from it. How holy men of old were moved to speak, or to write, seems of little consequence. God's wisdom saw fit that it should be in the way in which we have the Scriptures now. It is certainly in a more interesting, it is prob- ably in a more profitable way, than if a systematic arrangement had been adopted. It is not probable that the Apostles' teaching, nor even that of our Lord, was always systematic ; and yet in that all men admit that all necessary truth was contained. It cannot, therefore, be necessary to our position to show that the Scriptures are formally or systematically designed. (3) The genuineness and canonicity of Scripture itself rest on tradition, and on tradition alone ; and if tradition is necessary to prove this, it may equally prove other doctrines. It is true that historical testimony, and the universal consent of all the early Christians, are the chief grounds on which we rely for proof that the various books of the new Testament were the works of those whose names they bear. This indeed is, in a great 144 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VI measure, the way in which we prove the genuineness of every an- cient book. We do not know that a book was written by Caesar or Tacitus, but by testimony and historical evidence. In like manner, testimony and historical evidence are essential to prove that the works ascribed to St. Peter or St. Paul were really theirs. In this latter case, indeed, we have the most convincing and sat- isfactory proofs ; for we have the testimony of early Christians, of early heretics, of ancient heathens, of friends, and of enemies ; and besides this, the testimony of the Church catholic in general councils. These are things which we should never lightly value, under any circumstances ; and when we have to deal with the question concerning the genuineness of certain books, such a kind of evidence is the most obvious, the most necessary, and the most satisfactory possible. But it does not follow that we should give the same deference to the same testimony, even if such could be found, on points of doctrine. For the opinions of Caesar or Tacitus, we prefer the words of their own books to any testimony exter- nal to those books. And so for the doctrines of the Apostles, we look first and chiefly to what they have written. Besides, we have concerning the Canon of Scripture an universality of con- sent which it would be utterly in vain to search for concerning any doctrine of the faith which is not also to be found in Scripture. When the Roman Church can bring a like amount of consentient testimony to prove any doctrine on which Scripture is silent, we may then, and not till then, entertain the question of a doctrina tradita, parallel to, and of equal authority with, Scripture. (4) It is farther said, that many necessary things are not set down in Scripture. Bellarmine mentions the following : 1 — a. How women under the old Law might be delivered from Original Sin, circumcision being only for males ; and how males under eight days old might be saved from it. b. The Perpetual Virginity of the blessed Virgin Mary, which has always been believed by the Church, and yet is not in Scripture. c. That Easter should be kept on a Sunday, which is necessary to be believed against the Quarto-decimans. d. Infant Baptism, which is necessary to be believed ; but neither Romanists nor Protestants can prove it from Scripture. e. That there is a Purgatory, which Luther himself believed, and yet admitted that it could not be found in Scripture. 1 De Verbo Dei non Scripto, Lib. it Sec. I] FOR SALVATION. 145 If these are all the points that Scripture is silent upon ; we need not be very solicitous about its deficiencies. None of them surely can be essential to our salvalion. None, except the last two, materially concern our personal faith or practice. The last we not only admit is not in Scripture, but we positively deny that it is true. The last but one, Infant Baptism, we think may be fairly inferred from Scripture, when fully consulted on the subject ; and we are very thankful to have the additional testimony of the primitive Church concerning it, which we never reject, as a help and guide to the truth and right understanding of the Scriptures, but only as a distinct and independent authority. The question concerning Easter is one of ceremony, not of faith, and we gladly follow the primitive Church in matters of this nature ; although we do not hold, that ceremonies must be one and tlfe same every- where. The doctrine concerning the Perpetual Virginity is rather a pious opinion, than a necessary article of faith. Our own great- est divines have mostly adhered to the primitive opinion on this subject. 1 But we cannot think that any man's salvation is the surer for believing, or the less sure for disbelieving it. The question concerning Original Sin, and how women under the Law were delivered from it, and still more, the question con- cerning infants under eight days old, is as much left in obscurity by tradition, as by Scripture. It is one of those things concerning which we have no revelation. (5) But it is said, that some of the chief articles of faith, though deduced from Scripture, yet could not be proved from Scripture alone, without the help of tradition and the testimony of the Church. Among the rest are enumerated, the equality of the Divine Persons in the Trinity, the Procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son, the Descent into Hell, Original Sin, the change of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day. The proof of most of these doctrines from Scripture has already been given under the preceding Articles. We maintain, that the equality of the Persons in the Godhead, and the other great doc- trines concerning the Trinity, also the Descent into Hell, and Original Sin, are clearly deducible from Scripture alone. We do not indeed reject the testimony of antiquity, but view it, as a val- uable guide to the true meaning of Holy Writ ; but we maintain that these doctrines might be proved, even without its aid. As to 1 Andrewes's Devotions : see Prayers for the Virgin Mary." Bp. Bull, Works, i Monday. Jer. Taylor, Life of Christ, § p. 96 2. Pearson, On the Creed, Art. " Born of 19 146 THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES [Art. VL the Procession of the Holy Ghost, if Scripture will not prove it, certainly tradition will not. In considering the last Article, we saw that the tradition of the Western was different, in some re- spects, from that of the Eastern Church. The Nicene Creed for some centuries lacked the Filioque. And from the evidence in favour of the doctrine, which we deduced from Scripture, it should appear that Scripture speaks more plainly upon it than tradition, or the Church. The change of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day is not an article of faith ; but it is doubtless a matter of some mo- ment. It is true, that without the aid of history we might find some difficulty in discovering, whether the early Christians did give up observing the Jewish Sabbath, and kept festival on the first day of the week. But even so, we think, Scripture alone would give us proof that the Lord's Day was to be observed, and that the Jewish Sabbath was not to be observed. Certainly, we read of the first day of the week, as the day on which Christians held their assemblies, administered the Lord's Supj>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 irpo<j>T)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 <nr»3» ing given this 8ense t0 the P re P osition r •i-.-i : • • t : • is obliged to say, that it is onlv by a accurate respondet priori hemistichio, ut strong poetical figure that Job is said to utroque corpus suum dissolvi significet see his Redeemer, " without bis flesh," (Schol. in Job xix. 26). Whether the signifying merely, that, though much use of £; in the passages thus adduced wasted with disease, he yet hoped to from Isaiah and Samuel is at all similar live . *° 8 ee his cause defended and his to the use of the same preposition in this uprightness vindicated. Should we ven- passage of Job, others must decide. To * ure to *PP 1 f 8Uch cntici8m to an X P">- 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<K rbv KvaQea kmvofjoai .... 3 Theodor. Lector, p. 663 ; Bingham koX h Ttaay ovva£ei rd ovfi(3o?w Tieyeodai — and Palmer, as above. Theodor. Lector. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. p. * Bingham and Palmer, as above. 666, Paris, 1673; Bingham, Bk. x. ch. 6 Bingham, Bk. x. ch. iv. § 18. 228 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Art. VHL In the year 1675, Paschasius Quesnel, a learned French divine, published the works of Pope Leo, with some dissertations of his own. In the fourteenth of these, he discusses the authorship of this Creed, and assigns it to Vigilius Tapsensis, an African Bishop, who lived in the latter end of the fifth century, in the time of the Arian persecution by the Vandals. His arguments have so pre- vailed as to carry a majority of learned writers with him ; amongst whom may be mentioned, Cave, Dupin, Pagi, Natalis Alexander, Bingham. The principal arguments against the authorship of Athanasius, and in favour of Vigilius, are thus summed up by the last men- tioned writer, Bingham. 1 First, because this Creed is wanting in almost all the MSS. of Athanasius' works. Secondly, because the style and contexture of it does not bespeak a Greek, but a Latin author. Thirdly, because neither Cyril of Alexandria, nor the Council of Ephesus, nor Pope Leo, nor the Council of Chalcedon, have even so much as mentioned it in all they say against the Nestorian or Eutychian heresies. Fourthly, because this Vigilius is known to have published several others of his writings under the borrowed name of Athanasius, with which this Creed is commonly joined." 2 In 1693, Joseph Antelmi, a learned divine of Paris, in his Bis- nertatio de Symbolo Athanasiano, attacked with great success the opinion of Quesnel, and ascribed the Creed to Vincentius Lirinen- sis, who flourished in Gaul, a. d. 434. His arguments appear to have produced considerable effect on the learned world. The famous Tillemont (1697) commends the performance of Antelmi, though still inclining to Quesnel's opin- ion. Montfaucon (1698) is convinced that the Creed is not the work of Athanasius nor Vigilius, nor is he convinced that it is due to Vincentius ; but thinks there is great reason to conclude, that it was the work of a Gallican writer or writers, about the time of Vincentius. In like manner, Muratori, a famous Italian writer (1698), commends the opinion of Antelmi, as nearest to the truth. 8 Lastly, our learned Dr. Waterland, in his valuable History of the Athananan Creed, having given an account of the opinions of his predecessors, brings many strong arguments to prove that the writer was Hilary, who became Bishop of Aries, a. d. 429, and that he, in all probability, put forth this creed, when he first entered his diocese. 1 Bingham, as above ; Waterland, Hut. * Ibid. of Athanasian Creed, ch. i. * WaterUnd, as abovo. Skc. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 229 The arguments, by which the time and place in which this Creed was written have been pretty certainly arrived at, may be classed under two heads : 1 External ; 2 Internal Proofs. 1. External Proofs are as follows : — (1) We have ancient testimonies as early as the Council of Autun, a. d. 670, where this Creed is en- joined to be recited by the clergy. After this, Regino, Abbot of Prom in Germany, a. d. 760. The Council of Frankfort, a. d. 794. Theodulph, Bishop of Orleans, a. d. 809. Hincmar, Arch- bishop of Rheims, a. d. 852, &c. (2) There is an ancient commentary, as early as a. d. 570, by Venantius Fortunatus, an Italian, who became Bishop of Poictiers. Afterwards commentaries by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, a. d. 852 ; Bruno, Bishop of Warzburgh in Germany, a. d. 1033 ; the famous Abelard, 1120, &c. (3) There are MSS. as early as the seventh century, and one was found in the Cotton Library by Archbishop Usher, as early as a. d. 600 ; though this has since disappeared. This is a very early date, considering how few MSS., even of the most ancient writers, are much earlier. (4) There are French versions of the year 850 ; a.d.850. Germari) 870; Anglo-Saxon, 930; Greek, 1200, &c. (5) The reception of this Creed may be shown to have been in Gaul, as early as a. d. 550 ; Spain, 630 ; Germany, 787 ; England, 800 ; Italy, 880 ; Rome, 930. From these considerations we trace the Creed to the middle of the sixth century, when it appears to have been well known, com- mented on, and treated with great respect ; and that more especially in the churches of Gaul. 2. The Internal Evidences are these : — Not before 00 -^ was clearly written after the rise of the Apol- a. d. 370. Unarian heresy ; for the Creed is full, clear, and minute in obviating all the cavils of that heresy concerning the incarnation of Christ. 1 This heresy arose about a. d. 360, and grew to a head about a. d. 370. Epiphanius marks the time when Creeds began to be enlarged in opposition to Apollinarianism, namely, a. d. 37 3, 2 about which year Athanasius died. Not before (2) The Creed appears to have adopted several of St. a. d. 416. Augustine's expressions and modes of reasoning. Now 1 It will be remembered that the Apol- place of the rational soul. See August linarians denied a human soul to Christ, Hceres. 49. Tom. viii. p. 19. and said that the Godhead supplied the a Epiphanius Anchorat. c. 121, ap. Wa- terland. 230 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Abt. VIII he wrote his books on the Trinity about a. d. 416. Especially this Creed contains the famous Filioque ; and Augustine was the first who brought the doctrine of the Procession from the Son promi- nently forward ; whence he has been charged by the Greeks with being the father of that doctrine. This would make it probable that the Creed was not written much before a. d. 420. Before (3) It appears, however, to have been written before a. d. 451. t h e r { se f ^e Eutychians ; for there is not a word plainly expressing the two natures of Christ, and excluding one nature; which critical terms are rarely or never omitted in the Creeds after the Eutychian times. Nay, though this Creed does in effect op- pose this, as well as other heresies, there are expressions in it, which, it has been thought, might have been laid hold of by Euty- ches in his favour, and therefore would not have been written after his heresy had arisen ; e. g. " One, not by conversion of the God- head into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God." This might have been perverted to prove the Eutychian dogma, that Christ's manhood was converted into and absorbed in His God- head. Again, " As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ." The Eutychians might have argued from this clause, that, as body and soul make up the one nature of man, so God and man in Christ made one nature also. Hence it is concluded that this Creed was written before the Council of Chalcedon, where Eutyches was condemned, a. d. 451. Before (4) It was probably before the spread of the Nes- a. d. 431. torian heresy. It is certain that this Creed does not condemn Nestorianism in the full, direct, and critical terms which Catholics made use of against that heresy. There is nothing about the Deipara in it, or about one Son only in opposition to two Sons, or about God being born, or suffering and dying. But such terms ever occur in Creeds drawn up, or writings directed against Nestorianism. And though terms occur in it which may be held to condemn both Eutychianism and Nestorianism, yet they are not stronger than were used by those who, before the rise of both these heresies, wrote against the Apollinarians, whose doctrine bore considerable resemblance in some points to that of Eutyches, and the maintainers of which often charged the Catholics with something very like the doctrine afterwards held by Nestorius. Hence, in the Apollinarian controversy, the fathers were often led to condemn, by anticipation, both Nestorius and Eutyches. If this reasoning be correct, the Athanasian Creed must have been written before the Council of Ephesus, where Nestorianism was condemned a.d. 431. Sec IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 231 Thus the internal evidence leads us to conclude, that the Athanasian Creed was, in all probability, composed between a. d. 420 and a. d. 431. As to the place where it was made, evidence tends to show that it was Gaul. (1) It seems to have been received first in Gaul. (2) It was held in great esteem by Gallican councils and bishops. (3) It was first admitted into the Gallican Psalter. (4) The oldest versions of it, commentaries on it, citations from it, and testimonies to it, are Gallican, or connected with Gaul. (5) The greatest number of the manuscripts of it, and those of greatest antiquity, are found in Gaul. From such arguments as these, it has been concluded, with the greatest probability, that this Creed was written in France, and at some time in the interval between a. d. 420 and 431. * The authorship of it then must be assigned to some person or persons, who flourished at this period in the church of Gaul. Now Vincentius Lirinensis and Hilary of Aries both were Gallican divines, and both flourished at the required time. Vincentius was a writer of great celebrity and judgment, and his works contained thoughts and expressions which bear a great similarity to the expressions in the Athanasian Creed. It is true his famous work, the Commonitorium, is assigned to the date 434, i. e. a few years later than the probable date of the Athanasian Creed ; but there seems no reason why he should not have written the Creed before the Commonitorium. On the other hand, it is argued by Dr. Waterland, that Hilary was a bishop, which Vincentius was not ; and such a work appears much fitter for a bishop than for a private presbyter. He was made a bishop a. d. 429, which falls exactly within the limits assigned for the date of the Creed ; and what more likely than that he should have set it forth when he entered on his diocese ? He is spoken of as a man of great powers. His writings are said to have been small tracts, but extremely fine ; and Honoratus of Marseilles, who wrote his Life, says that he wrote an excellent Exposition of the Creed; which is the proper title for the work in question, a work which was rarely called a Creed (^Symbolum) by the ancients. Again, he was a great admirer of St. Augustine (in all but his views of predestination), whence we may account for the similarity of the expressions in this Creed to the language of that father. The resemblance, which is traced to the language of Vincentius, 1 See Waterland, as above. OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Art. VIH. may have resulted from the fact that Hilary and Vincentius were not only contemporaries, but had been inmates, about the same time, of the same monastery at Lerins ; that so Vincentius might borrow expressions from Hilary, to whom he would be likely to look up with respect Lastly, the style of this Creed answers well to what is told us of the style and character of Hilary. To conclude : whether we assign the Athanasian Creed to Hilary or Vincentius, or to both or neither of them, it was pretty certainly the work of some Gallican writer in the beginning of the fifth century. It was very probably called Athanasian because it clearly expressed the doctrines which Athanasius so ably defended ; and because, when Arianism was rife in Gaul, as it was soon after the publication of this Creed, the Arians very probably called the Catholics Athanasians, and the Creed, which especially and most fully expressed their doctrines, the Athanasian Creed. 1 II. The particular value of this Creed consists in this, that it guards the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation against the various heretical subtilties by which it has been explained away : and although it may be argued that most of these heresies are ancient, and therefore out of date, it is far from being true that they may never recur. Arianism, Sabellianism, Apollina- rianism, against which it seems chiefly to have been directed, have all been revived in late times ; even Nestorian and Eutychian doctrines, which the Creed, as it were, anticipates and condemns, have been more or less approved in our days. And although none of these errors were openly professed, yet the loose way in which many modern writers on Theology often express themselves requires to be restrained by something like the Creed in question, which, by its accurate language, is calculated to produce accuracy of thought. Even then, if some people may think the damnatory clauses, as they are called, unduly strong, yet the occurrence of one or two strong expressions should not so far weigh with us as to induce us to wish the removal of this confession of our faith from the formu- laries of the Church. It is, in the main, unquestionably true, that he who, having the means of learning the truth of Christ, shall yet reject and disbelieve it, shall on that account be condemned. It is probable that the damnatory clauses in the Creed of Athana- sius mean no more than the words of our Lord, " He that believeth not shall be damned " (Mark xvi. 16). What allowance is to be made for involuntary ignorance, prejudice, or other infirmities i* 1 See Waterland's History of the Athanasian Creed; Works, IT. Sec. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 233 one of those secret things which belong only to the Lord our God ; concerning which we may hope, but cannot pronounce. The Gos- pel declares that unbelief in the truth shall be a cause of condemna- tion; and the Church is therefore justified in saying the same. The extreme earnestness and, as to some it seems, harshness, with which the Creed expresses it, resulted from the imminent danger, at the time it was composed, from the most noxious heresy, and the need there was to hedge round the faith of the Church, as it were, with thorns and briers. If we think such language unnecessarily severe, still we must remember that nothing human is free from some mark of human infirmity, and should be slow to doubt the value of a Catholic exposition of the Faith, because one or two expressions seem unsuited to modern phraseology. The meaning and importance of the different clauses will be best appreciated by observing what errors they respectively op- posed. Thus, let us begin with ver. 4 : " Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance." The Patripassians and Sabellians confounded the Persons ; the Arians divided the Sub- stance of the Godhead. After this, the next 14 verses, down to "yet not three Lords, but one Lord," seem principally designed to oppose the Arian heresy, which denied the homo-ousion. Accord- ingly they declare that in the Holy Trinity there are Three, with a distinction of Person, but with an Unity of Substance or Essence ; so that, though it is lawful to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are distinct Persons, and that each Person is Lord, God, Almighty, uncreated, and incomprehensible, yet it is not lawful to say that there are three Gods, three Lords, three Almighties, three Uncre- ated, or three Incomprehensibles. 1 The 19th verse concludes this portion of the Creed, in the words, " For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowl- edge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be three Gods or three Lords." Now the former part of this clause has been sup- posed by some to speak, so that we might infer from it, that any one Person in the Trinity, by Himself, would constitute the whole God- head. This, however, is far from being the real or natural sense of the passage. The meaning is this : Each Person in the Trinity is essentially God. And we must not view God as we would a material being, as though the Godhead could be divided into three 1 The original of the word "incompre- ent. See Waterland, Hist, of Ath. Cr.Ch, hensihle " is " immensus," i. e. uneipoc, x. ; Works, iv. p. 385. boundless, immeasurable, or omnipres- 30 234 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Art. VUL different parts, which three united together made up one whole, and so imagine that the Father alone was not God, but required to have the Son and the Spirit added to Him in order to make up the God- head. No ! The spiritual unity of the three Blessed Persons in the Trinity is far closer, more intimate, and more real, than that unity by which parts make up a whole. Each by Himself, or con- sidered alone, must be confessed to be God ; and yet all make not up three Gods, but are One in Essence, and therefore but one God. The next four verses are opposed to those who confounded the Persons of the Godhead, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost not only one God, but one Person. And they state the relations of the Son to the Father, and of the Holy Ghost to both of them. The 23d verse runs thus : " So there is one Father, not three Fathers : One Son, not three Sons ; One Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts." It may be asked here, of what use is this clause ? Did any heretics ever teach that there were three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts ? The answer is, Those who as- serted that there were three unoriginated principles (jpth aiapxoi), were considered to teach virtually that there were three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts, or a Trinity of Trinities. Thus one of the Apostolical Canons is directed against presbyters, who should baptize " in three unoriginated principles, or in three Sons, or in three Paracletes, or in three Holy Ghosts." The Coun- cil of Bracara denounces those who shall say, " as the Gnostics and Priscillianists, that there is a Trinity of Trinities." And Pope Vigilius decrees, that, if any " baptize in one Person of the Trinity, or in two, or in three Fathers, or in three Sons, or in three Com- forters," he should be cast out of the Church. 1 The Creed from verse 27 treats of the Incarnation, and excludes the various heretical opinions on this subject. Some denied that Christ was God, as the Ebionites, Arians, &c. Others denied that He was Man ; as the Gnostics, the Apollinarians, and afterwards the Eutychians. Especially the Apollinarians de- nied that He was perfect man, having both a reasonable soul and human flesh besides His Godhead, ver. 30. Again, the Apollinarians charged the Catholics with saying that Christ was two, since they assigned Him a human soul as well as a Divine Spirit. Therefore the Creed adds, that, " though He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ," — a clause which 1 Bingham, /•;. A. Bk. xi. ofa. hi. § 4. Sec. IV.] OF THE THREE CREEDS. 235 afterwards was suitable to oppose the Nestorians, who held that there were two Persons united in Christ, ver. 32. Once more, the Apollinarians made the Godhead of Christ act the part of a soul to His Manhood ; which was virtually converting the Godhead into flesh. 1 The true doctrine is, not that God was changed into man, but that the Word of God took human nature into union with His Godhead. Therefore the Creed says, " One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God," ver. 33. Again, the Apollinarians made a " confusion of substance " in Christ, for they confounded His Godhead and His Manhood ; as the Eutychians did afterwards, inasmuch as they made His Godhead act the part of His human soul. Therefore says the Creed " One alto- gether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person," i. e. by uniting both natures in one Person, ver. 34. And this is fur- ther explained, that, as in the ordinary man there are two different substances, body and soul, united in one, so in Christ two different natures, God and Man, are intimately united, yet not confounded together, ver. 35 : " As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ." Thus the principal clauses of the Creed are drawn up, to obviate the principal errors on the two chief doctrines of the Christian faith. If such errors had never arisen, the accurate language of the Creed would have been useless. But when dangers have been shown to exist, opposition to them seems inevitably forced upon the Church. Peace is infinitely to be desired, but it is better to contend for the faith than to lose it. The three Creeds in their Original Languages. 1. Symbolum Apostolorum. ni<TT€va> 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)<p9evTa €K Hvevp.a.TO<; 'Ay tov, yevvrjBevra. £k Mapias tt/s irapOevov, iraOovra lin Hovtiov niAdtTov, oravpio^cvra, 6avovra, kcu rcupevTa, Kaxekdovra eis oiSov, ry Tptrr) rjp.ipa dvaoravra diro twv veKpuiV, dvcA^ovTa ets tovs ovpavovs, KaOe^op-evov cv Sefia ®eov naTpos •jravToSuvdju.ov, cK€t#ev ep^d/icvov Kpivai t > u)vra<s koi vtKpovs. Htorcvw tis to lLvev/xa to ayiov, ctytav KadoXiKrjv ckkA^o-uxv, dyiaiv ko tvcovtiav, atpeaw afiapTLwv, o-api<6<s dvdoTaoriv, £<dt/v atooviov. A/at^v. 1 Contentiosissime affirmantes, Ver- quid in carnem fuisse conversum atque bum carnem factum, hoc est, Verbi ali- mutatum. — Augustin. Hares. 65. 236 OF THE THREE CREEDS. [Art. VHL 2. Symbolum Constantinopol. Hiovcvoficv cis cVa ®ebv, Uarepa TravroKpaTopa, iroirjrrjv ovpavov koI yrj^, oparSiv tc iravrtnv ko.1 uopaYwv. Kai cis eva Kvptov 'Irjaovv Xpiorov, tov Yiov tov ®€ov /xovoycn}, tov Ik tov Tiarpos yevn^cVra irpb iravrtav twv cughgjv <p<tK €K (pSyros, ®tbv aXrjOivbv Ik ®eov akrjOivov. yewqBevra, ov TrovqOivra, bpuoov- <riov t<3 HarpO 81' ov ra iravra eyevero, tov 01* ?/pus Toi>s 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 ypa<pd<i' Kai dvfXOovra eis tous ovpavoi>s, Kai Ka#c£opevov €K S€$lS>v tov Uarpos, ko.1 7raA.1v ep^opevov pera Bo$rjs Kplvai ^wn-as Kai kc- Kpov<t' ov Tfjs jSao'iA.eias ovk ccrrat tcXos. Kai eis to I Ivevpa to ayiov, to KvpiOV, KOA. TO ^(DOTTOtOV, TO €K TOV HaTpOS CKTTOpCUOpCVOV, TO OW HaTpi KOI Y«3 o-vp.7rpoo-Kvvovp.evov, koj. arw8o£a£,6p.evov, to AaArJo-av Sia twv 7rpo<pTjru>v. Eis piav ayiav Ka^oAtK^v Kat d7rooToAiKr)v CK/cAiio-iav bp.o\oyovpnv ev {3a.7rrurpa cts a<peo-LV a.p.aprul>v, Trpoo-8oK<op.ev avdorao'tv veKpwv, Kai £u>r)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 <bp6vn(ta aapKdg, which some do expound the wisdom, some sen- suality, some the affection, some the de- sire of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no con- demnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin. De Peccato Originali. Peccatum originale non est (ut fabu- lantur Pelagiani) in imitatione Adami si- turn, sed est vitium, et depravatio naturae, cujuslibet hominis, ex Adamo naturaliter propagati : qua fit, ut ab originali justi- tia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua natura propendeat, et caro semper adver- sus spiritum concupiscat, unde in unoquo- que nascentium, iram Dei, atque damna- tionem meretur. Manet etiam in renatis haec naturae depravatio. Qua fit, ut af- fectus carnis, Graece §p6vn\ia aapKbq (quod alii sapientiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, alii studium carnis interpretantur) legi Dei non subjiciatur et quanquam renatis et credentibus, nulla propter Christum est condemnatio, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concupiscentiam, fate- tur Apostolus. Section L — HISTORY. npHE origin of evil in the world has, from very early times, been -*- a subject of speculation among philosophers and divines. What the Jewish opinions on the question may have been, is not easy to decide. The rite of circumcision, as administered to in- fants, may have been understood as showing that infants were born in sin, and had need of the circumcision of the Spirit, to make them partakers of the promises of God. The custom among the Jews to baptize (as well as to circumcise) all proselytes, whether men, women, or children, may seem to indicate that they looked on all, even from their birth, as naturally unclean, and need- ing a laver or cleansing, before admission to the privileges of their Church. 1 1 See the account of this custom at length in Wall's History of Infant Baptism, Introd. 240 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Art. IX That the early fathers of the Christian Church held the univer- sality of human corruption, there can be but little question. A history of infant baptism is also a history of the doctrine of original sin, baptism being for the remission of sin. 1 If there were no origi- nal sin, infants could have no need to be baptized. Hence Wall, in his History of Baptism, has brought together, with great labour and fidelity, passages from the earliest writers, showing their belief in the original infection of our nature from Adam. It is not to be expected that the fathers would speak as clearly on this point be- fore, as after the rise of Pelagianism. But a fair inspection of the passages thus cited will convince us that the doctrine was held, al- most as clearly as is expressed in our own Article, from the very earliest times of the Church. 2 For examples of the language of the fathers we may take the following passages : " Besides the evil," says Tertullian, 3 " which the soul contracts from the intervention of the wicked spirit, there is an antecedent, and, in a certain sense, natural evil arising from its corrupt origin. For, as we have already observed, the corrup- tion of our nature is another nature, having its proper god and father, namely, the author of that corruption." Cyprian, and the council of sixty-six bishops with him (a. d. 253), in their Epistle to Fidus, use the following words : " If then the greatest offenders, and they that have grievously sinned against God before, have, when they afterwards come to believe, forgive- ness of sins, and no person is kept off from baptism and this grace, how much less reason is there to refuse an infant, who, being newly born, has no sin save that, being descended from Adam according to the flesh, he has from his very birth contracted the contagion of the death anciently threatened ; who comes for this reason more easily to receive forgiveness of sins, because they are not his own but other's sins that are forgiven him ? " 4 1 Mark i. 4. Acts xxii. 16. donee in Christo recenseatur ; tamdiu 3 See especially the quotations from immunda, quamdiu recenseatur. Clem. Rom. i. pp. 47, 48 ; Justin Mar- * Porro autem si etiam gravissimis de- tyr, pp. 64, 68 ; Tertullian, p. 96 ; Ori- lictoribus, et in Deum multum ante pec- gen, p. 121 ; Cyprian, p. 182. Compare cantibus, cum postea crediderint, rcmissa Bishop Kaye's Justin Martyr, p. 76 ; Ter- peccatorum datur, et a bnptismo atque a tulliii, i, p. 826. gratia nemo prnhibetur ; quanto magis 8 Malum igitur animae, prseter quod ex prohibcri non debet infans, qui recens obventu spiritus nequam superstruitur, natus nihil pecenvit, nisi quod, secundum ex originis vitio antecedit, naturale quo- Adam carnaliter natus, coutagium mortis dammodo. Nam, ut diximus, naturae antiquaa prima nativitate contraxit? qui corruptio alia natura est, habens suum ad remissam peccatorum acripiendam Deum et patrem, ipsum scilicet corrup- hoc ipso facilius accedit, quod illi remit- tionis auctorem. — De Anima, c. 41; Bp. tuntur non propria, sed alicna peccata. Kayo, p. 826. See also cap. 40 : Ita om- — Cyprian. Epitt. 64 ad Fidum. Wall, nis anima eousque in Adam censetur, I. p. 128. Sec. I.] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 241 On this, however, as on other articles of faith, there arose here- sies from very early times. In the second century, about a. D. 180, Florinus, a presbyter of the Church of Rome, taught that God was the author of evil. This man had been a friend of Irenaeus, and a disciple of Polycarp's. A fragment of a letter from Irenaeus ad- dressed to him, in which Irenaeus combats his peculiar error, is pre- served by Eusebius. 1 The Marcionites had, before this, taught the doctrine of two principles, the one of good and the other of evil ; and it has been thought probable that it was in opposition to this that Florinus fell into the opposite heresy, and that, in maintaining the sole sovereignty of God, he was led to make Him the author of sin. 2 The Gnostic heretics in general attributed the origin of sin to matter, which they considered as essentially evil. Colorbasus, we are told, 3 and Prisclllian held, that men's actions were influenced by the stars. 4 The Manichees, like the Marcionites before them, but more systematically, taught the eternal existence of two opposite and antagonistic principles, to the one of which they attributed the origin of evil. 5 The great Origen, though using freely those passages of Scrip- ture, which speak of man's natural corruption, and of his being born in sin, 6 yet, from his peculiar theory of the preexistence of human souls, could scarcely hold that man's sinfulness was derived from the first sin of Adam. His theory was, that all souls of men have existed in a former state and are confined in bodies, and placed in circumstances according to their conduct in that former state ; and that the bodies, which they now have, are more or less gross according to the qualities of their former crimes. 7 1 Eusebius, H. E. v. 20. See Heylyn, thoughts of man, but in an evil constitu- Historia Quinquarticularis, ch. i. ; Bea- tion of a portion of his nature, which they ven's Irenceus, p. 24; also Augustin. traced to that principle whom they oon- Hceres. 66, Tom. vm. p. 21. sidered as the creator of all the evil in 2 Lardner's Hist, of Heretics, ch. x. § x. the universe. Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, ch. vn. 6 See, for example, the passage quoted 3 Augustin. De Hceres. 15. by Wall, i. p. 121. 4 Augustin. De Hceres. 70 ; Adstruunt 7 See Dupin, Ecclns. Hist. Cent. III. etiam fatalibus stellis homines colligatos. Art. Origen. See also a good, though 5 See Mosheim, Cent. III. Pt. II. ch. v. popular, account of Origen's opinions in The Manichees are said to have taught the Biography of the Early Church, by the that " sin was a substance." And Sa- Rev. R. W. Evans. turninus and the Manichees are said to Origen has very generally been charged have taught that sin was in man "a na- with semi-Pelagianism, and with being tura, non a culpa," which accounts for the forerunner of the Pelagian heretics, the language of the fathers against them, It is very difficult to judge clearly and e. g. Theodoret, Dial, i.: 7 a/iapria ovk impartially about his opinions. A variety icrri ttjc yvae^c uXKH ttjc Kanfjc npoaipeoeuc. of causes tend to obscure them. It is, See Suicer, 1. p. 208. The Manichees however, certain that at times he speaks did not consider sin to lie in a deprava- most clearly of all men being born in sin, tion of the whole natural actions and and needing purification. For example, 31 242 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Akt. IX. In the beginning of the fifth century, a very important heresy sprang up, which called forth more decidedly the sentiments of the Church on this doctrine. Pelagius was a monk residing at Rome, but of British extraction, his name, in his own country, being proba- bly Morgan. Coelestius, another monk, a native of Ireland, and Julianus, a bishop, were his chief allies. His heresy was spread abroad about a. d. 410, the year that Rome was taken by the Goths. Coelestius, having endeavored to take priest's orders at Carthage, was accused by Paulinus, a deacon of that Church, of holding several false opinions. About the same time, St Augustine wrote his first treatise against the same errors. ' Pelagius had re- tired into Palestine, whither Augustine sent Orosius, a Spanish pres- byter, to accuse him before a synod of bishops at Jerusalem. Here, and at Diospolis, he was acquitted without censure. But in the year 416, two Councils, one at Carthage and another at Milevis, condemned the Pelagian opinions. Innocent, bishop of Rome, was written to by the Councils, and agreed in their decision. But in the year 417 he was succeeded by Zosimus, who, gained over by the ambiguous confession of the Pelagians, and being him- self a great admirer of Origen, pronounced in their favour. Augus- tine, however, with the African bishops, persevered in their oppo- sition ; and Zosimus, yielding to their representations, changed his mind and condemned with great severity Pelagius and Coelestius. They were again finally condemned at the third general council at Ephesus, which met to consider the tenets of Nestorius. 1 The doctrines charged against Coelestius at the Council of Car- thage (a. d. 412) were — " That Adam was created mortal, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. That the sin of Adam hurt only himself, and not all mankind. That infants new born are in the same state that Adam was before his fall. That a man may be without sin, and keep God's commandments, if he will." 2 Augustine could not speak more plainly etiam parvulis baptismum dari ; cum than the following : — utique si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad Quod si placet audire quid etiam alii remissionem deberet et indulgentiam sancti de ista nativitate senserint, audi pertinerc, gratia baptismi superflua vi- David dicentem : In hiiquiUilibus, inquit, deretur. — Origen. I/omil. in Levitir. vim. conceptus sum et in pec.ratis peperit me mater num. 8. mea: ostendens quod quaecumque anima l See the history of Pelagius and IV- in carne nascitur, iniquitatis et peccati lagianism given by Wall, Hist, of Infant sorde polluitur : et propterea dictum esse Baptism, i. eh. xix. ; Mosheim, Cent. v. illud quod jam superius memoravimus, Pt. II. ch. v. ; Ntander, iv. pp. 299-36*2. quia nemo munaStt a sorde, nee si unius diei Also the History of Pelagianism given in sit vita ejus. Addi his etiam potest, ut the Preface to the tenth volume of the requiratur quid causa: sit, cum baptisma Benedictine edition of St Augustine's Eeclesise pro remissionc peccatorum de- works. tor, secundum Eccleshe observantiam - Wall, i. p. 857. Sec. I] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 243 Pelagius himself sent a creed to Innocent, in which he avoids a clear statement concerning original sin, but distinctly asserts, that, though we all need the help of God, we can all keep God's laws, if we will. The principal apponents of Pelagius were Augustine, Jerome, and Fulgentius. 1 The controversies thus called forth were not soon allayed. A new sect soon arose from the former one, called Semi-Pelagians, whose opinions concerning original sin were not so objectionable as those of Pelagius, but who ascribed far too much to the unassisted strength of the human will. 2 The sentiments of Pelagius found considerable favour in his native island of Britain, and caused many and grievous troubles to the Church there. Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, bishop of Troyes, were sent over to Britain by the Gallican Church, to confute the growing heresy, and had great success, if we may credit ancient accounts, in opposing both the temporal and spirit- ual enemies of the Church. 3 The famous Dewi, or St. David, was afterwards greatly distinguished for the zeal and ability with which he opposed the prevailing error arid aided in its overthrow. Espe- cially at the Council of Llanddewi Brefi in Cardiganshire, his elo- quence and arguments are said to have availed to the silencing of his adversaries, and the establishing of his own celebrity. He was hereupon unanimously erected primate, the aged Dyvrig (Dubri- tius) resigning in his favour ; and he afterwards called another synod at Caerleon, where his exertions were rewarded by the extermina- tion of the heresy. 4 The schoolmen, in the Middle Ages, as might have been expected, debated much concerning the subject of original sin. Original Righteousness they seem to have considered something superadded to the original nature of man, not a part of that nature. Accord- ing to Luther's statement of their opinions, it was " an ornament added to man, as a wreath upon a maiden's hair is an ornament bestowed on her, and not a part of herself." 5 Original sin, there- fore, was the loss or privation of original righteousness, and man 1 The Pelagians endeavoured to prove a See below, under Article X. that some of the ancient fathers, espe- 8 Bede, Hist. Lib. i. cap. xvii.-xxii. cially of the Greek Church, used their Stillingfleet's Orig. Britan. ch. iv. Col- language, and denied the existence of lier's Eccl. Hist. Book i. sin in infants. Augustine, in his treatise * Gildas Cambrensis. Rees's Welsh contra Julianum, shows, in opposition to Saints, p. 193. Usher, Brit. Eccl. Antiq. that heretic, that St. Chrysostom (whom c. v. xiii. Williams's Antiq. of the Cymry, Julian had cited in favour of Pelagian- pp. 134, 287. ism) had in reality plainly expressed the 5 Luther, Op. vi. p. 38, ap. Laurence doctrine of original sin. — Aug. Contra Bampton Lectures, p. 66. Julianum, Lib. i. cap. vi. Vol. x. p. 609. Wall, i. p. 416. 244 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Art. IX was an object of God's displeasure, not as possessing what was offensive to God, but as wanting in that which was pleasing to Him. The body was infected by the fall, whether from the poison of the forbidden fruit, or from whatever cause ; but the soul suffered only as deprived of that which Adam possessed, the presence of God and supernatural righteousness, and as having the imputation of gin derived from Adam. 1 The infection of the body was indeed fomes peccati, a fuel which might be kindled into sin ; but the soul contracted guilt from imputation of Adam's guilt, not sin from the inheritance of Adam's sin, though deprived of primitive righteous- ness, a quality dependent on the presence and indwelling of God. St. Augustine had doubted whether the soul as well as the body was derived from the parents, and so contracted sin from them. But the schoolmen, deciding that the soul came direct from God, of necessity were led to deny a direct derivation of sin to the soul, confining its pollution to the body, which then infects the soul ; and so they made the defect of the soul to consist in an absence of good, rather than in presence and dominion of evil. 2 In the Council of Trent there was much discussion of the doc- trine of the fathers and schoolmen on this article ; after which the following decrees were finally determined on : (1) That Adam by transgressing lost holiness and justice, incurred the wrath of God, death, thraldom to the devil, and was infected both in soul and body. (2) That Adam derived to his posterity death of body, and sin of soul. (3) That sin, transmitted by generation, not by imitation, can be abolished by no remedy but the death of Christ, and that the merit of Christ is applied to children in baptism, as well as to adults. (4) That newly-born children ought to be bap- tized, as having contracted sin from Adam. (5) That by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted, and that all is removed which hath the true and proper nature of sin. And though the concupiscence remaining is called by the Apostle sin, 1 See Laurence, Serin, in. pp. 66-69, Spirit was forfeited, and primeval inno- and note 2, p. 252. cence lost at the same time. See this The fathers appear, almost with one proved, witli his usual learning and consent, to have held that original right- clearness of reasoning, by Bp. Bull, eousness consisted both of natural inno- Works, It. Disc. v. Oxf. 1827. Bp. Bull cence and of the grace of God vouch- gives strong reasons for believing this to safed to Adam. The one was lost simul- be both the uuiversal belief of the prim- taneously with the other. Indeed, the itive Church and the doctrine of the one could not exist without the other, sacred Scriptures themselves. Original righteousness, therefore, ac- * Sarpi, Council of Trent, p. 168. Ne- cording to the primitive teaching, was ander, viu. pp. 184-198, gives a very not only defect of sin, but also the pres- interesting account of the scholastic di» once of God's Spirit At the fall, God's cussions on Original Sin. Sec. L] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 245 the Synod declared that it was not true and proper sin, but was so termed because it ariseth from sin and inclineth to it. 1 The point on which these decrees differed from the Ninth Arti- cle of our Church, is in the entire cancelling of original sin in baptism. According to the Scholastic definition, that original sin consisted in the deprivation of original righteousness, the Council of Trent determined, that in baptism the soul was restored pure into the state of innocency, though the punishments which follow sin be not removed. This all the fathers expounded by saying that the perfection of Adam consisted in an infused quality, which adorned the soul, made it perfect and acceptable to God, and ex- empted the body from mortality. And God, for the merit of Christ, giveth unto those that are regenerated by baptism another quality called justifying grace, which, wiping out every blemish in the soul, maketh it pure, as was that of Adam ; yea, in some it worketh greater effects than original righteousness, but only it worketh no effect on the body, whereby mortality and other natural defects are not removed. 2 The Lutherans in this respect differed materially from the fathers of the Council ; especially in maintaining that concupiscence had the nature of sin, and that the infection, though not the impu- tation of sin, remained in the baptized and regenerate. 8 The second article of the Augsburg Confession, which is the principal confession of faith of the Lutheran divines, is evidently the source from which our own ninth Article was derived. With- out defining the nature of original righteousness, 4 or the mode in which Adam lost it, it declares the doctrine, that every man born naturally from Adam is born in sin, without the faith and fear of God, and with concupiscence, which disease is truly sin and 1 Concupiscentiam Ecclesiam nun- ness, or how far grace might have over- quam intellexisse peccatum appellari, come sin in her, out of reverence to our quod vere et proprie in renatis peccatum Lord. (See Wall, Infant Baptism, i. p. sit, sed quia ex peccato est, et ad pecca- 404.) turn inclinat. — Concil. Trident. Sess. v. 2 Sarpi, p. 166. Sec. 5. See Anathemas in the fifth Ses- 8 Ideo sic respondemus ; in baptismo sion, Sarpi, p. 173. tolli peccatum quod ad reatum seu im- A great dispute arose between the putationem attinet, sed manere morbum Dominicans and Franciscans, the latter ipsnm, &c. — Melancthon. Loc. Theoloy. insisting that the Virgin Mary should be p. 122, ap. Laurence, p. 258. declared free from the taint of original 4 The Saxon confession, however, sin, — the Dominicans maintaining the clearly speaks of original righteousness contrary opinion. (Sarpi, p. 168.) The as something -beyond mere innocency, Council in the end declared, that it did calling it — in ipsa natura homitium lux, not mean to comprehend the B. Virgin conversio voluntatis ad deum ac in the decree (p. 173). Augustine had fuisset homo templum Dei, &e. — Sylloge before professed himself unwilling to dis- Confessionum, p. 246. cuss the question of the Virgin's sinful- 246 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Art. IX. deserving of damnation, in all who are not born again by baptism and the Spirit. 1 Calvin, speaking of original sin, says that " As the spiritual life of Adam consisted in union with his Maker, so alienation from Him was the death of his soul. When the heavenly image was obliterated in him, he did not alone sustain the punishment, but involved all his posterity in it. The impurity of the parents is so transmitted to the children that none are excepted ; and that, not by imitation, but by propagation.". . . " Original sin appears to be an hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all parts of the soul, which first makes men subject to God's wrath, and then brings forth works in us which Scripture calls the works of the flesh.". . . " His destruction is to be ascribed only to man, as he obtained uprightness from God's mercy, and by his own folly fell into vanity.". . . " His sin did not spring from nature, but was an adventitious quality which happened to man, rather than a substantial propriety which from the first was created in him." 2 Among Calvinistic divines in general there has been a difference concerning the first introduction of sin, chiefly as to whether Adam fell freely or by predestination of God : the sublapsarian Calvinists holding that Adam sinned of his own free will ; the supralapsarians holding that God decreed that he should fall. The chief point of difference between the two great parties which so long divided the Protestant Churches, the Calvinists and Arminians, was on the extent of the vitiation of our nature by the fall. The Calvinists taught that the corruption of man was so great that no spark of moral goodness was left in him ; that he was utterly and totally bad and depraved ; that, however amiable he might be in regard to his fellow-men, yet as regards God and godliness there was no relic of what he once was, any more than in lost spirits and damned souls. The Arminians rejected this strong view of the subject, and, admitting the great corruption of man's heart and intellect, still maintained that some remains of 1 II. De Peccato Originis. Damnant Pelagianos, et alios, qui vi- Item docent, quod post lapsum Ada tium originis negant esse peccatum, et omnes homines, secundum naturam prop- ut extenuent gloriam meriti et beneflci- agati, nascnntur cum peccato, hoc est orum Christi, disputant hominein pro- sine metu Dei, sine fiduciu erga Deura, priis viribus rationis coram Deo justiii et cum concupiscentia, quodque hie mor- eari posse. — Gb t fi m i m of Augsburg. Coin- bus, seu vitium originis vere sit pecca- pare the Saxon Confession, Art De Pec- turn, dnmnans et atterena nunc quoque calo Originis. eternam mortem his qui non renascun- * Calvin, Inst. Lib. n. cap. 1, 6, 6, 8, tur per baptismum et Spiritum Sane- — II. turn. Sec. I] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 247 his original condition might be traced in him ; that his mind and will were indeed depraved and incapable of making any independent effort towards true godliness ; but that he still differed materially from evil spirits or the spirits of the damned, having a natural con- science, and an appreciation of what is good and of good report. The Calvinists have generally insisted much on the imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity, as the true meaning of original sin ; though admitting that such imputation was accompanied with actual depravity in the heart of each individual. 1 Calvin himself seems rather to have held that all men were liable to condem- nation, because of their own sinfulness derived from Adam, not because of the imputation of Adam's sin. 2 At the time of the Reformation, the Anabaptists appear to have adopted Pelagian opinions. The article on Original Sin, in the first draught of it as set forth in 1552, begins thus : " Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk, which also the Anabaptists do now-a-days renew." Their rejection of infant baptism was of a piece, and naturally connected, with their denial of original sin. In later times, the Socinians held on this subject thoroughly Pelagian language, and generally denied the corruption of human nature and the need of grace to turn men to godliness. As regards the Church of England, there have been many attempts, on -the one hand, to show that she used the language of the later Calvinists, on the other, to prove that she symbolized with the Arminians. The Articles were drawn up before the great Calvinistic controversy had arisen, and therefore do not use the terms of that controversy. It is pretty certain that, in this, and some of the following Articles, the English reformers symbolized with Melancthon and the Lutheran divines, whose very words in the Confession of Augsburg, or the Wirtemberg Confession, are frequently adopted in the wording of the Articles. 3 There is nothing said in the Ninth Article on the imputation of Adam's guilt, though that was a favourite subject of scholastic discussion, nor of the question, whether original righteousness meant merely primitive innocence, or consisted moreover in a pre- ternatural gift, and in the indwelling and presence of God. The 1 See, for example, Edwards, On Origi- alie.no, x&l suo ipsorum vilio sunt obstricti nal Sin, Part iv. ch. m. — an able and — Calv. Inst. Lib. n. cap. 1, Sect. 8; judicious exposition of the Calvinistic Laurence, B. L. Serm. m. note 8, p. 261. view of this doctrine. 3 See Laurence, B. L. notes to Serm 2 Atque ideo infantes quoque ipsi, dum u., especially notes 8 and 11. •uam secum damnationem afferunt, non 248 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Art. IX. statements are quite general ; yet sufficiently guarding the truth that every man naturally engendered of Adam brings into the world a nature inclined to evil, and very far removed from the original righteousness of our first parents ; that this sinfulness of his nature deserves the wrath of God ; and that, although the con- demnation due to it is remitted to all who believe and are bap- tized, still even in the regenerate the infection, showing itself in the way of concupiscence, remains, and has of itself the nature of sin. The homily " On the Misery of Man," composed, or at least approved by Cranmer, breathes the same spirit. The homily on the Nativity, in the second book of homilies, drawn up some time later, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, may be referred to as expressing the doctrine of original sin in somewhat stronger language ; the divines of Elizabeth's reign having been brought into more intimate connection with the Calvinistic reformers, and sympathizing more with them, than was the case with the divines of the reign of Edward VI. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. TN considering the Scriptural proof of the doctrine of original sin -"- here, it will be better to confine ourselves strictly to the state- ments of the Article, avoiding as much as possible those discus- sions which the Article itself avoids ; neither entering into the distinctions of the schoolmen, nor the disputes of the Calvinists, but resting satisfied with the plain practical ground, which our own reformers thought broad and deep enough. The Article then may be said to embrace the five following propositions : — I. Original sin is the fault and corruption of our nature, which infects all men. II. It is not derived by imitation, but inherited by birth. III. Its extent is such that by it man is very far (quam Ion- gissime) gone from original righteousness. IV. It deserves God's wrath and condemnation. V. Its infection is not entirely removed by baptism, but that infection remains even in the renati ; and though there is no con* Sec. IL] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 249 demnation to them that believe and are baptized, yet still lust or concupiscence has the nature of sin. I. That " original sin is the fault and corruption of our nature, which infects all men," might be inferred from our general knowl- edge of mankind, and of the evil tempers even of childhood, if we had no express revelation of it. In the earliest part of the Scripture history the Almighty declared, that " the imagination of man's heart was evil from his youth " (Gen. viii. 21). Job attributed man's weakness and sorrows to the fact that what was clean could not be brought from what was unclean (Job xiv. 4). David, acknowledging his own sin from his youth, confessed that he was " shapen in iniquity, and that in sin did his mother conceive him " (Ps. li. 5). Solomon declared that " there was not a just man on earth, that did good and sinned not " (Eccles. vii. 20). And Isaiah, in foretelling the sacrifice of Christ, gives as the reason for it, that " All we like sheep have gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own way " (liii. 6. See also Gen. vi. 5-12. Job xv. 16. Psalm xiv. 2, 3 ; lviii. 3 ; cvi. 6, &c. Prov. xxii. 15. Jer. xvii. 5, 9.) These and similar passages, even before the coming of the Gos- pel, sufficiently showed that there was an evil coextensive with our race and coeval with our birth, from which none were exempt, and which went with us from the cradle to the grave. There are many passages in the Gospels which show that the same doctrine pervades them ; as our Lord's declaration that " there is none good but One, that is God " (Matt. xix. 17) ; His commit- ting Himself to no man, " for He knew what was in man "(John ii. 24, 25) ; His declaration that no one could enter into the Kingdom of God, " except he were born again of water and of the Spirit " (John iii. 3, 5, 6) ; nay, His institution of baptism, which all who would be saved must receive, showing that there was an unclean- ness of nature, which needed to be washed away by grace. But, of course, the writings of the Apostles, as being the more doctrinal portions of Scripture, treat most systematically on the subject. The whole of the earlier part of the Epistle to the Romans more especially treats of the sinfulness of man, which needs the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle shows in the first chap- ter, that the Gentiles, notwithstanding the light of nature — the natural conscience which God had given them ; and in the second chapter, that the Jews, although to them had been committed the oracles of God, had yet all been condemned by their own acts and 32 250 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Art. DL by their own Law. In the third chapter, he concludes that all are under sin (Rom. iii. 9), that " all have sinned and come short of the glory of God " (Rom. iii. 23). In the fifth chapter, he shows that, from the time of Adam, " death had passed upon all men, for that all have sinned " (ver. 12). In the seventh chapter throughout, he describes the natural man moved by the dictates of conscience to approve what is good, and yet constrained by a law in his mem- bers — the law of sin and death working in him — to follow what is evil. He then considers the same natural man instructed by the revealed Law of God, consenting to the Law that it was good, and yet unable to fulfil it, because of the sin that dwelleth in him, and that binds him down to do what is base : so that he even represents the Law as bringing death rather than life, as showing the good and the beautiful, as kindling some feelings of desire for better things, but still as giving no power to reach after them. And all this, which he so strikingly describes to us, he tells us results from this cause, namely, that in man, that is in his natural condition, there dwelleth no good. " I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwell- eth no good thing." * In the eighth chapter, he shows how this defect of our nature is remedied ; that, whereas man by himself could not please God, whereas the Law was too weak, owing to the infirmity of man's sinful nature, yet God sent His Son to save, and His Spirit to sanctify ; and so those who are in the Spirit and no longer in the flesh, can fulfil the righteousness of the Law. But " the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God," and " they who are in the flesh " (i. e. in a state of nature, and not under grace) " cannot please God," Rom. viii. 8. 2 Just similar is St. Paul's language in his other Epistles ; see, for example, Eph. iv. 22, 1 Rom. vii. 18: "In ray flesh," of enough to prove that the Apostle is not course means in my natural and carnal describing the state and conflict of a state, according to the common Pauline regenerate Christian. It is in v. 14 : antithesis of the flesh and the spirit. " I am carnal, sold under sin." The re- No doubt, many persons have thought deemed Christian, " bought with a price," that the Apostle in this chapter is speak- and delivered " from the bondage of cor- ing of his own struggles against sin still ruption, into the glorious liberty of the dwelling in him, when under the domin- children of God." can never truly be rep- ionof grace. But it has always appeared resented as still "sold under sin." Christ to me that the whole thread of the apos- has made him free, " and he is free in- tle's argument is broken, and the whole deed." force of his reasoning destroyed by this ■ We must take care that by the ex- hypothesis. The fact that he uses the pression, "the flesh. " in Rom. vii. viii. first person singular need not puzzle us we do not suppose the Apostle to mean for a moment. It is his common habit to the body, the material part of our being, speak in the first person, when he means This would be the Manichean error. It to represent himself as the type of others, is not the body only, but the whole man, of the world at large, or of others situ- that the Scriptures speak of as intected ated like himself. One sentence in the with sin. Compare John iii. 6. Gal. ▼• chapter, if it stood alone, would be 19, 20. 1 Cor. iii. 8, 4. Sec. II] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-Sli*. 251 where he speaks of " the old man, which is corrupt according to deceitful lusts ; " Eph. ii. 1, and Col. ii. 13, where he speaks of men, before their conversion and baptism, as having been " dead in trespasses and sin ; " Eph. ii. 3, where he speaks of both Jews and Gentiles as " by nature children of wrath ; " Gal. iii. 22, where he says that " the Scripture hath concluded all under sin." We can scarcely need fuller proof that the Scriptures describe all men naturally born into the world as subject to the disease of sin. II. We have next to prove, that " Original sin is not derived from imitation, but inherited by birth." In the third chapter of Genesis we have an account of the fall of Adam, and the consequent curse upon him, and the ground which he was to till. Now the old Testament speaks of the impossibility of " bringing a clean thing out of an unclean " (Job xiv. 4), and asks, "What is man, that he should be clean ? Or he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?" (Job xv. 14). The Psalmist, as we have seen, traces his own corruption to the fact that he was " shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin" (Ps. Ii. 5). Such expressions imply that the sinfulness of parents passed to their chil- dren ; and the universal taint which we have already seen to be existing, is traced to an inheritance derived from father to son. Such, we cannot doubt, is the meaning of our Lord, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh " (John iii. 6). He was teach- ing Nicodemus the need which every one had to be born again, before he could see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus marvelled that a man should be born again. Our Lord explains that a spir- itual birth was needed. And why ? Because " that which was born of the flesh is flesh." The flesh signifies the natural, carnal, unholy state of man, as contrasted with the holy, spiritual state of the redeemed and regenerate. Now our Lord declared that every man had need of a new birth, because " that which was born of the flesh was flesh." Man inherited by birth the flesh, — a fleshly, an unspiritual, an unholy nature ; therefore he needed a new birth, a birth of the Spirit, which should make ,him spiritual, even as his former birth of the flesh had made him carnal. This surely suf- ficiently demonstrates that every man by nature was in a state of defect, and that, because he inherited defect by birth. He was born of parents who were carnal, and therefore he was carnal himself. Accordingly, St. Paul treats it as a well-known truth, that " in 252 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Art. IX. Adam all die " (1 Cor. xv. 22). And in the Epistle to the Romans (v. 12) he tells us, that " by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ; " that " through the offence of one many are dead " (ver. 15) ; that " by one man's offence death reigned " (ver. 17) ; that " by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to con- demnation " (ver. 18); that "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners " (ver. 19). It is true that the words thus cited might, if they stood alone, bear the Pelagian interpretation, that Adam brought in sin by bringing in the first example of sin, and that his' children sinned after him by imitation of him, not because they derived a sinful nature from him ; and so judgment passed upon all men, " because all had sinned," their own personal sins having caused their con- demnation. But St. Paul expressly guards against such an inter- pretation, by saying (ver. 14) that " death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Death was the penalty, which all had paid, even before the Law of Moses came to give more fully the knowl- edge of sin ; and it had reigned not only in those whose pre- sumptuous wickedness resembled the sin of Adam, but even in those who had not sinned after that similitude, in infants and idiots, and such as only inherited the nature, without following the exam- ple of Adam. This doctrine corresponds with the doctrine of our Lord, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Accordingly, the Apostle, when speaking of human nature in general, calls it " sinful flesh " (Rom. viii. 3). Our Lord took our nature, such as it was derived from Adam, only He was " without sin ; " but because He took that nature, which was then universally corrupted, therefore St. Paul says, " He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh." And with this doctrine entirely corresponds all that the Apostles write of the corruption of men by nature, and of the change or new birth necessary for every man who is in Christ ; e. g. " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God " (1 Cor. ii. 15). " I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth ho good thing " (Rom. vii. 18). " They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh " (Rom. viii. 5). " The carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it 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). " The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh " (Gal. v. 17). Again, 44 If any man be in Christ he is a new creature " (2 Cor. v. 17). Sec. II.] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 253 And the sinfulness of our natural state is called " the old man ; " and Christians are said to have " put off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and to have put on the new- man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holi- ness " (Eph. iv. 22-24). Now all this language appears to prove that sin is a corruption and disease, affecting not only individuals, but the whole of human nature, so that whosoever inherits human nature inherits it so dis- eased. It is " the flesh," a nature debased and defiled ; and what- ever is born of the flesh is flesh also. Adam, we find from the second chapter of Genesis, received from God a nature free from sin, and so not subject to shame. But he defiled it with sin, and it became at once subject to shame, and then subject to death. Accordingly, when he handed down that nature to his posterity, he could not hand it down pure as he had received it ; he of necessity gave it to them as he had himself made it, stained with sin, liable to shame, having the seeds of mortality, and subject to condemna- tion. This view of the subject explains and satisfies the language of Scripture ; and no other view will. There have been popular illustrations of it, such as the comparison of the hereditary taints of disease and insanity, and other ways in which, in God's provi- dence, the sins of the fathers are visited on the children. There have been philosophical discussions concerning the oneness of human nature, interesting in themselves, but unsuited to our limits here. 1 We have already seen that there have been discussions as to whether the body only, or soul and body both, are derived from the parent, and so corrupted by his sins. Even this I have not fully entered into ; though it is plain that Scripture speaks of man, not man's body only, as corrupted and condemned. " In Adam all die." From Adam " all have sinned " (Rom. v. 12). Sin is a fault of the soul, and therefore plainly both body and soul are tainted with corruption. III. We have next to consider the degree or extent of cor- ruption, thus naturally inherited by all men. Does original sin totally corrupt all men, so that there is no spark of natural good- ness left ? Or are there still relics of what man once was ? still, though in wreck and ruin, some faint outline of his original state of purity ? 1 See for example Hooker, Bk. v. ; fully expanded by the realists among tha Wilberforce, On the Incarnation, ch. III. schoolmen. This was the view of St. Augustine, more 264 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Art. IX. It has been contended that the words of our Article mean both of these sides of the alternative. Calvinists appeal to the words " quam longissime," in the Latin Article, as proving that man's defection from original righteousness was to the greatest extent possible, that is to say, total and entire. 1 Their opponents argued that the convocation had translated these words by " very far," showing that it was intended only to express a great and serious defection of our race from godliness, not a total destruction of moral sense and feeling. The Scriptures evidently represent natural sinfulness as very great. The Almighty, speaking of the race before the flood, said that " every imagination of his heart was only evil continually " (Gen. vi. 5). Yet this might apply only to that generation, which had become so wicked as to call for signal judgment and destruc- tion. But then, after the flood, once more God declares that " He will not again curse the ground for man's sake ; though. 2 the imag- ination of his heart be only evil from his youth " (Gen. viii. 21). This seems to be a more general proposition, indicating at least that man's heart might prove as evil after the flood as it had done before. In the book of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite says that God " put- teth no trust in His saints, and the heavens are not clean in His sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man which drink- eth iniquity like water " (Job xv. 16). We must not always con- sider the words of Job's friends as of authority in matters of faith, since their judgment is afterwards condemned by God ; and we must make allowance for the strong antithesis between God and man ; yet still the passage shows that to a pious man like Job it was an argument likely to be admitted, that man was so filthy as to " drink iniquity like water." In Jer. xvii. 9, we read, that " the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked ; who can know it?" It is truly argued that u desperately wicked " is an epithet stronger than the 1 " The Assembly of Divines," in the ness," &c. And ending with '* the Apos- year 1643, revised the first fifteen Arti- tie doth confess that concupiscence and cles with the view of making them speak lust is truly ami properly sin." — Neale's more clearly the language of Calvinism. Hist, of Puritans, v. Appendix, No. vn. The Ninth, according to their revision, London, Baynes, 1822. See also Lau- was to have stood thus : — rence, B. L. p. 196. " Original sin standeth not in the fol- 2 " Though," the translation of the mar lowing of Adam, as the Pelagians do gin of the English version, probably ex- vainly talk, but, together with his Jirst sin presses the >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<p' Ct will peceaverunt, quando, in ejus natura ilia hear such a rendering. Although Au- insita vi qua eos gignere poterat, adhur gustine, taking the Latin mistranslation omnes illi anna tin-runt ; sod dicuntur in quo, built on it something of the im- aliena, quia nondum ipsi agebant vitas putation theory, he explains it very proprias, sed quicquid erat in futura pro- moderately, namely, that infants sinned pagine, vita unius hominis continebat. — in Adam, because the whole human race Z*J Pmxatonm Mentis at Rmn'ssione. Lib. was then contained in Adam, and would III. c. 7, Tom. x. p. 78. inherit his sinful nature. Quoting Rom. ' 2 The same appears in express term-. v. 12, he continues : — from Rom. viii. 1 : " There is no condem- Unde nee illud liquide dici potest, quod nation to them that are in Christ Jesus." peccatum Ada: etiam non peccantibus Compare Gal. iii. 27. nocuit, cum Scriptura dicat, in quo omnes ■ Rubric at the end of the Baptismal oeccavtrunt. Nee sic dicuntur ista aliena Service. Sec. II.] OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. 259 original sin deserves, is, for Christ's sake, remitted to all that be- lieve and are baptized, and, in the case of infants dying before the commission of actual sin, is remitted on baptism alone ; still we hold that the infection of that sin remains even in the renati. The word renati occurs twice in the Latin Article, and in the English Article it is translated first " regenerated," and secondly " baptized." It will be seen hereafter on what principles the Church identifies " baptized " and " regenerated ; " it is sufficient for our purpose now to observe that both ideas are embraced in the word used here. Now that the baptized and regenerate Christian is not free from the infection of original corruption, but has to fight against it, as an enemy still striving to keep him down, and, if possible, to destroy him, appears from the following considerations. St. James urges Christians not to be in a hurry to be teachers, and gives as a reason that in many things all Christians offend: " In many things we offend all " (James iii. 2). St. Paul, speak- ing of his own exertions in the service of the Church, says that it will not do for him, when working for others, to neglect himself, but on the contrary, says he, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway " (1 Cor. ix. 27). He bids the Galatians, " If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; consid- ering thyself, lest thou also be tempted " (Gal. vi. 1). To those who " are risen Avith Christ," and whom he bids to " seek those things which are above," he yet adds the warning to mortify their earthly members (that is, the members or characteristics of their old man), which he describes as " fornication, uncleanness, inordi- nate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness : " and further bids them put off " anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy commu- nication, lying," as being suitable only to the old man which they had put off, and unfitted for the new man which they had put on (Col. i. 1, 5, 8, 9). St. Peter, addressing the Church as " new- born babes " in Christ (1 Pet. ii. 2), yet exhorts them (ver. 11), " as pilgrims and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." Now all these passages, which clearly concern baptized and regen- erate Christians, prove this : that there is still left in them a liability to sin ; that without much care and anxiety all will fall into sin ; and that even under all circumstances, all do " offend in many things." Accordingly, St. John says of those whose " fellowship 260 OF ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH-SIN. [Abt. IX. is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ," that " if they «ay that they have no sin, they deceive themselves, and the truth is not in them " (1 John i. 8). Can anything account for this universally applicable language, except the fact, as stated by our Church, that the infection of original sin remains even in the re- generate or baptized ? 3. Lastly, the Article asserts that " concupiscence and lust hath the nature of sin." The Council of Trent admitted the existence of lust and con- cupiscence in the regenerate, and admitted that such concupiscence arose from original sin, and tended to actual sin, but denied that it was sin in itself. The English Church is here at issue with the fathers of the Council. Her opinion on this point is defended by such passages as these : " Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof" (Rom. vi. 12), where the lusts of sin seem clearly to be spoken of as sinful. Again, Rom. vii. 7 : " I had not known sin but by the Law ; for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Here lust and sin seem to be identified. Again, in Matt. v. (especially vv. 28, 29) our Lord speaks of the desire of sin as being itself sin. And in the passage quoted in the Article (Gal. v. 17), St. Paul says that M the flesh lusteth against the Spirit." Now we can hardly under- stand how the lusts of the natural man should be opposed to the Spirit of God, and yet be sinless. We conclude, therefore, that '* lust and concupiscence hath of itself the nature of sin." * 1 The connection between lust and sin to desire. So in Hebrew, TV\71 is ( 1 ) rfr- is very apparent in the Hebrew language, . . T which derives many of its usages from its s,r<r > 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. </. 'Errl Qedv rbv navra noifjoavra nos, aritliini lignum existcntes primum, iXni&iv del niivrac, nal na()' ticeivov /iovov nunquam fructiflcaromus vitam, sine su- aurnpiav nal floyde'iav tjnreiv ' clAAa pJ), uc prema voluntaria pluvia. — Ado. liar. -%Mnobc tC>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 • <J» iaru 66$a dc rove aiuvac tuv that " works which we did in holiness of aluvuv. 'A/ii/v. heart" (as the article is omitted before Almost the only question which may hpyuv though not the former substantives be raised on the passage is, Does' St. oofiac, evotpeiac, &c., and the verb naTcip- Clement contrast faith with works done yaadfieda is in the aorist) would more before the grace of God, or works after naturally, though perhaps not necessa- the grace of God, i.e. evangelical works? rily, signify an hypothetical, not a real Dr. Waterland says. " It is of great case, as in those words of St. Jerome weight with him, that so early and so afterwards quoted by Mr. Faber, p. 122, considerable a writer as Clement of " Convertentein impium per solain fidem Rome, an apostolical man, should so in- justiflcat Deus, non per opera quas non terpret the doctrine of justifying faith as habuit" — Newman, On Justification, p to oppose it plainly even to evangelical 486. works, however exalted." — Works, ix. Skc. L] of the JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 285 was guile found in His mouth ; but suffered all for us that we might live through Him." 1 " For this cause did our Lord vouchsafe to give up His Body to destruction, that through the forgiveness of our sins we might be sanctified ; that is, by the sprinkling of His Blood." 2 " By His stripes healing is conferred on all who come to the Father by Him." 3 " All men fall short of the glory of God, and are justified not by themselves, but by the coming of the Lord." 4 " I will not glory because I am righteous, but because I am redeemed. I will glory, not because I am free from sins, but because my sins are forgiven me ; not because I have profited, nor because any one hath profited me, but because Christ is my Advocate with the Father, and because Christ's Blood hath been shed for me." 5 " Our righteousness .... is such in this life that it consists rather in remission of sins than in perfection of virtue." 6 " Not to commit sin, is the righteousness of God ; but man's righteousness consists in the mercy of God." 7 Thus far it is plain that the fathers believed what the Scrip- tures taught and what the Article of our Church maintains, that " we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our own works or de- servings." And if anywhere they seem to speak a language not strictly in accordance with this doctrine, we ought in fairness to conclude that they do not mean really to contradict themselves, though they speak broadly and as the Scriptures speak, concerning the necessity of that " holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." But when we come to technical terms, and express defini- tions, we shall find considerable difficulty in ascertaining the sense attached to them in the patristic writings. We have already seen something like a distinct statement in Clement of Rome, and something nearly approaching it may be found in those who fol- lowed him. A few examples I have thrown into the note. 8 Yet 1 Polycarp, Epist. viii. autem justitia, Dei indulgentia. — Ber- 2 Barnab. Ep. v. nard, Sermon. 21 et 23 in Cantic. See 3 Just. M. Dial. p. 366. See also Bp. Calvin, Institut. in. 12. See also Neander, Kaye's Justin Martyr, p. 77. Tin. p. 218. * Iren. iv. xxxvii. See also Beaven's 8 Ov yup dq ye etc @a?>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.auodrJT<o, in some MSS. from a gloss SiKaLoavvrjv 7^ovr]aa.T(o. ,, ^ * 2. But a very slight examination of the question can scarcely fail to convince us, that the commoner use of this verb in the Scriptures is in the sense of a judicial sentence ; and (1) It signifies to execute a judicial act, in the general, towards a person, and to do him right, whether in acquitting or in condemning him. Thus in 2 Sam. xv. 4 : " Oh ! that I were made a judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, (vnpism *<" SiKatwo-w aurov) and I would justify him," that is, do him right. So Ps. lxxxii. 3 : " Defend the poor and the fatherless, justify (itMSh Si/ccuwo-aTe) the poor and needy," i. e. do them right. (2) Especially it signifies to pronounce sentence in a man's favour, acquit him, free him from punishment. Deut. xxv. 1: " The judges .... shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked." 1 Kino-s viii. 32. 2 Chron. vi. 23 : " Then hear Thou in Heaven, and do, and judge Thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head ; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness." Prov. xvii. 15 : " He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination unto the Lord." So Exod. xxiii. 7. Psalm li. 4. And so in the new Testament, Matt. xii. 37 : " By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned " (i. e. in the day of Judgment: see ver. 36). (3) In consequence of this sense of the word to justify, it is sometimes used in general for to approve or esteem a person just. So Matt. xi. 19, " Wisdom is justified of her children." In Luke x. 29; xvi. 15, we read of people who "justified themselves." Luke xviii. 14, " The publican went home justified" (i. e. approved either by God or his own conscience,) " rather than the Pharisee." Luke vii. 29, " All the people justified God," (i. e. declared their approbation of God's dealings in the mission of John,) " being bap- tized with John's baptism." 1 The following passages have also been Job xxxv. 7, 8. Ezek. xvi. 52. Ecclus thought to have the word in this sense, xviii. 22 ; xxxi. 5. but perhaps without sufficient ground : 39 303 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XI. (4) So again, to justify is used for to free from burdens or obligations, such as the obligations which a particular law imposes on us, as Rom. vi. 7, " He that is dead is freed from sin " (literally is "justified," 8«8ik<uW<u). It appears, then, that in passages where the word " to justify " occurs with no particular reference to the doctrine of this Article, it is almost always used in a sense more or less connected with the ideas of acquittal, pardon, acceptance, or approbation : i. e. in a forensic or judicial sense. It remains to see, whether this is the sense in which St. Paul uses it, when directly and especially treat- ing on justification by faith. Now this will appear, if we consider and compare the following passages. In Rom. v. 9, we read, " Be- ing justified by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." With this compare Eph. i. 7, " in whom we have redemp- tion through His Blood, the forgiveness of sins." Again, if we compare Rom. iii. 24, 25, 26, we cannot fail to conclude that justi- fication is a synonym for remission of sins. " Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness/or the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, His right- eousness, that He might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Then the word justify is used as equivalent to count or impute righteousness and to cover sin. This appears plainly from Rom. iv. 5, 6, 7. Again, by comparing Rom. v. 9 with Rom. v. 10, it seems that to justify is synonymous with to reconcile with God; for -n-okXw juSAAov oiKauoOevres, M much more being justified," in the one verse, answers to 7roAA<3 /xoAAov KarakkayivTcs, " much more being recon- ciled," in the other. Once more, justification is directly opposed to condemnation, as in Rom. v. 18, " By the offence of one (judgment came) upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One (the free gift came) upon all men unto justification of life." l Again, in 1 It has been argued, (Bellarm. DeJtts- detuning doth not infuse any inherent tif. 1. 2, c. 3.) that as Adam's sin was in- unrighteousness into man. neither doth /!«<*/ into his posterity, so this passage He justifying (formally) (if tin- antithesis must mean that in justification Christ's must be pat) put any inherent rig hteous- righteousness is infused into His disciples, ness into him : Inherent unrighteousness To which it has "been replied, (Barrow, in the former case may he a consequent of ii. Sermon v. p. 80.) that justifica- that condemnation, and inherent right- tion and condemnation being " both acts eousness may be connected with this of God, and it being plain that God con- justification ; but neither thai nor this Sec IL] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 307 Rom. viii. 33, 34, " Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneih? " 1 But which is more important than the comparison of particular passages, if we consider the whole course of St. Paul's reasoning in the earlier chapters of the Romans, we must be led to conclude that by justification he means acquittal from guilt and acceptance with God. He begins by proving that all men, Jews and Gentiles, are condemned by the law (whether of Moses or of nature) under which they lived (Rom. i. ii.) He shows from the Law itself that the Jews as well as the Gentiles were guilty before God (Rom. iii. 9-19) ; and that therefore all the world (if the Gospel be not taken into account) are lying under God's wrath and subject to His condemnation. And this course of reasoning leads him to the conclusion, that if we would have justification at all it must be not by the works of law, but by the faith of Christ (Rom. iii. 20). Now in such a connection, what must justification mean ? Man subject to the law (whether revealed or natural) had so much sinned as to be subject to condemnation. The thing to be desired was his justification ; which justification could be only by the free grace of God through Christ. Surely then that justification must mean pardon for the sins which he had committed, and deliverance from the condemnation into which his sins had thrown him. This is further shown immediately afterwards by the case and the language of saints of the old Testament. Abraham was justi- fied (or as it is explained, " accounted righteous ") by faith, not by his own good works and deservings. And David looks on a state of blessedness as one in which a man has " his iniquities forgiven, and his sins covered " (Rom. iv. 1-8). The thing then which all the world needed, and which could be obtained only through God's mercy in Christ, was covering of sin, and forgiveness of iniquity. This therefore must be what St. Paul means by the term Justifi- cation. II. Sense of the word Faith. Having arrived at a conclusion as to the sense of the words jus- may formally signify those qualities re- lation of this passage, which is more spectively : as the inherent unrighteous- probably correct, be adopted. Tig tytia- ness consequent upon Adam's sin is not TJkaei Kara ckKektuv Qeov ; Qeog 6 ducaitiv ; included in God's condemning, so neither rig 6 naranpivuv ; Xpiarbg 6 inro&avuv, k. t. is the inherent righteousness proceeding "k. : " Who shall lay anything to the from our Saviour's obedience contained charge of God's elect ? Shall God who in God's justifying men." justifieth ? Who is he that condemneth ? 1 The antithesis is not in the least de- Is it Christ, who died, &c. '?" gree altered, if the punctuation and trans* 308 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XI ttfy and justification, it becomes necessary, in order to appreciate the meaning of the words Justification by faith, and the doctrine expressed by those words, to examine the usages of the term faith in Scripture, and especially in the writings of St. Paul. According to its derivation the word should mean persuasion of the truth of anything. But this does not decide its force a3 a theo- logical virtue, still less its signification in the peculiar language of St. Paul. There can be little doubt that it is used in very differ- ent senses in different parts of Scripture. For example : — 1. It is used to signify truth or good faith (like n£S fides} in Matt, xxiii. 23, " the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith ; " and in Rom. iii. 3 : " Shall their unbelief make the faith (or faithfulness) of God without effect ? " 2. It is used of the assurance given by one person to another, Acts xvii. 31, " whereof He hath given assurance unto all men " (ttiotiv Trapd(T)(<j>v 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 aTroi<a- Kv<j>0r)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<e. tur (justificatio) maxime a S. Paulo qui a de .1 ustifictttione, Lib. i. c. m. § 17 : — justiflcatione legis opera et humanum Quia nempe in fide magismanifestatur, meritum aut efflcaciam excludere, it in hominem non propria virrute, sed Christi sola Christi virtute et merito collocare merito justificari : sicut enim in aspectu nitebatur : idcfaoo incminit fldei in Chris- in serpentem Deus posuit sanitatem in turn. Hoc nee pcenitentia nee dileetio deserto, quia aspectus magis indienbat, nee spes habent. Fides enim immedia- sanari virtute serpentis, non operis alicu- tins ac distinctius in Hum fertur, cujui i'us proprii aut medietas alicujus; ita virtute justificamur. des ostendit, justiflcari peccatorea vir- Sec. II.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 319 of the righteous and the wicked, showing the one to be a condition of acceptance, the other of condemnation : the former continuing so long as the character continues the same, and lost as soon as that character is lost ; the latter in like manner continuing, until the wickedness is forsaken and the life renewed, and then giving place to the former, the condition of favour or pardon. In like manner our Lord (John xv. 1-10) speaks of His disciples as clean through His word, and continuing so whilst they abide in Him ; but if they abide not in Him, then to be cast forth as a branch, withered, and even burned (see especially vv. 3—6). Language just similar to this is used by St. Paul (see Rom. vi. 1, 2, 19 ; xi. 20, 21. Gal. v. 4. Col. i. 22, 23. Heb. x. 38, 39). From all which we can hardly fail to conclude that justification before God is a state in which a person continues so long as he continues united to Christ, abiding in Him, having Christ dwelling in his heart, being the sub- ject of His grace, and of the sanctification of the Spirit. If therefore the premises are correct, we may define justification to be a state of pardon and acceptance in the presence of God, be- stowed upon us freely for Christ's sake, by the mercy of God, which is first given in baptism to all who receive that sacrament aright, which continues so long as the subject continues in a state of faith, which fails when he falls from the state of faith, and which is restored again when by grace and repentance he is restored to a state of faith. So that we may say, whilst in a state of faith, so long in a state of justification : whilst a believer, so long a justified person. Hence too, concerning the distinction drawn by Luther, that faith is alone when it justifies, and that after justification is effected, then come in charity, and good works, and holiness, we may infer that such a distinction can be true only when considered in the abstract, but not as a matter of practical experience. For practically and really, where there is acceptance, there is faith and sanctification, and, springing from them and reigning with them, are all the graces of a Christian's life. 2. It having been laid down, that faith (fceta operibus) may be considered, either as the state or the instrument of justification . it may be a question, whether we ought to say that faith, or fai'Ji and good works, or faith and holiness, are the condition or condi- tions of justification. The answer to this question, as given by many divines of high authority in the Church, has been in the affirmative. But the question is, whether or not we can deduce an affirmative answer from the Scripture. No doubt, faith and holiness are, as regards 320 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XL justification, graces sine quibus non. There is no justification nor salvation where there is not faith, love, holiness, obedience. But when we state that faith and good works are conditions, we in effect suppose the Almighty to offer us what have been called the Terms of the Grospel ; terms that is of the following kind : " Now that by Christ's mediation God's wrath has been appeased, if you will repent, believe, and obey, you shall be saved." Conditions imply a bargain of this kind. Now there may be no objection to looking on the matter in some such light as this ; but it does not appear to be the form in which the Scriptures represent God's dealings with us. The new Testament seems to speak of us as pensioners on the bounty of God's grace. Especially when justification by faith is spoken of, " it is of faith, that it might be by grace," Rom. iv. 16. And though it is true that it would be an act of immeasurable grace for God to pardon our past sins, on condition that, by His help, we avoided sin and lived holily for the future, yet this does not appear to be the statement anywhere made by the Apostles ; nor does such an act of grace come up to the standard of that infinite mercy of God in Christ Jesus, which is revealed to us in the Gospel. It has already been shown that one peculiar reason why justification by faith represents free salvation by grace is, that faith is itself most clearly " the gift of God." Therefore it is spoken of as the instrument of our justification, not because it is a condition, which we can make with Him, but because it is itself a gift which He bestows on us. Besides, if we could make conditions with God, even after He had accepted an atonement for the past, it might be hard to say that "boasting" was altogether " excluded " (Rom. iii. 27). Ex- cluded indeed it might be in strict justice, because the forgiving of past sins, and the accepting of imperfect obedience for the future, would be, of itself, an act of boundless grace, when we deserve noth- ing but condemnation. But still, comparing ourselves with ourselves, we might easily be inclined to feel proud of even imperfect obedi- ence, if it were made the condition of our salvation. Therefore, we may perhaps fairly conclude, that salvation is not of works, not merely not as the cause, but not even as the terms or conditions of our justification. Nor is faith itself the condition on which God accepts us, although it is the instrument by which He justifies us, and the state in which we are when justified. 3. Whereas* it is taught by St. Paul that a man is justified by faith, and yet it is taught both by St. Paul and throughout the new Testament that we shall be judged according to our Skc. II.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 321 works, * are we driven to conclude that there is an inconsistency in the statements of Scripture ? The answer to this is, that as all persons who are justified are regenerate and in a state of faith, their faith and regeneration will necessarily be to them the source of holiness and good works. Now the clearest tokens both to men and angels of their internal condi- tion of faith and sanctification must be their good works ; nay, the clearest proof even to themselves. Hence, that they should be judged by their works, and rewarded according to their works, is thoroughly consistent with God's dispensations. The meritorious cause indeed of their salvation is Christ's Atonement ; the instru- ment by which they are brought into covenant with God is bap- tism ; the means whereby their state of acceptance is maintained is faith ; but the criterion by which their final state will be deter- mined shall be works. And all these are so knit up together in the redeemed, regenerate, believing, sanctified Christian, that it is nowise derogating from the excellence of the one to ascribe its proper office, in the economy of salvation, to the other. 4. The ordinary instruments of justification being baptism and faith, can a person be justified where either of these is want- ing ? That persons can be justified without faith where faith is im- possible, may appear from the case of infants. Though they are too young for active faith, yet clearly are they not so for salvation, nor therefore for justification. Our Lord bids us bring little children to Him, and says that " of such is the Kingdom of Heaven " (Mark x. 14). And St. Paul says, the children of believing par- ents are holy (1 Cor. vii. 14). And if infant baptism be a custom for which we have sufficient authority, then, as baptism is for the remission of sins, it follows that infants in baptism may receive remission of sins or justification, though not yet capable of faith. Similar reasoning is applicable to the case of idiots, or persons otherwise irresponsible, whd, like infants, are incapable of active faith, but of whom we may reasonably hope that they are not incapable of salvation. As regards baptism, that, as a general rule, it is the ordinance of God, without which we cannot look for the promises of God, is quite apparent from passages already referred to, such as Mark xvi. 16. Acts xxii. 16. Gal. iii. 26, 27, &c. In these and similar passages remission of sins is promised to such as believe the Gospel, and submit to baptism. Yet, as we have seen 1 See, for instance, Matt. xvi. 27 ; Rom. ii. 6 ; 1 Cor. iii. 8 ; 2 Cor. v. 10; 1 Peter i. 17 ; Rev. ii. 23, xx. 13, xxii. 12. 41 322 OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. [Art. XI. concerning faith, that though generally necessary, yet cases may and do exist where it is impossible, and so not required, in like manner we may reasonably conclude that cases may exist in which ^baptism may be dispensed with. Though Christ has appointed baptism, and we have no right to look for His blessing if we neglect it, yet we cannot presume to limit His mercy even by His own ordinances. Indeed, we find in the Acts of the Apostles (x. 4, 44) a case, the case of Cornelius, in which God accepted and poured His Holy Spirit on a person who had not been baptized ; and though St. Peter thought it necessary that baptism should be at once administered to him, and thereby taught us the deep value of that Sacrament, still this case sufficiently shows that God does at times work without the intervention of means appointed by Him- self, and therefore teaches us that we must not exclude from salvation those who, from ignorance or inability, have not received the blessing of baptism. 5. Is the language of. St. James opposed to the doctrine of St. Paul? It has been already seen that St. Paul means by Justification by faith, free salvation by God's grace ; and that, where he speaks of faith as the instrument of justification, he means a lively faith, pro- ductive of good works. (See especially Rom. vi.) St. James probably wrote against such as abused the doctrine of St. Paul, and taught that a speculative barren faith, or mere orthodoxy, was suffi- cient for salvation without the fruits of faith. Accordingly, he asks, " Can this faith save him ? " He says, " Faith, if it have not works, is dead, being alone." 1 But it must be observed that St. Paul never speaks of a dead faith as profiting. On the contrary, he declares that faith without charity would be nothing (1 Cor. xiii. 2). It is plain, therefore, that St. Paul considers faith as pregnant with its results, though not as justifying because of its results, and does not design to put in opposition to one another faith and the 1 James ii. 14, 17. ham, as of one who had a faith which Many people have endeavoured to rec- brought forth works, and says, it was this oncile St. Paul and St. James, by suppos- kind of faith which was imputed to him ing that the former speaks of justiflca- for righteousness, t". e. clearly before God. tion before God, the latter of justification Evidently the two apostles differ in their in the sight of men. But it is quite clear use of the word " faith," not in their use that St. James speaks of the same kind of the word " justify." Both speak of of justification as St. Paul, from James justification before God: but one says ii. 14, 28. In the former verse he speaks that we are justified by faith, i. «. by of faith without works as not capable of a living faith ; the other denies that we saving a, man ; i. e. of course, of justify- are justified by mere faith, I. t. (accord- ing him before God, for justification be- ing to his own explanation) by a dead fore man can never save. And in the faith, latter verse, he adduces the case of Abra- Sec H.] OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. 323 good works which naturally spring out of a lively faith, but rather faith and legal works, — " the works of the Law," — works done in a self-justifying spirit, and looked on as meriting reward. Faith, therefore, he declares, justifies without such works, — the works of the Law ; but he does not say that a faith which does not bring forth the works of faith, will justify. On the other hand, St. James asserts that faith will not justify, if it do not bring forth good works ; but by good works he means evangelical works, the works of faith, not legal works, the works of the Law. Hence, there is no necessary contradiction in the language of the two Apostles. St. James simply considers justifying faith as including the works of faith. St. Paul considers justifying faith as excluding the works of the Law. 1 1 Sine operibu8 fldei, non legis, mortua de iis quae fidem sequuntur. — Augustin. est fides. — Hieron. in Gal. iii. Hie dicit Liber de Diversis Qucestionibus. Quaest. 76. de operibus quae fidem praecedunt, iste Tom. vi. p. 68. [On the dispute with regard to fides informis and fides formata (see p. 291), the fol- lowing remark deserves attention : " There is probably some truth on each side. We are justified by a faith which is at least potentially a fides formata ; although the office of justifying belongs not to the works of faith but to faith itself." England fs. Rome (H. B. Swete), p. 35, note. —J. W.] ARTICLE XII. Of Good Works. Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justifi- cation, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment ; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out neces- sarily of a true and lively faith ; inso- much that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit. Dt Bonis Operibus. Bona opera, quae sunt fructus fidei, et justificatos sequuntur, quanquam peccata expiare, et divini judicii severitatem ferre non possunt : Deo tamen grata sunt, et accepta in Christo, atque ex vera et viva fide nece8sarioprofluunt, ut plane ex illis, asque fides viva cognosci possit, atque arbor ex fructu judicari. Section L— HISTORY. HPHE great length at which the last Article was considered ren- •*- ders it less necessary to say much upon this. Our present twelfth Article did not exist in the forty-two Articles of King Ed- ward's reign, but was added in the year 1562, after the accession of Queen Elizabeth. It is evidently intended as a kind of supple- ment to the eleventh, lest that should be supposed to teach Soli- fidianism. Archbishop Laurence traces the wording of it to a pas- sage in the Wirtemburg Confession, to which it certainly bears great resemblance. 1 The general object of the Article was, no doubt, to oppose the Antinomian errors, which had originated with Agricola, and which there was some danger might spring from Lutheranism. a With such the whole Reformation was charged by the divines of the Ro- man communion, and therefore it was the more needful that the reformers should protest against them. There are certain particular expressions also in the Article which require to be explained historically. We have seen that the schoolmen talked of good works, done without the grace of God. 1 The passage is : — I)e Bonis Operibus. Non est autem sentiendum, quod in bonis operibus, quae per nos facimus, in judicio Dei, ubi agitur de expiatione peccatorum, et plauatione divinse irae, ac merito :eUriKv salutis, confidendum sit. Omnia enim bona opera, quae nos facimus. sunt imperfecta, nee possunt severitatem divini judicii ferre. — Laurence, B. L. Notes on Serin. 11. p. 286. a Mosh. Ch. Hi*t. Cent. xvi. § ill. pt. ii. as quoted in the last Article. Sec. IT.] OF GOOD WORKS. 325 meriting grace de congruo. " To this Luther and the reformers opposed the statement that works done without the grace of God might be apparently, but were not really good. And to this pur- pose is the thirteenth Article of our Church, which we have soon to consider. Luther asserted that good works, which are pleasing tc God, are not wrought but in faith ; for " whatever is not of faith is sin ;" and where there is faith, there is justification; therefore good works follow, not precede justification. Our Article uses this lan- guage without in this place discussing the merits of it. In the thirteenth Article the question is more fully entered on. It may be mentioned that language very similar had before been used by Augustine, and from him very probably was it borrowed by Luther. " Good works," says that father, " follow a man's justification, do not precede it in order that he may be justified." * Another expression in the Articles is, that " good works cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgment." In the historical account of the last Article we saw that the Coun- cil of Trent condemned Luther for denying intrinsic goodness to works done after grace, and asserted that, as they were wrought by the Spirit of God, they were essentially good and perfect. The Council also taught that to the justified God's commandments are possible, that justification is preserved and increased by good works, that the good works of the just, which are the gifts of God, are withal the merits of the justified. 2 We have seen also that Bellarmine and the Romanist divines as- sert, that good works which are wrought in us by the grace of God are, by virtue of that grace, meritorious of eternal life ; 3 t. e. accord- ing to the schoolmen, they merit reward de condigno. The words of our Article are evidently opposed to these opinions. For, though they speak plainly of the necessity and value of works wrought by grace, they declare that " they cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment." Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. T^7"E may perceive, from what has been said, that the Article op- " » poses three doctrines. 1 Sequuntur opera bona justificatum, 8 Bellarmine, De Justificatione, Lib. v. non praecedunt justiflcandum. — De Fide cap. 12, quoted in the History of Art. et Operibus, c. 14. XI. 9 Session vi. Canons 18, 24, 32. 326 OF GOOD WORKS. [Art. XII. I. Merit de congruo ; — II. Merit de condigno ; — III. Anti- nomianism. Or otherwise the Article teaches : — I. That good works follow after justification ; II. That though they spring from the grace of God and a lively faith, still they cannot put away sin and endure the severity of God's judgment. III. Yet (1) that in Christ they are pleasing to God : and (2) That they spring out necessarily of a true and lively, i. e. a justi- fying faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evi- dently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit. I. The question of merit de congruo and works before justifica- tion being the special subject of the next Article, we may defer its consideration till we consider that Article. II. That the good works of justified men are not perfect enough to put away sin, and endure the severity of God's judgment, may be proved as follows. Our Lord tells us, that after we have done all that is commanded us " we are still unprofitable servants, having done only that which was our duty to do " (Luke xvii. 10). But, if this be the case, how can we ever do anything to put away our former sins ? Our best deeds leave us still unprofitable ; and if we had never sinned, we should still have only done our duty, and could claim no reward. But when we have sinned, it is clear that no degree of subsequent obedience (which would have been due even if we had not sinned) can cancel the sins which are past. And to this we must add that, even under grace, obedience is never perfect. " In many things we offend all," says St. James (iii. 2) ; and St. John tells us that " if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" (1 John i. 8). And both the Apostles are evidently speaking to and of regenerate Christians. The Psalmist prays God not to " enter into judgment with him, because in His sight ,to man living could be justified " (Psalm cxliii. 2). Accordingly, St. Paul argues that the person who is blessed in God's sight is not the man who Jives blameless in the Law, but " he whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins an» covered," even " the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin " (Rom. iv. 7, 8). " All have sinned and come short of the glory of God ; " and therefore must be "justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus " (Rom. iii. 23, 24). Such passages fully prove that, in whatever strength or power Sec. II.] OF GOOD WORKS. 327 good works are wrought, they are not perfect enough to put away sin, and to endure the judgment of God. Still, though the Church denies the merit of good works, and their sufficiency to screen us from the wrath and endure the judg- ment of God, she yet teaches, III. 1. That in Christ, they are pleasing and acceptable to God ; and 2, that they do necessarily spring out of a true and lively faith. 1. In Christ they are pleasing and acceptable to God. (1). The words in Christ are introduced to remind us that what- ever is good in us must spring from the grace of Christ, and what- ever in us is acceptable to God is acceptable for Christ's sake. In all the servants of Christ, God sees the image of His Son. In all the members of Christ, God sees the Spirit of His Son descending from the Head to the Members, like the holy oil on Aaron's head, which flowed down to the skirts of his clothing. In all the branches of the heavenly Vine, God sees the fruit thereof, as put forth by virtue of the life and nourishment derived from the Vine itself; and that Vine is Christ. In every wedding-guest who has on the wedding-garment, the King sees the wearer clothed in the robe of His own Son, and acknowledges them all as His children : " for we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus : for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ " (Gal. hi. 26, 27). Accordingly, the Scriptures constantly, when they speak of Christians and the works of Christians as pleasing to God, teach us that it is " in Christ." So we read, " There is now no condem- nation to them that are in Christ Jesus " (Rom. viii. 1). " In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision. ; but faith which worketh by love" (Gal. v. 6). "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works " (Ephes. ii. 10). We are to " do all in the name of the Lord Jesus " (Col. iii. 17). We are to " offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ " (1 Pet. ii. 5). We are to "give thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ " (Eph. v. 20). " By Him we are to offer the sacri- fices of praise to God " (Heb. xiii. 15). (2) But then the good deeds which Christians perform in Christ are pleasing and acceptable to Grod. Our Lord tells us, that " not every one that saith unto Him, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven ; but he that doeth the will of His Father which is in Heaven " (Matt. vii. 21). He assures us of the reward of those who have left all for His sake, 828 OF GOOD WORKS. [Art. XIL that they shall receive a hundredfold, and eternal life (Mark x. 29, 30). He tells us, that, " if we forgive, we shall be forgiven ; that if we give, it shall be given to us" (Mark xi. 26 ; Luke vi. 37, 38). He shows us by parables, that those who of two talents make five, shall receive five cities ; those who make of five talents ten, shall receive ten cities (Matt. xxv. 14-30. Compare Luke xix. 12-26). He tells us that at the judgment-day they who have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the afflicted, shall be placed on the right hand, and go into life eternal (Matt. xxv. 31-46). He tells us of " a prophet's reward," and " a right- eous man's reward " (Matt. x. 41, 42). And, in short, assures us that He will " reward every man according to his works " (Matt, xvi. 27). So, from His Apostles we learn, that " in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him " (Acts x. 35) : that the sacrifice of our bodies is " acceptable to God " (Rom. xii. 1) : that the labour of Christ's servants " shall not be in vain in the Lord " (1 Cor. xv. 58) : that " God loveth a cheerful giver " (2 Cor. ix. 7) : that, if we are not " weary in well- doing, in due season we shall reap, if we faint not " (Gal. vi. 9) : that our new creation in Christ Jesus is " unto good works, which God hath beforehand ordained that we should walk in them " (Eph. ii. 10) : that the new man " after God is created in right- eousness and true holiness " (Eph. iv. 24) : that our call is " not to uncleanness, but to holiness " (1 Thess. iv. 7) : that u every one who nameth the name of Christ must depart from iniquity " (2 Tim. ii. 19) ; must " be careful to maintain good works " (Tit. iii. 8) : that " without holiness no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. xii. 14): that with "such sacrifices" for His service " God is well pleased " (Heb. xiii. 16) : that " pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world " ( Jas. i. 27) : that faith with- out works will not profit (Jas. ii. 14) : that " to do well and suffer for it, and take it patiently, is acceptable to God " (1 Pet. ii. 20) : that whatsoever we ask of God we receive, if " we keep His commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in His sight : " and that " he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him " (1 John iii. 22, 24. Compare Rom. vi. passim, Rom. viii. 1-14, and the concluding chapters of all St. Paul's Epistles). Thus we plainly see that good works wrought in Christ are not Sec. jli.j OF GOOD WORKS. 32i> 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</cm, to propose a law. Ero- pitia demonstrat : hahi taenia ista mi'liora gare, to make a law for paying a sum of vos petitis, carnis desideriu enstrantes money out of a public treasury. So the majoris praemium in coelestibus obtine- word is used for lending or paying out tis. — Cypr. Dellalntu Vityinum, p. 102. Sec. L] WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 343 there will be condemnation." l And St. Jerome distinguishes be- tween a precept and a counsel, as that the one involves necessity of obedience, the other leaves a liberty of accepting or refusing. 2 The distinction thus early made may have had a legitimate foundation in Holy Writ. But, in process of time, there grew out of it the doctrine of works of supererogation, as connected with a belief in the merits of martyrdom, and of voluntary celibacy. The increase of monasticism, and the increasing respect paid to every kind of ascetic observance, cherished this belief. In the language of the confession of Augsburg, " The monks taught that their mode of life was a state of perfection, because they observed not precepts only, but counsels also. This error is greatly at variance with Gospel truth ; for thus they pretended so to satisfy the com- mands of God as even to exceed them. And hence arose the grievous error, that they claimed merits of supererogation. These they applied to others, that they might be satisfactions for other men's sins." 8 The full-grown form of the doctrine was, that a man may not only keep the law of .God, so as to do all that is actually enjoined on him, but may be so full of the grace of God as even to do more than God's law enjoins, and thereby deserve even more than his own salvation. This excess of merit, which was supposed to be attained by some of the greater saints, formed a deposit, which was intrusted to the Church, and which the Roman pontiff, the vicar of Christ, could for reasonable causes, by the power of the keys, unlock, and grant to the faithful, in the way of indulgences, and for the remission of temporal punishment. In the Council of Trent, the last decrees read and approved were concerning the granting of indulgences. The council anathe- matized those who said they were unprofitable, and, though forbid- 1 Non enim sieut Non mcechaberis, non sed Omnis arbor, quae non facit fructum occides, ita dici potest, non nubes. Ilia bonum exscindetur, et in ignem mit- exiguntur, ista offeruntur. Si fiunt ista, tetur. See these and some other pas- laudantur : nisi fiunt ilia, damnantur. sages quoted by Bellarmine, De Mona- In illis Dominus debitum imperat vobis; chis, Lib. 11. cap. 7, 11. Tom. 11. pp. 363, in his autem si quid amplius superero- 380. gaveritis, in redeundo reddit vobis. — The words of S. Chrysostom are much August. De Sancta Virginitate, cap. 30. to this purpose on Rom. viii. : ol nvevfia- Opera, Tom. vi. p. 355. tlkoi irdvra nparTovaiv £m$V[j.ia nal 7r6i9^, 2 Ubi consilium, ibi offerentis arbitri- kcu tovto dr/TiOvm t<1) ical vnep(3aiv£iv tu um, ubi praeceptum datum, ibi neces- VTroTaypara. Thus rendered by Bp. Jer. sitas est servientis. Hieron. ad Eusto- Taylor, " Spiritual men do their actions chium, De Servanda Virginitate. So in with much passion and holy zeal, and the Sermons De Tempore, ascribed to give testimony of it by expressing it in Augustine, Sermon lxi. De Virgini- the uncommanded instances." — Rule of tate dicitur, Qui potest capere, capiat. Conscience, 11. 3, 12; which see. De justitia non dicitur, Qui potest facere, s Si/lloge, p. 223. 344 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. [Art. XIV. ding their sale and other abuses, yet commanded that they should be retained as profitable for Christian people. 1 There is no express mention of works of supererogation. It is scarcely necessary to add, that all the reformed Churches and sects, of whatever class or denomination, have rejected the doctrine of the Romanists concerning works of supererogation. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. ' r pHE principal arguments in favour of the doctrine of the Roman -*- Church on this subject may be found in the writings of Car- dinal Bellarmine, in the second book of his treatise De Monachis. He assumes the principle, a principle which rightly understood need not be controverted, that in some passages of Scripture advice is given, where there is not a positive command : and then he infers that, " as our Lord distinguishes counsels from precepts, He plainly shows that men justified by the grace of God can not only fulfil the law, but even do some works most pleasing to God, which have not been commanded." 2 Now this inference may fairly be considered a petitio principii ; for advice, when coming from our Lord or His Apostles, may be a counsel tending indeed to spiritual good, but yet, if followed, not enabling to do more than is commanded, but only putting in the road to obtain more grace and strength from above. Bellarmine, besides referring to several passages of the fathers, some of which have been already quoted, brings forward very many texts of Scripture to prove his position. The greater number of these appear so little relevant, that I shall make no apology for considering those only which appear to have some weight. 1. The first which we may mention is the counsel given by our Lord to the man who came to Him, and asked, " Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life ? " Our Lord first replies, " Keep the commandments." The young man then says that he has kept all these from his youth, and adds, 1 Sarpi, p. 757. Dei non solum implere legem, sed etiam 2 Controvci-8. General. Lib. iv. De In- aliqua alia opera Deo gratissiraa facer*, dulgentiii, Tom. in. p. 1124. Dominus quae imperata non sint. lie quotes espe- consilia a prteceptis distinguens, ostendit cially the case of the young man, Matt posse homines justiflcatos per gratiam xix. 16, &c. Sec. II.] WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 345 " What lack I yet ? " Jesus said unto him, " If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven : and come and follow Me." x Bellarmine argues that this last sentence of our Lord's could not have been a command, but was a counsel of perfection, which, if obeyed, would have been more than was the young man's duty, i. e. a work of supererogation. This he proves as follows : It was not a precept ; for to the question, " What shall I do that I may have eternal life ? " the answer is "If thou wilt enter into life keep the com- mandments." Therefore the keeping the commandments would be sufficient for salvation. And the advice afterwards given tended to perfection, not to salvation. 2 But if we attentively consider the whole conversation, we shall see that this interpretation will not satisfy the case. In the first place, the young man asks, " What good thing he should do to have eternal life ; " to which our Lord gives the general reply, that, " if he would be saved, he must keep the commandments." The young man, evidently not ill disposed (see Mark x. 21), but with an un- due notion of his own strength and goodness, then says, that he has kept all the commandments from his youth, and, as though he could see no deficiency in his own conduct, asks again, " What lack I yet ? " Now it was to this question, " What lack I ? " that our Lord gave the reply now under consideration. That reply, therefore, was intended to show the young man what he lacked: and if he lacked something, it is quite clear that the supplying of that lack, 1 Matt. xix. 16-21. , 2 Lib. n. De Monachis, cap. 9, Tom. II. p. 368, &c. The cardinal replies to many argu- ments which have been brought against his interpretation of this history : e. g. St. Jerome and Bede considered the young man's question as a tempting of our Lord, but Chrysostom refutes this opinion, by showing that none of the Evangelists blame him, and Bellarmine adds, that St. Mark (x. 21), says that " Jesus beholding him loved him." Cal- vin (Inst. Lib. iv. cap. 13) had argued that our Lord could not have placed per- fection in selling all things, since in 1 Cor. xiii. 3, we read " though I give all my goods to feed the poor .... and have not charity, it profiteth me noth- ing." Calvin al90 observes, that the young man could not really have kept all the commandments, for one is, " Thou ehalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," &c. ; and he who does this will give up everything, and therefore, of 44 course, all his wealth, for Him. Peter Martyr too had said, that it could not be a counsel, but a precept, when our Lord said, " If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast ; " for in Matt. v. 48, " Be ye perfect " is a precept : and there- fore whatever teaches us to be perfect must be of the nature of a precept also. To this Bellarmine tries to reply, that there are different kinds of perfection, some necessary for salvation, but a higher degree for a higher grade of glory. P. Martyr also says, that this command was given to the young man alone, and that therefore it was necessary for his perfection, but not for every one's, for he is perfect who obeys God's laws. Bellar- mine answers, No ! The command was, " If thou will enter into life, keep the commandments ; " this was addressed tc all. So we ought to infer that the saying, " If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast," was equally addressed to all. He quotes Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, as agreeing with him in this view. WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. [Akt. XIV. or deficiency, could not be a work of supererogation, but a work of duty or obligation. This is further proved by the conduct of the young man, who, when he had heard our Lord's reply, " went away sorrowful." That is to say, he felt not able and willing to do what our Lord had said was needful for him to do. He had asked what was necessary for his salvation. The first answer gave him satisfaction ; for it did not fully convince him of his weakness. The second probed him to the quick, and showed him that the strength of purpose which he supposed himself to possess, was not such as to lead him to renounce all for the kingdom of God. And so, when he had gone away sorrowful, our Lord does not say, A rich man shall hardly become perfect, or do works of supereroga- tion ; but He says, " Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Grod." It was unfitness for the kingdom of Heaven, not unfitness for a supereminent degree of glory, which the rich man showed, when, at our Lord's bidding, he could not sell all that he had. Whence it appears, that this saying of our Lord's was a precept, and not a counsel. It was like the command given to Abraham to kill his son. It was a trial of his faith and of his readiness to obey. The faithful servant of God will give up all, even that he loves the best, for Him whom he serves. Abraham's dearest treasure was his son, and he was ready to sacrifice him. The young man's treasure was his wealth, and he went away sorrowful. The one was shown to be true and firm in the faith. The other's faith was proved to be doubtful and wavering. Bellarmine, however, farther contends that, whereas it follows in the 27th verse, " Peter answered and said unto Him, Behold we have forsaken all, and followed Thee ; what shall we have there- fore ? " if the command was only given to the young man, and not to all men, then our Lord would have said to Peter, " I will give nothing to you, I spoke only to this young man ; " (Nihil vobis ddbo, nam soli illijuveni loquutus sum) ; whereas the answer actually given is (Amen dico vobis, $c.~) " Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed Me ... . shall sit on twelve thrones .... and every one who hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting life." The cardinal's conclusion is therefore, that to all men it is & precept, " keep the commandments," and to aU men it is a count Sec. II.] * WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION 347 seZ, "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor/' The Apostles obeyed the precept and the counsel both, and so did more than their duty; the young man kept only the precepts, and so won Heaven, but not more "than Heaven. There is evidently a fallacy here. No doubt, it is not com- manded to all men to sell all that they have ; for St. Paul bade Timothy " charge those who are rich in this world " (not to sell their possessions, but) " not to trust in uncertain riches," " to do good, to be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to com- municate " (1 Tim. vi. 17, 18). But though all men are not ex- pressly called to sell all that they have, yet at the time of our Lord's presence upon earth, He did call all His immediate followers to give up everything for His sake ; and the most obvious and de- cided way of giving proof of zeal for His service and love to Him, was to forsake parents and brethren, house and lands, and to follow Him who had no place to lay His head. 1 Thus, as Abraham evi- denced his faith by being ready to slay his son, so the Apostles evidenced theirs by forsaking their homes ; and the rich young man could not find it in his heart to sacrifice so much, because his faith was not so true. Here is no room for works of supereroga- tion, nor even for counsels of perfection. 2. Another of Bellarmine's proofs 2 is drawn from 1 Cor. ix. ; in which St. Paul asserts, that he might have received payment for his ministry, that he might have led about a wife at the expense of the Church ; but that he would not do anything of this kind, lest his glorying should be made void. Taking the Latin version as his guide, Bellarmine reasons, that, though St. Paul might have fulfilled all his duty, if he had taken payment of the Church, yet he would not take reward, that he might obtain greater glory. And he argues against Peter Martyr (who interprets the ghriam of ver. 15 to " mean glorying before men ") that St. Augustine had written, Bonum est magis mihi mori, quam ut gloriam meam quis evacuet. Quam gloriam? nisi quam habere voluit apud Deum in Ohristo ? 8 But pace tanti viri, be it said, that the Greek word is Kavxypa, which means boasting / and that a greater than St. Au- gustine has written that " no flesh should glory (or boast) in God's presence." 4 The passage in St. Paul can hardly mean anything 1 We must remember that there was a sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can perfectly general precept to this effect: not be my disciple," Luke xiv. 26. " He that loveth father or mother more 2 Tom. u. p. 378. than me is not worthy of me," Matt. x. 8 Lib. de Opere Monachorum, c. 10. 37. And again : " If any man come to 4 1 Cor. i. 29. Comp. Bom. iii. 27 ; it me, and hate not his father and mother, 2. Eph. ii. 9. and wife and children, and brethren and 348 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. ' [Art. XIV. but this : that, whereas he, as an Apostle, had a right to be charge- able to the Church, he had yet refused to be so, that he might have the more influence for good over those among whom he ministered. As he says in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter, " Though he was free from all men, yet he made himself the servant of all, that he might gain the more." Thus he was able to boast, that he had cost them nothing ; and they therefore could not charge him with avarice or private views. To make his glorying in this re- spect void would have been to deprive him of his influence over them, and therefore of that power to do good which lay so near his heart. 3. But the most cogent argument from Scripture, in favour of works of supererogation, is drawn from the passages in which our Lord and St. Paul, whilst highly honouring marriage, yet give the preference to a life of celibacy. The passages in question are Matt. xix. 10, 11, 12, and 1 Cor. vii. passim, especially 7, 8, 25- 28, 32-40. On the first passage, Bellarmine observes, that to live a life of celibacy cannot be a precept, because of the high commendation which our Lord had just bestowed upon matrimony, and yet, he says, it is evident that it has a reward in Heaven, because our Lord declares that "some have made themselves eunuchs" (i. e. have lived a life of celibacy) " for the kingdom of Heaven's sake," and then adds, " He that is able to receive it, let him receive it " (Matt. xix. 12). In like manner, on 1 Cor. vii. he observes, that the advice to abstain from marriage is evidently a counsel ; and that it is a counsel of not merely human wisdom, but proceeding from the Spirit of God ; which he fully proves from ver. 25, 40 ; where the Apostle declares that, though there had been " no commandment of the Lord," yet he gave his judgment as one who had " obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful," ver. 25 ; and that in thus giving his judgment, he felt assured that he had the Spirit of God, ver. 40. 1 Luther, he says, only admitted a temporal advantage to be at- tached to celibacy, and such has been the exposition of many Prot- estants ; namely, that so a man may escape cares, and anxieties, and that especially in time of persecution. Against such Bellar- mine quotes the words of St. Augustine ; 2 who truly maintained, 1 Aoku di Kuyu Uvev/ia Qeov exetv, continentia? bonum non esse necessarium where, according to the well-known propter regnum coelorum, sed propter usage of St. Paul and others, donelv is pnesens siueulum, quod scilicet conjugia far from implying doubt. terrenis curis pluribus atque arctioribus * De Sancta Virginitate, c. 18. Unde distenduntur, qua molestia virgines e* mirabiliter desipiunt, qui putant hujus contincntes carent, &c. Sec. II.] WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 349 that the Apostle spoke of spiritual as well as temporal benefits to be derived from celibacy. From Luther, Bellarmine passes to Melancthon, who went farther than Luther, and admitted that some spiritual good might be derived from an unmarried state, such as more freedom and time for prayer and preaching. 1 But to the temporal benefits admitted by Luther, and to the spiritual benefits allowed by Melancthon, Bellarmine adds a third, namely, to please God and obtain greater reward. He observes that the words propter instantem necessita- tem, " because of the present distress " (ver. 26), do not mean that we may escape present troubles, but that they rather mean, propter brevitatem temporis, " because of the shortness of the time ; " as it is said (ver. 29), " But this I say, brethren, the time is short." Against Melancthon he says, that in ver. 34 the Apostle commends the state of an unmarried female, saying, that " she careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit ; " and that this shows that virginity has of itself a sanctity both of body and spirit, according to the words of Jerome (lib. I. Contra Jbviniari) : Ilia virginitas hostia Christi est, cujus nee mentem cogi- tatio, nee carnem libido maculant. From ver. 35, where St. Paul says he speaks thus " for that which is comely," ad id quod hones- turn est, Bellarmine argues that the apostle calls continence a thing per se honestam et decor am et proinde Deo char am, "a thing in its own nature comely and honourable, and therefore dear to God." And again, in ver. 40, the words " She is happier if she so abide," he says, plainly mean, she will be happier in the world to come. 2 Now in this reasoning of the distinguished Romanist divine there appears a considerable mixture of truth and error. Let us admit, as we cannot doubt, that the Apostle wrote under the guidance of the Spirit ; let us admit that he gave a counsel, not a precept ; for plainly it is no commandment of God that men should not marry, but only that they should " abstain from fornication." Let us ad- mit that both our blessed Lord and St. Paul spoke of abstaining from marriage, for the sake of some advantages which an unmar- ried life has, as regards spiritual employments and spiritual medita- tions. The divines of our own communion have admitted this as freely as those of the Roman Church. 3 There seems no reason to 1 In Locis, cap. De Castitate. this Article, and Milner, Hist, of the 8 Beatior autem erit, si sic perman- Church, Cent. i. ch. xi. ; Cent. II. ch.vin.; serit, id est, ut exponit, in futuro saeculo. divines of a school peculiarly disinclined Bellarmine treats" of Matt. xix. Controv. from any concessions to the Romanists. Genet: Tom. II. p. 367. Cf. 1 Cor. vii. On the proper distinction between pre- Tom. II. p. 373. cepts and counsels, the student may read 8 For example, see Bp. Burnet on with great advantage Bp. Jer. Taylor 850 WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. [Abt. XIV. doubt, that both our Lord and St. Paul speak of some to whom a peculiar gift has been given, and who can, by living unmarried, de- vote themselves more unreservedly to the work of the Gospel, and the service of the Lord. Marriage brings with it the anxieties of family and worldly business, and many of those " cares of this life," which may, if not checked, choke the good seed. From all such celibacy is free. Therefore, though marriage be a state ordained of God, yet some, thinking to give their whole lives to religious em- ployments, have abstained from marriage, " have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven's sake ; " and such a determi- nation, in such as are " able to receive it," our Lord has honoured with His sanction, " Let him receive it." And so it is with the coun- sel of St. Paul. He tells us, that " the time is short, it remaineth that they that have wives be as though they had none . . . that they who use this world, be as though they used it not ; * for the fashion of this world passeth away." Accordingly, to such as have the gift of continence he gives his advice, that it may help them on more in their course of godliness, if they continue to live a life less burdened with the cares of this world than is the life of those who are united in marriage. Such a life is not indeed to be commended to all men, and the Apostle carefully guards himself against forcing the conscience, or " casting a snare upon " them. But it is a life which has many advantages. The unmarried have nothing to do but care for the things of the Lord ; whilst the married cannot but be anxious to please not only God, but the partner of their earthly pilgrimage. Much therefore as there is of blessing in the married state, honour- able as it is in all men, and a Koir-q a/xiavros, a state undefiled ; still those who have contracted it are, like Martha, necessarily " cumbered about much serving," whilst the unmarried, like Mary, have more leisure to " sit at the feet of Jesus," able to " attend upon the Lord without distraction." 2 Therefore it is that the Apostle counsels an unmarried life, because of " the present distress ; " because, it may be, of the distress and anxieties of this present life, which are much unfavourable to the attainment of holiness, and which especially be- set those who are tied in the bond of matrimony. 8 This exposition will fairly satisfy the language both of Christ and Rule of Conscience, Book IX. ch. m. Rule it has been thought that St. Paul espe- 12. cially alludes to Mary's "sitting at Jesus' 1 1 Cor. vii. 81 : "As though they used feet." Luke x. 89. it not," uc pi) Karaxp&nevot. Karaxpaoitai 8 Propter instantera necessitatem.] Id here probably signifies to use. Comp. 1 est, praescntis vita; solioitudinem, quaa Cor. vii. 81 ; ix. 18. mult urn potest obesse justitiie, et qua - 1 Cor. vii. 85. In the words rrodf rd pnecipue juncti matrimoniis implicantur. tiirpooedpov ru Kvpitp uKepunruoTuc, — Hieron. in 1 Cor. vii. Sec. II] WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. 351 of His Apostle. But we deny that St. Paul, when instituting a comparison between marriage and celibacy, speaks of the latter as having more merit than the former ; or that the one shall ensure a higher place in Heaven than the other. It may be to some persons a state more favourable for growth in grace, though, for obvious reasons, it may be a snare to others. But, as marriage is a thing holy in itself, so we do not learn that celibacy is holier. " One is not a better chastity than the other. Marriage is a koltt) d/uaj/Tos> 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 a<t>eas(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<p olc nXrm/xeXovfiev iroXkanic. 8 Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, pp. 20, 254, — Stromat. n. § 13, p. 460. 339; Tertullian, De Pudicitia, c. 19 ; see 5 Herm. Past. Mandat. iv. 3 ; Cotel. also Lardner, Hist, of Heretics, Bk. II. p. 96. 366 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI. mean to exclude from repentance after baptism ; ] so it appears that Clement of Alexandria speaks either of one jpvhlic penance, which might be conceded by the Church, 2 or that he simply means that to repent and return again continually to former sins proves the repentance not to have been real, but feigned and hypocritical. Yet some have thought that the language both of Hermas and Clement prepared the way for the severity of Origen and the errors of the Novatians. Origen appears to have thrown out the opinion, that persons who had once embraced the Gospel and been baptized, and then denied the faith, could not be readmitted to repentance nor obtain pardon of sin. 3 The sect of the Novatians arose about the middle of the third century. Novatian, their founder, a presbyter of Rome, had on a former occasion been chosen by the Church of that city to write to Cyprian on the subject of restoring the lapsed to communion. 4 In the year 251, Cornelius was elected Bishop of Rome, a post to which Novatian aspired. Novatian had himself secured three bishops, ignorant and inexperienced men, to consecrate him to the bishopric. But not succeeding in his hopes of holding possession of the see, he set up a schismatical communion. He does not appear to have held any heretical doctrine ; but he denied to the Church the power of restoring to communion those who had lapsed in persecution. Eusebius indeed says, that he denied to them the hope of salvation ; 6 but it seems more probable, from the language of Cyprian and others, that he exhorted them to repent, and to seek for pardon, but refused to offer them any consolation, or to admit them again to any church-privilege in this life. 6 1 Consult Cotelerius's note on this pas- 4 The letter is in the collection of the sage of Hermas. letters of Cyprian, Epis. xxx. • So his words are explained by Lura- 6 //. E. vi. 43; uc pVKir' ovoiic atoroii per, Hist. Thedog. Crit. Tom. IT. p. 388. auTijpiac fkmSoc. So Epiphan. Adv. Hcer. Bp. Jeremy Taylor writes, "Whereas Hair, xxxix. TuLyuv pq rival oornpiav, &Xk\ some of them " (i. e. of the fathers) " use piav ueravoiav. to gay that after baptism, or after the • Epist. 65, iuxta jinem. There he first relapse, they are ' unpardonable,' describes the Novatians as urging re- we must know that in the style of the pentance, but excluding from peace : Church, 'unpardonable' signifies such •' hortari ad satisfactionis poenitentiam.et to which, by the discipline and customs subtrahere de satisfactione medicinam ; of the Church, pardon may not be min- dicere fratribus nostris, plange et lacry- istered. They were called ' unpardona- mas funde, et diebus ac noctibus inge- ble,' not because God would not pardon misce, et pro abluendo et purgando do- them, but because He alone could." — licto tuo largiter et frequenter opernre, On Repentance, ch. ix. § 8. All that is sed extra ecclesiam post omnia ista mo- said in this section about the fathers' doc- rieris : qusocumque ad pacem pertinent, trine of repentance is well worth reading, facies, sed nullara pacem, quam quseris, 8 Origen. Tract. 36 in Matthceum ; see aocipies." Abp. Potter's note on the before-cited passage of Clem. Alex. Skc. L] of sin AFTER BAPTISM. 367 Whether he extended this severity to heinous sins in general is not apparent ; but it seems that the sect of the Novatians, who owed their origin to him, refused communion to the penitent after other heavy offences besides lapsing in persecution. 1 The Nova- tians arrogated to themselves the title of Oathari y or pure ; and re- fused to acknowledge the baptism of those Churches which ad- mitted the lapsed to penance and communion. The Church Catholic, however, rejected at once the severity of Novatian's sentiments. Eusebius, on the authority of Cornelius, mentions a council of bishops, who met at Rome and condemned the folly of Novatian. 2 Still the sect of the Cathari continued, and appears to have flourished throughout the fourth and part of the fifth century. But the fathers of the Church uniformly esteemed them heretics, and expressed their belief in the remissibility of sin, on repentance, after baptism. 3 St. Cyprian says, that to a lapsed Christian, who repents, prays, and exerts himself, God gives pardon and restores his arms, so that he may fight again, strengthened for the conflict by the very sor- row for his sins. And he, thus strengthened by the Lord, may make glad the Church, which he had saddened, and obtain not only pardon, but a crown. 4 St. Gregory Nazianzen calls penitence another baptism, but rougher and more troublesome ; and says that owning the infirmity and fickleness of man, he gratefully accepts for himself, and willingly imparts to others, this grace of repent- ance ; aware that he himself is compassed with infirmities, and that with that measure he metes it shall be measured to him again. The Novatian he calls the modern Pharisee, and asks if he would not have allowed the repentance of David, or the return of Peter after he had denied his Lord, or the contrition of the incestuous Corinthian, to whom St. Paul confirmed his love. 5 1 " Igitur, hoc nullum habet dubium, suum miles, iterabit aciem, provocabit adultam ecclesiam Novatianam non liostem, et quidem factus ad prcelium modo perfidos Christianos, verum etiam fortior per dolorem. Qui sic Deo satis- omnium capitalium criminum reos alie- fecerit, qui pcenitentia facti sui, qui pu- nos a se voluisse." — Mosheim, De Rebus dore delicti, plus et virtutis et fidei de ante Constant. Magnum, ssec. tertium, § ipso lapsus sui dolore conceperit, exau- xvi. ditus et adjutus a Domino, quam con- 2 H. E. vi. 43, juxta finem. tristaverat nuper, lactam faciet Eecle- 3 See Cyprian, Eusebius, and Epipha- siam : nee jam solam Dei veniam merebi- nius, as above; Mosheim, De Rebus ante tur, sed coronam." Cypr. De Lapsis,Jiii Constant. Magnum, saec. in. §§ xv. xvi. ; p. 188. Lardner, in. pt. n. ch. 47; Cave, Histor. 5 Oida nai ■ke^lktov (fiditTicuu) frri tu^ Liter. Tom. I. p. 91. daupvuv, iM' emnovurepov. ug 6 TJoiiuv k<n9' * "Poenitenti, operanti, roganti, potest eKaarnv vvicra rfjv K?u.vnv avrov, nal ttjv (Deus) clementer ignoscere .... dat Ille OTpufievr/v rolg 6aicpvoiv .... kyij uev ovv et arma rursus quibus victus armetur, (avftpunog elvat -yup dfioXoyu (£>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, <I> bus, et relaxandi licentiam omnibus sa- Kai to ■KpotyriTUibv £u/M<T/*rt 7] peravoia owe- cerdotibus suis sine ulla exceptione con- rr)pi\atv ; obdi Mrpov rbv fiiyav naddvra cessit. Sed qui culpam exaggeravit, n avdpuntvov nepl rb aurqpwv nadof ; exaggeret etiam paenitentiain." — Ibid. .... obdi rbv tv Kopivd^ Kapavoftf/aavra ; c. 2. naivlor oc nal uyuTnjv tidpuaev, Ineidi) ri)v 3 Epiphan. Hares. 61. dtoptiwoiv elde, nal rb alnov, iva ftff to ire- 4 Epiphan. Hares. 68 ; August. Harm, ptoooripp 7&ni) Kara-noSy 6 rotovrog. — Greg. 48. Nu. Orat. 89, Tom. i. p. 684, Col. 1690. • Hieron. Ado. Luciferianos, Tom. it. 1 " I Jmle liquet eos inter Christi dis- pt n. p. 290, seq. Sec. L] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 369 At the period of the Reformation, it appears that some of the sects which then arose, most probably the Anabaptists in partic- ular, revived in some degree the Novatian errors. The Xlth Article of the Confession of Augsburg, which is the source of the XVIth Article of the Church of England, condemns the Novatians by name, for refusing repentance to the lapsed, and afterwards con- demns the Anabaptists, though for another error, namely, the de- nial that persons once justified ever lose the grace of God. 1 Dr. Hey thinks that both the German and English reformers had chiefly in view the Anabaptists, in their condemnation of this ex- treme rigour against the lapsed. 2 In the fourteenth session of the Council of Trent, several de- crees and canons were drawn up upon penance, whereby it was defined that, for sins after baptism, the sacrament of penance was essential and sufficient ; the form of the sacrament being contri- tion, confession, and satisfaction. It was determined that it was necessary to pardon that every mortal sin should be confessed, but not every venial sin. 3 The continental reformers were very express in asserting the efficacy of repentance for remission of sin after baptism. Thus, the Confession of Augsburg says, that " Remission of sins may be granted to those who lapse after baptism, at any time when they turn to God. And the Churcli ought to grant absolution to such." 4 The Helvetic Confession declares, that " there is access to God and pardon for all who believe, with the exception of those guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost ; therefore the old and new Nova- tians are to be condemned." 5 The sentiments of the English Reformers appear plainly, both in the wording of this Article, and in several of the Homilies. For example, in the First Book of Homilies we read, " They, which in act or deed do sin after baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation." 6 " We must trust only in 1 Confess. Augs. Art. xi.; Sylloge, p. 172. 5 "Docemus interim semper et omni- 2 Lectures, in. p. 436. bus peeeatoribus aditum patere ad Deum, 3 Cone. Trid. Sess. xiv. Can. i. iv. et nunc omnino omnibus fidelibus con- Ac. ; Sarpi, p. 326. donare peccata, excepto uno illo peccato 4 " De pcenitentia decent, quod lapsis in Spiritum Sanctum. Ideoque damna- postbaptismumcontingerepossitremissio mus et veteres et novos Novatianos peccatorum, quocunque tempore cum atque Catharos." — Confess. Helvet. Art. convertuntur. Et quod ecclesia talibus xiv. ; Syllog. p. 50. redeuntibus ad prnitentiam impertire 6 Homily of Salvation, pt. i. absolutionem debeat." — Conf. August. Art, xi. ; Syll. p. 172. 47 370 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI. God's mercy, and that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour, Christ Jesus the Son of God, once offered upon the Cross, to 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 to Him unfeignedly again." * And in the Second Book of Homilies we are told, " Repentance is never too late, so that it be true and just." 2 " Although we do, after we be once come to God, and grafted in his Son Jesus Christ, fall into great sins .... yet if we rise again by repentance, and with a full purpose of amendment of life do flee unto the mercy of God, taking sure hold thereon, through faith in his Son Jesus Christ, there is an assured and infallible hope of pardon and remis- sion of the same, and that we shall be received again into the favour of our heavenly Father." 8 II. Concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, the language of our Article is directed against an opinion, which was first broached by Origen. Origen and Theognostus taught, that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was, when those who in baptism had received the gift of the Spirit, returned again to sin ; and that such had never for- giveness. Origen, we are told, assigned as a reason for this, that, whereas God the Father pervades and embraces all things, animate and inanimate, and the power of God the Son extends more imme- diately to the rational creatures of God, among whom are heathen men who have never yet believed ; the Spirit of God, on the con- trary, is in those only who have received the grace of baptism. Hence, when Gentiles and unbelievers sin by blasphemy, they sin against the Son, who is in them, yet they can be forgiven. But when baptized Christians sin, their iniquity proceeds to the Spirit of God, who dwells in their hearts, and therefore they have never forgiveness. St. Athanasius wrote a treatise expressly on the subject, in which he first states, and then examines and confutes, this notion of Origen's. He observes, that the occasion of our Lord's speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost was the blasphemy of the Pharisees, who disbelieved the miracles of Christ, and ascribed them to Beelzebub. They, he remarks, had never been baptized, and yet they had either committed, or were in imminent danger of committing, the sin against the Holy Ghost. Athanasius himself appears to maintain, that the blasphemy 1 Homily of Salvation, pt. II. 2 Homily of lirpentunc*, pt I. • Ibid. Sec. I] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 37i against the Son of Man was the disbelieving and blaspheming against our blessed Lord, when as yet only His human nature was manifested ; but that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was continuing to deride and speak evil of Him, when He had given plain and irrefragable proofs of His Godhead and Divine nature. 1 The author, under his name, of the Questions to Antiochus, says, that tl.ey blasphemed the Holy Spirit, that is, the Divine nature of the Sow who said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub. To them, he says, there is no remission in this world, nor in the next. But, he adds, we must understand this, not that he who blasphemes and repents, but that he who blasphemes and does not repent, shall never be forgiven ; for no sin is unpardonable in the presence of God to those who holily and worthily repent ; and then he adds, that there are three baptisms which purge away sin : the baptism of water, the baptism of blood, i. e. martyrdom, and the baptism of tears, i. e. repentance ; and that many, who had defiled by backsliding their holy baptism, have yet been cleansed and accepted by the baptism of tears. 2 Many, both ancient and modern, have followed in the steps of Athanasius, and given a like interpretation of the blasphemy against the Spirit. St. Chrysostom appears to take the same view ; namely, that blasphemy was irremissible, which was uttered after the dis- covery and experimental proof of the Spirit's working. But then he appears to deny remission of such sin, not only to the impeni- tent, but even to those who repent. 3 St. Augustine has some very excellent observations on the sub- ject. He shows that neither Jews nor Gentiles were kept from pardon, because they had blasphemed Christ and the Holy Spirit in their unconverted state ; nor yet that persons who had been baptized in infancy, and had grown up in ignorance, were refused forgiveness, because in their state of ignorance they resisted the Spirit and spoke against Him. He shows too, that even baptized persons lapsing, or becoming heretics, were yet admitted to the peace of the Church on their conversion and repentance ; and enumerates among such heretics, Sabellians, Arians, Manichseans, Cataphrygians, Donatists. And then concludes, that the sin against the Spirit of God, which hath never forgiveness, is a final and obdurate continuance in wickedness, despite of all the calls 1 Athanas. In llludEvanyelii, Quicunque 3 ovk a^edr/cerai ovdi fieravoovat. — dixerit. Chrysost. Homil. xli. in Matt. ap. Suic 2 Athan. Qucestiones ad Antiochum, Tom. i. p. 700. Qusest. i.xxi. lxxii. 372 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI of God to repentance, joined with a desperation of the mercy of God. 1 That the Church at large rejected the theory of Origen, though the Novatians appear to have adopted it, is plain from their admit- ting offenders after baptism, even the most heinous, to penance and absolution. They did not indeed restore them readily and lightly, as we do at present, but after a long term of penitence and exclu- sion from church-privileges ; yet still, after sufficient satisfaction had been given to the Church, all offenders were ecclesiastically par- doned, and the sinner restored to peace and communion. For exam- ple, for fornication, the offender was expelled three years from the public service of the Church, three years more he was in the station of hearers, three years more in the station of the prostrate, and then was received to full communion. The term was double for adultery, and three times as long for murder. There was, however, some discretion allowed to the bishop, who might contract the term of discipline upon just ground of reason ; and especially if there was imminent danger of death, the clemency of the fathers deter- mined that the sinner should not be permitted to enter on his long last journey without provision for it, and without participation in the holy sacraments. 2 These rales were not the same in all dio- ceses and all parts of the Church. Thus the council of Ancyra en- joins seven years' penance for adultery ; 8 for such as had sacrificed, three years of prostration, and two years more as communicants without oblation ; 4 and for those who had sacrificed two or three times, it enjoins a penance of six years. 5 But the diversity in the measure of penance only proves identity of principle. III. The question of the possibility of falling from grace may be 1 Augustin. Epist. ad Romanos Ex- Spiritum Sanctum ab eis prolatAm Dom- l>ositio 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 <S» US ? plam • thG - , paSS T m I? - •fovin. Lib. ii. init. Tom. iv. Par. n. p. 193. John: "rropterea, inquit, scnbo vobis, r 398 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Abt. XVI (3) Accordingly, there are numerous warnings against falling away, exhortations to stand fast, and prayers for perseverance and against falling. Rom. xi. 20, 21. 1 Cor. x. 1-10, 12. 1 Cor. xvi. 13. Col. ii. 6, 7, 8, 1 Thess. v. 19. Heb. iii. 12 ; xii. 15, 16. 2 Pet, iii. 17. Jude 20, 21, 24. Rev. xvi. 15. All these passages speak of the danger of falling away, and of the final condemnation of such as fall, and warn and pray against falling. The advocates for the doctrine of final perseverance say, that although all grace comes only from God,' yet He ordains means to be used for obtaining grace ; so, although perseverance is the gift of God, and never withholden from such as receive grace at all ; yet warnings against backsliding, and declarations concern- ing the punishment of backsliders, are useful and necessary means to keep believers in a state of watchfulness, and therefore are in- struments in God's hands to work in them the grace of persever- ance, which however could as easily be given without them, and will assuredly be given to all who have once been regenerate. Their opponents reply, that such reasoning is an evident attempt to ex- plain away the obvious sense of Scripture ; God's threatenings could never be denounced against a sin which was impossible. If utter falling away in the regenerate is, in God's counsels, a thing which cannot occur, then can we believe that God would give the most solemn warnings to be found in the whole of Scripture against it ? Would the Apostle put up the most earnest prayers against it? Would the condemnation pronounced upon it be so severe and so terrible ? But it is argued farther, that, (4) There are express and positive statements, that men may, nay, do, fall away from grace given and accepted, and so do finally perish. The parable of the sower (Matt. xiii. Mark iv. Luke viii.) con- tains a statement of this kind. Four different kinds of hearers are there described. Of these, one, the way-side hearer, disregards it altogether ; one, compared to good ground, receives and profits by it, and brings forth fruit to life eternal. But two kinds, those like the stony ground, and those like the thorny ground, embrace it and profit by it for a time, and then fall away. The seed in the stony ground springs up (Matt, xiii. 5). Such hearers received the seed with joy (ver. 20), but they last only for a while (ver. 21) ; they " for a while believe, but in time of temptation fall away " (Luke viii. 13). So the seed which falls among thorns springs up ; but the thorns spring up with it, and choke it. " The cares of Sec. II.] OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. 399 this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word " (Mutt, xiii. 22). Again, the parable of the Vine and the Branches (John xv. 1-10) teaches the same thing. Christ's disciples are compared to branches of a Vine, the Lord Himself being that Vine. " Every branch," He says, " in Me that beareth not fruit, He " (i. e. God the Father) " taketh away" (ver. 2). " 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, and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned " (vv. 5, 6). Heb. vi. 4—8, seems to contain a positive statement that men do sometimes so fall away from grace already received as to fall not only finally but hopelessly : " 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 unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame," &c. So 2 Pet. ii. 21, 22. The Apostle is evidently speaking of per- sons who had fallen away from grace, apostates from the faith of Christ. For though, in ver. 20, he speaks only hypothetically, " If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world," &c, yet in vv. 21, 22, he speaks of their apostasy as having actually oc- curred : " It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened (o-vfjLfiefirjxe') unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again ; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." (5) Finally, it is contended that, with all these proofs from Scripture that grace given may be lost, the doctrine of the inde- fectibility of grace would never have been thought of, but that it fell naturally into a system. Accordingly, the more ancient pre- destinarians, like Augustine, though they believed in the irrespec- tive and immutable decrees of God, yet did not teach the doctrine of absolutely indefectible grace. But Calvin's great characteristic was his logical acuteness, which led him to form all his doctrines into harmonious systems. He could never leave mysterious doc- trines in their mystery, on the principle that our finite intellects 400 OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM. [Art. XVI are permitted to grasp only part of the great plans of infinite Wisdom. The doctrine of final perseverance seemed necessary to the harmony and completeness of the predestinarian scheme ; and on that account, not because Scripture taught it, it was adopted and received. ARTICLE XVII. Of Predestination and Election. Predestination to life is the ever- lasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) He hath constantly decreed by His coun- sel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season : they through grace obey the calling : they be justified freely : they be made sons of God by adoption ; they be made like the image of His only-begot- ten Son Jesus Christ ; they walk relig- iously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of predesti- nation and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable com- fort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eter- nal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kin- dle their love towards God : so, for curi- ous and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be gener- ally set forth to us in Holy Scripture : and, in our doings that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God. De Prozdestinatione et Elections. Piwedestinatio ad vitam, est aeternum Dei propositum, quo ante jacta mundi fundamenta, suo consilio, nobis quidem occulto, constanter decrevit, eos quos in Christo elegit ex hominum genere, a maledicto et exitio liberare, atque (ut vasa in honorem efficta) per Christum, ad aeternam salutem adducere. Unde qui tam praeelaro Dei beneficio sunt donati, ilii Spiritu ejus, opportuno tempore ope- rante, secundum propositum ejus, vocan- tur, vocationi per gratiam parent, justi- ficantur gratis, adoptantur in filios Dei, Unigeniti ejus Jesu Christi imagini ef- ficiuntur conformes, in bonis operibus sancte ambulant, et demum ex Dei mis- ericordia pertingunt ad sempiternam feli- citatem. Quemadmodum praedestinationis, et electionis nostra in Christo pia consid- efatio, dulcis, suavis, et ineffabilis con- solationis plena est, vere piis, et iis qui sentiunt in se vim Spiritus Christi, facta carnis, et membra, quae adhuc sunt super terram, mortifieantem, animumque ad ccelestia et superna rapientera : turn quia fidem nostram de ajterna salute conse- quenda per Christum plurimum stabilit, atque confirmat, turn quia amorem nos- trum in Deum vehementer accendit : ita hominibus curiosis, carnalibus, et Spiritu Christi destitutis, ob oculos perpetuo ver- sari praedestinationis Dei sententiam, per- nitiosissimum est praecipitium, unde illos diabolus protrudit, vel in desperationem, vel in asque pemitiosam impurissimaa vitae securitatem. Deinde promissiones divinas sic amplecti oportet, ut nobis in sacris Uteris generaliter propositaa sunt, et Dei voluntas in nostris actionibus ea sequenda est, quam in verbo Dei habe- mus, diserte revelatam. Section I. — HISTORY. HPHE XVIIth Article is almost, word for word, the same as the ■* original Article of 1552. 51 402 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVTL The questions concerning God's eternal predestination are by no means peculiar to the Christian religion. The Essenes among the Jews, Zeno and the Stoics, and the followers of Mohammed, were all rigid predestinarians ; believing that all the affairs of the world and the actions of the human race were ordered by an eter- nal and inexorable decree. In the Christian Church there has never been any doubt or question, but that the Scriptures teach us concerning the election and predestination of God. All Christians believe in the doctrine of election. The question is, therefore, not whether the doctrim- of election is true, but what the meaning of election is. Now on this point there is a vast variety of sentiment. 1. Calvinism. The doctrine of Calvin and the Calvinists is, that from all eternity God predestinated a certain fixed number of individuals, irrespective of anything in them, to final salvation and glory ; and that all others are either predestined to damnation, or, at least, so left out of God's decree to glory that they must in- evitably perish. 2. Arminianism. The doctrine of Arminius and the Arminians is, that, from all eternity, God predestinated a certain fixed number of individuals to glory ; but that this decree was not arbitrary, but in consequence of God's foreknowledge, that those so predestinated would make a good use of the grace given ; and that, as God necessarily foresees all things, so foreseeing the faith of individuals. He hath, in strict justice, ordered His decrees accordingly. According to both these schemes, election is to life eternal : and the elect are identical with the finally saved. 3. Nationalism. The opinion of Locke and some others is. that the election, spoken of by God in Scripture, does not concern individuals at all, but applies only to nations ; that, as God chose the Jews at one time to be His people, so He has since ordaintMl certain nations to be brought into the pale of the Christian Church. Here the elect are all Christian nations. 4. Ecclesiastical Election. Others have held, that, as the Jew- of old were God's chosen people, so now is the Christian Church : that every baptized member of the Church is one of God's elect, and that this election is from God's irrespective and unsearchable decree. Here therefore election is to baptismal privileges, not to final glory; and the elect are identical with the baptized; and the election constitutes the Church. 5. Some have held, that there is an election to baptism of some individuals, and again an election out of the elect : so that some Sec. L] OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 403 are elected by God's inscrutable decree to grace, and from among these some by a like inscrutable decree to perseverance and to glory. Here the elect are, in one sense of the word, identical with the baptized ; in another sense of the word, with the finally saved. 6. Lastly, some have taught, that, whereas to all Christians grace enough is given to insure salvation, if they will use it, yet to some amongst them is given, by God's eternal decree, a yet greater degree of grace, such that by it they must certainly be saved. This is the theory which has sometimes been called Baxterian, from Richard Baxter, the distinguished nonconformist divine. The subject of predestination naturally embraces other cognate subjects, such as original sin, free-will, final perseverance, partic- ular redemption, and reprobation. The three former have been considered under the IXth, Xth, and XVIth Articles respectively, and much of the history of the predestinarian controversy will be found under the history of those Articles. 1 From the classification above given it will be evident, that the mere use of the terms election or predestination by a writer will not at all determine in what sense that writer uses them, nor to which of the six classes above enumerated his doctrines may be assigned. Among the earlier fathers, especially those of the apostolic age, the language used is mostly general, and therefore difficult to fix to a particular meaning. Clement of Rome speaks of a sedition in the Church, " as alien and foreign from the elect of God." 2 " Ye contended," he writes, ** day and night for the whole brotherhood, that, with compassion and a good conscience, the number of His elect might be saved." 8 To the same Church of Corinth he speaks of God as having " made us unto Himself a part of the election. For thus it is written, When the Most High divided the nations, when He sepa- rated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations accord- ing to the number of the angels ; His people Jacob became the 1 The five points of Calvinism, as they 4. Irresistible Grace, or effectual call- are called, are, — ing, the opposite to which is Free will. 1. Predestination, including Predesti- 5. Final Perseverance. nation, or election to life eternal, and 3 ttiq uXXorplag kol ^ivrjt, rol<; kiikeKToli Reprobation, or Predestination to dam- tov Qeov fjiapus ml uvoaiov oraoeuc. — 1 Ep. nation. ad Corinth. 1. 2. Particular Redemption, i. e. That 4 etf to ou&o-&at. fur' tteovg ical ovvei Christ died only for a chosen few. drjoewQ rdv (ipi^fwv tuv IkIektuv clvtov. — 3. Original Sin. 1 Ep. ad Corinth. 2. 404 OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. [Art. XVIL portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot of His inheritance. And in another place he saith, Behold the Lord taketh to Himself a na- tion from the midst of the nations, as a man taketh the first-fruits of his threshing-floor, and from that nation shall come the Holy of Holies." 1 " In love have been perfected all the elect of God." 2 " Now God, who seeth all things, the Father of spirits and the Lord of all flesh, who hath elected our Lord Jesus Christ, and us by Him to be His peculiar people, grant to every soul," 8 &c. Ignatius addresses the Church of Ephesus as " blessed through the greatness and fulness of God the Father, predestinated before the worlds continually to glory, — glory enduring, unchangeable, united, and elected in true suffering according to the will of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ our God. " 4 In the same manner he addresses " the holy Church which is in Tralles " as " beloved by God the Father of Jesus Christ, elect and worthy of God." 6 Hermas, in the book of his Visions, constantly speaks of God's elect : " God, who hath founded His holy Church, will remove the heavens and the mountains, the hills and the seas, .... all things shall be made plain to His elect," . . . . or, " shall be filled with His elect." 6 "Canst thou report these things to the elect?" 7 "• Go ye and declare to the elect of God His mighty acts." 8 The Apostles, bishops, and ministers are said to have ministered to the elect of God. 9 1 Harepa tjftuv, 6f kicXoyfiQ ftepoc knoinaev mvT<3. Qvtu yap ykypaizTai • 'Ore Siepepi- oev 6 Tt/jcoTOt k&vrj, wc <5e eoireipsv vlovc '\6ufi, larriatv bpia tdvwv Hard, upidftfyv dyyekuv • kyevrj-dri fieplg Kvpiov Tiaoc airov 'la/cu/3, oxoiviofia Kfajpovofuac avrov 'lapaT/X- not kv kripu toizu Xeyei ■ 'l6oi> 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$<M> 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 <bpvyuv edvri,cMumiT/iiug et;etei;aTo6 0eb<;, mirum, si et tunc nunquam crediturum Kal e[i<j>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 <puvf/g ticuXeoe, Kal * " Nee enim lumen deficit propter eos e^Xd-ofxev t/^V and rf/g noXireiag kv £ btfifiev, qui semetipsos exesecaverunt, sed illo k. t. X. — Dial. p. 347. perseverante quale et est excaecati per 2 Kal did, tovto ^"kjipui-QevTog tov apiti/iov suam culpam in caligine constituuntur. ov avrdgnap' avTU7rpouptoe,navTeiolkyypa- Neque lumen cum magna necessitate (j>evTeg elg ijuTjv uvaarrjaovrai .... Iva rb subjiciet sibi quemquam : neque Deus av/ifierpov <j>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 <j>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 dut<j>opav •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.<<lesiam, et re- Laurence, pp. 169, 162, 163, 241, 359, cipere assentientes, atque ita velle sem- 366, 367, 370. Some of the same pas- per aliquam esse ecclesiain, quam adjn- sages may be seen in Faber, Primitive vat et salvat." — Melancth. Loc. Theolog. Doctrine of Election, pp. 350,351, '■)'•>'!. 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, <bu&EVToc nal av&pCrnov yevo/itvov kcu 'hjaov Tom. x. p. 15. Xpiarov kXt^evtoc. — Apol. i. p. 66. Comp. s De Anima et ejus origine, c. 9, Tom. Dial. pp. 218, 220. x. p. 348. 8 " Idem (Socrates) et quum aliquid 4 De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, de veritate sapiebat, deos negans," &c. — c. 11, Tom. x. p. 80. Apolog. c. 46. 5 De Dono Perseverantice, c. 30, 31, • " Taceo de philosopliis, quos super- Tom, x. p. 837. bia severitatis et duritia discipline ab 8 De Vocutione Gentium, Lib. i. cap. 7 ; omni timore securos, nonnullus etiam Lib. ii, cap. 8. Vossius attributes it to afflatus Veritatis adversus Deos erigit." Prosper, bishop of Orleans in the sixth — Ad Nationes, Lib. I. c. 10. See Bishop century, not to Prosper of Aquitaine, Kaye's Tertullian, pp. 174, 345. the disciple of St. Augustine. l! > 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) <cai5o/U\r) c/f neptovai- ' Institut. iv. xvi. 17. ov 6inatoai>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 <j>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 t<u( cvxaic uvaxeiftf- s v. 20. vuv. " The congregation ot those who 4 I. 2 (where the faith of the Church dedicate themselves to prayer." — Strom. is given nearly in the words of the vn. p. 848. Creed) ; v. 20. xi 2<i//a 6e aXXfiyopeirai ij iKKXr/aia Kvpi- 6 i. 8 ; in. 11 ; v. 20. ov, 6 nvcvfiariAbq not aytoc x°P°C ' i£ vv ol rb 6 in. 18 ; v. 18. Svofta inuceKXijuivoi ftovov, j3tovvreg de ob " tovto to KT/pvy/xa itapeOaityvia, nal Tav- Kara }jbyov, aupKe'( eloi. — Strom, vn. p. tijv Ttjv irioTiv, (if npo£$afiev, ij eKKXrioia 886. Kaiirep iv bXtp tu Koofiu iuonapfievii, tnifie- " Kiyopev brt 2Cj{m XptoTov 6aolv elvai Awe fvXuooet, (if iva oIkov oiKovoa, Kai bfjoi- ol deioi Aoyot, vitb tov Tiov tov Oeov yn>X'' 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 <j>ckoveuciai ml diXapx'.ai • OX bnug uare navra avKkoyov (pevyeiv emo~Konuv, on fujde (poprtKbv VTro7tii(3ric ovtu ypu<j>ovra • 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 </. Art. XXL] OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 499 with its approval the acts of the council, then would they assume the form of judgments of the Church concerning the doctrines of Scripture. 1 This was the case with the great Councils of Nice Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. They put forth their decisions as their interpretations of the word of God. They en- joined nothing "as necessary to salvation," but what they "de- clared to have been taken out of Holy Scripture." All Christen- dom received their interpretations as sound and true : and, from that day to this, they have been admitted by the Catholic Church as true articles of faith. This has stamped them with an authority of Scriptural truth, and Catholic consent, of which the constitution of the Councils themselves could not give us full certainty and as- surance. 2 3. Concerning the assertion of the Article, that " some general councils have erred," Bishop Burnet justly observes that it " must be understood of councils that pass for such." The later councils summoned by the Pope, and acknowledged only by the Western Churches and those in obedience to Rome, were commonly called General Councils at the time of the Reformation, as they still are in the Roman Church, though never acknowledged by the Churches of the East. 3 Of these, the fourth Council of Lateran, under Innocent III. a. d. 1215, asserted the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 4 The Council of Constance, a. n. 1414, forbade the cup to the laity. 8 The Council of Florence, a. d. 1439, decreed the doctrine of Purgatory. 6 The Council of Trent added to the Nicene Creed a confession of belief in seven sacraments, Transubstantiation, Pur- gatory, Invocation of Saints, Image-worship, &c. &c. The decrees of these councils, though called general, have never received the assent of the Eastern Churches, and cannot therefore be of universal authority. None of the above-mentioned doctrines, 1 Calvin, as above referred to, says : Part iv. cli. 8 ; whose view is the same " Sic priscas illas synodos, at Nicaenam, as that taken in the text. Constantinopolitanam, Ephesinam pri- 8 According to the Roman Church the mam, Chalcedonensem, ac similes, qua? First Council of Lateran summoned by confutandis erroribtis habita; sunt, liben- Pope Calixtus II. a. d. 1123, was the ter amplectimur, reveremurque ut sa- 9th general Council. The other gen- crosanctas, quantum attinet ad fidei eral councils allowed by the Latin Church dogmata: nihil enim continent quam are, Second Lateran, a. d. 1139. Third puram et nativam Scripturae interpret*- Lateran, 1179. Fourth Lateran, 1215. tionem quam sancti patres, spirituali Lyons, 1245. Lyons, 1274. Vierine, 1311. prudentia, ad frangendos religionis hos- Constance, 1414. Basle, 1431. Flor- tes, qui tunc emerserant, accommoda- ence, 1439. Fifth Lateran, 1512. Trent, runt." — Institut. iv.ix. 8. Compare Con- 1546. fess. Helvet. Art. xi. ; £?//%e, pp. 41,42. 4 Cone. Lateran, it. Can. i. 2 On the subject of the authority of 5 Sess. xm. general synods, see Palmer, On the Church, 6 Concil. Florent. De Purgat. 500 OF GENERAL COUNCILS. [Art. XXI. which they sanctioned, can be found in Scripture, but may all be proved to be contrary to Scripture. They are all denied in those Articles of our own Church which we have next to consider, and which we shall have to justify from Holy Writ. Hence, we can have no difficulty in concluding, that some (so-called) General Councils have erred, even in things pertaining to God. [ Note. The statement that General Councils may not be gathered " without the commandment and will of Princes," probably caused the omission of this Article in the American revision. It should be remembered, however, that it is aimed against the Papal usurpation, and interference with the Civil power. The Pope — as in the famous dispute of Boniface VIII. and Philip le Bel — claimed the right of calling the clergy out of the several countries in which they lived, without the consent of the civil power, and the words above quoted were intended to meet this claim. So Bishop Burnet, Dr. Hey, Mr. Hardwicke, and even Mr. Newman in Tract XC. explain them. The student should specially bear in mind (a) the proper work of a General Council, and (6) its proper authentication. The first is, not to invent new Articles of faith, but to testify to, to set forth more carefully, and to guard antecedent truth. So that, while it is not an infal- lible judge, it may be a faithful witness. The second is found, not in the confirma- tion of the Pope or any other person, but in the acceptance of the Council by the entire Church. As to the rules laid down by some Romish writers, that a General Council must be called by the Pope, that he must preside, &c. they are all confuted by a simple reference to the four great General Councils. If those rules are sound, they were not General Councils ; if they were General Councils, those rules are un- founded.— J. W.) ARTICLE XXII. Of Purgatory. De Purgatorio. The Romish doctrine concerning pur- Doctrina Romanensium de purgato- gatory, pardons, worshipping and adora- rio, de indulgentiis, de veneratione, turn tion, as well of images, as of reliques, and imaginum, turn reliquiarum, necnon de also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, invocatione sanctorum, res est futilis, iu- vainly invented, and grounded upon no aniter conficta, et nullis Scripturarum tes- warranty of Scripture, but rather repug- timoniis innititur ; immo verbo Dei con- nant to the Word of God. tradicit. Section L — HISTORY. THHE three preceding Articles concerned the Church visible. ■*• This treats of the Church invisible. The only difference between the wording of this Article and the XXIIId of Edward VI. is, that whereas this has " The Romish doctrine," that had " The doctrine of the school-authors." The Article is so comprehensive that many volumes might be written upon it. It will be necessary therefore to study brevity. It evidently treats of two principal points. I. Purgatory, and the pardons or indulgences connected with the doctrine concerning it. II. The Worship of images and relics, and the Invocation of Saints. I. 1. Purgatory. Under the Hid Article we saw that the Jews and the early Christians uniformly believed in an intermediate state between death and judgment. But their language and expectations, at least those of the earliest fathers, are inconsistent with a belief that any of the pious were in a state of suffering, or that the suf- ferings of the wicked were but for a time only. Clemens Romanus says, that " Those who have finished their course in charity, according to the grace of Christ, possess the region of the godly, who shall be manifested in the visitation of the Kingdom of Christ." 1 Justin Martyr says, " The souls of the godly remain in a certain better place, the unjust and wicked in a worse, 1 exovotv ^wpav evoe[3uv. — Clem. Ad Cor. x. 60. 502 OF PURGATORY. , [Art. XXII. awaiting the day of judgment." * Irenaeus argues from the parable of Dives and Lazarus, that " each sort of men receive, even before the judgment, their due place of abode." 2 Tertullian speaks of Paradise " as a place of divine pleasantness, destined to receive the spirits of the just." 3 So Cyprian, " it is for him to fear death who is unwilling to go to Christ." * " Do not suppose death the same thing to the just and the unjust. The just are called to a refresh- ing, the unjust are hurried away to torment; speedily safety is given to the faithful, to the unfaithful punishment." 5 This, he shows, is not peculiar to martyrs or eminent saints. "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did not suffer martyrdom, yet were honoured first among the patriarchs ; and to their company every one is gathered, who is believing and righteous and praiseworthy." 6 We may, however, early trace a belief that, as death itself was a part of the curse, so every one was to look forward, not for the rest of the intermediate state, but for the joys of the resurrection ; a delay of the resurrection, and a continuance of the death of the body, being esteemed in itself penal, and the result of sin. Indeed, St. Paul (2 Cor. v. 2, 4, 6) taught, that to be unclothed was an evil ; though it would be better to be u absent from the body," since thereby we might be " present with the Lord." Hence, Irenseus speaks of the time between death and judgment as " a period of condemnation, resulting from man's disobedience." 7 And Tertul- lian says, that " sin, though small in amount, may be to be punished by delay of the resurrection : " 8 of which passage more hereafter. This leads to the consideration of Prayer for the Dead. There can be no question that this custom very early prevailed among Christians. It is first mentioned by Tertullian, who speaks of the common practice of the Church to make oblations for the dead on 1 raf fttv tuv evaefidv Y^uc kv Kpeirrovi a " Ad quorum convivium congregatur trot x&pv fiivav, k. t. %. — Dial. p. 223; quisquis fidelis et Justus et laudabilis in- Cony'. Qucpst. et Respons. ad Orthodox. Jus- venitur." — Ibid. p. 163. tino Imputat. qu. 5. The reasoning of the whole treatise De a "Dignam habitationem unamquam- Mortnlitate is of the same kind, and quite que gentem percipere etiam ante judi- inconsistent with a belief that good men Cium." — Lib. n. 68. Compare Lib. v. going out of this life have a penal state 81, quoted above, p. 97. to undergo before attaining to rest and ■'• " Locum divinre amoBnitatis recipi- happiness, endis sanctorum spiritibus destinatum." 7 "Ut quemadmodum caput resurrcxit — Apol. i. 47. it mortuis, sic et reliquum corpus omnia 4 " Ejus est mortem timerc qui ad Chris- hominis qui invenitur in vita, impleto turn nolit ire." — Cyp. De Mortalitate, p. tempore condemnations ejus, qu» erat 157, Oxon. 1682. propter inobedientiam, resurgat." — Iren. 6 " Non i'si quod putetis bonis et malis m. 21. interitum esse communem. Ad refrlge- 8 " Modicum quoque delictum mora rea- rium justi vocantur, ad suppliciura rapi- urrectionis illic luendum." — De Anima, untur injusti : datur velocius tutela Aden- c. 68. tibus, perndis poena." — Ibid. p. 161. Sec I.] OF PURGATORY. 503 the anniversary of the day of their death, which they called their birthday ; who says also, that widows prayed for the souls of their husbands that they might have refreshment and a part in the first resurrection. 1 The like is mentioned by Origen, 2 Cyprian, 3 Cyril of Jerusalem, 4 Gregory Nazianzen, 5 Ambrose, 6 Chrysostom, 7 and others of the earliest fathers ; and prayers and thanksgivings for the dead occur in all the ancient Liturgies, as in that to be found in the Apostolical Constitutions, in the Liturgies of St. James, St. Mark, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, &c. On this early practice, dating unquestionably from the second century, the school-authors and the Romanist divines ground one of their strongest arguments to prove that a belief in Purgatory was primitive and apostolic. For why, say they, were prayers offered for the dead, unless they could profit them ? and how could they profit them, except by delivering from the pains of Purgatory, or shortening their duration ? Yet it is to be observed, that many of the very prayers alleged by the Roman Catholic controversialists do of themselves prove that those who composed them could not have believed the persons prayed for to be in purgatory. The prayers for the dead in the an- cient Liturgies are offered for all the greatest saints, for the Virgin Mary, the Apostles and martyrs, whom even the Roman Church has never supposed to be in purgatory. Thus the Clementine Lit- urgy, found in the Apostolical Constitutions, 8 lias the words, " We offer to Thee (i. e. we pray) for all the saints who have pleased Thee from the beginning of the world ; the patriarchs, prophets, righteous men, apostles, martyrs," &c. The Liturgy called St. Chrysostom's prays for all departed in the faith, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, &c. : and " especially for the holy, immaculate, blessed Theotokos, and ever-virgin Mary." 9 This alone is sufficient to prove that prayer for the dead did not presuppose Purgatory, and was in no degree necessarily connected with it. Indeed, many of the ancients who speak of praying for the dead positively declare their firm belief that those for whom they prayed were in peace, rest, and blessedness, and therefore certainly not in fire and tor- 1 " Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natali- 4 Cateth, Mi/st. v. 6, 7. tiis annua die facimus." — De Corona Mi- ° 0>-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 ia<dl£i rdv x<>P™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 <li>- 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 (3aoK<rivw r)[dv rfft Tifii/g. — Homil. ix. in illo cultu, quae Graece Latvia dicitur, La- Coloss. See also Homil. v. vu. in Coloss. ; tine uno verbo did non potest, cum sit Bingham, E. A. xm. iii. 3. quaedam proprie Divinitati debita servi- 1 " Colimus ergo martyres eo cultu di- tus, nee colimus, nee colendum docemus lectionis et societatis, quo et in hac vita nisi unum Deum." — Contr. Faustum, coluntur sancti homines Dei, quorum cor Lib. xxi. c. 20, Tom. vm. p. 347 ; Bing- ad talem pro evangelica veritate passio- ham, xm. iii. 2. nem paratum esse sentimus. At vero f>26 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<mr> 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<re/cw77<7-c, Dan. ii. 46). And what does the angel of God say to the Apostle ? " See thou do it not ; I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren, that have the testimony of Jesus : worship God" (Rev. xix. 10). And again, "See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant .... worship God " (Rev. xxii. 9). These are cases as plain as any in the old Testament can be. It is not very likely that St. John would have offered the supreme worship of latria to the angel. Therefore, no doubt, all kind of worship was forbidden him. And if only latria be forbidden, but dvlia be a pious or necessary custom, it is certainly remarkable that neither the angel explained to St. John, nor St. Peter to Cornelius, nor St. Paul to the people of Lycaonia, the very impor- tant distinction between latria and dulia, the great sin of offering the former, and the great piety of offering the latter, to created but glorified intelligences ; especially as the ambiguous word worship (VpocrKD^aai) includes them both. Moreover, as God's revelations became successively clearer, and there is a gradual development of Divine truth, it is truly unaccountable that so large a germ of saint and angel-worship as the Roman Catholics discover in the old Testament, should have developed into nothing more manifest than what we thus find in the new. St. Paul, we know, earnestly warns his converts against " the worshipping of angels," — and the word he uses (^p^o-Kcta) appears to comprehend all kinds of worship (Col. ii. 18). St. Paul was not a writer who neglected accurate distinctions, and we may fairly say, he was as profound a reasoner •and as deep a theologian as any human being, even under Divine revelation, was ever privileged to become. But there is no ques- tion raised by him about dulia or hyperdulia. It is simply " Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility, and wor- shipping of angels " (Col. ii. 18). It is a fearful thing to think, that this voluntary humility, and unauthorized worship of inferior beings, may beguile of their reward those who should worship God only. One more instance is too pregnant to be omitted. Once, and but once, in the history of the Bible, do we hear that an angel claimed worship for himself. And he claimed it of Him whose example in worship, as in everything else, we are bound to follow. An angel of exceeding power once said to Jesus, " All these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then said Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan ; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve " (Matt. iv. 9, 10). ARTICLE XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation. De Vocatione Ministrorum. It is not lawful for any man to take Non licet cuiquara sumere sibi munui upon him the office of public preaching, or publice prasdieandi, aut administrandl ministering the Sacraments in the Con- sacramenta in Ecclesia, nisi prius fuerit gregation, before he be lawfully called, ad haec obeunda legitime vocatus et mis- and sent to execute the same. And sus. Atque illos legitime vocatos et mis- those we ought to judge lawfully called sos existimare debemus, qui per liomi- and sent, which be chosen and called to nes, quibus potestas vocandi ministro*, this work by men who have public au- atque mittendi in Vineam Domini, pub- thority given unto them in the Congre- lice concessa est in Ecclesia, cooptati fu- gation, to call and send ministers into the erint, et asciti in hoc opus. Lord's vineyard. Section I. — HISTORY. A FTER the Articles concerning the Church comes naturally ■**■ this concerning the ministry. The wording of the Article demands some attention. The first sentence is derived from the fourteenth Article of the Confession of Augsburg, as drawn up in 1531. That article runs: " De ordine Ecclesiastico docent, quod nemo debeat in Ecclesia publice docere, aut Sacramenta administrare, nisi rite vocatus." 1 In the XIII. Articles, supposed to have been agreed upon be- tween the English and German divines, (a. d. 1538,) the Xth Article is : " De ministris Ecclesise docemus, quod nemo debeat publice docere, aut sacramenta ministrare, nisi rite vocatus, et qui- dem ab his, penes quos in ecclesia, juxta verbum Dei et leges ac consuetudines uniuscujusque regionis, jus est vocandi et admit- tendi." 2 The twenty-fourth of the XLII. Articles of 1552, is worded exactly as our present twenty-third, and evidently only slightly changed from the above-cited Article of 1538. 3 1 Sylloge, p. 127. In 1540 we find the ders not the grace of the Sacraments. — following clause added : " Sicut et Pau- Jonkyns's Cranmer, iv. Appendix, p. lus praecipit Tito ut in civitatibus pres- 286. i byteros constituat." — Syll. p. 174. 8 The heading of the Articles both 2 Then follows a declaration, that no in those of 1552 and in those of 1662 bishop should intrude on another diocese, is, Nemo in Ecclesia ministret nisi vocatks. and that the wickedness of ministers hin- 550 OF MINISTERING [Art. XXIH As it now stands, it contains two parts : — I. That no one may assume the office of the ministry without a lawful call and mission. II. That calling and mission can only be given by certain authorities, who are the ministers of ordination. The latter portion of the Article is somewhat vaguely worded : the reason for which is easily traced to the probable fact, that the original draught of the Article was agreed on in a conference between the Anglican and Lutheran divines. It would have beet, painful to the latter, if a strong assertion of the need of episcopal ordination had been inserted, when they were debarred from epis- copal regimen. Hence it is but generally asserted, that lawful calling can only be given by those, " who have public authority ir the Church to send labourers into the Vineyard." But then we may observe, 'that the authority of the English Ordinal is expressly made the subject of Article XXXVI. ; and to see the force of the latter on our present Article, we must have recourse to the Ordi- nal, as expressing the mind of the reformers on this subject. One expression in this Article requires to be especially observed. In the Confession of Augsburg, the XIII. Articles of 1538, and the Latin Articles of 1552, 1562, 1571, the word JUcclesia occurs twice. But in the English translations this word is rendered Con- gregation. To a modern reader, used to the language of Congre- gational dissenters, this translation has a different sound to that, which it must have had at the time of the Reformation. The ancient Church of the Jews is called " the Congregation of the Lord." The XlXth Article defines the Church as a " Congrega- tion of faithful men," &c. Accordingly, the word Ecclesia, instead of being rendered Church, is rendered Congregation, meaning the whole Congregation of Christ's people, i. e. the Church or Body of Christ. The more modern idea of a Congregational election of ministers had evidently not suggested itself, or the word would have been avoided. We may now proceed to our history. I. No one can question, that very early in the Church there existed a distinction widely marked between the Clergy (fcXrjpos, KktjpiKoi, Clerici) and the Laity (Aaos, Laici). The only doubt which can be raised, is, whether such a distinction was quite prim- itive, or came in, in the second and third centuries, through x\w ambition of ecclesiastics. It is a most happy circumstance, that the very earliest of the Sec. I.] IN THE CONGREGATION. 551 Christian fathers, Clemens Romanics, the companion of St. Paul, has left us clear testimony on this head. Giving instructions con- cerning the duty of Christians towards those who minister to God, he first adduces the examples of the Jewish economy, in which the chief priest, and the Levite, have all their proper ministries, " and the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen." 1 He then goes on to say, " The Apostles have preached to us from our Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ therefore was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ ; so both were orderly sent according to the will of God .... Having received their commands .... and preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their conversions to be bishops and deacons over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the Spirit." 2 Then again, referring to the election of the seed of Aaron to the priesthood, in order to avoid contention, 3 he continues : " So likewise our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should contentions arise upon account of the ministry ; And therefore, having a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have said before, and then gave direction, how, when they should die, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry. Wherefore we cannot think that those may justly be thrown out of their ministry who w r ere appointed by them, or afterwards chosen by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church .... Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before those times, have obtained a faithful and perfect dissolution ; for they have no fear, lest any one should turn them out of the place which is now appointed for them." 4 Here, in the very earliest of the fathers, we have plainly the dis- tinction of clergy and laity, the clergy spoken of at one time as presbyters, at another as bishops and deacons ; their mode of ap- pointment in succession from the Apostles, and the duty of the people to be submissive and affectionate to them. Ignatius speaks in language so strong, of the necessity of obe- dience to bishops, presbyters, and deacons, that the very strength of the expressions has been the chief reason for doubting the genu- ineness of his epistles. The seven shorter epistles, since Bishop Pearson's able defence of them, have generally been admitted to be genuine. The late discovery of a Syriac translation of three of them has again opened the question ; their learned editor and 1 6 "kaXubc; uvdpunoc rolg "kalnolq irpo- 2 Ibid. c. 42. 9Ta.yiw.aw Siderut. — Clem. R. 1 In Corinth. 3 c. 43. c. 40. * c. 44. 552 OF MINISTERING [Akt. XXHI translator contending that the Syriac represents the true text, and that even the shorter Greek epistles, which are longer than the Syriac, have suffered from interpolation. This is no place to enter into a controversy of such extent ; it is, however, satisfactory to find, that the short Syriac epistles, as they contain the most im- portant testimonies to the great doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation, 1 so do they contain most strong and unmistakable lan- guage on the ministry and the three orders of the ministry : " Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for those 2 who are subject to the bishop, presbyters, and dea- cons : may I have my portion with them in God." 8 Irenaeus speaks distinctly of successions of presbyters in the Church from the time of the Apostles ; 4 says, that he was able to reckon up those who had been made bishops by the Apostles, and their successors even to his own time ; 6 and recounts the succession of bishops at Rome from St. Peter and St. Paul, and at Smyrna from St. Polycarp ; 6 to which successions he attaches deep impor- tance. Clement of Alexandria distinguishes the presbyter and deacon from the layman, 7 and the lay from the priestly. 8 He uses the term xA^pos, clergy ; 9 and speaks of the three degrees in the Church militant, of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, 10 which he compares to the angelic orders in Heaven. 11 Tertullian bears testimony to the existence of a distinction be- tween clergy and laity in his day ; and charges the heretics with confounding the offices of layman and cleric. 12 The three orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, are enumerated together ; 13 and he tells us that the chief priest, i. e. the bishop, had the right to baptize, as also had presbyters and deacons, but not without the authority of the bishop. 14 1 See, for instance, Ignatius Ad Ephes. 8 Stromata, Lib. v. pp. 665, 666 ; where C. 1, 9, 18 (19 in the Greek), Ad Poh/c. XaiKt/c umariac is opposed to Uparud) fat- c. 8, where the Syriac has all the same Kovia. remarkable expressions as the Greek. 9 " Quis diets salvetur," p. 969. See especially in the first passage, ,0 Stromal. Lib. vi. p. 793. Ephes. c. 1, uvaC,uirvpT]oavTes tv alpau Qeov n See Bp. Kaye's Clement of Alexan lCTl2Ssi l^£«-=>. 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]T<u ttjc aluviov faijg, nuvra 6i rai/ra Mr. Morrison's note to his translation of &' krepov /jkv obicvbc, fiovm 61 6tu tuv uyiuv Neander's Church History, I. p. 252. Ueivuv hrtrtfeiTai XMfHJv, tuv rod itpioe 2 St. Jerome tells us the reason of the teyu, nuc uv rtc tovtuv turdc, ij rtr% name xlripoc, clerici, " Propterea vocantur yeevvrjc tufvyelv tiwifaerai irvp, f) tuv uno- clerici, vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel neifdvuv ote^uvuv tvjwv ; — Chrysost. A quia Dominus sors, id est pars, clerico- Sucerdot. Lib. m. rum est." — Ad Nepotian. De Vita Cirri- 6 "Qui non vocatus docet, non sine corum, Tom. iv. Part II. p. 269. damno, et suo, et auditorum, docet, quod 8 " Kcclesia non est, quae non habet Christus non sit cum eo." — Luther, In •acerdotes."— Dial. c. Lucifer, c. 8. Galat. i. 1, Tom. v. p. 216. 4 El yCip ov Siivarai tic eloeX&eiv tic r))v u Conftss. Aiiyust. pars i. Art. ▼. Baocteiav tuv ohpuvuv, iuv fri/ 6i' MaTOc nal Sylloq. p. 24, Art. xiv. p. 127. UveifMToc avayew7)dij, Kal 6 ft)) Tpuyuv rrfv T Con/ess. HAvet. C. XVI II. ; Syllog. p. oupua rov Kvpiov, Kal rd alpa avroi nivuv, 65. Sec. I] IN THE CONGREGATION. 556 of Christ, except he be regularly called. ... If so great a min- ister as St. Paul dares not arrogate to himself to be heard in the Church, but because he has been ordained to this office by the Lord's command, and faithfully discharges his duty, how great would be his impudence who should seek this honour destitute of both these qualifications ! " * The Church of England especially expresses her opinions in the Ordinal, where, besides the language of the Preface and the words of the Services themselves, it is ordered, that " There shall be a sermon declaring .... how necessary the order of priests is in the Church of Christ." Since the Reformation, sects have arisen which underrate the necessity of the ministry and of a call to it. The Anabaptists ap- pear to have done this. The latter Remonstrants, as represented by Episcopius, seem to have thought a fluency of speech and ac- ceptableness to the congregation a sufficient mission. 2 The Quak- ers, and several fanatical sects, investing all Christians with minis- terial authority, have abrogated all distinction of lay and clerical. But these are not much to be considered in a history of religious opinions. II. The Article next speaks of those ministers being lawfully called and sent, who derive their calling and mission from certain persons having public authority in the Church to call and to send. It is necessary then to consider, whether there have always been certain persons invested with such public authority ; who such persons were ; and who are recognized as such by the English Church. It is the plain record of all antiquity, that ordination was anciently conferred by the highest order of the ministry. This will probably be questioned by no one. We have seen that St. Clement, the earliest Christian writer except those of the new Testament, speaks of the Apostles as having appointed successors to themselves in the ministry and government of the Church. We have seen that Irenseus speaks of a regular succession from the Apostles in the Churches, and that he counts up the succession in the Churches of Rome and of Smyrna. A like testimony we have brought from Tertullian. The farther we proceed, the clearer the evidence becomes, that no ordinations took place, except by those i Calvin, Institut. tv. iii. 10. See Palm- Remons. Conf. c. 22, § 1 ; Ford, On the Ar- er, On the Church, pt. i. ch. vm. tides, Art. xxm. 2 See Episcop. Disp. 76, Thes. 4, 6 ; 566 OF MINISTERING [Abt. XXHL who thus succeeded to the ministry of the Apostles, deriving their orders in direct descent from them. The only difficulty which seems to occur is this. In the new Testament, it is conceded that Bishop (cVict/coti-os) and Presbyter (Trpeo-fivrepos') were synonymous and convertible terms. In after- ages we find them distinguished ; the title Bishop being tied to the first, the title Presbyter to the second order of the ministry. Theodoret l and Hilary the deacon 2 tell us, that " the same per- sons were originally called indiscriminately bishops and presbyters, whilst those who are now called bishops, were called Apostles. But afterwards, the name Apostle was appropriated to such only as were Apostles indeed, and then the name Bishop was given to those who were before called Apostles." 8 The question is, Was this really the state of the case from the first, or is it the inven- tion of a later age? Were there always three orders of ministers? or originally but two, the aristocratical by degrees changing into a monarchical government ? There have been many (such as Blondel, Daille*, Lord King, &c.) who have asserted, that there were but two orders, presbyters and deacons ; that by degrees, where there were several presbyters, one was elected to preside over the rest ; but that he was no more distinct from them, than the dean of a cathedral is from the rest of the chapter, or than the rector or vicar of a large parish is from the assistant curates and ministers of the various chapelries connected with it, — in short a ruling or presiding elder, but not a bishop. By degrees, they say, these ruling elders arrogated to themselves to be a superior order to their brethren, and claimed exclusively that authority to ordain and to execute discipline, which had before been vested in the whole body of the presbytery. It is quite certain, that in the beginning of the third century, t. e. one hundred years after the Apostles, there existed in the Church the three orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Thenceforward, in every part of the world whither Christianity had spread, no Church was to be found where bishops did not preside and ordain. They are well-known rules, that " what has been religiously observed by the Apostolical Churches, must appear to have been handed down from the Apostles themselves." * And that, " what is held by the Universal Church, and not ordained by any council, but has always been retained in the Church, is to be 1 Comm. in 1 Tim. iii. 1. * " Constabit id esse ab Apostolis trad- 2 Hilar. Diac. In Ephes. iv. itum, quod apud erclesias npostolorum 8 See Bingham, E. A. Book n. ch. II. ftieritsacrosanctum." — Tertull. C. Mar- 1 1. cion. Lib. iv. c. 6 ; cf.Dt Prascript. c. 17. Sec. L] IN THE CONGREGATION. 557 believed to have come down from Apostolical authority." 1 So then the burden of proof must lie with those who contend that a custom universally prevailing at a very early period was an inno- vation, and not a tradition. Let us, however, see whether the chain of evidence is not com- plete even from the Apostles. Clemens Romanus, it is true, mentions only bishops and deacons, and afterwards presbyters ; from which it has been inferred that bishops and presbyters were still used indiscriminately for the same office, as in the new Testament. Yet his epistle contains at least inferential proof of the existence of three orders at the time he wrote. In the first place, he himself evidently writes with authority, as representing the whole Church in the great city of Rome. " The Church of God, . which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at Corinth." 2 This exactly corresponds with what we are told by Irenaeus and all subsequent testimonies, that Clement was bishop of Rome. Then, in speaking of the min- istry as ordained by the Apostles, when they themselves were about to depart, and enjoining the laity to be observant of it, he specially compares the Christian clergy to the three orders of the Levitical priesthood. " The same care must be had of the persons that minister unto Him : for the chief priest has his proper ser- vices ; and to the priests their proper place is appointed ; and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries : and the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen." 8 This, be it observed, is exactly the language of later fathers. In allusion to this resemblance the presbyters are constantly called sacerdotes ; the bishop, summus sacerdos ; the deacons, Levitce. And it will facilitate our understanding of the whole question, if we bear in mind, that, as the high priest was still a priest, and only distinguished from the other priests by one or two points of official preeminence, so the fathers constantly speak of the bishop as still a presbyter (o-ufnrpeo-pvrepos, 1 Pet. v. 1), but as distin- guished from the other presbyters by the power of ordination and jurisdiction. If we believe the seven shorter epistles of Ignatius to be genu- ine, they abound in passages concerning the three orders of the ministry, so plain that no language can be stronger or more signif- 1 " Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nee Adv. Donatist. Lib. iv. c. 24, Tom. IX. p conciliis institutum, sed semper reten- 139. turn, non nisi auctoritate apostolica trad- 2 Clem. 1 Ad Cor. c. 1. itum rectissime creditur." — Augustin. * c. 40. 568 OF MINISTERING [Abt. XXUL icant. 1 If, on the contrary, we incline to receive the epistles of the Syriac version, not as abbreviated, but as the genuine epistles, we have already seen, that they contain a passage in which sub- jection to the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and especially to the bishop, is most earnestly and solemnly enjoined. 2 In the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, we are told that the cities and Churches of Asia sent their bishops, presbyters, and deacons to meet him. 8 Hegesippus (ab. a. d. 158) relates of himself, that, as he was travelling to Rome, he communicated with many bishops, and especially speaks of having intercourse with Primus, the Bishop of Corinth. He also relates the succession of certain bishops of Rome. And speaks of Simon, the son of Cleopas, as second Bishop of Jerusalem. 4 Here we find the three great cities, Jeru- salem, Rome, and Corinth, in each of which there must have been several presbyters, yet still each presided over by a single bishop. Irenaeus undoubtedly calls the same persons by the name of bishops and presbyters ; but we should be misled by the mere in- discrimate use of names, if we concluded that therefore there was in his day no such thing as a church-officer superior to the general body of presbyters. On the contrary, we have already seen that he lays great stress on the power of tracing up the succession of ministers in the Churches unbroken to the Apostles ; and this suc- cession he traces, not by the whole body of presbyters in each, but by the single individuals at the head. Thus, he says, the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul gave the bishopric of Rome to Linus, to him succeeded Anacletus, to Anacletus Clemens, to Clemens Evarestus, to him Alexander, then Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Ani- cetus, Soter, Eleutherius. In the like manner he speaks of a regu- lar descent of the heads of the Church of Smyrna from Polycarp. 6 Here it is evident, that the regular ordination and succession of doctrine in the Church is maintained, not by parity of presbyters, but by successive ordination of chief pastors, who in their turn had power to ordain others. It has been already mentioned, that Clement of Alexandria con- siders " the degrees (a! irpoKOTra)') in the Church on earth of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, to be imitations of the angelic glory, and of that dispensation which is said to await those who live in right- 1 See Ifrn. Ad Ephes. 8, 4, 6, 6 ; May- 8 Martyr, lynatii, Coteler. II. p. 174 nes. 2, 6, 18 ; Troll. 2, 7 ; Philadelph. 1, « Ap. Euueb. H. E. it. 22. 4, 7, 10 ; Smyrn. 8, 12; Polyc. 6. 6 Ironm. Lib. m. c. 8. a Epist. ad Polycarp. c. 6, cited above. Skc. I.] in THE CONGREGATION. f,59 eousness according to the Gospel. These, according to the Apos- tle, being raised into the clouds, will first minister (oWoveTv), then, receiving an advancement in glory, be enrolled in the presbytery until they come to the perfect man." 1 Here it is evident that Clement alludes to the existence of three orders in the ministry, which might successively be passed through, and which he fancifully considers like the progressive degrees of glory hereafter. Else- where also he speaks of presbyters, bishops, and deacons, saying that there are various precepts or suggestions in the Scriptures pertaining to particular persons, " some for presbyters, some for bishops, some for deacons," 2 &c. The testimony of Tertullian has already been sufficiently ad- duced, when we were on the subject of the distinction of clergy and laity. He, more than once, enumerates the three orders. 3 In one instance he asserts that presbyters and deacons could not bap- tize without the authority of the bishop ; 4 challenges heretics to trace, as the Catholics could, the succession of their bishops to the Apostles ; 5 and complains that among heretics the offices of bish- ops, deacons, presbyters, and laics, were all confounded. 6 Origen continually distinguishes between bishops, priests, and deacons. Bishop Pearson 7 has quoted ten passages from his writ- ings, in seven of which the distinction is plainly marked, and the three orders are expressly enumerated. All these writers lived within a hundred years of the Apostles. St. John is said to have died a. d. 100, and Origen to have been born a. D. 186. From the time of Origen the case admits of no question. The first fifty of the canons of the apostles use the word bishop thirty-six times, in appropriation to him, that is the ruler or president of the church, above the clergy and laity ; twenty- four times the bishop is expressly distinguished from the presbyter ; and fourteen times indicated as having particular care for govern- ment, jurisdiction, censures, and ordinations committed to him. 8 The first canon expressly enjoins, that a bishop be consecrated by 1 Stromat. vi. p. 793. See also, Bp. ons, which are received as authentic, Kaye'8 Clem. Alex. p. 463. being quoted by the Council of Nice, 2 al piv irpeopvTepoif, al <T kiuononoie • al Constantinople, Ephesus,Chalcedon, An- db Siaicovoic, k.t.a. — Pcedag. in. p. 309. tioch, and Carthage. They were un- 8 De Baptismo, c. 17, De Fugd, c. 11. doubtedly not apostolical, but are gener- 4 Ibid. c. 17, cited above. ally referred to the middle of the third 6 De Prcescrip. Hieretic. c. 32. century. Bp. Beveridge thinks they 6 Ibid. c. 41, cited above. were collected by Clement of Alexandria, 7 Vindicice Iynat. ap. Coteler. Tom. n They seem to be appealed to as author- pt. ii. p. 320. ity by Tertullian, Cyprian, Constantine 8 See Bp. Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, the Great, Alexander of Alexandria, and Sect. xxiv. Athanasius. See Codex Cauonum Eccles All this occurs in the first fifty Can- Prim, illus. a Gul. Beveregio. 560 OF MINISTERING [Art. XXHL two or three bishops. The second, that a presbyter or deacon be ordained by one bishop. The thirty-fifth forbids bishops to ordain out of their own dioceses. The thirty-seventh decrees synods of bishops. The thirty-eighth enjoins bishops to have the superintend- ence of all ecclesiastical affairs ; and the thirty-ninth forbids pres- byters and deacons to do anything without the knowledge of their bishop. 1 Having now reached the age of Cyprian, when the existence of a regular diocesan episcopacy is not questioned by the most skepti- cal ; if we look back on the testimonies above cited, it is surely not too much to assert, that for scarcely any of the undoubted events of ancient history does there exist anything like the weight of con- temporary evidence that we have from the first, that, in the first century after the Apostolic age, there was a marked distinction be- tween bishops, presbyters, and deacons ; or that, if the names of bishops and presbyters were not always distinguished, there was still clearly a separation between the functions of the ordinary pres- byter and those of the president, chief priest, or bishop of the Church. There is nothing like such evidence for the existence of the laws of Draco, or the usurpation of Pisistratus, of the kingdom of Croesus, or the battle of Marathon, for the wars of Carthage, or the very being of such persons as Brennus, or Pyrrhus, or Han- nibal. In the age of Cyprian (i. e. about a. d. 250), we have abun- dant evidence as to the state of the Church. We know, for in- stance, that Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, had forty-four presby- ters under him ; 2 that Cyprian himself, in like manner, presided over a considerable body of presbyters. The latter never hesitates to claim supreme authority, under God, over his presbyters and deacons ; and complains bitterly, if any of the presbytery give not due honour to him as their bishop. 8 The privileges of the presby- tery were indeed carefully preserved to them ; and we have no reason to believe that, at this early period, nearly so great an im- parity prevailed, as we afterwards meet with. The dioceses were very small compared with their extent in modern times. One bishop generally had the care of one large town and its immediate suburbs : whence the original name of a diocese was not 8toucj;o-« 1 Bereregii Synodicon, Tom. i. pp. 1, byteria nee Evangelii nee loci aui raemo- 24-27. res, aed neque futurum Domini judicium, * Euaeb. vi. 48. neque nunc sibi pro posi turn episcopum * Sec, for instance, Epistol. xvi. "Quod cogitantea, quod nunquam omnino tub enira non periculum metuere debemus anteceaaoribua factum est, cum contume- dc offenaa Domini quando aliqui de Prea- lia propositi totum sibi rendicant t " Sec. I.] IN THE CONGREGATION. 561 (diocese), but irapoiKia. (parochia), a word not expressing, as of late times, a single congregation or parish, but implying the whole town and its immediate neighborhood ; that is, such a precinct or district as a single bishop could govern with the assistance of his presbyters. 1 The power of bishops too over their presbyters was, in early times, limited in many ways. The Council of Carthage (a. d. 348) ordained, that three bishops should judge a deacon, and not less than six should censure a presbyter. 2 Presbyters were always looked on as assessors and counsellors to their bishop. 3 Bishops weighed all things by common advice, and did nothing but after deliberation, and with consent of their clergy. 4 Presbyters were considered as, equally with the bishops, invested with the dig- nity of the priestly office ; 5 and in the African Churches and the Latin, though not in the East, all the presbyters present assisted the. bishop in the ordination of a presbyter, by laying their hands on his head. 6 Yet there is no example of ordination ever being intrusted to presbyters only. On one occasion, a presbyter of Alexandria, named Colluthus, pretended to act as a bishop, but a council of bish- ops, assembled at Alexandria under Hosius (a. d. 324), declared his ordinations null and void." Those who advocate the parity of bishops and presbyters, ap- peal to the language of St Chrysostom and St. Jerome ; who undoubtedly maintained with great earnestness the dignity of the office of presbyter, and esteemed it very little inferior to the epis- copate. Yet their very words distinctly show, that in one point, and that the point now in question, the bishop had a power not intrusted to the presbyter. St. Chrysostom says, that " bishops excel presbyters only in the power of ordination" 8 And St. Je- rome asks, " what does a bishop which a presbyter does not, except 1 See Suicer, 8. v. napoucia ; and Cypriano, Epist. xlix. ; Op. Cypr. Epist. Bingham, E. A. Bk. ix. c. 2. p. 92. See Bingham, Bk. II. ch. xix. 2 Concil. Carthag. i. Can. 11 ; see sect. 8. Bingham, Bk. n. ch. in. sect. 9. 5 " Qui cum Episcopo Presbyteri sacer- 8 i>vfij3ov%oi tov tmoitcmov, <rvve6piov ical dotali honore conjuncti." — Cyprian. Ad fi wTit} ttis kniikTiaias . — Constit. Apostol. Lib. Lucian. Epist. lxi. See Bingham, If. ii. c. 28. xix. 14. 4 " Quando a primordio episcopatus 6 It was so ordained by the fourth mei statuerira, nihil sine consilio vestro, Council of Carthage, and there is a rule et sine consensu plebis, mea privata sen- to the same purpose in the constitutions tentia gerere." — Cyprian, Epist. xiv. ; of the Church of Alexandria. See Bing- Op. Cyp. Epist. p. 38. ham, II. xix. 10. " Omni actu ad me perlato placuit con- 7 Athanas. Opp. i. p. 732, Colon. See trahi presbyterium, qui et hodie praesen- Bingham, II. iii. 6 ; Palmer, On the tes fuerunt, ut firmato consilio, quid circa Church, pt. vi. ch. iv. personam eorum observari deberet, con- 8 xeipoTOvip povn. — Horn. ix. in 1 ad sensu omnium statueretur." — Cornelius Tim. 71 502 OF MINISTERING [Art. XXID. ordaining ? " 1 It is true that St. Jerome, arguing from the lan- guage of St. Paul to Timothy, contends that Episcopus and Pres- byter originally designated the same office, and thinks that one was afterwards placed above the rest, to avoid schism in the Church. This, however, is evidently only his own private inference from Scripture. He relates indeed, that at Alexandria, from the time of St. Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters used to elect one from among themselves, and, having placed him aloft (in ex- cehiori gradu), saluted him Episcopus ; as if an army should make a general (imperatof), or a body of deacons an archdeacon. 2 But we cannot infer from this, that St. Jerome means to say that there was no distinct consecration of the bishop so elected ; for it is mere- ly of the election, not of the ordination of their bishop, that he speaks ; and he simply adduces this as an instance of what he be- lieved to be one of the ancient forms of episcopacy ; namely, the appointment by the presbyters of one from among themselves to preside over them. 8 Hilary the deacon says, that " the ordination of bishop and presbyters is the same, for both are priests ; but the bishop is first ; for every bishop is a presbyter, not every presbyter a bishop." 4 All this is true, except inasmuch as he says there is no difference be- tween the ordination of a bishop and a presbyter ; and this is evi- dently the private opinion (deduced from the language of St. Paul) of a person not much to be relied on, and who afterwards joined the Luciferian schism. What he says in another place, 8 that "in Egypt, even to his days, presbyters sealed (consignant), in the ab- sence of the bishop," does not mean that they ordained, but that they confirmed; and, no doubt, in the early ages, presbyters were sometimes permitted to confirm, by delegation of the episcopal power. 6 The only decided opponent of episcopacy in primitive times was Aerius, a presbyter of the Church of Sebaste, in Armenia, of the fourth century. He had a quarrel with his bishop, Eustathius, and was thence led, among other errors, to declare that bishops and presbyters were altogether equal, and that a presbyter could or- dain, as well as a bishop. Epiphanius says, he was altogether an 1 "Quid enim facit, excepla ordinatione, It, iii. 5; Palmer, On the Church, pt. VI. episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat ? " — ch. iv. Epist. ad Evangel ium, Ep. 101 ; Op. Tom. * In 1 Tim. iii. in Ojier. Ambros. iv. pars ii. p. "80'2. * In Ephes. iv. " Denique apud JRgyp- a Ibid. turn presbyteri eonsignant, si pr»»ens 8 See Bisbop Hall, Episcopary of Pi- non sit episcopus." vim Right, Pt. It. Sect. 16; Bp. J.' Tay- ° See Bingham, Bk. Xtf. ch. n. Met lor, On Episcopacy, Sect. 32; Bingham, 2,4; Palmer.pt. vi. ch. i. vi. Sec. I] IN THE CONGREGATION. 563 Arian heretic ('Apecavos /xev t6 7rav). His sentiments were wholly rejected by the Catholics, and his sect driven from all quarters of the Church ; s it being a settled doctrine at that day, that the order of bishops excelled the order of presbyters, "inasmuch as the order of bishops can beget fathers to the Church by ordination, but the order of presbyters can but beget sons by baptism." 2 The review, then, which has been taken of the primitive testi- mony, proves this : that, in the earliest ages, in every quarter of the world whither the Church had penetrated, whilst all Churches had their regular ministers of the two orders of presbyters and deacons, yet in every city there was one chief presbyter, presid- ing over the clergy of that city and its suburb (Trapoi/aa), and that to him was committed the power of ordination, or, in the language of the Article, he had " public authority given him in the Church, to call and send ministers into the Lord's Vineyard." Whether he was to be esteemed of a different order, or of the same order, differing only in degree ; 3 in any case, by universal consent, he was the minister of ordination. Other presbyters, equally with him, received authority to teach, to baptize, to minister the Eucha- rist ; but he only had authority to ordain. Such authority was be- lieved to have been derived to bishops from the Apostles. And the principle on which their ordinations were deemed valid, was, not merely that they themselves had the priestly office, but that they had received authority (authority by regular episcopal de- scent) to give ordination and mission to others. Those who maintain the validity of presbyterian orders, do so on the ground that bishops were themselves but presbyters. Those who maintain that episcopal ordination is necessary, reply that even though bishops be themselves presbyters, yet they only, and not all presbyters alike, had the authority to ordain ; and therefore that without them ordination could not take place. This was the constant creed of the fathers, and of the schoolmen after them. 1 Epiphanius, Hceres. 75 ; August, Hee- tion. Mr. Palmer enumerates as advo- r es. 54. cates for identity of order, but inferiority 2 Epiphanius, Ibid. of degree, Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, 3 The fathers, the schoolmen, and di- Irenaeus, Clemens Alexand., Tertullian, vines, both of the Eoman and reformed Firmilian, Jerome, Hilary the deacon, episcopal churches, have seemed doubt- Chrysostom, Augustine, T heodoret, Se ful whether bishops and presbyters were dulius, Primasius, Isidore Hispalensis, of different degrees in the same order, Bede, Alcuin, the Synod of Aix, in 819, or of different orders. The distinction Amalarius, Hugo S. Victor, Peter Lom- between presbyter and deacon has al- bard, Alexander Alensis, Bonaventura, ways been esteemed as greater than that Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Sco- between bishop and presbyter ; the em- tus, Cajetan, Durandus, the Council of inence of the bishop over the presbyter Trent, and many reformers of the 16th consisting chiefly in the power of ordina- century. Palmer, pt. iv. ch. i. 564 OF MINISTERING [Art. XXIIL The Council of Trent, and the later writers in the Church of Rome, have not greatly insisted on the three orders, but have gen- erally classed together the first and second, bishops and presbyters, under the common name of sacerdotes, priests ; influenced herein by the high importance which they attached to the priesthood, and by the disposition to reserve supreme episcopal authority to the pope. 1 Yet they have never thought of permitting any but the bishop to administer ordination, which is by them esteemed a Sacrament of the Church ; but have ever held bishops to be suc- cessors of the Apostles, superior to presbyters, and qualified, which the other clergy were not, to confirm and to ordain. 2 At the time of the Reformation, the Lutherans, meeting with nothing but opposition from the bishops, were constrained to act without them. Yet Luther and his followers constantlv acted under appeal to a general council. The Confession of Augsburg fully conceded to bishops the power of the keys, i. e. of preaching the Gospel, of remitting and retaining sins, and of administering the Sacraments ; 3 and declared, that bishops should retain all their legitimate authority, if only they would not urge such traditions as could not be kept with a good conscience. 4 The Lutherans ear- nestly protested, that they much wished to retain episcopacy, but that the bishops forced them to reject sound doctrine, and therefore they were unable to preserve their allegiance to them ; and they " openly testified to the world, that they would willingly continue the canonical government, if only the bishops would cease to exer- cise cruelty upon the Churches." 6 The Calvinists, though in like manner rejecting their bishops, who would have bound them to Rome, declared themselves ready to submit to a lawful hierarchy. Calvin said that those who would not submit themselves to such, were deserving of any ana- 1 The Council of Trent, Sess. xxm. inaudita crudelitate miseros et innocentes cap. 2, reckons seven orders of ministers, occidunt. Hae causae impediunt quo sacerdotes, diaconi, subdiaconi, acolythi, minus agnoscant hos episcopus nostri exorcistse, lectores, ostiarii. The Coun- sacerdotes. Iia swvitia episcoporum in cil of Nice itself (Can. 8) had given the causa est, quare alicubi dissolvitur ilia name of k?.i/j)oi_, to others besides bishops, canonica politia, quam nos magnopere presbyters, and deacons; and the third cupicbamus conservare. Ipsi viderint Council of Carthage made a Oanon (Can. quomodo rationem Deo reddituri sint, 23) on purpose to confirm the title to quod dissipant ecclesiam. l'orro hie ite- them. (Bingham, i. v. 7.) rum volumus testatum, nos libenter con- * Vid. Conc.il. Trident. Sess. xxm. servaturos esse ecclesiasticam et canoni- cap. 4. cam pulitiam, si modo episcopi desinant • Confess. August. De Potestate Eccle- in nostras ecclesias soevire." — Aftologia riattica, Sylloge, pp. 151, 225. ConfeMsionis, Art. vn. § 24. See Kp. 4 Ibid, pp.' 157, 231. Hail's Kpiscojnicy, Int. Sect. 8. The ' " Episcopi sacerdotes nostras aut co- above passage is given at greater length gunt hoc doctrinal genus, quod confessi in Dr. Wordsworth's Theophilut Angitca- •umus, abjicere et damnarc, aut nova et nus, ch. xi. Sec. I.] IN THE CONGREGATION. 565 thema. 1 Even Beza thought it insane to reject all episcopacy ; and wished that the Church of England might continue to enjoy for- ever that singular bounty of God. 2 John Knox himself was not a favourer of that parity of ministers which Andrew Melvill afterwards introduced into the Kirk of Scot- land, but may be considered as, more or less, a witness for the dis- tinction of bishops and presbyters. 3 In the English Church, the primitive rule of episcopal ordination and apostolical descent has never been infringed. The Article under consideration is the only authorized formulary, which seems in the least degree ambiguous. The ambiguity, however, is not real but apparent only ; as it is cleai'ly stated that not all who are themselves ministers can ordain ; but only those invested with public authority in the Church to send others into the Vineyard. This is a complete description of a bishop, who is a chief presbyter invested, over and above other presbyters, with the power of send- ing labourers into the Vineyard. The first germ of this Article we have already seen, in the Arti- cles agreed on between the Lutheran and Anglican divines, a. d. 1538. 4 About the same year, or soon after, a paper was written by Cranmer, De Ordine et Ministerio Sacerdotum et Episcoporum, in which the divine authority of priests and bishops, the superiority of bishops, and their succession from the Apostles, are strongly maintained. 5 The same kind of language is used in the Institution of a Christian Man, set forth nearly at the same time, or somewhat earlier. 6 In the year 1540, Henry VHIth, in regard of a more exact review of the Institution of a Christian Man, appointed sev- eral learned men to deliberate about sundry points of religion, and to give in their sentiments distinctly. Seventeen questions were proposed to them concerning the Sacraments and ordination. 7 All agreed, except one, that bishops had the authority to make presby- ters ; and almost all agreed, that none besides had this power. Their general opinion was, that a bishop further required consecration, though Cox thought institution with imposition of hands sufficient. 1 " Talem nobis hierarchiam si exhib- beneficentia, quaa utinam illi sit perpet- eant in qua sic emineant episcopi, ut ua." — Beza ad Sarav. apud Hall, Episco- Christo subesse non recusent, ut ab Illo pact/, Sect. 4. tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant et ad 3 Harington's Notes on the Church of Ipsum referantur : . . . turn vero nullo Scotland, ch. m. non anathemate dignos fatear, si qui * Cranmer's Works, by Jenkyns, iv. erunt, qui non earn reverentur, summa- p. 286. que obedientia observant." — Calvin. De 5 Ibid. p. 300. Necessitate Reform. Eccles. See also In- 6 Formularies of Faith in the Reign of ttitut. iv. c. 10. See Hall, as above. Henry VIII. p. 101. a " Fruatur sane ista singulari Dei 7 Strype's Cranmer, p. 110. 566 OF MINISTERING [Art. XXIIL But at this time Cranmer appears to have been much wavering on the subject of ordination. He had imbibed a very high notion of the Divine prerogative of Christian princes ; and some of his an- swers indicate a belief, that Christian kings, as well as bishops, had power to ordain ministers. Still he adds, as if doubtful of the sound- ness of his position, " This is mine opinion and sentence at this present, which nevertheless I do not temerariously define, but refer the judgment thereof wholly to your majesty." 1 Several of the other divines had afterwards a hand in drawing up the Liturgy and the Ordinal ; and all had expressed opinions diametrically opposite to the Archbishop. But the Archbishop's own appears to have been only a theory hastily taken up, and as speedily relinquished, at a period when all opinions were undergoing a great revolution, and when the reformers were generally inclined to overrate the regal, and underrate the episcopal, authority ; since kings in most parts of Europe fostered, and bishops checked the progress of the Reforma- tion. It is to be observed that the Necessary Doctrine, which was the result of this review of the Institution of a Christian Man, con- tains the strongest language concerning " order," as " the gift or grace of ministration in Christ's Church, given of God to Christian men by the consecration and imposition of the bishop's hands," and concerning a continual succession even to the end of the world. 3 This was set forth a. d. 1543. In 1548, Cranmer himself put out what is called Cranmer's Catechism, which, though not written by him, was translated and published by his authority. In this the Apostolical descent, Episcopal ordination, and the power of the Keys, are strongly enforced and greatly enlarged upon. 3 Bishop Burnet remarks on it, that " it is plain that Cranmer had now quite laid aside those singular opinions which he formerly held of the ecclesiastical functions ; for now, in a work which was wholly his own, without the concurrence of any other, he fully sets forth their divine institution." * In 1549, Cranmer and twelve other divines drew up the Ordinal, where it is declared that, " from the Apos- tles' times, there hath been three orders of Ministers in Christ's Church : Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; " it is said that none were admitted to them but " by public prayer, with imposition of hands ; '' and it is enjoined that hereafter all persons to be ordained shall be 1 See Jenkyns's Cranmer, n. p. 98, a See at length Formularies of Faith, where Cranmer's answers are given, p. 277. All the replies are to be found in the Ap- 8 See Cranmer's Catechism, p. 198, Ac. gmdix to Burnet On the Reformation, and Oxford, 1829. other's Ecclesiastical History. See also 4 Burnet, History of Reformation, u Jenkyns's preface to his edition of Cran- pt. 2. mar, i. p. xxxii. &c. Sec. ILl IN THE CONGREGATION. 567 admitted according to the form laid down in the Ordinal, witch is nearly the same as that still used in the Church of England. In 1552, the Reformatio Legum was published, the chief writer of which was the Archbishop. In this again the three orders, of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, are distinctly treated of. For bishops are claimed the powers of jurisdiction and ordination, and all three- orders are spoken of as evidently holding their offices on Scriptural authority and by Divine appointment. 1 Cranmer therefore could only have entertained for a short time the peculiar opinions which in 1540 he unhappily expressed. 2 It is only necessary to add, hat the Ordinal is expressly sanctioned and authorized, not only as part of the Book of Common Prayer, but by the XXXVIth Article ; 3 and we may observe, that, not only is episcopal ordination enjoined by it, but in its present form it forbids that any shall hereafter be " accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in the United Church of England or Ireland, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly episcopal consecration or ordination." 4 Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. XX7E may proceed, as in the last section, to show that, — * " I. There is a regular order of ministers in the Christian Church set apart for sacred offices, and that no one may assume their functions, except he be lawfully called and sent. 1 Reform. Leg. Tit. De Ecclesia et ment has been clearly disproved by Chan- Ministris Ejus, capp. 3, 4, 10-12. cellor Harington, who has demonstrated a The question concerning Archbishop that at least a titular episcopacy then ex- Cranmer's remarkable expressions in isted in Scotland, and that there was 1540, and subsequent change of opinion, " a full determination to restore a regu- is ably disposed of by Chancellor Har- larly consecrated episcopacy." See a ington, Succession of Bishops in the Church Letter on the LVth Canon and the Kirk of of England. See aiso his Two Ordination Scotland, by E. C. Harington, M. A. Sermons. Exeter, 1845. Rivingtons, 1851. 8 The Church of England has always 4 The following writers may be con- acted on the principles laid down in the suited by the student, both as containing Preface to the Ordinal, although many of the arguments for episcopacy and the her writers have shown consideration for succession of ministers, and as showing the difficulties of the Continental Prot- the judgment of the groat Anglican di- estants. It has been asserted by Mr. vines on the subject. Hooker, Bk. vn. ; Macaulay, Hist, of England, l. p. 75, Hall, Episcopacy of Divine Right ; Taylor, that "in the year 1603 the province On Episcopacy; Chillingworth, Divine of Canterbury " (/. e. in Canon 55) " sol- Institution of Episcopacy ; Leslie, On the emnly recognized the Church of Scotland, Qualifications to administer the Sacraments ; a Church in which episcopal ordination Potter, On Church Government ; Bingham, was unknown, as a branch of the holy E. A. Bk. n. ; Palmer, On the Church, Catholic Church of Christ." This state- Part vi. 568 OF MINISTERING [Art. XXIII II. There are regular ministers of ordination, to whom public authority is given to send labourers into the Vineyard. I. The example of the old Testament priesthood is clearly to the point. One out of the twelve tribes was set apart for sacred offices in general, and of that tribe one whole family for special priestly ministration. It is said truly, that the priesthood, and especially the high priest- hood, was typical of Christ. He is the great High Priest over the House of God. Therefore, it is argued, all other priesthood has ceased. It is however equally true, that the kings and prophets of old were as much types of Christ as were the high priests. Christ is our Prophet, Priest, and King. Yet still it is lawful that there should be kings and prophets under the Gospel, for we read of many prophets in the Church (Acts ii. 17 ; xi. 27 ; xiii. 1 ; xv. 32 ; xxi. 9, 10. 1 Cor. xii. 28. Eph. iv. 11) ; and we are spe- cially enjoined to " honour the king " (1 Pet. ii. 17). In one sense, doubtless, there are no such prophets, kings, or priests now, as there were under the Law. Kings were then rul- ers of the theocracy, vicegerents of God in governing the Church of God. Prophets were sent to prepare the way of Him who was to come. Priests offered up daily sacrifice of propitiation, in type of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. So, in such a sense, are there now neither prophets, priests, nor kings. But as the coming of the King and Prophet has not abolished the kingly or prophetic office, so the coming of the Great High Priest has not of necessity done away with all priestly functions in the Church, but only with such as of their own nature belonged to the typical and ceremonial dispensation. Nay ! we may fairly argue, that as sacred things in the old Testament needed the ministry of consecrated officers, so the still more sacred things of the new Testament would be likely to need the attendance of those specially set apart. And, without controversy, the Gospel and the Sacra- ments are greater and more sacred than the Law and the sacri- fices ; and hence, "if the ministration of death .... was glorious," we could easily imagine, that the " ministration of the Spirit would be rather glorious ; " that " if the ministration of condemnation was glory, much more would the ministration of righteousness ex- ceed in glory" (2 Cor. iii. 7, 8, 9). In the old Testament the priests were appointed, first to minister in the sacrifices, and then to teach the people (Lev. x. 11. Deut. xxxiii. 10. Hagg. ii. 11. Mai. ii. 7). We still need the ministration, not of sacrifices, but Sec. II.] IN THE CONGREGATION. 569 of Sacraments ; and the instruction of the Church is at least as necessary as the instruction of the Jews. It is said, however, that all Christians are priests, and that a distinct ministry is therefore needless and inconsistent (see 1 Pet. ii. 9; Rev. i. 6 ; v. 10). But it is to be observed, that wherever Christians are said to be priests, they are also said to be kings. We know that the kingly character, which Christ bestows on His peo- ple, has not abolished monarchy ; why should their priestly char- acter have abolished ministry ? Besides which, the very passages in the new Testament in which Christians are called a " royal priesthood," " kings and priests," are absolute quotations from the old Testament, where the very same titles are given to all the peo- ple of the Jews. " Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation " (Exod. xix. 6). The Septuagint Version of Exodus and the Greek of St. Peter are almost the same. The one did not forbid a special priesthood in Israel ; the other therefore cannot disprove a ministry in the Church. It was indeed argued on one occasion, that the sanctity of the whole congregation made it use- less to have priests at all. 1 But how far the argument was safe the sequel showed, when the earth swallowed up Korah and his company, and fourteen thousand of the people died of the plague, because they had listened to his reasoning (Num. xvi. 32, 33, 45— 49). It is difficult to see, where the difference lies between this statement of Korah and the modern denial of a Christian ministry, on the ground that all the Christian Church is a holy and spiritual priesthood ; and it is difficult to understand what can be, if this be not, the " gainsaying of Core," so strongly rebuked by St. Jude (ver. 11). Now it was foretold by Isaiah (lxvi. 21) that, when the Gentiles were brought in, that is in the days of the Church of Christ, some among them should be taken " for priests and for Levites." This looks much like a prophecy of a ministry to be established under the Gospel, with some analogy to that under the Law. Accord- ingly, our blessed Lord, even during His own personal ministry, whilst the Great High Priest was bodily ministering on earth, ap- pointed two distinct orders of ministers under Himself, first, Apos- tles (Matt. x. 1), secondly, the seventy disciples (Luke x. 1) ; and this with evident reference to the twelve tribes of Israel, and the seventy elders among the Jews. He gave them power to preach 1 Numb. xvi. 3 : "Ye take too much Lord is .among them ; wherefore then upon you, seeing all the congregation lift ye up yourselves above the congre- are holy, every one of them, and the gation of the Lokd * " 72 570 OP MINISTERING [Abt. XXIII. the Gospel (Matt. x. 7. Luke x. 9), to bless those that received them (Matt. x. 12, 13. Luke x. 5, 6), to denounce God's judg- ments on those that rejected them (Matt. x. 14. Luke x. 10, 11). He assured them, that he that received them received Him, that he that despised them despised Him (Matt. x. 40. Luke x. 16). And He further endued them with miraculous powers, because of the peculiar exigencies of their ministration. Moreover, He prom- ised to give them the keys of the kingdom, that they might bind and loose ; i. e. excommunicate offenders and absolve the penitent (Matt. xvi. 19 ; xviii. 18). All this was whilst He Himself went in and out among them, as the chief minister of His own Church. When He was about to suffer, He instituted one of the Sacraments of His Church, and gave especial authority to the Apostles to min- ister it (Luke xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25 ; compare 1 Cor. x. 16) ; it being apparent from the statement of St. John, that they had before received authority, not only to preach, but to baptize (John iv. 2). At last, when He had risen from the dead, He gave fuller commission to those who were now to be the chief ministers in his kingdom, to go forth with His authority to preach and to bap- tize (Matt, xxviii. 19). He said unto them, " Peace be unto you: as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And He breath- ed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : l whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained " (John xx. 21, 22, 23). He enjoined them to feed His sheep (John xxi. 15, 17). Lastly, He promised to be " with them alway, even to the end of the world " (Matt, xxviii. 20). Then He left the Church, thus organized with Apostles and elders ; and ten days afterwards sent down the miraculous, enlightening gifts of the Spirit, the more fully to qualify His chosen ministers for the work which lay upon them. Accordingly, the Apostle says, " When He ascended up on high, He gave gifts unto men, .... He gave some (as) Apostles, and some (as) prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ" (Eph. iv. 8, 11, 12, &c). The ministry so constituted continued to work. The college of Apostles was perfected by the addition of Matthias (Acts. i. 1 " The Holy Ghost," for the work of was it the miraculous baptism of the the ministry, the ordaining influences of Church with the Holy Ghost, which did the Spirit. It could not have been the not come upon them till the day of Pen- ordinary operations of the Spirit, for they tecost, Acts ii. 1. had been long living under them ; nor Sec H.] IN THE CONGREGATION. 571 26). The Apostles preached, baptized, broke bread, (i. e. minis- tered the Holy Communion,) and governed the Church. After- wards, believers multiplying, and the Apostles and elders not hav- ing leisure to attend to the secular affairs of the Church, they ordain- ed the third order of deacons, whose ordination was performed by laying on of hands; and so they also were then empowered to preach and to baptize (Acts viii. 5, 12, 13, 38,), though not to per- form some functions peculiar to the Apostles (Acts viii. 15-17). Thenceforward we find baptism, breaking of bread, and preach- ing, ever performed by regular ministers, Apostles, elders, deacons. The Apostles, as they go on their missionary journeys, " ordain them elders in every Church " (Acts xiv. 23). The "elders" meet with the Apostles in solemn council about the affairs of the Church (Acts xv. 2). When St. Paul takes leave of the Churches, he sends to the " elders " and addresses them with the exhortation, " Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own Blood " (Acts xx. 17, 28). We find from the inscriptions of the Epistles, that the settled Churches had "bishops and deacons" (Phil. i. 1). St. Peter ex- horts the " elders " of the Church to " feed the flock of God " (1 Pet. v. 1, 2). St. James bids the sick to send for the " elders of the Church to pray over them " (James v. 14). St. Paul speaks of him- self and other Christian pastors, as " ministers of Christ, and stew- ards of the mysteries of God " (1 Cor. iv. 1). He exhorts Archippus to take heed to the ministry, which he had received of the Lord, to fulfil it (Col. iv. 17). Especially, we find in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, that towards the end of his own i Apostleship he appointed others, who had previously received the gift of God by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. iv. 14. 2 Tim. i. 6), that they might, as the Apostles had hitherto done, " ordain elders in every city " (Tit. i. 5. 1 Tim. i. 3 ; v. 21, 22, &c.) Directions are given for proving, examining, and commissioning elders, presbyters or bishops, and deacons, which was to be done by the laying on of the hands of those chief ministers, themselves thus apostolically sent. (See 1 Tim. iii. 1-13 ; v. 21, 22. Tit. i. 5-7, &c.) The elders so ordained were esteemed worthy of double honour, espe- cially if they ruled well and laboured in the word and doctrine (1 Tim. v. 17). And the Church is exhorted to obey those who had thus " the rule over them, and who watched for their souls, as they that must give account" (Heb. xiii. 17). Thus we find, that a regular ministry was established, ordained after a set form, 572 OF MINISTERING [Art. XXUl by laying on of the hands of Apostles or other chief ministers em- powered by them ; that they preached and administered the Sac- raments ; that they were called ministers and stewards of God's mysteries ; that they were urged faithfully to fulfil their ministry, and that the people were urged to attend to them and respect them. Those who sent them forth were exhorted to be careful and circumspect how they ordained them. Now, all this proves, that this public office not only existed, but was not to be undertaken except by persons lawfully called and sent. St. Paul reasons, that the Jewish priesthood could not be undertaken except by him " that is called of God, as was Aaron " (Heb. v. 4). He even adds, that " Christ also glorified not Him- self to be made an High Priest" (ver. 5). But the Gospel min- istry was more glorious than that of the Law ; " for if the ministra- tion of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory " (2 Cor. iii. 9). Hence we reason- ably should conclude, that it too could not be self-assumed. And we find accordingly, that the Apostles ask, " How shall they preach except they be sent? " (Rom. x. 15) ; that they highly estimate the importance and difficulty of the office, saying, " Who is sufficient for these things ? " (2 Cor. ii. 16) ; that they dissuade people from rashly seeking to intrude into it (James iii. 1) ; and that, so far from considering all Christians as equally ministers of Christ, they ask, " Are all Apostles, are all prophets, are all teachers ? " (1 Cor. xii. 29). On the contrary, they plainly teach us, that the Church is a body, in which God ordains different stations for different mem- bers, some to be eyes, others ears, some hands, others feet; all necessary, all to be honoured, but some in more honourable place than the rest. II. The new Testament contains evidence, that, besides the ordinary ministers, namely, presbyters and deacons, there were always certain chief presbyters who were ministers of ordination, having authority to send labourers into the Vineyard. Under the Law, besides the ordinary priests and Levites, there was always the high priest, and therefore three orders or degrees of ministry. When our blessed Lord Himself was upon earth, He ordained two orders of ministers under Himself, the Apostles and the seventy disciples. Here again was a threefold cord, Christ an- swering to the high priest, the Apostles to the priests, the seventy to the Levites. But our Lord was to depart from them ; and for the future government of His Church we find a promise, that " in Sec. II.] IN THE CONGREGATION. 573 the regeneration " (*, e. in the new state of things under the Gospel of Christ, the renovation of the Church) the twelve Apostles should " sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel " (Matt. xix. 28). " What are the twelve tribes of Israel, but the whole Church of God? For whereof did the first Christian Church consist, but of converted Jews? And whither did our Saviour bend all His allusions, but to them ? They had their twelve princes of the tribes of their fathers (Numb. i. 16). They had their seventy elders, to bear the burden of the people (Numb, xi. 16, 17). The Son of God affects to imitate His former polity, and therefore chooses His twelve and seventy disciples to sway His evangelical Church. 1 Thus, when the Saviour in body departed from them, He left behind Him twelve Apostles to sit on the thrones or seats of gov- ernment in the Church, and under them seventy elders to act with them, as their fellow-labourers and assessors. (See Acts xv. 22, &c.) Soon after the ascension, the Apostles were moved to appoint a third order, the order of deacons. And thus once more the number was complete, resembling the number of the Aaronic ministry, and embracing, 1, Apostles ; 2, elders ; 3, deacons. The former two were appointed and ordained by the Lord, the third was from the Apostles. 2 Whilst the Lord Jesus was present with them, He alone or- dained. (See Matt. x. Luke x. John xx. &c). After His as- cension (except in the cases of St. Matthias and St. Paul, who were constituted to the Apostleship by Christ Himself) the Apostles acted as the ministers of ordination. (See Acts vi. 3, 6 ; xiv. 23. 2 Tim. i. 6. Tit. i. 5). Under them, we find continual mention of two orders of ministers, presbyters or elders, (who are also called bishops,) and deacons. (Acts xx. 17. Phil. i. 1, &c). The Apostles in all things undertook the government of, and authority over the Churches, giving directions to the inferior ministers, and 1 Bishop Hall's Episcopacy, Sect. 2. sages cited in Archbishop Potter On 2 [The statements of this paragraph Church Government, p. 48, Am. ed.) must, I think, be taken with some modi- What is certain is, that Paul and Bar- fication. There is no evidence in the nabas "ordained them elders in every New Testament that the seventy of the Church " which they founded in their Gospels became, ipso facto, the presbyters first missionary journey (Acts xiv. 23) ; or elders of the Apostolic Church. That following, herein the example of the these elders may have been selected from mother Church of Jerusalem (Acts xi. that body, is highly probable. There is 30), and furnishing a pattern for all patristic authority to prove it. But the Churches. The institution of the order same authority asserts that the seven- is not recorded, as that of deacons is. deacons were also selected from the Its existence, however, is certain, and so seventy ; a thing which would be inex- the main argument remains untouched plicable, had the seventy been made — J. W.] presbyters by our Lord. (See the pas- 674 OF MINISTERING [Art. XXIII bu peri n ten ding them. (See Acts xv. ; xix. 1-6 ; xx. 17-35. 1 Cor. iv. 16-21 ; v. 3-6. 2 Cor. ii. 9, 10 ; x. 1-14 ; xii. 20, 21, &c.) It is very true that the Apostles speak, when address- ing the elders, with brotherly kindness, calling themselves fel- low-elders (aviLtrpto-fSvTtpoi, 1 Pet. v. 1) ; but no one can question their own superiority to them ; and when they are mentioned to- gether, they are distinguished as " the Apostles and elders," — a phrase occurring three times in Acts xv. But the time was to come, when the Apostles should be taken from the Church, as their Lord had left it before. Did they then make provision for its government after their departure, and for a succession to them- selves, as ministers of ordination ? The Epistles to Timothy and Titus plainly answer this question. Timothy and Titus had them- selves been presbyters, ordained by (2 Tim. i. 6), and companions of St. Paul. Towards the end of his own ministry, and when his own apostolical cares had largely increased, he appointed them to take the oversight of two large districts, the one of Ephesus (where we know there were several elders or presbyters, Acts xx. 17), the other of Crete, famous for its hundred cities. In these respec- tive districts, he authorized them to execute full apostolical author- ity, the same kind of authority which he himself had exercised in his own larger sphere of labour. They were to regulate the pub- lic services of the Church (1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, &c), — to ordain pres- byters and deacons by the laying on their hands (1 Tim. iii. 1- 14 ; v. 22. Tit i. 5), — to provide that sound doctrine should be taught (1 Tim. i. 3 ; iii. 15 ; iv. 6, 16. 2 Tim. i. 13 ; ii. 14. Tit. i. 13), — committing carefully to faithful men the office of teaching, which they had themselves received from the Apostles (2 Tim. ii. 2), — to execute discipline, honouring the diligent (1 Tim. v. 17), — hearing complaints and judging those complained of (1 Tim. v. 19, 20,21,24), — admonishing those that erred (Tit. i. 13), but excommunicating those that were heretical (Tit. iii. 10). All this power is committed to them, as a solemn charge, to be accounted for before God, and as a commandment to be kept without spot, unrebukable, to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. i. 18 ; v. 21 ; vi. 13. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ; and grace for this ministry is specially said to have been given them by the putting on of the hands of the Apostles (2 Tim. i. 6). Now, here is the case of two persons placed in a position pre- viously occupied by none but the Apostles, with special power of jurisdiction and ordination. Before this, we find no such powers in any but the Apostles. Now we find them committed to Timothy Sec. II.] IN THE CONGREGATION. . 575 and Titus. Is it not plain that, as our Lord left the Apostles with chief authority over His Church, having elders and deacons under them, so now the Apostles, themselves about to depart, leave Tim- othy and Titus, and others like them, with the same authority which they themselves had received from Christ ? It is only necessary, in order to complete the chain of evidence, that we observe what we meet with in the Revelation of St. John. There, seven great Churches are written to ; one of which is the Church of Ephesus, of which we-know that there were many elders there, and that afterwards Timothy was appointed as chief minis- ter over them all. Each of these Churches is addressed through one presiding minister, who is called Angel, a name of the same import as Apostle. And these angels are compared to stars, placed to give light to the Churches (Rev. i. 20). Can we doubt then, that there was in each of these Churches one person, whose minis- try was superior to the rest, as Timothy's had been to that of the presbyters and deacons under him ? The evidence therefore of the new Testament seems clear and uniform, that there ever existed three orders of ministers : First, (1) Our Lord, (2) the Apostles, (3) the seventy. Secondly, (1) the Apostles, (2) the elders, (3) the deacons. Thirdly, (1) Per- sons like Timothy and Titus, called angels by St. John, (2) the elders, presbyters, or bishops, (3) the deacons. Moreover we find that, in all these cases, ordinations were performed by the first order of these ministers, by the laying on of hands ; except where our Lord Himself ordained, when He did not lay on His hands, but breathed on His disciples (John xx. 22). The only arguments of any weight, which are urged against the above, appear to be the following : 1. Bishops and presbyters are in Scripture convertible terms, which shows that their subsequent distinction was an invention of the priesthood. The answer to this has been already given in the words of The- odoret. The second order of ministers, whose general and proper designation was elders or presbyters, are in a few instances called by St. Paul Episcopi, bishops, or overlookers. The first order were called Apostles, and, by St. John, Angels. There are obvi- ous reasons why these two latter names should have been after- wards considered too venerable to be given to ordinary ministers ; and hence the name bishop, originally used to designate the over- lookers of a flock, was afterwards appropriated to those who were overlookers of the pastors. But the bishops of after-times " never 576 - OF MINISTERING. [Art. XXm. thought themselves and their order to succeed the Scripture, 'Em- ctkottoi, but the Scripture 'ATroarokou They were StaSoxoi rwv 'Atto- otoAwv, the successors of the Apostles." l 2. A second argument is, that, in Acts xiii. 1-3, Barnabas and Saul are said to have been ordained by some who were not Apostles. This was no ordination, but merely a setting apart for a special labour ; which was done, according to the pious custom of early days, with fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands. (Comp. Acts xiv. 23.) That it was no ordination, appears from the fact, that St. Paul was made an Apostle by our Lord, at the very time of his conversion. See Acts xxvi. 17, where our Lord constitutes him an Apostle to the Gentiles. The words are, «s ovs vw o-e cnro- otc'AAw. And St. Paul himself always declares, that he had his ministry, " not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father " (Gal. i. 1). 3. It is said again, Timothy was ordained " with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery " (1 Tim. iv. 14). It is certain, however, that bishops and presbyters are not so dif- ferent, but that a bishop is still a presbyter, though all presbyters are not bishops. So Apostles were still presbyters, (1 Pet. v. 1) ; though all presbyters were not Apostles. Hence, the presbytery may have in this case consisted only of those of the first order. At all events, St. Paul took part in Timothy's ordination, for, in 2 Tim. i. 6, he speaks of the grace of ordination as given to Timothy, " by the putting on of his (St. Paul's) hands." Hence, Timothy was certainly not ordained by presbyters only, without the presence, and laying on of hands of an Apostle. It may have been thus early permitted to presbyters to join with Apostles in laying on of their hands at the ordinations of other presbyters, as it has since been in the Western Church ; but this at least gives no sanction to mere presbyterian ordination. We must conclude then with Hooker, "If anything in the Church's government, surely the first institution of bishops was from Heaven, even of God." 2 And with Bp. Hall, " What inevita- ble necessity may do, we now dispute not," yet " for the main sub- stance," episcopacy " is utterly indispensable, and must so continue to the world's end." 8 1 Ben tley, On Freethinki no, p. 136, quo t- » Bp. Hall's Episcopacy, Pt. 11. Sect ed by Wordsworth, Theoph. Anglic. 22. 8 Hooker, vn. v. 10. ARTICLE XXIV. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a De loquendo in Ecclesia lingua quam popu- tongue as the people understandeth. los intelligit. It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Lingua populo non intellecta, publicas Word of God, and the custom of the in Ecclesia preces peragere, aut Sacra- Primitive Church to have Publiek Prayer menta administrare, Verbo Dei, et primi- in the Church, or to minister the Sacra- tiva; Ecclesise consuetudini plane repug- ments in a tongue not understanded of nat. the people. Section I.— HISTORY. HPHE Article itself appeals to the custom of the primitive Church. -*- The testimony of the fathers we must naturally expect to find only incidentally ; for, unless the custom of praying in a strange tongue had prevailed in early times, the idea would probably never have occurred to them, and so they would not be likely to say anything against it. There are however several important proofs to be found, that such a custom did not prevail, but that prayers were offered up in the churches in the vernacular tongue. Greek, Latin, and Syriac were languages spoken by the great bulk of the nations first converted to Christianity ; and therefore the earliest liturgies and translations of the Scriptures were sure to be in these tongues. But moreover, the Egyptians, Ethiopians or Abyssinians, Muscovites, Armenians and others, had liturgies in the vernacular. 1 The sacred Scriptures were early rendered into the tongues of the nations which had been converted to the faith. Even before the coming of Christ, we know that the Scriptures were translated into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews, and into Chaldee for the Jews of Palestine, to whom their original Hebrew had become obsolete. Under the Gospel the Syriac translation of the new Testament is by many ascribed to the age of the Apostles ; at all events, it is a very early work. Latin versions were scarcely, if 1 See Usher, Historia Dogmatica de sect, v., where he proves this from the Scripturis et Sacris Vernaculis, cap. vm. confession of eminent Romanist divines. 73 578 OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION [Art. XXIV. at all, posterior to the Syriac. Thus the numerous tribes which spoke Greek, Latin, or Syriac, had from the beginning the Scrip- tures, as well as the common Prayer of the Church, in languages understood by them. Moreover, there were very early versions into the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, Gothic, Sclavonic, and Anglo-Saxon ; a fact too well known to require proof. 1 Again, we have evidence from the writings of the fathers, that the custom of the primitive Christians was, that the whole con- gregation should join in the responses and in the singing of psalms and hymns ; a custom which proves that both the psalms and the liturgies must have been in intelligible dialects. 2 For instance, St. Cyril writes, " When the priest says, " Lift up your hearts," the people answer, " We lift them up unto the Lord ; " then the priest says, " Let us give thanks unto the Lord," and the people say, " It is meet and right." 3 St. Chrysostom says, that " Though all utter the response, yet the voice is wafted as from one mouth." 4 And St. Hilary speaks of people standing without the Church, and yet able to hear the voice of the congregation within, offering up prayer and praise. 5 So the emperor Justinian in one of his laws especially enjoins bishops and presbyters, in public prayers and Sacraments, to speak, not secretly* but with such a voice as may be well heard by the people. 6 But, beyond all this, we have plain testimonies of the fathers, that both the Scriptures were read and the prayers offered in a tongue intelligible to the assembled multitude. Justin Martyr gays, that, among the early Christians, " the commentaries of the Apostles and writings of the prophets were first read ; and then, when the reader had ceased, the president made an oration exhort- ing the people to remember and imitate the things which they had heard." 7 Such an exhortation would have been useless, if the language in which the writings of the Prophets and Apostles were read had not been a language familiar to the congregation. There is a well-known passage in Origen, 8 where he asserts, that, " the Greeks used Greek in their prayers, the Romans Latin, and so 1 See Bingham, E. A. Bk. xm. ch. quia extra ceclesiam, vocem ; spectet iv. §6; Home, Introduction to Scriptures, celebres hvmnorum sonitus ; et inter ii. pt. i. ch. ii. tlivinoruni quoque sacramentorum offl- a See Usher, as above, cap. vm. sect. cia. responsionem dcvota? confessionis ac- iv ; Bingham, E. A. Bk. xm. ch. IT, cipiat." — Hilar. In Psalm, lxv. ; Usher, sect. ii. ubi supra. " Catech. Mi/stagor/.v. n Justinian, Novell. 187. See Usher, as * Homil. in 1 Cor. xiv. ; Homil. xxxvi. above. juxta fin. '• Apolog. I . p. 98. 6 "Audiat orantis populi, consistens * Origen C. Celsum, vm. 87. Sec. 1] AS THE PEOPLE UNDERSTANDETH. 579 every one in his own language prays to God, and gives thanks, as he is able : and the God of all languages hears them that pray in all dialects, even as if all spake with but one voice." From Je- rome we learn, that sometimes more than one language was used in the same service, because of the presence of men from different nations. He says, that, " at the funeral of Paula, the Psalms were sung in Greek, Latin, and Syriac, because men of each of those languages were there." l Indeed, eminent schoolmen and Roman Catholic divines, as Lyra, Thomas Aquinas and Harding, have rally allowed that in the primitive Church prayers were offered up in the vulgar tongue, that the people might be the better instructed. 2 The way in which the use of a dead language for public wor- ship came in, is pretty obvious. The Romans, as masters of the western world, strove to impose their own language on their colonial subjects. Thus the common tongue of Europe was Latin. The ecclesiastics were in constant connection with Rome, the centre of civilization, the chief city of Christian Europe. Thus the lan- guage most generally understood became too the language of litur- gical worship. By degrees, out of the ancient Latin grew the French, the Italian, the Spanish, and other dialects. Still the old Latin liturgies were preserved, and for a long time were, with no great difficulty, understood. By this time the clergy throughout the western Church had become still more closely united to Rome. More too of mystery had grown over men's minds with regard to the Church's sacred ordinances. Hence all things conspired to make the clergy willing to leave in the language of the central city the prayers of the distant provinces. And thus the change, which became needful when men's languages had changed, was never effected. A feeling too that, as the Church was one and yet universal, so there should be but one universal tongue in which her prayers and praises should go up to God, lent a colouring of piety and poetry to the old custom of having Latin liturgies. And so till the Reformation, no efficient attempt was made to reform what many must have deemed an error, and to make the worship of God, to people as well as priests, a reasonable service. When this question came to be discussed in the Council of Trent, it was forbidden by an anathema to say that the mass should 1 Hieron. Ad Eustochium, Epitaphium Contra Juelliim, Art. 3, sect. 28. See Paulce Matris, juxta Jin. Tom. iv. Part Usher, as above ; Jer. Taylor, Dissua- ix. p. 687. sive, pt. i. ch. i. sect. 7 ; Bingham, 3k. 2 Lyra, in 1 Cor. xiv. 17 ; Aquinas In xm. ch. iv. I Cor. xiv. Vol. xvi. fol. 84; Harding, 580 OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION [Art. XXIV. not bo celebrated in any but the vulgar tongue, or the consecration not performed in a low voice. 1 And though in modern times some prayers are offered in the churches of the Roman communion in tongues understood of the people, yet the mass is never celebrated except in Latin, both to avoid profanation, and lest the very words which are supposed to have been used from the beginning should lose any of their force or sacredness by translation. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. TT is not likely that there should be very much said in Scripture * on this subject. The Bible seldom suggests, even to condemn, errors into which men had never fallen. Certainly, however, we can find no trace among the Jews of the use of prayers in an un- known tongue, nor yet among the Apostolic Christians. The only case in point appears to be that of the exercise of the gift of tongues among the Corinthian Christians. The purpose for which that miraculous power was conferred, was evidently, that the Gospel might be preached by unlearned men to all nations, peoples, and languages. Some of the Corinthian converts, having received the gift by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, used it to ostentation, not to edification, speaking in the congregations in languages not understood by those who were present. St. Paul rebukes this in the xivth chapter of his first Epistle ; and there incidentally shows, that prayer in a tongue not intelligible to the congregation is contrary to the due order of the Church and the will of God. This is especially observable in verses 14-17 : " If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my under- standing is unfruitful. What is it then ? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also ; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else, when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing that he understandeth not what thou sayest ? " So again ver. 19 : " In the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." And ver. 28 : " If there be no interpreter, let him " (i. e. the person who can speak only in a tongue unknown 1 Sew. xxn. Can. 9. See also Sarpi, Hist, of the Council of Trent, p. 640. Sec. H.] AS THE PEOPLE UNDERSTANDETH. 581 to the hearers) " keep silence in the Church ; and let him speak to himself and to God." All these arguments seem as clearly against having liturgies in a dead language, as against the custom which had grown up in the Church of Corinth, of using the gift of tongues when there was none to interpret them. Prayer is to be with the under- standing, not with the spirit only. Prayer and thanksgiving are not to be offered publicly in words, to which the unlearned cannot say Amen. A man may pray in such words in private to God, but not publicly in the Church. The reason assigned is, " God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints" (ver. 33). And the general rule laid down is, "Let all things be done to edifying " (ver. 26). No arguments from expediency seem fit to be set against such decisions of the Apostles. Now the only arguments of any weight for retaining Latin in the Liturgies are arguments from expediency. For instance, it is said, Latin is a general language, and so, well for the whole Church to use. But it is more true to say, that it is generally unknown, than that it is generally known ; for it is only the learned in all lands that understand it ; the masses of the people (who have souls to be saved as well as the more instructed) do not understand it anywhere. It is said, that the holy services are kept from profanation by being veiled in the mystery of a difficult tongue. But it is surely more profanation, when people mutter sacred things, or listen to them being muttered, without understanding them, than when they reverently and intelligently join with heart and mind in solemnizing them. It is said again, that the use of the dead language fixes and preserves the sacred services ; so that words used from Apostolic times are still used by the Church ; and the mass is celebrated in the same syllables in which it was said by the primitive bishops. This, if extended to the whole service of the mass, is not strictly true ; for the Ro- man missal does not actually agree with the various primitive liturgies, which primitive liturgies have considerable varieties among themselves. If the statement be confined to the very words of consecration ; then surely we ought to use, not Latin, but Greek, in which these words are to be found in the new Tes- tament. If these be any virtue in the very words themselves, we are no nearer the original, if we say, Hoc est Coryms Meum, than if we say, This is My Body. In short, the custom of having prayers in an unknown tongue appears to have originated in a kind of accident, but to have been 582 OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION. [Art. XXIV. perpetuated by design. It originated in the Latin becoming obsolete in Europe, and the prayers not being translated, as the various European dialects grew up. It was then found to be a means of keeping up mystery, and so priestly power ; and there- fore it was preserved. But it is evidently without authority from Scripture, or from the primitive Church ARTICLE XXV. Of the Sacraments. Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in Him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacra- ments, that is to say, Confirmation, Pen- ance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacra- ments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Bap- tism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or cere- mony ordained of God. The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation : but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves dam- nation, as St. Paul saith. De Saeramentis. Sacramenta a Christo instituta, non tantum sunt notes professionis Christia- norum, sed certa quaedam potius testimo- nia, et effieacia signa gratiae atque bonae in nos voluntatis Dei, per qua? invisibili- ter Ipse in nos operatur, nostramque fidem in se non solum excitat, verum etiam confirmat. Duo a Christo Domino nostro in Evan- gelio instituta sunt sacramenta, scilicet, Baptismus et Coena Domini. Quinque ilia vulgo norninata Sacra- menta ; scilicet, Confirmatio, poenitentia, ordo, matrimonium, et extrema unctio, pro saeramentis evangelicis habenda non sunt, ut quae partim a prava apostolorum imitatione profluxerunt, partim vitas sta- tus sunt in scripturis quidem probati, sed sacramentorum eandem cum Baptismo et Coena Domini rationem non habentes, ut quae signum aliquod visibile, ceu caeremoniam a Deo institutam non ha- beant. Sacramenta non in hoc instituta sunt a Christo, ut spectarentur aut circumferren- tur; sed ut rite illis uteremur, et in his duntaxat, qui digne percipiunt, salutarem habent effectum : Qui vero indigne per- cipiunt, damnationem (ut inquit Paulus) sibi ipsis acquirunt. HPHE main substance of this Article is taken from the Xlllth -*- Article of the Confession of Augsburg, the very words of which are adopted in the first part of it. 1 The Articles agreed on between the Anglican and Lutheran reformers, in 1538, had one Article (the IXth) to the same purport ; though that went on to speak of Infant Baptism. 2 The XXVIth Article of 1552 con- tained nearly the same statements as the present XXVth ; but had * " De usu Sacramentorum docent ; quod Sacramenta instituta sint, non modo ut sint nota. professionis inter homines, sed magis ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos, ad excitandam et confirman- damjidem in his qui utuntur .... pro- posita, &c." — Confess. August. Art. xm. * Cranmer's Works by Jenkyns, iv. ; Appendix, p. 285. 584 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Art. XXV. no reference to the seven Sacraments. It asserted that the w hole- some effect of the Sacraments was not ex opere operate, " of work wrought." Moreover, there was the following sentence in it by way of introduction, which is almost in the words of St. Augustine : " Our Lord Jesus Christ hath knit together a company of new people with the Sacraments, most few in number, most easy to be kept, most excellent in signification, as is Baptism and the Lord's Supper." 1 We may divide the Article, as it now stands, into four heads. I. Concerning the number of the Sacraments of the Gospel. II. Concerning their efficacy. III. Concerning their proper use. IV. Concerning their worthy reception. The whole Article is introductory to the six next in order after it, and is rather concerned with definitions than aught else. And as such I purpose to consider it. I. The word Sacrament (Sacr 'amentum) is an ecclesiastical, rather than a Scriptural term. It is used indeed in the Latin translations for the Greek word (j.v<mqpiov, mystery. Yet the tech- nical use of both these terms in the Christian Church is rather patristic than Apostolical. The original meaning of the word Sacramentum was (1) anything sacred, hence (2) a sacred deposit, a pledge, and (3) most commonly, an oath, especially the military oath, which soldiers took to be faithful to their country, and obey the orders of their general. Whether the first, or the last and ordinary sense of the word was the origin of the ecclesiastical usage of it, may be a question. The earliest application of the term to anything Christian is to be found in the well-known letter of Pliny the younger to the emperor Trajan ; in which he speaks of the Christians as wont to meet together on a certain fixed day, before sunrise, when they chanted hymns to Christ as to God, and bound themselves by a Sacrament not to commit any sort of wickedness. 2 It is possible, 1 The words of St. Augustine are : 2 " Adflrmabant autem, banc fuisse " Sacramcntis numero paucissimis, ob- summam vel culpa? sua?, vel erroris, quod servatione facilliniis, signifieatione prav essent soliti, stato die, ante lucent con- stantissimis, societatem novi populi col- venire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo ligavit, sir-mi est Baptismus Trinitatis dicere secum invicem ; seque Sacramento nomine consecratus, communicatio Cor- non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne poris et Sanguinis Ipsius; et si quid aliud furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria com- m Scripturis Canonicis commendatur." mitteivnt, ne fldera fallerent, ne depoti- — Epistol. 54, Op. Tom. n. p. 1'24. He turn appellati abnegarent."— Plin. Epi»t uses nearly the same words, De l)oct. 97. CArut*. Lib. Ill, o. ( J, Tom. in. pare i. p. 49. Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 585 that the word Sacrament here meant simply an oath. Yet since Pliny reported it, as the Christians had told it to him, it is prob- able enough, that he used the very word which he had heard from them, and that they used it in the Christian and technical sense, howsoever Pliny may have understood it. It is generally supposed that its application in this passage was to the Supper of the Lord. 1 In Tertullian, the earliest of the Latin fathers, we find the notion of the military oath applied to the Christian's baptismal vow, to serve faithfully under the banner of the cross. " We were called to the warfare of the living God, when we made answer ac- cording to the words of the Sacrament (in Sacramenti verba res- pondimus). No soldier goes to war with luxuries," 2 &c. This, however, is an exception to the rule. The commoner use of the word is either for a sacred rite in general, an outward sign of some more hidden reality — or else for certain particular, more exalted rites of the Gospel and the Church. It has, in short, a more extended, and a more restricted force. In its more ex- tended sense, it signified little more than a religious ordinance or a sacred sign. Thus Tertullian, speaking of the charges of infan- ticide, brought by the heathens against the Christians, says that Christians were charged with " the Sacrament of infanticide. " 3 He calls our Lord's anointing by the Holy Ghost, Sacramentum unctionis.* St. Cyprian speaks of the many Sacraments contained in the Lord's Prayer. 5 He calls the three hours of prayer, " a Sac- rament of the Trinity." 6 He says, the manna was " a Sacrament of the equality with which Christ diffuses His gifts of light and grace upon His Church ; and that the Red Sea was a Sacrament (i. e. a divinely ordained figure) of baptism." 7 Accordingly, we hear some of the ancients speaking of the two great ordinances of Baptism and the Eucharist, not as each but one Sacrament, but as each containing two Sacraments. In Baptism, the two Sacraments were the water, and the chrism which was anciently used after it. 8 1 See Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. 6 " Qualia autem sunt, fratres dilectis- i. simi, orationis Dominican sacramenta, 2 Ad Mart. 3 ; conf. De Spectaculis, quam multa, quam magna breviter in 24 ; De Corona, 13 ; De Idololatria, 6, &c. sermone collecta." — Cypr. De Oratione Cf. Hieronym. Epist. i. ad Heliodorum : Dominica, T. 142. Oxford, 1682. " Recordare tyrocinii tui diem, quo 6 " Horam tertiam, sextam, nonam, Ohristo in baptismate consepultus, in sacramento scilicet Trinitatis." — Ibid. E. sacramenti verba jurasti." — On the Bap- 154. tismal Profession, see Bingham, xi. vii. 6. 7 Ibid. Epistol. 69, al. 76, E. 187. a " Dicimur sceleratissimi, de sacra- 8 Immediately after baptism in the mento infanticidii."— Apoloy. 7. early ages, followed the unction or 4 Adv. Praxeam, 28; see Bp. Kaye, chrism, and confirmation, or the laying Tertullian, p. 358. on of hands. So Tertullian : "Exinde 74 686 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Art. XXV. In the Eucharist, the two Sacraments were the oread and the wine. Thus St. Cyprian twice speaks of regeneration as to be obtained by the reception of both Sacraments ; where the context shows, that the two Sacraments mean the washing of water and the imposition of hands, considered as parts of the one ordinance of Baptism. 1 And so Isidore speaks of four great Sacraments, namely, Baptism and Chrism, the Body and the Blood of Christ. 2 The use of the term Sacrament then was very different among the fathers from its ordinary use amongst us. Yet there was with them also a more restricted use of the term ; and there is abundant proof that the two great Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist were markedly separated from, and preferred before all other sacraments or ordinances. It is observed, that Justin Martyr in his first apology, (see pp. 93, 97,) when giving an account of the Christian religion and of its rites, mentions only Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Tertullian uses the word Sacr amentum with the common laxity of the early writers, yet he specially applies it to Baptism, which he calls Sacramentum Fidei, 3 Aquce, 4 Lavacrif and to the Eucharist, which he calls Sacramentum Euchariatice.* He does not seem to have applied it to any of the five Komish Sacraments, except to marriage, concerning which he specially alludes to the Latin translation of Eph. v. 32, where /xe'ya pwrrq- piov is rendered magnum Sacramentum. 7 The same is the case egressi de lavacro perungimur benedicta by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath unctione." — De Baptismo, 7. " Dehinc given thee remission of all thy sins, He inanus imponitur, per benedictionem in- vouchsafe to anoint thee with the unction vocans, et invitans Spiritum Sanctum." of His Holy Spirit, and bring thee to the — c. 8. Confirmation was anciently inheritance of everlasting life. Amen." considered part of baptism, and follow- — Two Liturgies of Edw. VI. Oxf. 1888. ed on it immediately. See Bingham, p. 834. xn. 8 ; Suicer, s. v. xP ia P a , "• 1534 ; Confirmation was not considered es- iXcuov, i. 1077 ; and Hooker, Bk. v. ch. sential to the receiving of the Holy 66 Ghost in baptism, but was " only a sacra- Confirmation was sometimes delayed mental complement." — See Hooker, v. from the difficulty of obtaining the pres- ch. lxvi. § 6, and St. Jerome, as cited ence of a bishop at the time of baptism ; there. but unction seems to have been always ' " Tunc demum plene sanctiflcari, et administered with baptism. " Ungi quo- esse Filii Dei possunt, si sacramento que necesse est eum, qui baptizatus sit, utroque nascantur," &c. — Epist. lxxii. ut accepto Chrismate, id est, unctione, E. 1%, Cf. Ep. lxxiii. p. 207. See also esse unctus Dei, et habere in se gratiam Bingham, xn. i. 4. Christi possit." — Cypr. Epist. lxx. E. a " Sunt autem sacramenta, baptia- 190. nuis et chrisma ; corpus et sanguis The custom of anointing after bap- Christi." — Isidor. Origin. Lib. vi. c. xix. tism was retained by our reformers in the apud Bingham, ubi supra. first Service Book, though omitted in * De Animu, i. the second. The following was the form * De Baptismo, 1, 12. prescribed. "Then the priest shall anoint * De Virgin. Veland. 2. the infant upon the head, saying, Al- 9 De Corona, 8. mighty God, the Father of our Lord * De Jejumit, 8. See Bishop Kaye's Jesus Christ, who hath regenerate thee Tertullian, p. 858. Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 587 with the later Latin fathers. St. Augustine, when contrasting the Sacraments of the Law with those of the Gospel, speaks of the former as many, but the latter as very few, and then enumerates only Baptism and the Communion : in one passage adding, " and if there be any other commended to us in the Canonical Scriptures :" but in another, instancing only Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 1 In like manner, speaking of Adam and Eve as types of Christ and the Church, he says that, " As from the side of Adam when sleep- ing sprang Eve, so from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross flowed the Sacraments of the Church " (Sacr amenta Ecclesiai pro- fluxerunt), i. e. the two Sacraments typified by the water and the blood. 2 Elsewhere he says, " The water and the blood which flowed from the side, were the twin Sacraments of the Church (JEcclesicc gemina Sacramento), the water in which the bride is purified, the blood with which she is endowed." 3 The same thing is observable among the Greeks. Though they use the word mystery, as the Latins do Sacrament, for any sacred sign ; yet baptism and the Eucharist are markedly distinguished from all other ordinances. Ignatius speaks of them as the two rites, which may not be celebrated without the bishop's authority.* St. Cyril couples "the holy mysteries of baptism," and the "spiritual and heavenly mysteries " " of the Holy Altar," as those things for which the catechumens were trained. 5 St. Chrysos- tom joins together Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as the two ordinances necessary to salvation. " If none can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be born again of water and the Spirit, and if he who eateth not the Flesh of the Lord nor drinketh His blood is cast out of life eternal, and if these things are performed by the hands of the priests," 6 &c. So he speaks, almost in the same terms with St. Augustine, of the blood and water from our Saviour's side, as typifying the two mysteries or Sacraments 1 In the one passage, Epist. 54, given ina sacramenta ; aqua ex qua est sponsa above, he says : " Sicuti est baptismus purificata, sanguis ex quo invenitur esse Trinitatis nomine conseeratus, eommu- dotata." — De Symb. ad Catech. 15, Tom. nieatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius, et si vi. p. 562. quid aliud in Scripturis Canonicis com- This latter book is not certainly Au- mendatur." gustine's ; though the Benedictine edi- In the .other passage, De Doctrina tors consider this genuine, and the three Christiana, Lib. m. c. 9, he says sim- tracts which follow it spurious. The ply : " Sicuti est baptismus et celebratio like sentiments occur often in St. Au- Corporis et Sanguinis Domini." gustine. See Serm. ccxix. c. 14; In * In Johann. Eoang. cap. iv. tract, xv. Vigiliis Paschce, quoted under Art. xix. Tom. m. pars 2, p. 409. Sect. i. 8 " Percussum est enim latus Ejus, ut * Smyrn. vm. evangelium loquitur, et statim manavit 5 Cateches. xvm. 14. sanguis et aqua, quae sunt Ecclesiae gem- 6 De Sacerdot. in. 588 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Art. XXV. by which the Church is constituted. 1 In which expressions he is followed, nearly word for word, by Theophylact. 2 With whatever latitude therefore the word mystery and Sac- rament are used in their general acceptation by the fathers, there is still a higher and more special signification, in which they are applied to the two great ordinances of the Gospel, instituted by Christ Himself. 8 As for the number seven insisted on by the Church of Rome, we cannot find it in the writings of the fathers. Peter Lombard is said to have first devised it in the twelfth century, and from him it was adopted generally by the Schoolmen. 4 It was laid down with authority in a decree to the Armenians, sent from the Council of Florence 1439, which runs only in the name of Pope Eugenius. 6 It was then confirmed by the provincial Council of Sens, otherwise called the Council of Paris, a. d. 1528 ; 6 after that, by the Council of Trent, a. d. 1547. 7 It finally stands as part of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. 8 The confessions of all the reformed Churches speak of but two Sacraments of the Gospel. 9 In England, the Articles about Religion and the Necessary Doctrine, put forth in Henry VIHth's reign, in 1536 and 1543 respectively, retain the notion of seven Sacraments. Even the first book of Homilies, a. d. 1547, speaks of " the Sac- rament of matrimony," and that, immediately after speaking of the " Sacrament of baptism." 10 Cranmer's Catechism speaks of three Sacraments as instituted by Christ, baptism, absolution, the Lord's Supper. 11 But the final judgment of the reformed Church of England appears first in this Article ; secondly, in the language of the Catechism, where Sacraments are defined as outward signs of inward grace, " ordained by Christ Himself," and are said to be 1 k$f)Xde 6t) yap Mup xai alua. ovk air"Kuc, tery and Sacrament were Kar' t^ox^v ap- ovdi uc trvxev, avrai i^jkdov al irqyai • uX?*' plied to the Eucharist. See Suicer, as lireiii) II; updorepuv rovruv j; tKKknaia owe- above, and Waterland, On the Eucharist, OTijKe- koI laaaiv ol pvarayuyovpevot. di' ch. I. oapubi rpe<j>6pevot. kvrexrDev apxrlv Tuafi- 6 Decret. Eugen. Papa iv. ad Armenot fiuvei tu fworiipia. — Homil. in Johanu. 86, ap. Labi). Condi. Tom. xm. p. 684. Tom. ii. p. 916. 6 Can. x. ; Labb. Concil. Tom. xiv. p. Elsewhere he speaks of the blood and 464. water being eic rvnov tuv pMOTijpiuv, for a 7 Sess. vn. Can. i. See Archbishop type of the Sacraments. — Tom. r. Homil. Bramhall, Answer to M. De la Milletiire, cxvin. Bramhall's Works, i. p. 66. Oxf. 1842. 2 Oix airAuf ravra yiverai, aXX' tnel ry 8 See Sylloge Conftssionum, p. 4. iKK^rjaia rj Cw^ ^ tovtuv tuv 6vo yiverai 8 See Luther's Catechismus Major, Op- koI owiaraToi, ii' idaroe piv yevvafie&a, pro, Tom. v. p. 636; Stfllooe Con/essionum, iC alparoc koI auparoc rpefopeda. — The- pp. 76, 127, 277, 849, 876. ophyl. InJohannis, cap. xix. See Suicer, " First Part of the Sermon of Swearing, vori/ptov. n Cranmer's Catechism, p. 188. Oa should be added that both mys- the effect of Absolution, see p. 202. Abt. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 589 " two only as generally necessary to salvation ; " and thirdly, in the second book of Homilies, the words of which are so much to the purpose that we may well refer to them here : " As for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact sig- nification of a Sacrament, namely, for the visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two : namely, baptism and the Supper of the Lord. For, although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin ; yet by the express word of the new Testa- ment it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the new Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible signs in baptism and the Lord's Supper are : and therefore absolution is no such Sacrament as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath His visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sins, as all other Sacraments except the two above- named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other Sacrament else, be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in general acceptation the name of a Sacrament may be attributed to anything, whereby an holy thing is signified. In which under- standing of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven Sacraments ; but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like ; not meaning thereby to repute them as Sacraments in the same signification that the two fore-named Sacraments are. Dio- nysius, Bernard, de Ccena Domini, et Ablut. -pedum?' 1 In this passage we see clearly our own Church's definition of a Sacrament, and the points of difference between ourselves and the Romish divines. The Homily defines a Sacrament of the Gospel to be " a visible sign expressly commended to us in the new Tes- tament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ." This closely corresponds with the words of the Catechism : " An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same " spiritual grace, " and a pledge to assure us thereof." And again, the definition of this XXV th Article is of similar significance : " Sacraments ordained of Christ be ... . certain sure witnesses, 1 Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments. 590 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Akt. XXV. and effectual (efficacia) signs of grace, and God's good-will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us." Now this definition does not exclude matrimony, confirmation, absolution, and orders, from being in some sense Sacraments ; but it excludes them from being " such Sacraments as baptism and the Communion." No other ordinances but baptism and Communion have an express sign ordained by Christ Himself, and annexed thereto the promise of free forgiveness of sins," and " of inward and spiritual grace given to us." Therefore these have clearly a preeminence over all other ordinances, and may therefore hot iioxrjv be called Sacraments of the Gospel : being also the only ordinances which are " generally necessary to salvation." It seems hardly needful to enter on a full consideration of each of the five Romish Sacraments here. Four out of the five the Church of England admits, at least in a modified form. This Ar- ticle declares them to be " such as have grown partly of the cor- rupt following of the Apostles, partly to be states of life allowed in the Scriptures." Matrimony is especially to be called a u state of life allowed in the Scriptures." It is possible, that orders and con- firmation may be so called also. Yet orders, confirmation, and penance or absolution, as the Roman Church administers them, are mixed with some superstitious ceremonies. Hence perhaps they, as well as extreme unction, may be considered in the Article, to have " grown " (in their Roman Catholic or mediaeval form) " of the corrupt following of the Apostles." 1. Confirmation, in the primitive Church, followed immediately on baptism, and, as above noted, was made ordinarily a part of baptism. Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem both speak of the catechumens as first receiving baptism, and then immediately on their coming out* of the water, receiving chrism and imposition of hands. 1 The separation of confirmation from baptism arose, some- times from the difficulty of obtaining the presence of a bishop, sometimes from the reconciling of heretics, who were confirmed but not rebaptized, and latterly from the deferring the confirmation of infants ; it being thought good that, though baptized, they should delay their confirmation till they were trained and seasoned for serving as soldiers in the army of Christ. 3 The result has been that, after the first ages, confirmation became a separate rite from 1 Tertullian, De Baptismo, 7, 8, quoted Bingliam, in. i. 1; Suicer, 8. vv. afpa- above. Cyril. Catech. Myst. m. 1, T/«v yi(, xpur/xa. hfwiuc iiva(3e(3riK6oiv &nb tjk KoXvpfifidpac 2 See Hooker, Bk. v. IxtI. 7. tuv lepCtv vofiuruv idodt) xpia/xa. — See Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 591 baptism, and we still continue it as such, believing that so it is more fit for edifying. 2. Ordination we esteem, scarcely less than does the Church of Rome, as an appointment of Christ Himself. We believe that God gives grace for the office of the ministry to those who receive it aright. We observe that, though our Lord commanded no par- ticular sign, yet the Apostles always used the laying on of hands. But with regard to the inward grace, we read not that forgiveness of sins or personal sanctification were promised to its right re- ception, but rather the Holy Ghost for the work of the ministry. Therefore, although we retain it as essential for the maintenance of a rightly constituted ministry in the Church, yet we place it not on a par with the two Sacraments of baptism and Communion : which are the means of obtaining and increasing spiritual life to our souls, and of binding together the company of God's people in one. 1 3. Matrimony is not so much a Sacrament of the Gospel as " an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's in- nocency ; " it is neither a badge, "by which Christian men are dis- cerned from others, which be not christened ; " nor is it a means, whereby pardon of sins and inward sanctification are conveyed to us by the Spirit of God. Hence again, though, like other sacred ceremonies, it may be called a Sacrament, and anciently was so called, it comes not under our definition of a Sacrament of the Gospel. In the Epistle to the Ephesians (v. 32), St. Paul does indeed say concerning it, u This is a great mystery ; " or rather (To pvo-T-qpiov tovto fx-ija «mV), " This mystery is great." The Latins have translated his words magnum est Sacramentum ; and so it has been argued, that matrimony is specially called a Sacrament. It is plain, however, that St. Paul's meaning is merely this. The marriage of Adam and Eve (and indeed marriage in the general) was esteemed by the Jews, and is constantly spoken of in the new Testament, as a figure, type or mystery of the union and marriage betwixt Christ and his Church. The fathers all seem to under- stand it so. Tertullian says, that Adam's calling Eve " bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh," was a great Sacrament concerning Christ and His Church. 2 St. Chrysostom understands it that mar- riage was an allegory of Christ's union to His Bride, the Church. • That it was something great and wonderful, Moses, or rather 1 " In nullum nomen religionis sive 2 " Nam etsi Adam statim prophe- verss sive falsa? coagulari homines pos- tavit, magnum illud sacramentum in Bunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum vel sacra- Christum et Ecclesiain : Hoc nunc os ex mentorum visibilium consortio colligan- ossibus meis," &c. — De Anima, c. 11. See tur." — August. C. Faustum, xix. 11. See also De Exhort. Cattitul. c. 6. Wordsworth, Theophil. Anglic, ch. vm. 592 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Abt. XXV. God, intimated. For the present, however, saith he, I speak con- cerning Christ, both that He left the Father, and came down, came to the Bride, and became one Spirit. For he that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit. And he says well, It is a great mystery. And then as though he were to say, nevertheless the allegory does not destroy affection, he adds, Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself." 1 So too Theodoret and Theophylact 8 explain it, namely, that the Apostle speaks of marriage as a mys- tery or allegory of Christ and the Church. 4. Penance in the Church of Rome consists of three parts : con- fession, absolution, and satisfaction. The origin of it was in the early penitential discipline of the Church. In the primitive ages, when baptized Christians had committed grievous sins, they were placed for a time in the position of penitents. Their discipline consisted of three parts : namely, 1, confession ; 2, separation from the Church ; 3, absolution. At first it appears that confession was made publicly by the offender in the face of the Church, and was probably an humble acknowledgment of sins which already had given offence to the company of believers. 8 Yet very early it was commended to peni- tents to seek out for themselves a wise spiritual adviser, to whom they should confide their more secret offences, that, if he judged it expedient, such offences might afterwards be confessed in the face of the congregation. 4 In process of time the bishops appointed a regular officer or penitentiary, to hear these private confessions, and to judge whether they should be made public or not. Socrates says, this officer was first appointed for the restoration of those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution ; 6 though Sozomen thinks such a minister must have been necessary, and so in existence from the first. 6 The ' duty of this penitentiary was, to inquire into the nature of the penitents' offences, to prescribe to them certain modes of humiliation, and if needful a public acknowledgment of their sins ; and then to give them absolution. 7 In course of time, a scandalous offence having been confessed to a presbyter in the 1 Chrysost. In Ephes. v. 82, Homil. xx. catum tuum .... Si intellexerit et a Theodoret and Theophylact, ad hunc pramderit talem esse languorem tuum locum. See Suicer, s. v. pvari/piov. See qui in conventu totius Ecclesire exponi also Hammond and Whitby On Ephes. v. debeat et curari, ex quo fortassis et 88. Macknight has an excellent note on cseteri asdificari poterunt, et tu ipse facile the passage. sanari," &c. — Origen In Pt. xxxrii. Horn- 8 See Tertullian, De Panitentia, c. 9, iV. 2. 10; Augustin. Homil. xlix. 8, Tom. v. * Socr. H. E. Lib. v. c. 19. p. 1054. 8 Sozomen, Lib. tii. c. 16. * So Origen: " Tantummodo circum- 7 Ibid, ■pice diligentius cui debeas confiteri pec- Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 593 Greek Church, which produced a public excitement, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, was induced to abolish the office of peni- tentiary. 1 St. Chrysostom was the immediate successor of Nec- tarius. It appears from his writings, that public confession still continued to be a part of discipline ; 2 although we have reason to think that the congregation was not always informed of the exact nature of the crimes for which the penitent was suffering penance and confessing guilt, but only that they knew them to be great and deadly offences. 3 This much, however, we learn from the writings both of St. Chiysostom and of his great contemporary, St. Augus- tine, that the Church in their days did not consider private confes- sion of private sins essential to salvation, but only the public con- fession of public scandals necessary to the discipline of the Church. " What have I to do with men," says St. Augustine, " that they should hear my confessions? " 4 "I do not compel you," says St. Chrysostom, " to discover your sins in the presence of men. Un- fold your conscience before God, show Him your wounds, and from Him seek healing." 5 Leo the Great, who was Bishop of Rome, a. d. 440, is said to have been the first innovator on the penitential discipline of the Church ; for he forbade sins which had been confessed to the priest to be published in the Church, deciding that private confession was sufficient for the clearing of the conscience of the offenders. 6 Theo- dore, Archbishop of Canterbury in the seventh century, is said to have been the first who altogether abolished public penance for private sins. 7 Redemption of penance also by pecuniary fines be- came, in process of time, a common practice, which some also refer to Theodore as the originator. 8 Along with private confession grew the custom of private absolution. 9 And afterwards the form itself of absolution became more peremptory and authoritative ; 10 till at length auricular confession, followed by absolution and satis- faction, was elevated to the full dignity of a necessary Sacrament. 1 Socr. Sozotn. Ibid. deil-ov tu rpavpara, teal nap 1 avrut ra (pap- 2 Epist. ad Innocent. Tom. m. p. 517 ; fiaica airnoov. Chrysost. De lncomprehen- In Epist. ad Ephes. Horn. in. Tom. xi. sibili Dei Natura, Horn. v. § 7, Tom. i. p. p. 23 ; In Epist. ad Ebrce. Horn. iv. Tom. 490. xii. pp. 48, 49. 6 Leo. Epist. 136, ad Episc. Campan, 3 August. In Symbol, ad Catechumen. " " Theodorus, homo graecus, primus Lib. i. c. 15. aperte morem sustulit publice de crimin- 4 " Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus, ibus oceultis poeuitendi." — Morinus De ut audiant confessiones meas, quasi ipsi Administ. Pcenitent. x. 17, 2, quoted by sanaturi sint omnes languores meos l" — Marshall in Penitential Discipline, ch. in. Confession. Lib. x. c. 3, Tom. i. p. 171. § I. 6 Ov6e yup eic deaTpov oe uyu rCiv ovv- 8 Marshall, ch. in. § 2. doiykwv tuv ouv, ovdi eKxa?i.wjjai role u.v&pu- 9 Ibid. § 3. iroic uvaynufa tu hpjapvqpara- rd ovveidbc 10 Ibid. § 4. avairrv^ov epirpoodev tov &eov not avru 75 594 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [A«t. XXV The Council of Trent anathematizes all who deny it to be truly and properly a Sacrament, instituted by Christ Himself, 1 and ne- cessary to salvation jure divirw, or who say that the method of con- fessing secretly to the priest alone (which the Church Catholic has observed from the beginning) is alien to Christ's institution and of human invention. 2 The reformed Churches have generally abolished auricular con- fession, as obligatory and sacramental. The Lutherans indeed still retain it, as a regular part of Church order and discipline. The Augsburg Confession declares concerning confession, that it is right to retain private absolution in the Church, but that it is not necessary in confession to enumerate every individual sin. 3 Calvin also recommended both private confession to a pastor, and private absolution when needed for the remedy of any special infirmity ; but he says, it should not be made obligatory upon all, but only commended to such as need it. 4 Our own reformers appear to have taken the same wise and moderate view. Ridley, the greatest light of the English Reformation, writes shortly before his death : " Confession unto the minister, which is able to instruct, correct, comfort, and inform the weak, wounded, and ignorant conscience, indeed I ever thought might do much good in Christ's con- gregation, and so, I assure you, I think even to this day." 6 So the second part of the Homily of Repentance, after condemning the auricular confession of the Church of Rome, says, " I do not say, but that if any do find themselves troubled in conscience, they may repair to their learned curate or pastor," &c. The exhortation to the Communion bids those, who cannot quiet their own con- sciences, come to the curate, " or some other discreet and learned minister of God's word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly council and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness." In the service for the Visitation of the Sick, it is enjoined on the minister, that he shall move the sick person " to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter ; " and a form of absolution is appointed to be used, after such confession, to those who " humbly and heartily desire it." Thus the Church of England provides for all troubled consciences th(> power of re- lieving themselves, by making confession of guilt to their pastor, 1 Sees, xiv. Can. i. * Institut. Lib. in. c. iv. §§ 12, 14. a Can. vi. 6 Letter to West, dated from Hocardo, 8 Con/. Auywt. Art xn. ; Syllogt, p. in Oxford, April 8, 1664; Letter* of tkt 178. Martyrs, p. 30. London, 1837. Abt. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 595 or " any other discreet and learned minister," and so gives them comfort and counsel ; but does not bind every one of necessity to rehearse all his private sins to man, nor elevate such useful confes- sion into a Sacrament essential to salvation. 1 The question concerning the power of the keys, as exercised by the ministers of God, may well be reserved to a future Article. It may be sufficient to observe here, that the chief Scripture ground for private confession is to be found in the language of St. James, chap. v. 14-16. There the Apostle counsels the sick to send for the presbyters of the Church who are to pray over them ; and it is promised that such prayers shall be especially effectual for the par- don of sins. It is then added, " Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (ver. 16). And this is illustrated by the efficacy of the prayers of the prophet Elijah, at whose intercession rain was first withheld, and then given again. The context, in which all this occurs, compared with the promise given by our Lord to His ministers (Matt, xviii. 18. John xx. 23), and with the custom of the Church from the earliest times, has been ever considered as a ground for the practice con- tinued in the Church of England, that the sick should be especially visited by the clergy, should be moved to confession of sins, and should look to the prayers of the minister as means for obtaining from God pardon, grace, and if it be His will, restoration to health and strength. 2 There can be no doubt, that a distressed conscience may be soothed and guided by confidence in a spiritual adviser. Most people, much in earnest, and much oppressed with a sense of sin, have yearned for such confidence. Hence the Church should al- ways afford to the sin-stricken soul the power of unburdening itself. But, on the other hand, whatever tends to lead people to substitute confession to man for confession to God, and to make the path of repentance less rugged than the Gospel makes it, must be danger- ous. Such is the systematic and compulsory confession of the Church of Rome, followed as it is by absolution and penance, which too often seem to speak peace to the soul, perhaps before its peace is sealed in Heaven. The penitent finds it far easier to un- burden his soul to the priest, than to seek, day and night, with bro- ken spirit, for pardon from God : and, when he has once confided his griefs to his spiritual guide, he easily substitutes that guide's 1 The student is especially referred for 2 See Dr. Hammond on this passage a history of this subject to Marshall's of St. James. Penitential Discipline, ch. n. III. 596 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Aet. XXV. counsels for the dictates of his own conscience : and no counsels from without can speak as fearfully as the whispers of remorse within. Hence the danger of healing the wound lightly, — of substituting false peace for that peace which can come only from a true peni- tence, and from the sense of God's pardoning love through Christ. Confession has been well called "the luxury of repentance." 1 Access to it is not to be denied to the dying, the perplexed, or the broken-hearted ; but it is to be feared for the morbid spirit, and still more to be feared, as a mere routine of ordinary life, as a salv- ing over of the conscience stained by sin, and seeking an easy deliverance from its warnings and reproofs. 5. Extreme Unction is an ordinance concerning which we differ from the Church of Rome more than on the other four. We ad- mit the proper use of confirmation, confession, orders, and matri- mony ; but extreme unction we neither esteem to be a Sacrament, nor an ordinance of the Church at all. As used in the modern Church of Rome, it implies unction with olive oil, blessed by the bishop, and applied by the priest to the five senses of the dying man. It is considered as conveying God's pardon and support in the last hour. It is administered when all hope of recovery is gone, and generally no food is permitted to be taken after it. The Roman Catholic controversialists can find no primitive authority for this ordinance, except that of Pope Innocent the First, in the fifth century. 2 In a letter to Decentius 3 he answers a question, whether the sick might be anointed with oil, and whether the bishop might anoint? He replies that this might be done, arguing from the language of St. James. But, if extreme unc- tion were then a Sacrament of the Church, it is impossible that one bishop should have asked this question of another ; or, if he did, that the other should not at once have reminded him that it was a well-known sacrament of immemorial usage. 4 This is the only authority from patristic ages that the Romanist divines can bring. They insist, therefore, the rather on the authority from Scrip- ture. That authority, however, is but slender. When our Lord sent out His Apostles and gave them power to " heal the sick, " " they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them " (Mark vi. 13). Here unction was evidently an outward sign sim- ilar to that used by our Saviour, when He made clay and put it to the blind man's eyes. It was connected with the miraculous power 1 Taylor's Notes from Life. * Epitt. i. ad Decentium, c. 8. 1 See Bellarmine, De Exirema Unc- * See Burnet on this Article. tione, cap. it. Akt. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 597 of healing. That power lasted for some time in the Church. Ac- cordingly, St. James desires the sick to send for the elders of the Church, to whom the miraculous gifts were mostly committed, and enjoins that with prayer for the pardon of sins should be joined anointing with oil, in order to the restoration of health ; that as the Apostles used unction upon those whom they healed, so the elders of the Church, who had the gift of healing, should do likewise. " Is any sick among you ? let him call for the elders of the Church ; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord : and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up " (James v. 14, 15). Here the end of the anointing appears to be that " the Lord should raise him up." Now this exactly corresponds with the miraculous cures of the early ages, but not at all with the extreme unction of late times. Extreme unction is only administered when recovery is hopeless. St. James enjoined unction with the special object of recovery. So long then as miraculous powers remained in the Church, it was reasonable that anointing of the sick should be retained ; but, when those powers ceased, it was reasonable that the unction should cease also. It was very natural, however, that, when the miraculous powers began to decline, the custom of anointing, which at first had refer- ence to bodily diseases, should still be continued with reference to spiritual maladies. Yet we cannot trace clearly the transition. The use of oil, connected with real or supposed miracles, is fre- quently alluded to ; but it is not till late that there occurs any clear reference to it, as a religious or sacramental rite. Innocent III. at the end of the twelfth century, is quoted by Bellarmine next to Innocent I. 1 His witness is, no doubt, plain enough. A still fuller confirmation of extreme unction is given by Pope Eugenius in the Council of Florence ; at which, it will be remembered, there was an intention of reconciling the Greek with the Latin Church. 2 The Greeks still practise unction, but do not esteem it a Sacra- ment. At the Council of Trent there were four canons passed, de- claring extreme unction to be a Sacrament, instituted by Christ, conferring good, remitting sins, and comforting the infirm. 3 The English reformers retained a form of anointing the sick in the first Service Book of Edward VI. ; though it does not appear 1 Bellarmine, Ibid. Bellarmine indeed treme unction ; of which they certainly refers to Origen, Horn. n. in Levit. ; do not speak. To anything farther he Chrysostom, De Sacerdot. m. &c. ; but can call no witness, after Innocent I., be- ne acknowledges that he only refers to fore Alcuin. them as quoting the words of St. James, 9 Dea-etum Eugenii ad Armen. ubi supra. not as speaking of the Sacrament of ex- 8 Sess. xiv. 598 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Art. XXV. that they attributed any sacramental efficacy to it, but merely al- lowed it to be used " if the sick person desired it," with a prayer for pardon of sins and restoration of bodily health. 1 Cranmer had long before, a. d. 1540, expressed his opinion, that there was no ground in Scripture or antiquity for considering the number of the Sacraments to be seven ; and especially had pronounced, that " Unction of the sick with oil to remit venial sins, as it is now used, is not spoken of in Scripture, nor in any ancient author." 2 The second Service Book entirely omitted all reference to unction in the service for the Visitation of the Sick. The merits of the question rest entirely on the two following points of inquiry : 1. Is the passage in St. James to be considered as Apostolical authority for the institution of a Sacrament in the Church ? or has it reference to the cure of bodily disease ? 2. Is the doubtful answer of Pope Innocent I., in the fifth century, sufficient ground for believing that extreme unction had prevailed from the first? or, on the contrary, do the deep silence of his pred- ecessors, and his own hesitating reply, argue plainly, that they " had no such custom, neither the churches of God ? " Roman Catholics answer affirmatively to the former of these alternatives. Reformed Churches undoubtingly adopt the latter. Having thus considered what the Article says (I.) concerning the number of the Sacraments, we have paved the way for the rest of its statements. Limiting the name Sacrament to Baptism and the Eucharist, we have merely to consider (II.) what are the ben- efits we receive by ; (III.) what is the right use of these two ordinances ; and (IV.) who are their proper recipients ? II. The efficacy of the Sacraments. This question must be discussed more particularly in the XXVIIth and XXVIIIth Articles. To speak generally on it now, we may observe, that the doctrine of the fathers on this sub- ject was very clear and strong from the very first. Ignatius speaks of a Christian's baptism as his spiritual armour, 8 and, concerning the Eucharist he writes, "If a man be not within the altar, In is deprived of the bread of God." 4 "I desire the bread of God, which is the Flesh of Christ, and as drink I long for His Blood, which is love incorruptible." * The Epistle of Barnabas, which 1 Two Lilurgitt of Edward VI. p. — Ad Polyc.vn. This passage is in the 866. Syriac version. 8 See " Questions and Answers on the * Ad Evh. v. Sacraments," Works, n. pp. 100, 108. » Ad Rom. vn. This passage atac is 8 rd Punnofta iifiCm (tcviru <if birXa. in the Syriac. Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 599 though probably not -written by the companion of St. Paul, is doubt- less one of the earliest remains of Christian antiquity, speaks of " That baptism, which brings forgiveness of sins," and says, " That we go down into the water full of sins and pollutions, but come up again bringing forth fruit." 1 Justin Martyr, in his account of the Christian Sacraments, speaks of men as " regenerated " and receiving remission of sins in the water of baptism, 2 and as receiv- ing in the Eucharist, not " common bread and common drink," but " the Flesh and Blood of the incarnate Jesus." 3 Irenaeus is as clear on both the grace of baptism and the reception of Christ in the Eucharist. 4 Tertullian speaks of the " blessed Sacrament of water, in which, washed from the sins of our former blindness, we are liberated to life eternal ; " in which we " as fish are born, after the pattern of our 'Ix^s, Jesus Christ." 5 In the Lord's Sup- per he speaks of feeding on the Body and Blood of Christ, that our soul may be fattened of God. 6 These are all writers of the first century from the Apostles. It would keep us needlessly long, if we were to go through all the writers of the early ages. It may fairly be said, that with one voice they proclaim their belief that great spiritual blessings are to be obtained, by all faithful recipients, both in baptism and in the Supper of the Lord. The grace of the former they call remis- sion of sins, regeneration, illumination ; 7 the grace of the latter they call the Body and Blood of Christ. In both they looked to receive Christ ; in both they hoped for pardon of sins, and the pres- ence of the Spirit of God. The full meaning of these phrases we shall have to consider in the following articles. Let it suffice here to refer to the pregnant words of St. Augustine, in which he con- trasts the Sacraments or ordinances of the Law with those of the Gospel ; a change having been made, by which the Sacraments have become " easier, fewer, more healthful." " The Sacraments of the new Testament," he says, give salvation, whereas those of the old Testament only promised a Saviour."* Here we have thi* view of evangelical Sacraments which pervades all Christian antiq- uity, namely, that they differ from the ordinances of the old Law in this ; the ordinances of the old Law were but pledges of future bless- 1 Epistol. Barnab. c. 12. letters of our Lord's Name and titles, a Apol. I. p. 93. 'I^ffoSf Xfiiordc Qeov Twf 2wi%>. 8 Ibid. p. 97. 6 De Resurr. Carnis, c. 8. 4 See Lib. i. e. 18; Lib. m. c. 19; 7 dturiapdc- — See Suicer, s. h. v. Lib. v. c. 2, &c. 8 " Sacramenta N. Testamenti dant 5 De Baptismo, c. 1. " Nob pisciculi, salutem ; Sacramenta V. Testamenti secundum Ix&vv nostrum Jesum Chris- promiserunt Salvatorem." — Enarr. in turn, in aqua nascimur." Alluding to Ps. lxxiii. § 2, Tom. iv. p. 769. the word 1XGYS containing the initial 600 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Abt. XXV ings, not means to convey them, but the Sacraments of the Gospel not only promised Christ, but, to those who receive them in faith, they are means whereby God gives Christ to the soul. We read, however, of some early heretics who denied the grace or the necessity of the Sacraments. Irenaeus ascribes to some of the Gnostics the error of saying, that outward and material sacra- ments were unnecessary, so the soul were illuminated ; 1 an opin- ion consistent enough with the ultra-spiritualism of that sect, which made all excellence to consist in spiritual enlightenment, and es- teemed all matter to be evil and the source of sin. One of the errors for which St. Jerome attacked Jovinian, was, that he alto- gether separated baptism by the Spirit from baptism by water, say- ing that a man who had been baptized by the Spirit would never sin after, but that, if he sinned again, it was a proof that he had re- ceived only water-baptism, but not spiritual baptism. 2 The Man- ichees, like the Gnostics, and probably on the same principles, be- lieving baptism to have no efficacy, never administered it to their converts. 8 The Messalians were a sect of mystics, who are de- scribed as devoting themselves wholly to prayer, and avoiding even labour for their bodily necessities. 4 It appears that they had a very low esteem of the Sacraments, so that Theodoret accuses them of denying any efficacy whatever to baptism ; 5 though there is some reason to think that he has exaggerated their errors. 6 It is prob- able enough that, wherever mysticism prevailed, such a disregard of external ordinances would prevail also. Those medieval sects which derived their errors from Gnostic or Manichean sources, would naturally underrate Sacraments, as having material elements, which such heretics regarded as essentially evil. Accordingly, we learn that the Paulicians in the ninth century refused to celebrate the Lord's Supper, and probably in like manner rejected outward baptism. 7 The Bulgarians and Albigenses are said to have sprung from the Paulicians ; and, though it is difficult, to arrive at the truth concerning the tenets of these persecuted sects, we may yet prob- ably infer, that one of their errors was an underrating of the valuo of baptism and the Eucharist. The time, however, for these subjects to be most fiercely con- i Hastes, i. c. 18, p. 91. Edit. Oxon. 6 Theodoret. Hceret. Fab. Lib. vr. c. 1702. 10. 3 Hieronym. Adv. Jocinianum,lAb. n. " See Bingham, E. A. Bk. xi. ch. 11. Tom iv. pt. ii. p. 198. sect. 6. 8 August. De Hones, c. 46 ; Bingham, '• See Mosheim, E. H Cent ix. pt E. A. Bk. XI. ch. II. sect. 4. ii. ch. v. Also Bingham, E. A. Bk. xi. 4 Epiphan. Uteres, lxxx.; Augustin. ch. u. sect. 4. Hare*, lvii. Akt. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 601 tested would naturally be the period of the Reformation. We must leave the discussion on Transubstantiation, which agitated the Church in the Middle Ages, for the Articles which treat expressly on the Lord's Supper. Suffice it here to observe, that the school- authors, in their investigations concerning sacramental efficacy, were led, not merely to insist on the value of the Sacraments as means, in the use of which God's Spirit works, but also to lay down the principle, that the Sacraments are so in their own nature vehi- cles of grace, that, ex opere operate, from the mere fact of their administration, they convey Christ to the soul. Such a reception of Christ may not indeed be always to salvation ; nay, it may be to condemnation ; but still the Sacrament administered always brought with it a spiritual grace. This doctrine was fixed, as the doctrine of the Roman Church, by the decrees of the Council of Trent. They anathematized all, who deny that the Sacraments contain grace, 1 or that this grace is conferred by them ex opere operato. 2 All the reformed, whatever differences may have existed between them on these subjects (and such differences were sufficiently great), appear to have much objected to the statement of the opus operatum. To them such a statement seemed to imply, not that Sacraments were means through which God was pleased to work, and which He had promised to bless, but rather, that they were of the na- ture of magical incantations, which, however carelessly adminis- tered, could not be separated from their effects upon the soul. The very elements therefore became the objects of adoration. The water of baptism was in itself holy and the source of holi- ness ; the consecrated wafer was the Body of the Son of God. Extremes generate extremes : and we learn that the anabaptists and other fanatics were led to such extravagance of opposition to the extravagance of Romanism, as impiously to mock the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist; so that " railing bills against it were fixed upon the doors of St. Paul's Cathedral and other places, term- ing it Jack in a box, The Sacrament of the halter, Round Robin, and such like irreverent terms." 3 Among the continental reformers, Zuinglius, Luther, and Calvin, adopted three different views of the Sacraments. Zuinglius rejected sacramental grace entirely. He held Sacra- ments to be bare signs, outward tokens of Christian profession, but 1 Sess. vn. Can. vi. " Si quisdixerit, erit per ipsa novae legis sacramenta ex sacramenta nova? legis non continere opere operato non conferri gratiam .... gratiam, quam significant .... anathema anathema sit." •it." 8 Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 216, re- 2 Sess. vn. Can. vm. " Si quis dix- ferred to by Dr. Hey on this Article. 76 602 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Art. XXV in no sense means of grace. He defined a Sacrament to be " an external symbol, by which we testify what we are, and what is our duty, just as one who bears a national costume or badge testifies that he belongs to a particular nation or society." l And again, " A Sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing ; when therefore I speak of the Sacrament of Christ's Body, I mean no more than that bread which is the figure and type of Christ's Body." 2 Luther, on the contrary, maintained the great importance and spiritual efficacy of the Sacraments. " We can lay it down as a rule," he writes, " that where are the Eucharist, Baptism, the Word, there is Christ, remission of sins, and life eternal." 3 In the Eucharist, it is well known that he believed that, with the conse- crated bread and wine, there are delivered to the recipient the very Body and Blood of Christ ; the elements not being transubstan- tiated, but the Body of Christ being consubstantially united with them. 4 Of the other Sacrament he taught, that, as man is born naturally full of sins, so in baptism he is born spiritually, regener- ated, justified. His sins are buried there, and righteousness rises instead of sins. 6 " St. Paul," says he, " teaches that baptism is not a sign, but a clothing in Christ, yea, that Christ Himself is our cloth- ing. Wherefore baptism is a most potent and efficacious rite." 6 Calvin took a kind of mean between Luther and Zuinglius. Concerning Sacraments in general, he writes, that " though they are figures, yet not naked and empty figures, but having their truth and substance united to them ; not only representing, but offer- ing grace. We ought never to separate the substance of the Sac- raments from the Sacraments themselves. We ought not indeed to confound them, but to rend them asunder is absurd." 7 The 1 " Sacramentum quid] Sacramcntum 5 " Quemadmodum enim mater illo ergo .... symbolum externum, quo carnali partu plenum peccatis puerum et <|ti:ilrs sinius, et quodnam sit officium irue filium edit, ita baptism us edit spiritu- testamur, signiflcat Ut enim, qui cru- alem parttim, et regenerat nos, ut justi- cem gostat albam, sese Helvetum esse, ficnti simus lilii gratia?. Sic peecata in et po8thac semper fore testatur," &c. — baptismo demerguntur, et emergit pro De Baptismo, Zuinglii Opera, 1581, Tom. peccatis justitia."— De Sacramento Bap- i. fol. 60. tismi, Tom. i. fob 72. 2 " Sacramentum quid] Sacramentum ° "Doeetergo Paulus baptismum non est sa:ra3 rei signum. Cum ergo Sacra- signum, sed indumentum Ohristi, immo mentum Corporis Cbristi nomino, non ipsum Cbristum indumentum nostrum quicquam aliud, quam panem, qui Cor- esse. Quare baptismus potentissima ac poris Cbristi pro nobis mortui flgura et effieacissima res est." — In m. cap. Ad typus est, intelligo." — De Cama Domini, ( Saint. Tom. v. fol. 870. Opera, Tom. i. folio 274. 7 " Figuris igitur et signis, qua; sub oc- * In Genesin. c. iv. Opera, Tom. vi. fol. ulorum sensum eadunt, ut naturae nos- 62. trse imbecillitas requirit, ostenditur : ita * Of this moro under Art. xxviii. tamen ut non sit figura nuda et simplex, Meanwhile, see bis treatise De Sacra- sed veritati sua: et substantia 1 eonjnngi- mento Allaris, Tom. I. fol. 78 ; Catechis- tur .... Sed hoc adjungemus, Sarrn- miif Major, Tom. v. p. 640. menta Domini nullo modo a substantia Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 603 word is joined to the external sign, and hence Sacraments have their efficacy .... Christ breathed on His Apostles, and they received, not His breathing only, but the Spirit of God. Where- fore ? but because Christ had promised ? So in baptism we put on Christ, we are washed in His Blood, our old man is crucified, that the righteousness of God may reign in us. In the sacred Supper we are fed spiritually by the Body and Blood of Christ. Whence so great effects, but from the promise of Christ, who effects and makes good by His Spirit what He testifies by His Word ?" l In regard to the grace received by infants in baptism, it is probable, as we shall see hereafter, that Calvin's predestinarian theory mate- rially influenced his views. But as regards adult recipients both of baptism and the Lord's Supper, he clearly taught, that to the faithful God gives, in the one remission and regeneration, in the other, the real but spiritual presence of Christ's Body and Blood. On the question of the Eucharist especially he differed from the Ro- manists, in that he rejected transubstantiation, — from the Luther- ans, in that he rejected consubstantiation, — from the Zuinglians, in that he maintained a real presence of Christ, though he held that presence to be spiritual, not carnal? The Calvinistic communions, including the English Puritans and Non-Conformists, have generally followed Zuinglius rather than Calvin in their Sacramental theory ; though by no means agree- ing with the former on many other points of theology. The Anglican reformers have sometimes been charged with Zuinglian sentiments concerning the .Eucharist. On this subject, however, it is capable of evident proof, that they symbolized, not with Zuinglius, but with Calvin, though not deriving their views from him. On baptism their language is stronger, not only than et veritate sua separari oportere. Ea qui- in nobis Dei justitia. In sacra Coena dem ne confundantur, distinguere non spiritualiter Christi carne et sanguine tantum convenit, sed etiam omnino ne- pascimur. Unde tantavis, nisi ex Christi cessarium est. Sed ita dividere ut alte- promissione, qui Spiritu Suo efficit ac rum sine altero constituatur, absurdissi- praestatquod verbo testatur." — Calvinug mum." — De Cana Domini, Calvini Opus- In Ecangelium Johannis, c. xx. v. 22. ada, pp. 133, 134. 2 " Necesse est igitur nos in Coena vere 1 " Observent lectores externo et visib- Corpus et sanguinem Christi recipere ili symbolo simul verbum conjungi, nam .... quemadmoduni panis in manu dis- et hinc sacramenta vim suam mutuantur : tribuitur, ita Corpus Christi, ut Ejus non quod in voce, quae auribus personat, participes simus, nobis communicari." — inclusa sit Spiritus efficacia ; sed quia a De Ccena Domini 0/>nscula, p. 134. testimonio Verbi pendet eorum omnium " Caeterum hoc imprimis tenendum, ut effectus, quae ex sacramentis percipiunt carnalis omnis imaginatioexcludatur, ani- fideles. Flat Christus in Apostolos : hi mum oportere sursum in coelos erigere, non flatum modo sed Spiritum quoque ne existimemus Dominum nostrum Je- recipiunt. Cur? nisi quia illis Christus sum Christum eo dejectum esse ut in promittit ? Similiter in Baptismo Chris- elementis corruptilibus concludatur." — turn induimus, abluimur Ejus sanguine, Ibid. p. 147. crucifigitur vetus homo noster, ut regnet 604 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Art. XXV. Calvin's, but even than Luther's. But of their views concerning these two Sacraments separately, we must reserve the considera- tion for the present. Meanwhile, let us observe a few of their statements on Sacraments in general. We have already noticed their language in this XXVth Article, that Sacraments are " effectual signs of grace, by the which God doth work invisibly in us." We have compared the language of the Homily, in which Sacraments are defined to be M visible signs expressly commanded in the new Testament, whereunto is an- nexed the promise of free forgiveness of sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ." We have seen that the Catechism uses terms of the same significance, calling Sacraments " outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace," which grace is not merely promised, but " given unto us ; " saying also that they were "ordained by Christ Himself" to be, not only " a pledge to assure us " of that grace, but also " a means whereby we receive the same." In like manner No well's Catechism, a semi-authoritative docu- ment, has the following : " How many Sacraments hath God or- dained in His Church ? A. Two : Baptism, and the Holy Supper, which are commonly used among the faithful. For by the one we are born again, and by the other we are nourished to everlasting life." 1 Jewel's Apology, a similar authority, having denied the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, adds : " But when we say this, we lower not the nature of the Lord's Supper, nor teach it to be a mere frigid ceremony, and that in it nothing is done, as some calumniously say that we teach. For we assert, that Christ truly exhibits Himself present with us in His Sacraments ; in baptism, that we may put Him on ; in the Supper, that we may feed on Him by faith and in Spirit, and from His Cross and Blood have everlasting life : and this we assert to be done, not coldly and per- functorily, but in very deed and truth." 2 The Reformatio Legum again condemns those who would take the Sacraments " for naked signs and external marks, whereby the religion of Christian men may be discerned from others." 8 And to refer once more to the Homilies, " The sermon for repairing and keeping clean the churches " speaks of the house of God as that " wherein be minis- tered the Sacraments and mysteries of our redemption. The foun- tain of our regeneration is there presented to us ; the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ is there offered unto us ; and 1 See the Enchiridion Theologicum, i. pp. 8 "Pro nudis signiset cxternis tanturr. 818, 814. indiciis." — Reformatio l.njum, i't Ilicrtn- * Enchiridion Theolog. i. p. 129. bus, c. 17, quoted by Hej\ Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 605 shall we not esteem the place where so heavenly things are handled?" It may seem needless to add private testimonies of the individual reformers. Yet the names of Cranmer and Ridley stand justly so much at the head of our Reformation that we may well hear one word from each of them. Granmer, in his Answer to Gardiner, writes " Likewise when he (the minister) ministereth to our sight Christ's holy Sacraments, we must think Christ crucified and pre- sented before our eyes, because the Sacraments so represent Him, and be His Sacraments, not the priest's. As in baptism we must think that, as the priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly and washeth him with water, so must we think that God putteth to His hand inwardly and washeth the infant with His Holy Spirit, and, moreover, that Christ cometh down upon the child and apparelleth him with His own Self. And as at the Lord's holy table, the priest distributeth wine and bread to feed the body, so must we think that inwardly by faith we see Christ feeding both body and soul to eter- nal life." 1 " In all ages," says Ridley, " the devil hath stirred up some light heads to esteem the Sacraments but lightly, as to be empty and bare signs." 2 "And as all do agree hitherto in the aforesaid doctrine, so all do detest, abhor, and condemn the wicked heresy of the Messalonians, which otherwise be called Euchites, which said that the holy Sacrament can do neither good nor harm ; and do also condemn those wicked anabaptists, which put no dif- ference between the Lord's table and the Lord's meat and their own." 3 It is not necessary to pursue the history of this subject to more modern times. The Quakers, and some other sects, have not only undervalued Sacramental grace, but actually have rejected all use of the Sacraments. The foreign Protestants, with the exception of the Lutherans, seem mostly to adopt Zuinglian opinions ; as have the generality of dissenters among ourselves. In the English Church, those who have formed their theological views for the most part on the Puritan model, have taken in general low ground on the Sacraments, especially on the Sacrament of baptism, whilst the opposite school have zealously maintained the reality and im- portance of Sacramental grace. The period of Bishop Hoadley and the Bangorian controversy has been pointed to as an era from which lower sacramental doctrines have been very commonly admitted among churchmen. In the present day it is painrally 1 Cranmer'8 Works, by Jenkyns, m. 2 Works, Parker Society, p. 114. pp. 553, 554. 3 Ridley's Works, Parker Society, p. 9. OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Abt. XXV. known to every one with what fierceness the flame of discord has burst forth, on the subject of those very ordinances of grace which were instituted by Christ on purpose to bind together in one fold and one flock the blessed company of all true believers. III. Concerning the proper use of the Sacraments, the Article says, — " The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them." This sentence alludes to the elevation and procession of the host in the Church of Rome ; and, as a similar statement is made, with more direct reference to those customs, in Article XXVIII. we may reserve the consideration of the question for the present. Thus much only we may remark, that the Tridentine definition, that "the grace of the Sacraments is contained in the Sacraments," naturally led to the adoration of the elements themselves : whereas the doctrine that Sacraments have no efficacy of their own nature, but are ordinances of God, which He is pleased to honour, and by which He has promised to work, will lead to a reverent esteem and diligent use of them, but not to a superstitious veneration of the mere instruments. This is the difference between Rome and England. IV. The last question treated of is the worthy reception of the Sacraments. " In such only as worthily receive the same, have they a whole- some effect or operation ; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith." This statement also is virtually repeated concerning baptism in Art XXVII. and still more clearly concerning the Eucharist in Art. XXIX. Highly as the fathers speak, and often with no expressed reservation or restriction, concerning sacramental grace and the potency of the Sacraments, yet, when occasion offers, we may always observe that they did not so tie the grace to the ordinance as to believe that the impenitent and the unbelieving would benefit by it. Origen, though plainly speaking of remission of sins and the gift of God's Spirit as the grace of baptism, yet observes that " all are not Israel that are of Israel ; nor are all baptized with the Spirit who are baptized with water .... Some who have re- ceived baptism have been unworthy to receive the Holy Spirit. Simon had received baptism, but as he came with hypocrisy for Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 607 grace, hi was rejected from the gift of the Spirit." * Again, he says that all persons washed with water were not washed to salvation. It was so with Simon Magus. And, accordingly, he urges on catechumens to prepare themselves diligently for baptism, lest they receive the water only, not the Spirit of God. " He who is bap- tized to salvation receives water and the Holy Spirit ; but Simon, not being baptized to salvation, received water, but not the Spirit of God." 2 Tertullian says, he denies not that the pardon of sins is assured to those who are baptized, but yet he says, we ought to labour that we attain that blessing. God suffers not the unworthy to come to His treasures. " Some," he remarks, " think that God must make good His promises, even to the unworthy, and would make His liberality a slavish obligation." But Tertullian himself plainly indicates his belief, that baptism to such unworthy re- cipients would not be the fountain of life, but rather symbolum mortis, the mark of death. 3 Just in the same spirit, St. Cyril in the preface to his Cate- chetical Lectures ; in which, though he speaks very excellent things of the blessings of baptism and Communion, yet he warns against unworthy approach to them, and diligently prepares his catechu- mens for worthy reception of them. He begins by propounding to them the sad example of Simon Magus. " Simon Magus," says he, " of old came to the laver. He was baptized, but not illu- minated. He washed his body with the water, but enlightened not his heart with the Spirit. His body descended and rose up again, but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor raised again with Him." 4 He then goes on to speak of the man without the wedding garment, and to bid them beware of such con- duct as his. He tells them, they have full time for preparation. " If," he adds, " thou remainest in evil purpose, he who warns thee will be blameless, but look not thou to receive grace. The water will receive thee, but the Spirit will not receive thee." 5 Just so St. Augustine : " All the Sacraments are common, but not the grace of the Sacraments to all ... . The laver of regener- ation is common to all baptized in the name of the Trinity ; but the grace of baptism is not common to all. For heretics, and false brethren in the Catholic Church, have the same baptism." 6 " The Sacrament is one thing, the grace of the Sacrament another. 1 In Numeros, HomiL m. num. 1. 3 De Pamitentia, c. 6. 2 In Ezelciel, Horn. vi. num. 6. See 4 Cyril. Hierosol. Prcefatio Cateches. i. Lumper De Vita el Scriptis Origenis, Art. 5 Ibid. m. xxii. 6 In Ps. 77, Tom. iv. pp. 816, 817. 608 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [Abt. XXV. How many eat of the altar, and die, aye ! and die by eating. Wherefore saith the Apostle, He eateth and drinketh condemna- tion to himself." 1 " If, therefore, thou wilt know that thou hast received the Spirit, ask thine own heart, lest perchance thou hast the Sacrament, but not the virtue of the Sacrament." 2 The Scholastic disputes concerning the grace of the Sacraments originated the theory of the opus operatum. The Sacraments were thought to be so completely vehicles of grace that they themselves contained and conveyed the grace which was proper to them. Thus the elements in the Eucharist were believed to be changed into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood ; and by whom- soever the bread and wine were received, by the same the Body and Blood of Christ were eaten and drunk. To the unworthy indeed the reception was not to salvation, but to condemnation ; yet still it was a real receiving, not only of the Sacrament, but also of the grace of the Sacrament. So Simon Magus was be- lieved to have received, not only baptism, but the grace of baptism, yet not to life, but to death. He was said to have been regener- ated by baptism, but regenerate to a greater condemnation. The fathers' expressions were made to bear this meaning, when they speak in glowing terms of the blessings to be expected in the re- ception of the sacraments. 8 But a hundred such strong statements can never be fairly alleged against a single sentence occurring in qualification or explanation of them. How often soever it be said that baptism is regeneration, and the Eucharist a feeding upon Christ's Body and Blood ; a single statement, that this is true only of worthy recipients, is sufficient to prove that such a qualification is always to be understood. The Roman Church, however, has adopted the theory of the opus operatum, and stamped it with synodal authority. Yet in the 1 In Johann. cap. 6, Tract xxvi. Tom. vit et Saul mains rex," &c. S. Augus- III. pars. ii. p. 498, c. tin. In Ps. ciii. Serm. i. 9. Tom. iv. p. 2 In Epist. Johann. cap. iv. Tract vi. 1136. It does not appear to me that any- Torn, in. pars ii. p. 868, f. Compare thing in this passage is inconsistent with p. 840, c. See also De Civitate Dei, Lib. a belief that the grace of the Sacrament xxi. cap. 25. Tom. vn. p. 445, seq. may be withheld from the impenitent 8 Thus St. Augustine is supposed to At all events, such a vague statement have asserted, that Simon Magus re- can never be pressed against such posi- ceived the Holy Ghost in baptism. He is tive statements as those given above speaking of the many gifts which a man from the same father. In one passage may receive, and yet lack charity; he indeed he leaves it as a kind of open continues, " Respice ad munera ipsius question, whether Simon Magus wu Ecclesia?. Munus sacramentorum in regenerated to greater condemnation, or baptismo, in eucharistia, in cseteris sane- whether he was born of water, but not tis sacramentis ; quale munus est ? Hoc of the Spirit. He seems to incline to munim adeptus est et Simon Magus, the latter alternative. — De Baptismo e. Prophetia quale munus est? Propheta- Donatist. Lib. vi. c. 12. Tom. ix. p. 169. Art. XXV.] OF THE SACRAMENTS. 609 very canon which asserts that the Sacraments contain grace, it is added, that " they confer grace on those who do not place a bar." l If it were not added soon after 2 that the* " Sacraments confer grace, ex opere operato" we might believe that the Tridentine fathers did not materially differ from the statements of our own reformers ; to place a bar being much the same as to receive un- worthily. The reformers all strongly opposed the doctrine of the opus oper- atum. The Lutherans, who of all the reformed bodies were considered to hold the highest view of the Sacraments, yet plainly rejected the belief that grace was inseparably tied to the reception of them. Luther complains, that the schoolmen and the papists dreamed of virtue infused into the water of baptism ; but he held the gift of the Spirit to the baptized to result from the promise of God to them, but that the water was still but water. 3 So, though by the doctrine of consubstantiation Christ's very Body would be received with the bread, yet, as the bread is not said to be changed into Christ's Body, it is possible that by the unworthy the bread alone might be eaten, but the Body and Blood might not be com- municated In this, as in many respects, consubstantiation is much different from transubstantiation ; since, according to the latter, the substance of the bread and wine is utterly annihilated, and nothing remains but the substance of the Body and Blood, so that all who receive the Sacrament, must receive by it the very substance of Christ. It is unnecessary, for the present, to say more concerning our own reformers' views of this subject ; they are plainly expressed in this and the following Articles ; and we shall hear more of them under Art. XXVII. and XXVIII. 1 Concil. Trident. Sess. vn. can. vi. a Ibid. Canon viii. " Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis 8 See Laurence's Bamplon Lectures, non continere gratiam, quam significant, Note on Sermon vn. pp. 157, 158. aut gratiam ipsam von ponentilms obicem non con/erre, anathema sit." 77 ARTICLE XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which De vi Institutionum Divinarum, quod hinders not the effect of the Sacrament. non tollat malitia Ministrorum. Although in the visible Church the eril be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sac- raments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sac- raments ministered unto them ; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the dis- cipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences ; and finally being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed. QuAMVisin ecclesia visibili, bonis mali semper sunt admixti, atque interdum ministcrio verbi et sacraraentorum prae- sint, tamcn cum non suo, sed Cliristi nom- ine agant, ejusque mandatoet auctoritate ministrent, illorum ministcrio uti licet, cum in verbo Dei audiendo, turn in sacra- ni"iitis percipiendis. Neque per illorum malitiam eftectus institutorum Christi tollitur, aut gratia donorum Dei minui- tur, quoad eos qui fide et rite sibi oblaU pcrcipiunt, quae propter institutionem Christi et promissionem etticacia sunt, licet per malos administrentur. Ad Ecclesia; tamcn disciplinam per- tinet, ut in malos ministros inquiratur, accusenturque ab his, qui eorum nagitia noverint, atque tandem justo convicti judicio dcpon an tux. Section I. — HISTORY. TT is natural, in treating of the doctrines contained in this Article, -*- to begin with the question concerning heretical baptism, which agitated the primitive Church. Tertullian denies that the heretics administered Christian baptism at all, because they did not believe in the same God nor the same Christ with the Christians. Hence the rebaptizing of heretics was not, according to him, a repetition of the one baptism ; for their former baptism was, strictly speaking, not Christian baptism at all, being baptism into a different faith from that of the Gospel. 1 The same rule seems to be laid down by the Apostolical Canons, the 46th canon commanding the deposition of any M bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who admitted 1 Tertull. Ik Baptismo, c. 16. Sec I.] OF THE UN WORTHLESS OF MINISTERS. 611 the baptism or sacrifice of heretics " (comp. canons 47, 68). In the famous dispute between Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, the latter, and the African bishops who were with him, denied the validity of baptism by heretics and schismatics also. The baptism of heretics, Cyprian, like Tertullian, held to be baptism into another religion than the Gospel, into the faith of another God than the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Hence, he concluded that such baptism must be void. 1 But, moreover, the baptism of schismatics appears to have been rejected by the African bishops ; because according to the interrogation in baptism, (" Dost thou believe in the life eternal, and remission of sins in the Holy Church ? ") they held that remission of sins could not be given but in the Church. 2 Stephen, Bishop of Rome, took the directly opposite view, ad- mitting all baptism, whether by schismatics or heretics, so it was with water in the name of the Trinity ; and such has been the rule of the Latin Church ever since. The Greek Church has taken a middle course, rejecting heretical, but admitting schismatical bap- tism. This was quite a different question from that on which this Article is treating. But, in the controversy, the African Church used language as if they thought that one reason why heretics could not administer baptism aright, was because they themselves had not the grace of baptism, and so could not bestow it on others. •* What prayer," they ask, " can a sacrilegious and impious priest offer ? As it is written, God heareth not sinners ; but who wor- ships Him and doth His will, him He heareth. And who can give what he hath not? or how can a person perform spiritual offices, who hath himself lost the Holy Spirit ? " 3 Such a state- ment, which must be considered as obiter dictum, was perhaps naturally put forth as one among other arguments, without having been maturely weighed or traced out to all its consequences. When, however, in the fourth century, arose the famous schism of the Donatists, more was made of it than might at first have been intended. The Synodical letter in which that statement is made was addressed to certain bishops of the Numidians. Now the Donatist faction arose among the Numidians. It originated in an opposition to the election of Caecilianus into the see of Carthage. His opponents, the Numidian bishops, accused his consecrator, 1 Cyprian, Epiat. 73, Jubaicmo Fratri, de Rebaptizandis Hmreticis in Epistol. Cyp> p. 203. rtani, E,,ist. 70, p. 190. 8 Epistol a Synodka Numidis Episcopis, 8 Ibid. p. 191. 612 OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. [Aut. XXVJ. Felix, of being a traditor (i. e. one who in Diocletian's persecution had delivered up the sacred writings to the heathen magistrates to be burned) ; and hence they denied that his consecration was valid ; for a bishop in deadly sin could not confer the grace of ordination. 1 The length to which this controversy went, was very great. The Donatists (as they were called from their chief leader Donatus) became a large and influential sect, having no fewer than 400 bishops of their own. They refused all communion with the African Church, of which Cseeilianus was the chief bishop, and even rebaptized those who came over to their own faction. They naturally referred to the authority of Cyprian and his contemporary bishops, and made the most of their statements concerning the invalidity of heretical baptism. The controversy which thus arose, hinged much on the ques- tion with which we have now to deal. The Donatist writers (Petilianus, Parmenianus, Cresconius) appear to have maintained the invalidity of the acts of those ministers who were in deadly sin ; and seemed almost to deny the position, that a true church can contain " the evil mingled with the good." Augustine and Optatus were their chief opponents ; and some of the most valuable treatises of the former were called forth by this dispute. Augustine lays it down as a rule, that ministers do not confer remission of sins, or the grace of the Sacraments, but that the Holy Spirit confers them through their ministry. 2 The remission of sins is given by virtue of the Sacraments, not by the merit of him who ministers them. 8 " It matters not to the integrity of baptism, how much the worse he is who ministers it. For there is not so much difference between the bad and the worse, as between the good and the bad. Yet when a bad man baptizes, he gives no other thing than a good man gives." 4 Still he seems to agree in gome measure with Cyprian ; for he says that heretical baptism, although it be real baptism, yet tends not to salvation, but to destruction. 6 St. Chrysostom bears a like testimony in the Greek Church, at the same time. " It is not just," he writes, " that those who approach by faith should receive hurt from the symbols of our sal- 1 See the History of the Donatists, * " Nihil interest ad integritatem bap- Mosheim, Cent. iv. pt. II. ch. v. tismi, quanto pejor id tradat. Neque * " Satis ostenditiir non ipsos id agere, enim tantum interest inter mnluin et pe- aed pereos utique Spiritum Sanctum." — jorem, quantum interest inter bonum et Contra Epistolum Parmeniani, Lib. n. <:. malum: et tamen cum bnptiz.it malua, 11. Tom. ix. p. 41. non aliud dat quam bonus." — Ibid. Lib • De Baptismo contra iJonatistcu, Lib. vi. c. 24, p. 174, f. it. c. 4, Tom. ix. p. 124, a. * Ibid. Lib. v. c. 22, p. ISO, b. Sec. I.] OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. 613 vation through the wickedness of another." 1 So again, " God uses to work even by unworthy persons, and in no respect is the grace of baptism injured by the life of the priest." 2 Isidore of Pelusium is very clear to the same effect : " If a wicked man approaches the altar and unholily handles sacred things, he shall bear his punishment, but the altar receives no contamina- tion." 3 " He that is baptized receives no damage from the sym- bols of salvation, if the priest be not a good liver." 4 There can be no greater obstacle to the progress of religion than inconsistency in its professors, and especially in its ministers. The earnest and enthusiastic naturally sigh for a state of things which shall be free from all such blemishes, and picture to them- selves a Church, the members of which shall be all sincere, and its ministers holy. They ill endure that the tares shall grow up with the wheat until the harvest. The Montanists, the Cathari, and later, the Anabaptists, were of this spirit. In the Middle Ages the ill-living of the lower class of friars appears to have been a great cause of scandal to the laity, and a principal ground for the cry of reformation. We know that Wickliffe and his followers inveighed loudly against such corruption ; and it is probable enough that much was said at that period concerning the damage that might occur from the ministrations of ungodly men. The council of Constance (Sess. vm.) condemned the errors of Wickliffe, con- tained in forty-five propositions ; the fourth of which imputes to him the doctrine that " a bishop or priest in mortal sin cannot ordain, baptize, or consecrate." The Council of Trent (Sess. xiv. De Poenit. cap. 6) decrees, in like manner, that those are in error who contend that the power of absolution is lost by wicked priests ; for they exercise this power as Christ's ministers and by virtue of their ordination. Whatever may have been the popular feeling on this subject among the advocates of reformation in general, there is no doubt that the Anabaptists (in conformity with their general principle, that the whole Church should be pure and sincere) 5 i Oil diKaiov 7jv dtu ttjv trepov tcaidav 3 Isidor. Pelus. Epist. 340, Lib. in. ; SiC T" ovufioka ttiq ouTTjpias r/fiuv rove Suicer, ubi supra. morel rcpooiovTag irapaftTucnrreodai. — Ho- * 6 retovuevoc oiidev irapafihunrerai d( T<i mil. lxxxvi. in Johannem. See Suicer, aurripiudfj ai'/ij3oXa, ei 6 Itpevg /&/ ev /3toi)( Tom. ii. p. 383. elt], <i/A' airbg fjh> navrut,. — Epist. 37, 8 wvl <ie ko.1 6C uva&uv Ivepyelv 6 Qebc Lib. ii. Suie. n. 1083. elude, Kal ovdtv Tov^airrianarog p *«ptf 5 Mosheim says, they taught that irepd, tov (Hiov tov iepeuc KapaflAuTrTeTcu. " the Church of Christ ought to be exempt — Homil. vm. in j ad Corinth. This pas- from all sin." — Cent. xvi. sect. in. pt eage is quoted by Bp. Beveridge on this u. §§5, 17. Article. 614 OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. [Art. XXVL held the impropriety of receiving Sacraments from ungodly min- isters. 1 The foreign reformers, however, like the English, rejected these notions of the necessity of personal holiness in the minister to the validity of his ministrations. The VHIth Article of the Confes- sion of Augsburg is the original of this XXVIth Article of our Church. It was a little modified in the Vth of the Articles agreed on between the Anglicans and Lutherans in 1538, which contains a paragrapli nearly word for word the same as the former part of our present Article. The Article stands now exactly as it did in 1552. 2 It has been thought that, besides what we have been considering, the Roman Catholic doctrine of " Intention " may have been aimed at. This, however, does not appear probable. The Lutheran Article especially mentions " The Donatists and others like them ; " and the state of the Church at the time of the Reformation, the disaffection of the laity to the clergy, the scandals said to exist in the lesser monasteries, the irregular lives of the mendicant friars, the ignorance of some among the reformed clergy, the springing up of Anabaptist sentiments, — all these things sufficiently point out a reason and necessity for such an Article as the present. The Roman doctrine of Intention is indeed of most " desperate conse- 1 See Reformatio Legum de Hceresibus, c. 15, which is cited by Hey. a Confession of Augsburg. Art. VIII. a. d. 1531. a. D. 1640. Quanquam Ecclesia proprie sit congre- Cum autem in hac vita admixti sint Ec- gatio sanctorum ct vere credentium ; clesiae multimali et hypocrite, qui tamen tamen cum in hac vita multi hypocritse societatem habont externorum signorum et mali admixti &int, licet uti sacramentis cum ecclesia, licet uti sncramentis, que qua? per malos administrantur, juxta vo- per malos administrantur, juxta vocetn coin Christi, " sedent Seribae et Pharisaei Christi, &c. in Cathedra Mosis," &c. Et sacramcnta et verbum propter ordinationem et man- datum Christi sunt efflcacia, etiamsi per malos cxhibeantur. Damnant Donatistas et similes, qui negabant licere uti ministerio malorum in ecclesia, et sentiebant ministerium malorum inutile et inefflcax esse. Portion of the Vth Article of 1538. " Et quamvis in Ecclesia secundum endo quam in rccipiendis sacramentis, posteriorem acceptionem mali sint bonis iuxta iilud, ' Qui vos audit, me audit.' admixti, atque etiam ministeriis verbi et Nee per eorum malitiam minuitur eflcc- ■acramentorum nonnunquam praesint ; ta- tus, aut gratia donorum Christi rite ac- mcii cum ministrent nou suo, sed Christi, cipientibus ; sunt enim efflcacia propter nomine, mandato et auctoritate, licet promissionem et ordinationem Christi, eorum ministerio uti, tarn in verbo audi- etiamsi per malos exhibeantur." Skc. L] of the unworthiness of MINISTERS. 615 quence." If no Sacrament is valid, unless the priest intends that it should be so ; then we know not whether our children be bap- tized, our wives married, our communions received, or our bishops consecrated. And this last question has been made much use of by the Church of Rome against the Church of England. It is urged, that a bishop or presbyter, who has a defective view of the grace of the Sacrament, cannot rightly administer it, because he does not intend to convey the full grace of that Sacrament. The bishops, for instance, who consecrated Archbishop Parker and others in the reign of Elizabeth, had a defective view of the effects of ordination and of the power of the clergy ; they therefore did not intend to give, nor the consecrated ministers to receive, the full grace and privileges of the priesthood. Hence those ministers were not rightly consecrated. This Article was not originally directed against this error ; but it virtually and in effect meets it. Plainly, the relying on the intention of the minister results from a sort of belief that the minister himself is the depositary of grace, and can dispense that grace of his own will. If then, in outwardly ministering a Sacra- ment, he does not intend to confer the benefits of the Sacrament, they will not be conferred. Such seems the rationale of the doctrine of Intention. This Article, on the contrary, truly sets forth, that the clergy minister the Sacraments, not " in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority ; " and that the Sacraments be " effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, though they be ministered by evil men." So then, it is not because ministers will or intend to bestow grace, but because Christ has ordained to give grace through their ministry. If then they rightly administer, and we rightly receive the ordinance, we need not consider what is the mind of the priest, since it is not in the power of man's intention to frustrate the gracious purposes of God. Were it otherwise, no Church could be sure of its orders, no Christian of his baptism. For none can tell, whether in Rome, or Greece, or England, that some careless or some malicious bishop may not have been indifferent, or opposed to the conferring of ordination, and so the whole line of succession have been cut off, and all the orders of the Church invalidated. None can tell that an evil minister may not secretly have cursed his infant, whilst out- wardly invoking a blessing on him, and so his baptismal privileges may have been annulled. But if we believe Christ's Sacraments to be blessed, and Christ's ministers to have authority, not as them- selves indued with grace, but as instruments, whereby God pours 616 OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. [Art. XXVL it down upon us, then we need not fear to lose the treasure, though the vessel be but earthen, and itself fit only to be burned. 1 The concluding paragraph in the Article lays it down, that inquiry ought to be made of evil ministers, and that if they are found guilty, they should by just judgment be deposed. There is not need of much history here. From the first, such discipline - prevailed, and has prevailed in every Church and sect. Thus the twenty-fifth of the Canons of the Apostles enjoins, that " a bishop or priest found guilty of fornication or perjury shall be deposed." 3 The twenty-seventh commands, that a bishop or priest who strikes one of the faithful, be deposed. 8 The ninth canon of the first Council of Nice forbids that any be advanced to the order of pres- byter who have been previously guilty of any grievous sin ; and, if it be found out afterwards that he had so sinned, he is to be deposed. 4 But so patent and obvious has been this custom of the Church, to inquire concerning scandalous ministers, to remove them that have erred, and, if possible, to forbid the ordination of the unde- serving, that it is needless to enlarge on it. Of course, there have been times of laxer, and times of stricter discipline ; but all times and all Churches have admitted the principle. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 1. rPHE first statement of the Article is, that " In the Visible ■*■ Church the evil are ever mingled with the good." We saw something of this under Article XIX. It is clearly proved by our Lord's comparison of His kingdom to a field, in which tares and wheat grow together till the harvest (Matt. xiii. 24-30, 37- 43) ; to a net, containing fish of every kind, that is, both the wicked and the just (Matt. xiii. 47-50) ; to a marriage-feast, where some have the wedding garment, some have not ; all, " both bad and good," having been gathered into it (Matt. xxii. 10, 11). So St. Paul compares the Church to a great house, " in which there 1 The Council of Florence [Inslr. Ar- save themselves, and yet to enable them mrnor. Conn'/. Tom kill. p. 535) and the to condemn us. The student may refer Council of Trent (Sess. vn. can. xi) re- to Abp. Hrnmhall, Protestants' Ordina- quire only an implicit intention in the tion Drfrtuled, v. p. 210, Lib. of Angh* minister, i.f. to do whnt the Church dotli, Cath. Theology. or whnt Christ instituted. But this (lis- i Beveridge, Synodicon, Tom. i. p. 16 Unction, which seems to have some jus- 3 Ibid. p. 17. tice in it, is easily drawn out bo as to 4 Ibid. p. 70. Sec. II.] OF THE UN WORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. 617 are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour " (2 Tim. ii. 20). These arguments are so conclusive, as, according to St. Augustine, to have converted even the Donatists. 1 The Article adds, that " sometimes the evil have chief authority (jorcesint) in the ministration of the word and Sacraments." We need go no further than Judas for proof of this. Our Lord Himself gave all the same authority to him that He gave to the rest of the Apostles ; and yet He knew, when He chose him, that he was a devil (John vi. 70, 71). And so, later in the new Tes- tament, we read of Diotrephes (3 John 9), and others, who, though ministers of God, were not men of godliness. Our Lord Himself describes especially the character of some, who should be made " rulers over his household, to give them meat in due sea- son," but who should " smite their fellow-servants, and eat and drink with the drunken," and who at last should be " cut asunder, and have their portion with the hypocrites " (Matt. xxiv. 45-51). 2. It should hardly need much argument to prove, that that ministry which Christ permitted in His Church, may lawfully be used by His people. If He ordained Judas, we may use the ministry of such as Judas, and yet not lose blessing. And so He taught us, " The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat : all there- fore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do ; but do not ye after their works : for they say and do not " (Matt, xxiii. 2, 3). And the Apostles plainly teach, that not holiness in the minis- ter, but God's blessing on their ministry, is the cause of good to His Church and growth to our souls. It was not by their " own power and holiness " that they made the lame to walk ; but " His name through faith in His name " (Acts iii. 12, 16). Paul may have " planted, and Apollos watered ; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth ; but God that giveth the increase " (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7). Paul and Apollos were but " ministers, by whom men believed, even as the Loixl gave to every man " (ver. 5). Great and glori- ous as the ministration was (2 Cor. iii. 7, 8), yet the treasure was in " earthen vessels, that the excellency might be of God, and not of" them (2 Cor. iv. 7). 3. Still, though we do not believe that God's ordinances lose their effect, because unworthy hands administer them ; yet it is obviously to be much desired, that those who minister in holy 1 See Pearson, On the Creed, Art. ix. p. 344, who quotes Augustine, lib. vost coUationem, c. 9, 10. 78 618 OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF MINISTERS. [Aut. XXVL things should themselves be men of holiness. If ungodly mem- bers should be excommunicated, much more should ungodly ministers be deposed. For, not only do such hinder the free course of the Gospel, and offend weak brethren ; but the torch of truth and holiness is most surely lit and handed on by those in whose heart it is burning and bright. The old Testament teaches that" the priests should be clothed with righteousness " (Ps. cxxxii. 9) ; and that the Lord " will be sanctified in them that come nigh Him" (Lev. x. 3). In the new Testament, besides general in- structions concerning discipline, there are special instructions con- cerning the discipline of the clergy. These are mostly to be found in the Epistles to Timothy, who, as bishop, has directions given him concerning the importance of " laying hands suddenly on no man " (1 Tim. v. 22), concerning the mode of receiving an accusation against an elder (ver. 19), and as to how he was to rebuke those that sinned (ver. 20). This is a matter too plain to be insisted on ; the common instincts of our nature and the universal practice of Christians consenting render argument un- necessary. ARTICLE XXVII. Of Baptism. De Baptismo. Baptism is not only a sign of profession, Baptismus non est tantura professions and mark of difference, whereby Chris- signum, ac diseriminis nota, qua Chris- tian men are discerned from others that tiani a non Christianis discernantur, sed be not christened, but it is also a sign of etiam est signum regenerationis, per Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as quod, tanquam per instrumentum, recte by an instrument, they that receive Bap- Baptismum suscipientes, ecclesise inse- tisni rightly are grafted into the Church; runtur, promissiones de remissione pec- the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of catorum, atque adoptions nostra in Alios our adoption to be the sons of God by Dei per Spiritum sanctum visibiliter ob- the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and signantur, fides confirmatur, et vi divinae sealed ; Faith is confirmed, and Grace invocationis gratia augetur. increased by virtue of prayer unto God. Baptismus parvulorum omnino in Ec- The Baptism of young Children is in clesia retinendus est, ut qui cum Chriati any wise to be retained in the Church, institutione optime congruat. as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. Section I. — DEFINITION OP DOCTRINE. TT is, unhappily, well known to every one, how much discord has * arisen on the subject of baptismal grace. On the one side, men, perceiving that in Scripture the new birth of the Spirit is closely coupled with new birth by water, and that the ancient Church ever identified baptism with regeneration, have unhesi- tatingly taught that regeneration is the grace of baptism, never separated from it, but when the recipient places a bar against it by impenitence. On the other side, it has been observed, that the grace of regeneration is a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness ; that it extends to an entire renewal of the moral nature of man, restoring him to the image of Him who created him ; that no such change as this can be attributed to the washing with water ; that such a change can only result from the influences of God's Spirit, subduing the perverse will, and bringing the whole man into captivity to the obedience of Christ ; and that, as a matter of fact and experience, the vast majority of the baptized never have undergone, and never do undergo, a change so momentous and unmistakable. The difference of opinion has often been considered to depend on the different tenets of the opposing parties concerning pre- 620 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVIL destination ; the Calvinist denying that baptized infants are regen- erate, because grace once given can never be forfeited ; the anti- Calvinist explaining the apparent anomaly, that the baptized are often practically anregeiierate, by saying that the grace has been given, but lost by unfaithfulness. Something beyond this, how- ever, must be at the root of the disagreement ; for St. Augustine, and a large number of zealous predestinarians, have held high doc- trine on baptismal grace ; whilst many, who reject the tenet of absolute predestination, have been as strongly opposed to the doc- trine of baptism, which Augustine and many of his followers have allowed. It is perhaps too much to say that the diversity is dependent on mere difference of definition. Yet accurate definition is no doubt very desirable ; and it is probable that, if both parties understood either their own or their opponents' principles better, they would find many more points of contact, and many fewer grounds of disagreement than at present. As it is, both sides see one important aspect of truth, and both perhaps often overlook its opposite, and equally necessary phase. On the one hand, the importance of training up children as heirs of immortality and recipients of the seed of life, is much and rightly insisted on ; on the other side, too much overlooked. But again, the belief in the grace of baptism at times has led to some degree of formalism and neglect of spiritual vitality ; whilst those who deny that grace have exhibited a greater zeal for conversion of souls from sin and error, because putting no trust on the supposed existence of a spark of grace derived to all professing Christians in the initiatory Sacrament. May there not be a possibility of holding the truth which there is on both sides, without the error of either ? Baptism is confessedly an embracing the service of God, an enlisting into the army of Christ, to fight under His banner, the Cross. Every one, therefore, who is baptized, is thenceforth bound to be a faithful follower of Him whose soldier he has professed himself. But it is not God's plan to entail responsibilities on us, without giving us the power to fulfil them. Hence naturally we might expect that, when He has called us to His service, He would furnish us with arms and strength to the contest. It is better therefore to begin with God's gifts to us : for we can only give Him of His own : 'E* Ato? apx^fitada. 1. We know then, first of all, that God, in Christ, has made with man a covenant of grace. The terms of that covenant are on Sec L] OF BAPTISM. 621 God's part, that He, for Christ's sake, not for our merit, freely, fully, graciously pours down upon undeserving sinners, (1) pardon of sin ; (2) the aid of the Spirit ; (3) in the end, everlasting life. All this is given us in Christ. No terms are in the first place required from us ; for we have none to give. We have but to accept the offer of free pardon made to rebellious subjects, and, with pardon, of strength for the future to obey. Now baptism is the formal act by which we are admitted into covenant with God. It is the embracing of God's covenant of grace in Christ : in the case of adults, by their own deliberate choice ; in the case of infants, by God's merciful appointment, and according to the election of grace. We cannot doubt of the truth of God's promises. Hence we may be assured, that He will make good His covenant to all that are brought within the terms of it : i. e. to all who are baptized. Hence again, we infer that the promises to the bap- tized, and therefore the blessings of baptism, are : — (1.) Pardon of sins. (2.) The aid of the Spirit of God. (3.) If not forfeited, everlasting life. 2. But, moreover, baptism is the engrafting into the Church, to which belong the covenant and the promises. The Church is the body of Christ ; and Christ is its covenanted Head. Hence we see another relation consequent on baptism ; namely, that we thereby become members of Christ. And indeed without this we could not. receive the blessings of the covenant. For pardon and grace can only flow to us from Christ. It is in Him that God gives us both, — that God will give us everlasting life. " In Him is life." " He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." So too, the Church is the family of God, as well as the body of Christ. Hence by baptism we become, not only members of the mystical body of the Lord, but adopted children of our heav- enly Father. God thenceforward looks on us as united, accord- ing to covenant, to His Son, and hence as His children by grace ; and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. Thus, in the language of the Catechism, we are made in bap- tism members of Christ, children of God, and therefore inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. 1 1 Inheritance, bo it observed, implies sibility of being disinherited. Thus St. not certainty of possession, but the pos- Paul: "Let us therefore fear, lest, a 622 OF BAPTISM. [Abt. XXVII. All this results from the nature of a covenant and the nature of the Church. But here a great practical question has arisen, which it is of the utmost importance not to disregard. Does all this merely indicate a new outward federal relation of the baptized to God ? or does it imply a spiritual change in the soul itself, and a moral change of disposition ? A federal relation it undoubtedly points out ; for the soul is by baptism taken into covenant in Christ. . But a covenant on God's part implies the faithfulness of the Covenanter. Hence, undoubtedly, baptism guarantees a spiritual change in the condition of the recipient. But we must not confound a spiritual change in the condition of the soul, with a moral change of the disposition and tempers. It is a great spiritual change to be received into Christ's Church, to be counted as a child of God, to obtain re- mission of sins, and to have the aid and presence of the Spirit of God. But a moral change can only be the result of the soul's prof- iting by the spiritual change. If the presence of the Sanctifier does not produce sanctification, no moral change has been effected. If the pleadings of the Spirit have been rejected, and the soul has remained unmoved under them, it cannot be said that there is a moral renovation of the character. 1 We may therefore define the internal grace of baptism to con- sist rather in the assured presence of the Renovator, than in the actual renovation of the heart. The latter is indeed the natural result of the influence of the former ; but it requires also another element, namely, the yielding of the will of the recipient to the previous influences of the Sanctifier. 2 promise being left us of entering into His Keel. Pol. v. ix. 2. Waterland more ac- res*, any of you should seem to come curately defines the distinction (in the short of it" (Heb. iv. 1). There maybe case especially of infant baptism) between a promise of future blessing, which may the grace given in baptism, called regen- be forfeited by sin (Comp. Heb. xii. 15, eration, and the effects of it when culti- 16, 28). vated in the heart and life, called reno- 1 | A change of the spirit is a different vation. "Regeneration is a kind of re- thing from a change m the spirit, and newal, but then it is of the spiritual state yet each is a spiritual change. — J. W.\ considered at large ; whereas renovation 2 Hooker (though rather practical and seems to mean a more particular kind of devotional, than formal and logical in his renewal, namely, of the inward frame or statements) seems to say much the same disposition of the man. . . . Regenera- as I have said in the text. "Baptism is tion may be granted and received (as in a Sacrament which God hath instituted infants) where that renovation has v. t in His Church, to the end that they no place at all for the time being." which receive the same might be incor- Again, " Regeneration and renovation porated into Christ, and so through His differ in respect to the effective cause or precious merit obtain as well that saving agency ; for one is the work of the Spirit grace of imputation which takcth away in the use of water, that is of the Spirit all former guiltiness, as also that infused singly, since water really does nothing. Divine virtue of the Holy Ghost, whieh is no agent at all ; but the other is the work gictth to the jx>wers of the. soul their first dis- of the. Spirit and the man together." Again, jMtilion tuwunis future newness of life." — "It may reasonably be presumed Uiat Sec. I/ OF BAPTISM. 623 It is unnecessary to inquire here, whether the presence of God's Spirit is not vouchsafed to others besides the baptized. We have instances of such in Cornelius, whose prayers and alms were ac- cepted, whilst he was yet in ignorance of the Gospel ; and upon whom the Holy Ghost fell, before he had received the baptism of water (Acts x. 4, 44, 47). The point to be remembered is this, that to the baptized the aid of the Spirit is promised by covenant; and therefore to them it is assured. Others may receive it, according to the will of God ; but cannot claim it, according to His promise. Now this fact, that baptism, from the very nature of the cove- nant, carries with it an assurance of pardon for sins, of adoption into the Church, and of aid from the Spirit, is sufficient to warrant the term, " Baptismal Regeneration." Birth into the Church and adoption into the family of God, remission of original sins in in- fants, and of all past sins in worthily receiving adults, and the gift of the Spirit to renew and sanctify, comprise the elements of the new birth, the germ of spiritual life. Hence they are called by the Church "Spiritual Regeneration." Yet, as God's gifts of grace are not compulsory, it follows that the baptized, by his own per- verseness, may reject them all. Whether then he received bap- tism in infancy or in maturity, if he has not profited by its bless- ings, he has never received such a renovation of heart and nature that he can be called practically regenerate. Nay ! his heart is unregenerate, although his outward state and his covenanted privi- leges be never so great. He yet needs conversion and renewal of spirit. And hence it comes to pass, that many of our greatest di- vines (e. g. Hammond, J. Taylor, Beveridge), who held distinctly the doctrine of baptismal grace, or baptismal regeneration, yet con- stantly spoke of some of the baptized as still unregenerate ; be- from the time of their new birth by because it effects a change in a man's water and the Spirit {which at that very moral nature. But the word Moral, to moment is a renewal of their state to speak more properly, implies choice, and God ward) the renewing also of their consciousness, and self-action, and facul- heart may come gradually in, with their ties or dispositions expanding themselves first dawnings of reason, in such meas- into habits ; and hence moral graces or ure as they shall be capable of; in a virtues are, as Waterland expresses liim- way to us imperceptible, but known to self, ' the joint work of the Spirit and that Divine Spirit who regenerates them, the man.'" — Doctrine of Regeneration in and whose temple thenceforth they are, Baptism. Fifth Edition, p. 247. till they defile themselves with actual I must venture to say that, agreeing and grievous sin. In this case it is to be fully in the general statement of all these noticed that regeneration precedes, and passages, 1 should rather speak of the renovation commonly follows after." — " yielding of the man's will to the Spirit Waterland, On Regeneration. of God," than of " the joint work of the Bishop Bethell appears to adopt the Spirit and the man." The latter sounds same view : " Regeneration is a spiritual to me too much like a claim of indp- grace, and, in a certain sense, every pendence for weak and sinful humanity. spiritual grace may be said to be moral, 624 OF BAPTISM. [Aut. XXVIL cause, though God could not be supposed to have failed to make good His promise to them, yet they had not yielded to His Spirit's gracious influences ; and so their hearts had never been renewed " after the image of Him that created them ; " and they had con- tinued in darkness and in the bondage of corruption, though " called to the glorious liberty of the children of God." If we take this as the explanation of the great doctrine in ques- tion, we may see at once : — 1. That the absence of practical results, and of anything like practical spiritual life in many of the baptized, is not to be account- ed for merely and solely by the theory that such have early fallen away from grace and from a state of holiness once effected ; for from the first they may never have yielded to the gracious work- ings of the Spirit, and so real practical holiness may never have been produced. 2. Nor, again, must it be accounted for by the hypothesis, that their regeneration is in a state of abeyance, until their own will rises to meet and cooperate with the grace bestowed upon them. For this hypothesis seems to savour of Semi-pelagianism, making the will, as it were, an independent agent, coordinate and equally efficient with the Holy Spirit; and allowing it a spontaneous move- ment towards good. Whereas, sound evangelical truth will teach us to consider the will utterly incapable of moving towards holiness, till first quickened to it by the grace of God. 3. But the real solution of the difficulty will appear to be, that, though God never failed of His promise, and though the aid and presence of His Spirit were ever vouchsafed to the recipients of baptism, yet their wills had never yielded to be renewed by it ; and therefore, though subjects of the grace of God, they had never brought forth the fruits of holiness. Yet all baptized persons, though not personally sanctified, have a relative holiness : For, — 1. They are members of the Church, which is holy ; branches therefore of the true Vine, even if they are fruitless branches, and so withering and dying. They have a covenanted relation to, and a spiritual union with Christ, who is the Head of His Body mys- tical. 2. They are adopted into the family of God ; and, though they be from the first rebellious and prodigal sons, yet they have a cov- enanted title to be regarded as children, and moreover, if they return from their wanderings, to be received and welcomed as children. Sec. I.] OF BAPTISM. 625 3. They have been solemnly set apart and dedicated to God, consecrated to he temples of the Holy Ghost : and as such, have a real, even though it may be a rejected presence of the Spirit assured to them. That presence will, if they cultivate and obey it, truly sanctify them, but, if not cultivated, but resisted, it will leave them in unfruitfulness. 1 A distinction must be drawn between adult and infant recipi- ents. 1. In the case of adults, faith and repentance are necessary pre- requisites ; and without them we must not expect the blessings of the Sacrament. But then the reason why these graces are requi- site is not because they contribute their share to the production of the grace of baptism. That woidd be to derogate from the free gift of God, and from the bounty of the Giver. Ort the contrary, we must ever esteem the grace of God to be free and unmerited, and not attracted to us by any good which is in us. It is not the active quality of our faith which makes us worthy recipients. That would be to make faith a fellow-worker with, and in itself inde- pendent of the Spirit of God ; which is closely bordering on Semi- pelagian heresy. But, though our faith cannot be of that meri- torious character, that it should elicit grace from above, yet our impenitence and unbelief are permitted to act as obstacles to the free-working of the grace of God ; and, by our own obstinacy and hardness of heart, we may " quench the Spirit." Hence, that there may be no impediment to their regeneration, a believing and penitent spirit must be cultivated in those who are to be baptized ; lest, like Simon Magus, they receive the washing of water, but still remain, as regards their hearts and consciences, "in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." 2. Concerning infants the case is different. Active faith in them is not possible ; nor is it even to be desired. It is not the active character of his faith which seems to qualify the adult. It is rather, that it implies and assures an absence of that repelling obstinacy and hard-heartedness which makes sinners reject the mercy of the Lord. The very helplessness of infants is, in this case, their protection. 1 Whether the Spirit ever finally leaves be called a life-long work. Even when in this life the soul which has been con- resisted and grieved, we may hope that secrated to Him, and utterly ceases to He does not soon " take His everlasting plead with it, is a question too hard to flight." Yet we cannot say that there answer. God's covenant is to give His may be no period of impenitence, when Spirit ; and if we do not drive Him away, God shall swear in His wrath, " My he will abide with us forever, and lead Spirit shall no longer plead." us daily onward. Thus our baptism may 79 626 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVTL We cannot too much remember, that God's gifts come from Him and not from us ; from His mercy, not our merits, our faith, or our obe- dience. The only obstacle which infants can offer to grace, is the taint of original corruption. But to say that original sin is a bar to receiving remission of original sin (which is one chief grace of this Sacrament), is a positive contradiction in terms. Again, the theory that the faith of parents or of sponsors is ne- cessary to give effect to baptism in infants, is not to be maintained for an instant. 1 This were to cross the whole principle of evangel- ical mercy. It would be to make the child's salvation hinge on its parent's faithfulness. It would make God's grace contingent, not even on the merits of the recipient, but actually on the merits of the recipient's friends. Sponsors, after all, are probably of human institution, and therefore cannot affect a divine ordinance. And this theory does sadly derogate from the grace of God, which acts ever freely and spontaneously ; and grievously magnifies the office of human faith, which is humbly to receive mercy, not arrogantly to deserve it. 2 Once more, the theory that infants have need of a " prevenient act of grace," to make them meet for remission of sins, is evidently 'founded on a low appreciation of God's pardoning love. The very thing which makes them meet for pardon, is their helpless sinful- ness. This is their very plea for mercy ; and cannot therefore be the bar opposed to it. If they were not sinful, they would need neither pardon nor grace. Active hostility and wilful obstinacy they cannot exhibit. And God's mercy in Christ extends to the pardon of all sinners, who do not wilfully reject it. Hence the Church has ever held, that there is nothing in the character of infants (whose sinfulness is inevitable, and not wilfully contract- ed) which can offer an insuperable obstacle to receiving the grace of remission of sin, or the aid of the Spirit of God. But, though it be true that infants can, at the time of their bap- tism, oppose no obstacle, lest they should receive pardon and grace ; and though therefore, in case of their death before actual sin, we believe in the certainty of their salvation ; yet we must bear in mind, that the pardon of sin and the aid of the Spirit, assured (and therefore surely given) at baptism, will not have produced an entire change of their nature, eradicating the propensity to sin, and 1 That is to say, beyond the fact that, believers are proper subjects of baptism, without an net of faith on the part of This may be the case from God s ap- pnrents or sponsors, infants would not pointment, not because of an imputation come to baptism at all. to the infant of tho parent's fitness for 8 It is quite another question how far jrrace. any but the children of Christians and Sec. L] OF BAPTISM. 627 new creating a sanctified heart. The grace of the Spirit, we may believe, will, as the reason opens and the will developes, plead with their spirits, prompt them to good and warn them from evil ; and, if not resisted, will doubtless lead them daily onwards in pro- gressive holiness. But the power too to resist, which they did not possess in infancy, will daily increase with their increasing reason and activity ; and their actual and internal sanctification will re- sult only from an obedient yielding to the grace of the Sanctifier ; and will be utterly abortive, if, through sinful propensities and sinful indulgence of them, that grace be stifled, disregarded, or abused. Thus, though we may not define the grace of the Spirit, vouch- safed in infant baptism, to be a " mere potential principle," and, until it be stirred up, " dormant and inactive ; " yet we may define it, so as to understand that its active operations are only to be expected when the dawning- reason and rising: will themselves become active and intelligent ; and that anything like a real moral renovation of disposition and character can only be looked for, where the adoles- cent will does not resist and quench the gracious influences of the Spirit of God, but suffers itself to be moulded and quickened into a state of subjection to the good pleasure of the Lord, and of like- ness to the character of Christ. Yet this need not prevent us from believing that the aid of the Spirit has been vouchsafed, even to those who have never profited by it. It is possible for a branch to be grafted into a vine, and a stream of nourishment to flow from the root to it ; and yet, if a knot or obstacle exist in the branch, the life of the vine may never reach the engrafted member ; from no fault in the parent stem, but from the hardening of the bough itself. It is in like manner possible, that the infant grafted into the true Vine, a member of the Body mystical of Christ, may, through its own fault as it grows to maturity, fail of deriving grace from the life of the Spirit, and yet there be no unfaithfulness on the part of the Giver, no want of liberality in the Fountain of goodness. And this seems sufficiently to account for the well-known and familiar fact, that so many millions of baptized Christians grow up to manhood with no profit from their baptism, and when grown up, can be considered, in their spiritual condition, as no better, if not worse, than heathen men : except, at least, that they are in the formal covenant of grace, and are therefore admitted to its outward ordinances ; have prob- ably from time to time the Spirit's warnings and pleadings ; and have the assurance too, that, on their repentance and conversion 628 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVIL God will ever receive them to His mercy, and welcome them as prodigal sons returning to their Father, as sheep coming back to the Shepherd of their souls. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. TTAVING thus defined the doctrine, we may proceed to con- -*-*- sider the Scriptural evidence for its truth. 1 I. First, let us see what aid we can derive from the old Testa- ment, and from Jewish rites and language. 1. It is an acknowledged fact, that circumcision among the Jews was the typical and corresponding rite to baptism in the Church. It admitted into the Mosaic covenant ; as baptism ad- mits into the Christian. It was given to Abraham for that very end, that it might be the initiatory rite, the seal and token of the covenant between God and the posterity of Abraham. (See Gen. xvii. 9-14 ; Acts vii. 8.) The person who had received circumcision, was a partaker of God's promises to the Israelites. (See Exod. xii. 48.) The person who neglected it, was to be cut off from the people (Gen. xvii. 14 ; Exod. iv. 24, &c.) St. Paul himself draws the parallel between this Jewish rite and the Chris- tian rite of baptism ; which latter he calls " circumcision made without hands" (Col. ii. 11, 12). And from his language it is plain that the parallel altogether holds good, allowing for this im- portant difference, that circumcision admitted to a legal or carnal covenant, baptism admits to a spiritual covenant. 2. In addition to circumcision, thus given by God, it is well known that the Jews, in admitting proselytes from heathenism, over added a form of washing, or baptism. They baptized all, men, women, and children, of any proselyted family ; and then they es- teemed them as new-born from their Gentile heathenism into the Church or family of Israel. The language which they used con- 1 The principal heads or divisions of III. Baptism considered as admitting the subject considered in this section to the Church; which is, 1, the Body of are : — Christ ; 2, the Family of God ; 8, the King- I. The light to be derived from the dom of Heaven; 4, the Temple of the old Testament. Holy Ghost. II. Baptism considered as admitting 1 V. Baptism, as related to spiritual Baptism considered ns admitting a Covenant; involving a promise, us to a Covenant; involving a promise, regeneration. I, of pardon ; 2, of spiritual aid ; 8, of eter- V. O oal life. svrcred. I, of pardon; 2, of spiritual aid; 8, of eter- V. Objections considered and an- ' life Sec. H.] OF BAPTISM. 629 cerning such, was very remarkable. u If any one become a prose- lyte, he is like a child new-born." " The gentile that is made a proselyte, and the servant that is made free, behold, he is like a child new-born ; and all those relations which he had while either a gentile or a servant, they now cease from being so." Nay ! they even taught, that men might legally marry those who had been their former relations ; though, for edification and propriety, it was forbidden. 1 This well accounts for the way in which the Jews understood the baptism of John. They knew that baptism implied admis- sion into a new covenant or faith ; and when he baptized, they thought he did so because the age of Messias was come, and that he himself must be either the Messiah, or else Elias, who was to prepare the way for Him. (See John i. 19, 25.) Those, too, who were baptized of him, came confessing their sins, because in the baptism of proselytes it had been always the custom to examine into the spirit and motives of the converts, before they were ad- mitted to the rite of initiation. 2 Our Lord was ever pleased to adapt His teaching and ordinances to the habits and understanding of the people whom He taught. The Lord's Prayer is a collection from familiar Jewish forms. 3 The cup in the Lord's Supper was taken from the wine-cups used, by ordinary custom, at the ancient Passover, one of which was called " the cup of blessing." 4 These were but human insti- tutions ; yet our gracious Saviour, stooping to man's infirmities, sanctioned with His approval, and sanctified with His blessing, things which before had but earthly authority. There can be lit- tle, or no doubt, that it was so with baptism. Washing was a com- mon mode of typical purification, in use on all occasions with the Jews : especially it was ordained for the ceremonial purification of proselytes. And accordingly, our Lord adopts and authorizes it, as the means for the admission of proselytes or converts from Ju- daism or heathenism into the Gospel and the Church : for admit- ting to a participation of the covenant of grace, as circumcision had admitted to the covenant of works. Circumcision then, and Jewish baptism, were both types and precursors of Christian baptism ; and from the signification and use of them we may infer somewhat concerning the signification and use of baptism. 3. Besides these, there were certain great events in old Testa* 1 See Lightfoot, H. H. on John iii. 3. 8 Lightfoot, on Matt. vi. 9. 2 See at length Lightfoot, H. H. on * Lightfoot, on Matt. xxvi. 27. Matt. iii. 6. See also Wall, On Infant Baptism, Introduction, passim. 680 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVTI. ment history to which the Apostles point as typical of baptism, especially the ark of Noah, and the passage of the Red Sea. In the ark of Noah, God's chosen people were saved, so as by water, from the destruction of a perishing world. The ark was, as it were, the body of the Church, in which all who entered it might be safe. To this, St. Peter tells us, baptism is the counterpart (javTiTvirov) (1 Pet. iii. 21) ; because by baptism we have access to the Church, and to that salvation which God has ordained in the Church. 4. The passage of the Red Sea was the first step of the Israelites from the land of their bondage. Before they passed it, they were slaves ; after they had passed it, they were free, their enemies were overthrown, and they were delivered. Yet it was a passage, not into Canaan, but into the wilderness ; deliverance from inev- itable bondage, but not deliverance from fighting and toil. They had yet forty years to wander, before the passage of Jordan should lead them into rest. In these forty years' wanderings they had contests, temptations, and dangers. Though saved from Pharaoh, their disobedience and unbelief overthrew most of them in the wil- derness ; and but few of those who had passed through the sea, ever reached the home of their inheritance. St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 1—12) sets this before us, as a type of Christian baptism and Chris- tian life. Baptism is to us a rite ordained for our deliverance, — deliverance from sin and the slavery of sin ; but it is only our first step in the course of our profession ; and if we, like the Israelites, though bathed in the waters and fed from the manna and the rock, yet lust, and murmur, and tempt Christ, and commit idolatry and impurity, we must expect to fall under the power of the serpent, to be destroyed of the destroyer, and never to enter into that promised land, which is nevertheless the inheritance prepared for us of God. II. Baptism then is admission into the Christian covenant, as circumcision was admission into the Jewish covenant. Now a covenant implies two parties, and certain stipulations. In the case of enemies it requires a mediator. In the old covenant, the par- ties were God and the Jews: the Mediator was Moses: the stipu- lations were, " This do : " and then the promise was, " Thou shalt live." The whole dispensation was worldly and legal. It had no promise of eternal life, but only of temporal prosperity. It had no sacrifice which could take away sin (Heb. x. 4). It had no assur- ance of the aid of the Spirit of God. 1 1 See some reflections on this subject, Art. vn. sect. n. p. 197. Sec. II.] OF BAPTISM. 631 But the new covenant is widely different : a covenant of grace, not a covenant of works ; not after the law of a carnal command- ment, but after the power of an endless life. Its promises are not earthly, but heavenly. Its Mediator is not Moses, but Jesus Christ. In Him there is forgiveness of sins. From Him flows the Spirit of grace. By Him is an everlasting inheritance. And so God Himself describes the blessings to those within the new covenant to be, that He would be " merciful to their unrighteousness," and no more remember their sins ; and that He would " put His laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts " (Heb. viii. 10, 12). We may see at once therefore, wherein circumcision and bap- tism differ; why neither remission of sins nor spiritual aid were promised to the recipients of the former ; why both are promised to the recipients of the latter. Neither could belong to a cove- nant of works ; neither could flow from their Mediator Moses. Both are parts of the covenant of grace ; both flow to us from our Mediator Christ. In short, God's part in the new covenant is this : He assures to us pardon, the Spirit, life eternal. This, how- ever, involves a response on our parts. We promise renuncia- tion of sin, faith in the Gospel, obedience to the commands. This is the covenant between God and man, made in Christ. But God's part must come first. We cannot move a step till He gives us life. We are helpless, but in His strength. Hence God must first move to give us grace, before we can move to do Him ser- vice. He will not break His part of the covenant. He will not keep back His promise. Therefore, when we are baptized, being received into the covenant, we may be sure that God will give us, 1> pardon in Christ, 2, help through Christ : if we reject both, we shall fail of the final promise, which is, 3, eternal life. But the failure will be from us, not from Him : from our will not respond- ing to His motions ; from our spirit not yielding to the influence of His Spirit ; not from a keeping back on His part of pardon or grace. All this seems to be the necessary result of the striking of a covenant, which is done at the baptismal font, between us and God. To this view of the subject belong the questions and answers made at Baptism. The Church recounts God's promise, " to re- ceive the person baptized, to release him of his sins, to sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, to give him the kingdom of Heaven, and everlasting life : " and adds, " which promise He, for Sis part % will most surely keep and perform." But then she goes on to 632 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVII. require, that the person to be baptized (or his sureties, if he be an infant) shall respond to God's promises, by engaging to fulfil his part of the covenant, namely, to renounce the devil, to believe all the articles of the Christian faith, and obediently to keep God's com- mandments. This custom has existed from the very earliest times. It is mentioned by Tertullian (who wrote but a hundred years after the Apostles) as having prevailed in the Church, by immemo- rial tradition. 1 The ancients very generally understood St. Peter to allude to this, in the famous passage concerning the ark of Noah (1 Pet. iii. 21). 2 There, having spoken of the deliverance of Noah and his family from the deluge, which overwhelmed the wicked, he goes on to say, that baptism is the counterpart of (dirm> irov, that which actually corresponds with and resembles) the ark. For, as the ark saved Noah, so baptism saves us. 3 But then, lest it should appear as if he taught baptism to act as a charm or incan- tation, ex opere operate, he adds, " not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." 4 That is to say, the mere washing with water will not save the soul. It is the appointed ordinance for bringing the soul into the ark of the Church, into covenant with God, and therefore into a state of salvation. God's Spirit and blessing too are assured to its recipi- ents. But, in order that it may be a truly saving ordinance, the conscience of the recipient must respond to the mercy of God ; just as the catechumen is required to make answer to the interroga- tions then proposed to him. " The answer of a good conscience " most probably alludes to the pledge given by the baptized in reply to the questions; but it seems still farther to indicate, that as the lips then move in answer to the questions of the minister, so, if the ordinance is to be truly life-giving, the heart of the respon- dent must move in obedience to the grace received by it, must spring up in response to the good motions of the Spirit of God. To return then to what was said above ; God's part in the cove- nant is to give, (1) pardon or remission of sins, (2) the aid of the Spirit, and (3) (in the end, and our part of the covenant not being 1 De Coron. At Hit. c. 3. probably understand a metonymy of 9HM- 2 See Cave, Primitive Christianity, pt. 1. tion for ansn-er. So tlie Svri.ic renders it, ch. x. p. 316; Biugbam, II. E. Hk. xi. " Not wben you wasb tbe body from filtb, cb. vii. sect. 8; Neander, Church History, but wben you confess OcmI in a pure 1. sect. in. conscience. So the tntbers evidently 5 'flt Kal ijpuc uvrirvKov vvv ou£ct (id- interpret it, as Tertullian : Anima respon- irrtapa. sione snuciliir. — De Iiesurrrrt. c. 48. So 4 inepuTn/tn properly signifies iptestion more modern interpreters, for tbe mod or quest ioninti. So tbe Vulgate, ronscien- pnrt, e. </. Erasmus : Quo Jit, ut Imm con- tiaz bona: intenwatio in /><>um; wbicb is scirntia rispondnil aputl lievm. And Bc- too literal to be intelligible. We must za : Stipulatio bona: conscimtiat apud Dcum. Skc. IL] of BAPTISM. 633 violated) eternal life. Now these are just the blessings which are not only the obvious promises of the baptismal covenant, but which moreover Scripture couples immediately with the actual rite of baptism. 1. Remission of sins is promised to the baptized. Even John the Baptist preached " the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins " (Mark i. 4) ; although he constantly pointed to " One mightier than himself, who should baptize with the Holy Ghost " (Mark i. 7, 8). But Christian baptism is far more distinctly spoken of as bringing this grace with it. St. Peter told the multitude convinced by his preaching, to " repent and be bap- tized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins " (Acts ii. 38). Ananias bade Saul of Tarsus, " Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts xxii. 16). In allusion to this doctrine of God's pardoning love, assured to those who come for it in bap- tism, we find St. Paul mentioning, as one of the requisites for draw- ing near to God through our great High Priest, that we should have " our bodies washed with pure water " (Heb. x. 22). Again he tells us, that Christ cleanses the Church " by the washing of water" (Eph. v. 25, 26). And when he reminds the Corinthians of their past lives of sin and impurity, he comforts them by adding, "But ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified," &c. (1 Cor. vi. 11). In which passage, it is true, that "washed" may be to be taken figuratively ; yet at least the figure is borrowed from baptism, and the more literal and obvious interpretation of it would apply it directly to baptism. In another place, we find, " the washing of regeneration " put as the correlative of justification (see Tit. iii. 5, 7). According to such words of Scripture, the Con- stantinopolitan Creed contains the clause, " I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins;" Avhere, although some lay all the stress on the word " one" as intended to prohibit the iteration of baptism, yet it cannot be denied, that the words " for the remis- sion of sins " indicate the belief of the council that that grace was annexed to baptism, a belief which the fathers of that council re- peatedly have expressed in those works of theirs which have come down to us. 2. The aid of the Holy Spirit is promised to the baptized. This is the express declaration of St. Peter in the passage just quoted. " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." And lest it should be thought that this meant but the temporary, miraculous gifts of the Spirit, he continues, " for the 80 634 OF BAPTISM. [AnT XX VU promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call " (Acts ii. 38, 39). It is scarcely necessary to add proofs to so plain a statement; yet we find direct evidence in the history of the Acts, that the presence of the Spirit accompanied the administration of baptism. Thus, in the case of Cornelius and his household, who had received the Holy Ghost by direct effusion from above, St. Peter immedi- ately enjoined, that baptism should be administered to them, that the outward rite should not be wanting: to whom the inward crace was already given (Acts x. 47, 48). Certain Ephesian converts had not received the Holy Ghost. St. Paul, finding this to be the case, then asked them, " Unto what they were baptized ? " and they said, " Unto John's baptism." Whereupon, the Apostle en- joined them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ; and when they had been so baptized, he laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost (Acts xix. 2, 6). It is probably true that, in both these instances, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were given ; yet the connection between the gift of the Spirit and the Sacrament of baptism is plainly pointed out by them ; con- firming the doctrine which the words of St. Peter so distinctly have laid down. 3. Eternal life is promised to the baptized. Here indeed we must qualify the promise. Eternal life is not so much a present gift, as a future contingency. It is a treasure laid up for us ; not a deposit committed to us. Both pardon and grace may be forfeited ; yet they are present possessions. Heaven is not a present possession, but a promised inheritance. Still it is part of the promise of the covenant, and therefore one of the blessings of the baptized. The very commission to admit into the covenant by baptism expressed this. The Apostles were to make disciples of (/xa^/Tci'-o-are) all nations (Matt, xxviii. 19). The Gospel was to be preached to every creat- ure. He that so believed it. as to be baptized, was to be saved; he that disbelieved and rejected it, was to be damned (Mark xvi. 16, 16). Salvation then was promised us to follow on belief and baptism ; where plainly we must understand, not eternal life, but the way to life — a state of salvation. So it is said that M the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved " (tou« o-a>£/nc- vovs) : the Lord, that is, brought into His Church by baptism all those who were being saved, or placed in the way of salvation. And so St. Peter says, that, like the ark of Noah, M baptism doth now save us" (1 Pet. iii. 21). In all such passages (and many Sec. IL] OF BAPTISM. 635 might be added looking the same way) baptism is declared to be a saving ordinance : salvation appears to be attached to it. Yet it is evident, from the Avhole tenor of Scripture, that the title to such sal- vation is defeasible ; that the promise of eternal life, though sure on God's part, may be made of none effect by us ; so that, " a promise being left us of entering into His rest, we may come short of it." Yet thus we see that, as we are admitted to covenant by baptism, so baptism has the promise, 1, of pardon ; 2, of spiritual aid ; 3, of everlasting life. III. The Ark then, into which we are thus admitted by baptism, is the Church. The Church is the great company of baptized Christians, the number of those who are within the covenant. Here we have another relation to consider ; the baptized not only embraces the covenant, but he is formally grafted into the Church. Now the Church in Scripture is called, 1, the Body of Christ ; 2, the Household or Family of God ; 3, the Kingdom of Heaven. 1. Christians therefore by baptism are made members of the Body of Christ. St. Paul tells us, that the Church is one Body of which Christ is the Head, and all Christians the different members (1 Cor. vi. 15, xii. 12-27. Eph. iv. 15, 16. Col. ii. 19). " Ye," he says, address- ing the whole Church of Corinth, " are the Body of Christ, and members in particular " (1 Cor. xii. 27). And he shows us how we become members of that Body, when he says, " By one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body " (1 Cor. xii. 13). By a very simi- lar figure our Lord calls Himself the Vine, and His disciples the branches ; and as St. Paul tells us that the Body of the Church derives strength and vigour from the Head (Eph. iv. 16), so our Lord says that the branches of the Vine derive life and nourish- ment from the Vine (John xv. 1-8). Yet it is plain enough that, in both the Lord's and His Apostle's teaching, it is not meant that none but the devout believer can be a member of Christ ; for St. Paul reasons with the Corinthians against causing divisions in the one Body, and so losing the blessing of belonging to it (1 Cor. xii.) and against making their bodies, which are members of Christ, to become members of an harlot, and so liable to be destroyed (1 Cor. vi. 13-20). And our blessed Lord explains to His hearers, that those branches of the true Vine which do not bear fruit, or do not abide in Him, shall be cast forth and withered and burned (John xv. 2, 6). Another expression of Holy Scripture, concerning the union of 636 OF BAPTISM. [Aut. XXVIL the Christian to his Saviour, is especially applied by St. Paul to baptism : " As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ," (Xpia-Tov iv(8va<w8e, put on Christ as a garment). And again, referring to his favourite figure of the Head and the Body, he tells the Christian Church that they are complete, " in Him, which is the Head of all principality and power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands " . . . . " buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead " (Col. ii. 10-12. Comp. Rom. vi. 3, 4). On such authority it is that the Church has ever taught its chil- dren to say, that in baptism they were made " members of Christ ; " that is, members of that mystical Body of which Christ is the Head, and to which He communicates grace and strength, as the head communicates vigour to the body, or the vine sends forth life and strength iuto its several branches. The question, which has been raised, whether this union be real and vital, or merely formal and federal, seems altogether inadmis- sible. It is plainly real and life-giving, except the fault of the indi- vidual renders it ineffectual. The branch grafted into the Vine is really united to it; yet it may fail of deriving life from it. Though it die, it will still be a dead branch. Then, indeed, it may be, that its attachment to the Vine cannot be strictly called vital union. Yet all the language of our Lord and of St. Paul shows, that the members of Christ, the branches of the Vine, are really privileged to draw life and strength from Him, and may surely receive that life and strength, unless they reject or disregard it. (See John xv. 4. Eph. iv. 16, 17. Col. ii. 18, 19). If they reject or disre- gard it, they will then, but by their own fault, lose the benefit of membership, and in the end be cut off (John xv. 6). 2. The Church is also called the Household or Family of God (Gal. vi. 10. Eph. ii. 19 ; hi. 15). Accordingly, when persons are baptized into the faith of Christ, they are said to be made children of God ; and that, by right of their union with Christ, who is the true only-begotten Son of God. Thus the Apostle tells us, that all who have embraced the faith of the Gospel are made children of God ; because they put on Christ in baptism. " Ye are all the children of God by the faith in Jesus Christ (8ia ttJs 7tic)tc<ds iv X/)ior«f) 'Irjcrov^ : for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ " (Gal. iii. 26, 27. Compare iv. 5). Hence the Church says, that in baptism we are made, not only Sec. n.] OF BAPTISM. 637 "members of Christ," but also "children of God." Baptism is the seal of our adoption. We are brought into God's family, God's household, the Church ; and thus " to all, who receive Him, does Christ give power to become the sons of God " (John i. 12). Yet here again we must make the same reservation. Though the bap- tized have a covenanted title to be God's children, and hence are permitted to approach Him as their Father ; there is nothing which says that they shall not be prodigals, that they shall not even " go astray from the womb," and so lose all the privileges and blessings of sonship. As there may be an union to the true Vine, which, because the branch draws not its own nourishment, ends in cutting off and casting into the fire ; so there may be a sonship, which leads only to disinheriting. If the privileges vouchsafed in baptism be profited by, the son- ship will be real, living, lasting. If the privileges be neglected or despised, the sonship will become but nominal, and to be done away. For, " as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they " only are the true "sons of God" (Rom. viii. 14). "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil ; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother " (1 John iii. 10). 3. The Church is called a kingdom, " the kingdom of heaven " (Matt. iii. 2 ; v. 19, &c. &c.) It is the spiritual reign of Christ upon earth ; the Israel, of which He is the King. Accordingly, all Christians by baptism are admitted into the earthly kingdom of Christ ; and " except a man be born again of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into this kingdom " (John iii. 5). The baptized then are the subjects of Christ here. They may prove rebellious subjects, and so be cast out of the kingdom, but still they are enrolled among His subjects ; and if they are faithful, they shall continue His subjects in the eternal kingdom of His glory. Nay ! this right results to them from another title, namely, that they are sons. " If children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint- heirs with Christ" (Rom. viii. 17). And so the Church, having taught us that we are " children of God," teaches us also, that we are " inheritors of the kingdom of heaven." We are " begotten again to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us " (1 Pet. i. 3, 4). Yet heirs may be disinherited. The inheritance is sure ; but the heirs may be prodigal. And, as the branch may wither, and the child may be an outcast, so the heir may be cut off, and the inheritance never be attained. 688 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVIL 4. There is one more character of the Church to which we may refer, namely, that it is set apart to be a temple of the Spirit of God. St. Paul describes the whole Church as " fitly framed together, growing into an holy temple in the Lord ; " and speaks of individ- ual Christians, as " builded together " in it, so that the whole should become u an habitation of God through the Spirit " (Eph. ii. 21, 22. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 5). So again, he calls the whole Corinthian Church " the temple of the living God " (2 Cor. vi. 16). Hence the individual Christian, when brought into the Church, becomes a portion of that sacred building, which is consecrated for the Spirit to dwell in. But moreover, St. Paul speaks of Christians as in like manner set apart to be individually God's temples ; and urges this upon them, as a motive why they should keep their bodies holy, and not pollute them with sin ; lest they should defile the temple of God, and be destroyed for desecrating so sacred an abode. " Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? 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. in. 16, 17). " Flee fornication What, know ye not that vour body is the temple of the Holv Ghost which is in you ? " &c. (1 Cor. vi. 18, 19). This seems to teach us, that, as the whole Church is God's temple, so every member of the Church is consecrated to be a temple of the Holy Ghost, — as a member of Christ, so a temple of the Spirit. But, as unholiness will defile the member of Christ, and spoil the blessedness of membership, so sin will pollute the temple of God, and bring destruction, rather than salvation, on such as walk after the flesh, not after the Spirit. The Holy Ghost, if not repelled, will come and dwell with, and sanctify every mem- ber of the Church ; but if dishonoured, not only may He take His flight, but the guilt will be aggravated by the holiness of the heavenly Visitor, thus driven from His dwelling-place. IV. We come, lastly, to speak of what has been most com- monly called the special grace of baptism, namely, Regeneration or the new birth. We have indeed anticipated the consideration of this already. If by baptism we are all made " members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven," then are we new- born in baptism ; for therein we are joined to Christ, cut out of Sec II.] OF BAPTISM. 639 the wild olive-tree, and grafted into the good tree, born into the Church, into the family of God, as children of our Father which is in heaven. Moreover, if then the Spirit of God becomes our assured guest and present help, the first germ of spiritual life must be ours : and this is all that is meant by new birth. The theology of later days, among the Zuinglians and Cal- vinists, but still more among the Arminians, has attached a different sense to regeneration ; identifying it with conversion or renovation, and denying its existence, except in such persons as attain to a state of true sanctification. Enough has already been said in the way of definition. It is merely needful here to show, that as Scripture assigns certain graces to baptism, so it speaks of those graces under the name of regeneration. In John iii. our Lord especially seems to refer to the Jewish language concerning the baptism of proselytes. Of them the Jews were wont to say, that at their baptism they were born anew, and had entered on a new life. So our Lord says of proselytes to the Gospel or King- dom, that " except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God " (ver. 5). And when Nicodemus expresses his astonishment, our Lord says, " Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things ? " (ver. 10) : as though the language of his own nation and of the masters in it might have taught him some understanding of the words of Christ. The Calvinistic divines have followed the Zuinglians, in denying that baptism is here alluded to at all. They think, that, by " water and the Spirit," we must understand only " the Spirit which washes as with water." 1 But it is a strong argument against this interpretation, which is brought by Hooker, and was before him admitted by Zuingle, 2 that " of all the ancients there is not one to be named, that ever did otherwise expound or allege the place than of external baptism." 8 " When the letter of the law hath two things plainly and expressly specified, water and the Spirit ; water, as a duty required on our parts, the Spirit, as a gift which God bestoweth ; there is danger in presuming so to interpret it, as if the clause which concerneth ourselves were more than needeth. We may by such rare expositions attain perhaps to be thought witty, but with ill advice." 4 Confirmatory of the meaning of these words of our Lord is that expression of St. Paul where he speaks of us as " saved by the washing of regeneration," Xovrpov 7raA.iyyeveo-ias, (Tit. iii. 5) ; 1 Calvin. Tnstitut. iv. xvi. 25. 8 Hooker, Bk. v. sect. 58. 2 Opera, Tom. i. fol. 60, De Baptismo. * Ibid. sect. 59. 640 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVU. a passage which, like the last, the whole ancient Church understood of the laver of baptism. So much has been said already concerning our becoming chil- dren of God, clothed in Christ, and members of Christ, — concerning our being buried with Christ and rising again with Him, — con- cerning our being baptized into the Church by the Spirit of God, (see Gal. iii. 26, 27. Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. 1 Cor. xii. 13), all bearing on the subject of our new birth, that it is scarcely necessary to do more than again refer to such expressions here, in confirmation of the just cited passages, which distinctly speak of being born again in baptism. 1 I have purposely delayed this part of the subject to the last ; because here we meet with the chief difficulty and the greatest diversity of opinions. Many, who perhaps will concede that bap- tism admits to covenant with God and to the Church of Christ, and therefore to a participation in the blessings of the covenant, namely, remission of sins, the aid of the Spirit, and the promise of eternal life, will yet refuse to call these blessings by the name of regeneration. To them that name bears a deeper signification. It implies renovation of the whole man, or, in the school-language, an infused habit of grace. We so naturally identify the thing signified with the name by which we have been used to signify it, that we almost as readily part with a truth, as with the word by which we have known that truth. It is like the name of one dear to us, dear almost as the bearer of that name. At all events, then, let us understand, that it is the word in which the difference lies, rather than the substance. Let us remember, that regeneration is itself a figure of speech. I do not mean, that the birth of the Spirit is an unreality. God forbid ! it is as real as, if not more real than, natural birth. But when we call it a birth, or regeneration, we adopt natural images to express spiritual truths. In figures there is always a likeness, but not an identity, between the image and that which it represents. Now the term or figure, regeneration, has been applied in various languages to many things. We saw that the Jews applied it to the manumission of a slave, to the conversion and reception into 1 We may especially compare St. sequent on such doctrine is, " If ye be Paul's teaching, that we are buried with risen with Christ, seek those things which Christ, and raised again with Him in are above" (Col. iii. 1). St. Peter's is, baptism (Rom. vi, 4. Col. ii. 12;, with "Laying aside all malice, &c, as new- St. Peter's teaching, that " God hath be- born babes desire the sincere milk of the gotten ub ngain to a lively hope by the word, that ye may grow thereby" (1 Pet resurrection of Jesus Christ trom the dead " ii. 1,2). (1 Pet. i. 8). St. Paul's exhortation con- Sec. II.] OF BAPTISM. 641 their Church of a proselyte. Heathens too have used like terms, to express initiation into their mysteries, and the like. But it is obvious, that a much greater change than any of these takes place in the condition of a person who is grafted into the Christian Church, pardoned of his sins, and with the grace of the Spirit bestowed to quicken him. And hence, with great propriety, such a person may be said to be new-born. However, the fathers often used glowing terms of the blessings thus given to the baptized ; so that it might be easy to suppose that with them regeneration signified far more than this, and involved of a certainty newness of life and sanctification of heart. The schoolmen followed to its consequences the language which had been used by their prede- cessors ; making it to include an entire eradication of original cor- ruption, and an infused habit of holiness in the heart. Thus the term " regeneration " came to signify far more than its original force implied ; and hence Zuingle, and after him the Calvinists, and still more strongly the Arminians, adopting the scholastic view of regeneration, saw clearly that such an extent of grace was not the grace of baptism, and were so led to deny that regen- eration took place in baptism at all, and to assign it to a different, and generally subsequent, period of life. No little difficulty again may probably have arisen from want of observing that the figure, regeneration, may not unreasonably have a twofold significance. For first, it may be used of the time when the new-creating grace is bestowed upon us, secondly, it may be applied to the hearty reception of that grace by the subject of it, and to the springing up and growth of it in his heart and life. So, the person baptized may be said to be new-born, because the quickening Spirit is given to him ; and yet, afterwards, the same person may be called unregenerate, because the life of the Spirit (rejected and uncultivated) has never grown up in him. This we have already seen in the language of St. Paul. In one place he says, we are all made children of God by being baptized into the faith of Christ (Gal. hi. 26, 27). In another, that only they can truly be called sons of God, who are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. viii. 14). Does not the very same reasoning explain the often objected language of St. John ? He it is who records the discourse in which the Lord Jesus tells us that a man must " be born again of water and of the Spirit," — a passage which all antiquity ex- pounded of the new birth of baptism. Yet he too tells us, that " he who is born of God sinneth not " (1 John iii. 9) ; and that 81 642 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVU. faith is the evidence of new birth ; for that " he that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God " (1 John v. 1). He too tells us, that in " this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil ; whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother " (1 John iii. 10). The distinction between the one and the other set of passages seems still the same — the distinction namely between the germ and the expanded blossom — between the principle calculated to produce holiness, and the actual renewal and sanctification of the heart. We may add, that the different objects in view in the different passages explain the difference in the use of terms. Our Lord was instructing Nicodemus how a man must first come to Him and be admitted into His kingdom ; and so He points out to him baptism by water, to be accompanied by its covenanted grace of God's Holy Spirit. St. John, on the contrary, was plainly com- bating the errors of certain heretics, who prided themselves on their Griosis or illumination, and who claimed to be born of God, though neglecting holiness and the fruits of the Spirit. The Apostle therefore tells them, that real new birth showed itself in a renewal of the heart, that a sound faith and an active obedience manifested the true sons of God, and that to pretend to know God, and yet not to keep His commandment^ was to act the part of a liar and dissembler (1 John ii. 3, 4, G, 22; iii. 7-10, 24; iv. 2; v. 1, % 4). It is said, probably with justice, that the past tenses, used by St. John, show that \tt meant to speak, not only of those who had once been regenerate, but of those who yet retained their new life of the Spirit, and had not fallen away from it by Bill. 1 Yet it seems to me, that, apart from all questions of grammatical nicety, it may be correct enough to admit the doctrine of regeneration in baptism, in the acceptation already expounded ; and yet, to say that regenerate Christians, true children of God, live a life of faith, overcome the world, and keep themselves by the Spirit from the commission of wilful sin. And this will exactly explain the language of St. John : and will furnish an unfailing key to those passages which seem to differ with each other, because some speak of us as born anew in baptism, whilst others deny the grace of regeneration to any but such as walk after the Spirit, and live the life of the Spirit. 1 e. g. nuf 6 yeyevvtifiivoc in roi> Jerome, and reflections upon it, may he Grot) ijiainiav ob noiei. — 1 Jolin iii. 6. found under Art. xvi. The exposition of this passage by St Sec. II] OF BAPTISM. 643 V. Some objections considered. The chief objections which have been made to the statements of the Church concerning baptismal grace, apply to an imaginary view of the subject, rather than to that stated in the foregoing pages. 1. On the hypothesis that " regeneration " always means a real change or renovation of the moral character, a conversion of the heart from sin to godliness, it is urged that such grace cannot be given in baptism. As a matter of fact, we see a large pro- portion of baptized infants growing up with no sign that their natural corruption has been subdued, and a new heart created within them. If all the change, that is to be looked for in our souls, be such as we see daily exhibited in the life of the baptized, then we must sadly dilute and explain away the language of the Scriptures concerning the new birth, the new creation, the regen- erate and converted soul. The belief that this language applies merely to what takes place in baptism, is calculated to lower our standard of Christian holiness and our estimate of the effects of the operations of the Spirit. In our actual experience we know that many mere formalists have taken shelter under the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, satisfied to believe that all the neces- sary change had passed upon them then, and that they need look for no more. I am fully prepared to go all lengths with those who would protest against such mere heartless formalism as this. But such protest applies to a totally different view of the doctrine of baptism from that which has been taken above. It is a most important truth that, if we would enter into the kingdom, we must undergo a great moral change of heart and nature ; and it is most true, that many have grown up from baptism, and gone down to the grave, without ever undergoing such a change. Such (as has been already observed) are practically unregenerate. Still they may have had given them all the grace which has been above defined to be the grace of baptism. Yet, though God made good His promise, they may never have embraced it. He may, at baptism, have received them to His Church and favour, and have bestowed on them the grace of His Spirit. Yet they may never have re- sponded to the grace, never have yielded to the influence, and so never have profited by the aid of the Spirit. Though grafted into the Vine, they drew no life from it. They were dead branches, and in the end were to be burned. Still the grace which they derived from their baptism may be correctly called regeneration ; because, if it had been accepted, 644 OF BAPTISM. [Abt. XXVII instead of being rejected, it would have gone on springing up in them, as a well of life. The new creation, like the natural creation, is progressive. Strong men are first helpless infants. A particular period must be fixed, as the moment of birth. None can be so truly pointed out, as that when first by covenant the Spirit is given, and the soul is counted in Christ, and not in Adam. Now that period is baptism. It is the starting-post of the Christian race ; the seed-time of spiritual growth ; the moment when the Spirit of God breathes into the nostrils the breath of life. Yet it by no means is meant, that the race always is run, because he who should run it is at the starting-post ; nor that the seed grows up, because it is then sown ; nor even that the infant quickens into life, be- cause God's Spirit is there to kindle it. And if it be so, still it is but the first beginning of life. The new creation goes on through life. It is first the seed, then the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear (Mark iv. 28). Thus Luther, whilst admirably stating his views of baptismal grace, observes, that the grace of baptism is not a thing transient and confined to the moment, but which, if cultivated, remains and renovates through the whole course of life. 1 If then a person has been baptized, but still remains with his carnal nature unrenewed ; we are not to conclude that God was unfaithful, though the man has been unfruitful. But we are still to look upon that person as practically unregenerate ; and we ought to try to bring him to conversion of heart, to a real change of soul and spirit. We may indeed still hope, that God's Spirit, promised in baptism, will be ever ready to aid him, when he does not continue obstinately to resist. But we must look, that " Christ should again be formed in him," — that he should " be converted and become as a little child," before we can pronounce that he is a true son of God. It has been the custom of the Church to call such a change, when wrought after baptism, not regeneration., but conversion or renewal ; but the practical effect is the same : namely, that at conversion that change is really and practically wrought upon the soul, which actually was not produced at baptism, but which, except for his own fault, would have been wrought by the Spirit assured to the baptized. 2 1 De Sacramento Baptitmi, Op. Tom. I. only one that ever was "sanctified from p. 72. The marginal heading is Baptis- his mother's womb." Nor would our mu$ dural per vitam. Lord have said concerning children, that ■ We must not, however, deny that " of such is the kingdom of heaven, " if true renovation or conversion is at times they were never both the subjects of the immediate effect of God's grace given God's renewing grace, and themselves in infancy. John the Baptist was not the obedient to that grace. Too generally, Sec. II.] OF BAPTISM. 645 2. Another objection is drawn from the Calvinistic scheme. Baptismal grace is supposed to contradict the doctrine of final perseverance. The Calvinistic scheme teaches, that grace is always irresistible, and that grace once given always abides. The soul, once in a state of grace, is always in a state of grace. If therefore grace was given at baptism, it can never fail. The most rigid form of Calvinism might make this inevitable. Yet very high predestinarians have thought otherwise. Augustine held that persons might be predestinated to grace, but not to per- severance ; nay, that they might be ordained to persevere for a time, yet not to the end. 1 Calvin himself does not seem to have held his doctrine of perseverance so rigidly as to make it impos- sible that God should give some degree of aid to such as reject it. At all events, many, who have followed him a great way in his predestinarianism, have believed that grace might be given in baptism, yet rejected and forfeited by sin. Of such was our own Hooker, and many other of our most eminent divines. It has been already shown, that the more extreme and exaggerated forms of the doctrine of final perseverance are not sanctioned by our own formularies, nor, it is believed, by the word of God. (See Art. XVI.) 3. A third objection is, that all the promises of God are to faith ; that it is by faith we embrace Christ, and through faith receive the Spirit of God ; that therefore to make baptism the means of re- ceiving grace, is to put it in the place of faith. It is undoubtedly true that an adult should not come to baptism without faith ; and that, if he comes in an unbelieving spirit, he cannot expect to find grace in the Sacrament. But the objection, to the extent to which it has been urged, would magnify the office of faith beyond all reason, and utterly beside the teaching of Scrip- ture. It cannot be that faith is requisite before any grace can be given ; for it is quite certain, that there can be no faith unless grace has first been given to generate faith. Otherwise we are in- evitably Pelagians. " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." Therefore, it is quite clear, that there must be some quickening from the Spirit, before there can be any faith. To magnify faith, so as to make it essential to the first reception of grace, is to take away " the free gift of God." If alas ! the dew of God's Spirit is early lives of God's servants ; some whom we wiped from the heart. But there have ourselves have been privileged to knovi been many pious men, who have grown and esteem. up from childhood in the faith and fear of J See his statements under Art. xvi. God ; many of whom we read in the 646 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVII. God cannot give till we believe, His gift is not free, coming down from the bounty of Him " who giveth liberally and upbraideth not," but is attracted (that we say not merited) by our faith. Besides, this would go near to damn all infants. They cannot have faith. Yet unless they be regenerated, they are not within the promise of eternal life (John iii. 3, 5). This is Calvin's argu- ment against impugners of infant baptism. Infants, he contends, must be capable of regeneration, though they are not capable of faith ; else they could not receive purgation from innate corruption. " How," ask they, " can infants be regenerate who know neither good nor evil ? " We reply, " God's work is not of none effect, though not down to our understanding. It is clear, that infants who are saved, must first be regenerate. For, if they bear a cor- rupt nature from their mother's womb, they must be purged of it before entering God's kingdom, where nothing entereth, polluted, or defiled." 1 Luther, who of all men spoke most earnestly of the importance of faith and its office in justifying, uses still stronger language in condemnation of this opinion. He complains, that Papists and An- abaptists conspire together against the Church of God, " making God's work to hinge on man's worthiness. For so the Anabaptists teach, that baptism is nothing, unless the person baptized be believ- ing. From such a principle," he says, " it needs must follow that all God's works are nothing, unless the recipient be good. Bap- tism is the work of God ; but a bad man maketh that it is not the work of God." We may add, though not subscribe to, his vehe- ment conclusion, "Who sees not in such Anabaptists, not men pos- sessed, but demons possessed by worse demons ? " 2 4. A fourth objection is as follows. In the case of adults it is admitted that baptismal grace will not be bestowed on such recipi- 1 Jnstiiut. iv. xvi. 17. Simeon's views of baptism do not appear a Pnvfatio in Eptst. ad Galat. Opera, to have been very distinctly propounded. Tom. v. p. 271. Perhaps he varied a little in bis views One school of divines amongst us is at different times. I hardly see any dif- supposed to insist very much on this ference between many of his statements necessity of faith, as though without it and my own. In his Sermons on the Holy God could not act. I am sure the better Spirit, indeed, lie asserted that " Bap- instructed and more pious among them tism was a change of state, but not a would shrink from any such extreme change of nature ; " but this probably statement. Let me instance the justly me:mt no more than a denial that bap- venerated names of Cecil. Scott, Wilber- tism necessarily Involved an actual uwrat force, Simeon. They, and such as they, change, a real internal renovation; foi may have used language unlike the in his sermons on the Liturgy he has Church's lnngnage on holy baptism, but I expressed himself in terms almost as feel no doubt they would have repudiated clear in favour of properly explained the language which Luther, in the text, baptismal grace as any of the Fathers quotes as the arguments of the Anabap- or Anglican reformers could have used, tuts. To speak of one of them; Mr. — See Excellency of the Liturgy, Sermon it Sec. II.] OF BAPTISM. 647 ents as come in an unbelieving and impenitent spirit. But if there be already repentance and faith, there must be already regenera- tion, and therefore regeneration cannot be given in baptism. Here again the misunderstanding results from difference of defi- nition. The Church calls the grace of baptism by the name of re- generation, for reasons already specified ; but she does not deny that God may work in the souls of men previously to their bap- tism ; nay ! she does not deny that there may be true spiritual life in them before baptism. But that spiritual life she does not call the new birth, till it is manifested in the Sacrament of regeneration. We must remember that the terms new birth and regeneration are images borrowed from natural objects, and applied to spiritual ob- jects. In nature, we believe life to exist in the infant before it is born, — life too of the same kind as its life after birth. Nay ! if there be no life before it is born, there will be none after it is born. So, the unbaptized may not be altogether destitute of spiritual life ; yet the actual birth may be considered as taking place at baptism ; when there is not 'only life, but life apparent, life proclaimed to the world ; when the soul receives the seal of adoption, is counted in the family of God, and not only partakes of God's grace and mercy, but has a covenanted assurance and title to it. 5. One more objection we may notice. It is said that Sacra- ments and all outward ordinances are but the husk and shell : the life of God in the soul is the kernel and valuable part of religion. Let us regard the latter, and then we may throw the former away. But we may reply, that He who has made the kernel, has made too the husk and the shell. In the natural creation, He has or- dered that no seed shall grow to maturity if the husk and shell are untimely stripped off from it. If we have a treasure in earthen vessels, we may not rashly break the vessels, lest the treasure be lost. In God's kingdom of nature, he has created for man a body as well as a spirit ; we must not think to insure the life of the spirit by disregarding and despising the body. Such conduct seems pre- cisely that of Naaman the Syrian, who refused to bathe in the waters of Jordan, as seeing no natural virtue in them to heal his leprosy. But had he persisted in his refusal, he would have re- turned to Syria a leper as he came. It was not the waters of Jor- dan that healed him : it is not the water of baptism which heals us. But God appointed both them and it ; and to despise His appoint- ment may be to forfeit His grace. 6. There is indeed one difficulty which I cannot solve, which Scripture has not solved. How is it, that if God's Spirit is given 648 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVH to every infant baptized, some profit by the gift, and others profit not ? It cannot be that God is faithful to His promise in one case and not in others. Nor again, can we believe that there is some inherent merit and excellence in the one child, but not in the other. This is one of the deep things of God, — of the secret things which belong to the Lord our God. Why one heart responds to the calls of grace, one steadily resists them, we inquire in vain. If we gain a step in the inquiry, we only find a new inquiry beyond it. The Calvinistic theory cuts the knot ; but it leaves harder knots uncut. It is safer to admit the difficulty, — to acknowledge the impotence of our own intellects to disentangle it, — and humbly to rest satisfied with adoring, reverent, trusting, patient faith. We may feel assured concerning our God, that, though clouds and darkness are round about Him, yet righteousness and judgment are the habitation of His seat. Section III.— HISTORY. TT has generally been considered, that on the doctrine of baptis- -*■ mal grace the testimony of primitive antiquity is more than or- dinarily clear, uniform, and consentient. A very high esteem of the Sacraments pervades the writings of all the fathers, and is especially apparent in their respect for baptism. The controversies of later days, of course, had never arisen. Many of the early writers were rather eloquent rhetoricians, than accurate reasoners. We may therefore expect to find extreme and exaggerated state- ments. Yet such language (allow what you will for it) is the in- dex to something more solid than itself. It would never have been used concerning things of little moment, or low estimation. 1 1 I have been induced to enter more as identical with baptism. We have al- fully into the question of the patristic ready seen that the fathers distinguished doctrine of Baptism than I should other- between the Sacraments of the old Tea- wise have done, owing to the doubts tament and those of the new. " The which have lately been thrown upon it sacraments of the new Testament fim hy various writers, and especially bv Mr. salvation; those of the old Testament Faber, in his Primitive Doctrine of )teaen- promises. Saviour" (August. In Pf. Ixxiii. eration. Whatever comes from Mr. Ka- Tom. IV. p. 789, quoted under Art. xxv.) ber deserves consideration. There is The same distinction is constantly re- one argument which appears of weight ferred to: "The former carnal circutn- in his treatise, namely, that the fathers cision is made void ; and a second spirit- ever identify baptism with circumcision, ual is assigned" (Cyprian. Testimon. i. Yet the careful reader will observe that 8.) "No other advantage attended on every passage from the fathers which circumcision, except that by it the Jew« Mr. Faber adduces to this purpose, speaks were distinguished from other nations, of circumcision as a type of baptism, not But our circumcision, I mean the graoe bEC. JH.] OF BAPTISM. 649 The most obvious example of this is to be found in the fact, that the fathers ordinarily call the Sacraments themselves by the name of the grace of the Sacraments. Thus baptism is perpetually called regeneration or illumination ; not the Sacrament of regeneration, but simply regeneration. So the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Christ. And again, to be regenerated is used for to be baptized. All this is without qualification. And if these ex- pressions stood alone, we should naturally infer that the primitive Christians believed the grace of the Sacraments to be inseparably tied to the Sacraments, and to be wrought by them ex opere operato. Happily, however, abundant testimonies exist, to prove that they esteemed unworthy recipients partakers of the Sacrament, but not partakers of its life-giving power. This has already appeared by what was said on the subject under Article XXV. It is very difficult to convey a correct impression of the teaching of four or five centuries on such a subject as this, by the quotation of a few isolated passages. I will endeavour to exhibit it, as well and as honestly as I can, in the small space which must necessarily be al- lotted to it. And, I believe, we shall see every reason to conclude that the fathers held that conversion of heart did not accompany baptism, when unworthily received, or not duly profited by ; but that they did hold that remission of sins and the grace of the Spirit were promised to accompany baptism, and that that grace, if yielded to and cultivated, would regenerate and new create the soul. Hence, they assigned the name of regeneration to the Sacrament to which regenerating grace was promised ; and sometimes, no doubt, they spoke as if regeneration were tied to that Sacrament. Yet still we shall see that, when they explained themselves accurately, it always appeared that the Sacrament did not work ex opere operato ; but that the effect was to be attributed to God's Spirit acting, according to covenant, on the soul, when the soul did not harden itself against His grace. We may remember then, that Ignatius calls baptism the Chris- tian's arms, 1 meaning probably, that, as the Christian at baptism enlists as Christ's soldier, so then he is furnished with armour from above to fight in His service. We may remember also the strong statement of Barnabas, or the writer under his name : " We de- of baptism, lias a healing free from pain, can be found, in which circumcision is procures us myriads of good things, and made of the same force as baptism, or in fills us with the grace of the Holy Spir- which any legal ordinance is placed on it" (Chrysostom, Homil. xl. in Genesin. a level with the Sacraments of the Gos- quoted by Bishop Beveridge on this pel. Article). It may well be doubted wheth- 1 Ad. Polyc. c. 6, quoted under Art er one single passage from the fathers xxv. 82 650 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVJL scend into the water full of sins and pollutions, and ascend out of it full of good fruits." 1 So Hermas speaks of our " life being saved by water ; " 2 and again he says, " Before a man receives the Name of the Son of God, he is destined to death ; but when he receives that seal, he is freed from death, and delivered to life. That seal is water, into which men descend bound over to death, but ascend out of it assigned to life." 8 Justin Martyr, professing to give to the heathen emperors an account of the Sacraments and ordi- nances of the Christian Church, thus describes to them the rite of baptism : " As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach is true, and undertake to lead lives agreeable to the same, are brought by us to a place where there is water, and are regen- erated, after the same manner of regeneration in which we our- selves were regenerated ; for they are washed in the water, in the name of the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost." 4 The reason of this, he says, is that, as in our first birth we, without our own knowledge, and of necessity, were born in sin, " so we should no longer re- main children of necessity and ignorance, but become children of choice and knowledge, and should receive in the water remission of all our former sins." 6 Irenaeus, in like manner, puts regeneration as a synonyme of baptism, — "baptism, which is regeneration to God." 6 So, when speaking of the commission given by our Lord to baptize, he says, " Committing to His disciples the poiver of regeneration. He said to them, Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them," " &c. Accord- ingly, he speaks of infants as born anew by Christ to God. 8 Yet, on the other hand, he appears not to have esteemed the mere re- ception of baptism as a proof that there would be newness of life. It was the Sacrament of regeneration, but it would be life-giving, only if its grace was cultivated, and so productive of faith. There- fore he describes the Christian as by nature like a wild olive-branch, which is grafted into a good olive ; not losing the nature of the flesh, but suffering a transmutation from the carnal to the spiritual man. But the good olive, neglected, becomes wild ; so the negli- 1 Epist. Darnab. c. 11 ; also quoted, a tov (3airrio/iaTO( rfc elc Qebv uvaycwn- Art. xxv. ocwf. — Lib. I. c. 18. Edit. Grabe, p. 88. 2 Hermas, Lib. i.; Vision, in. c. 8. 7 " Et iterum pntrstatem regoneratio- 8 Lib. in. Similitud. ix. c. 16. nis in Deutn ileinamlans discipulis, dice- 4 tneira uyovrai i6' i/puv ivda v6u>p tori, bat eis, Euntes docete i/nites, baptisantet koI rponov uvayew^aeuc, 6v nal vpelg avrol eos," &c — Lib. lit c. 19, p. - 1 &veyewiidripev, uvaycwuvrai, k. r. A. — ■ "Omnes enim venit per semetipsum Apolog. i. p. 98. salvare ; omnes, inquam, qui per rum * tyioeuc re ipapriuv inrip civ npot/pup- renascuntur in Deum, infantes et par- rouev rixupcv h ry iian. — Apoioy. i. p. vulos, et juvenes, et seniores." — Lib 94. II. e. 89, p. 160. Sec. IH.] OF BAPTISM. 651 gent Christian ceases to be fruitful, and returns to his old condition of a mere natural man. He, who does not by faith obtain and keep the grafting in of the Spirit, will be but flesh and blood, not capable of inheriting the kingdom of God. 1 In the time of Irenaeus some Gnostic heretics had rejected Sacraments on the ground that they were material, and that all matter was impure. 2 Soon after, we find Tertullian ascribing this error to the Cainites. 3 Against them he wrote his treatise De Baptismo. He begins it thus : " Happy the Sacrament of our water, whereby being cleansed from the sins of our former blindness we are made free unto eternal life ! . . . . We, as lesser fish, after our IX0Y2, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor are we safe, except we abide in the water." 4 " Water first brought forth that which had life ; so that there may be no wonder if in baptism the waters should be life-giving." 5 " Thus the nature of water, sanctified by the Holy One, itself also received the power of sanctifying." 6 " Wherefore all waters obtain, after prayer to God, the Sacrament of sanctification. For the Spirit straightway cometh down from the Heavens above, and is over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and they so sanctified acquire the power of sanctifying." 7 He shortly afterwards explains his belief, that the Spirit is not given in the water, but that in the water the angel cleanses and purifies, and prepares for the Holy Spirit, to be given in the im- position of hands, which anciently formed a part of the baptismal ordinance. 8 So, speaking of water flowing from the Rock, he says, " If that Rock was Christ, without doubt we see baptism blessed by the water in Christ. How great is the grace of water for the confirmation of baptism before God and His Christ ! Never is Christ without water, forasmuch as He Himself is washed in water." 9 Again he calls baptism " the most holy laver of new birth ; " 10 and declares that none can be saved without baptism. 11 1 See at length, Lib. v. c. 10, p. 418. angel in the water, we are prepaied by 2 Irenams, Lib. i. c. 18, p. 91. the Holy Spirit." — Primitive Doctrine of 8 De Baptismo, c. 1, 13. Regeneration, p. 138. There is nothing 4 Ibid. c. 1. See under Art. xxv. about mere water in Tertullian. What 5 c. 3. he means is obvious enough. Alluding c. 4. to the stirring of the pool of Bethesda by 7 De Baptismo. the angel, he considered that water-bap- 8 " Non quod in aquis Spirltum Sane- tism was appointed for remission of sins ; turn consequamur ; sed in aqua emundati but that the grace of the Holy Spirit did per angelum, Spiritui Sancto praspara- not come upon the recipient until the mur." — c. 6, conf. c. 7. bishop had laid Ins hands on him. Of the imposition of hands following 9 Ibid. c. 9. immediately on baptism, and considered r) " Sanctissimo lavacro novi natalis." as a part of it, see under Art. xxv. Mr. — e. 20 , comp. D» Animo, c. 41 ; Cont. Faber quotes this passage thus: "Not Marcion. Lib. I. c. 28 ; De Pcenitentia, c. 6. that we obtain the Holy Spirit in the n * Praescribitur nemini sine baptismo mere water, but, being cleansed under the competere salutem, ex ilia, maxime, pro- 652 OF BAPTISM. [Akt. XXVIL Yet, on the other hand, very strong as these expressions appear, we must judge that Tertullian did not teach the opus operatum ; for we find him exhorting the candidates for baptism to prepare for it with the most earnest and frequent prayers, fastings, and watchings, and with confession of all past sins ; evidently, that they might not miss the grace to be expected in it. 1 And to unworthy receivers he believed that the Sacrament would be, not the foun- tain of life, but the sign of death. 2 The doctrine of Clement, Tertullian's great contemporary at Alexandria, and of Clement's still more illustrious pupil and suc- cessor, Origen, seems to have been just the same. " The Paeda- gogue," i. e. Christ, says St. Clement, " forms man from the dust, regenerates him with water, gives him increase by the Spirit, and instructs him by the Word." 3 " Being baptized, we are illuminat- ed ; being illuminated, we are adopted as sons ; being adopted, we are perfected ; being perfect, we are rendered immortal .... This work (ii e. baptism) is called by many names, grace, illumination, that which is perfect, and the laver. Laver, because by it we are washed from sins ; grace, because the punishment due to our sins is remitted ; illumination, because by it we see that holy and sav- ing light, i. e. by it we are clear-sighted to behold the Divine ; that which is perfect, for what is lacking to him who knoweth God ? * " Our sins are remitted by one sovereign remedy, baptism according to the word (XoytKo) PaTrrLapaTi). We are washed from all our sins, and at once are no longer evil. This is one grace of illumination, 5 that a man is no longer the same in manners as before he was washed. For knowledge rises along with illumi- nation, shining around the mind ; and immediately we, who were unlearned, are called learners (txad-qral) ; this learning having at some former time been conferred on us ; for it is not possible to name the precise time : 6 for catechetical teaching leads to nunciatione Domini, qui ait, Nisi nattu ex Mr. Faber (Prim. Doct. of Regeneration, aqua quis erit, non habet vitam." — De Bap- pp. 181, 144) puts this clause in capitals, tismo, c. 10. and cites it as proving that Clement did 1 c. 20. not hold God's grace to be given in bap- 2 " Symbolum mortis." — De Pomitentia, tism, but at any time ln-fore, in, or after c. 6. See above, Art. xxv. Tertullian's baptism. The force of his argument, bow- inclination to deny remission to deadly ever, entirely depemls on his having dis- sins after baptism (see on Art. xvi. sect, sociated the passage from its context ; for i.) originated partly from his high esteem the context in which it stands exactly for baptism, partly from his own highly disproves his position. Clement is ex- ascetic temper. plaining the great blessings of baptism ; 8 Pariagou. Lib. i.e. 12, p. 156, line 18. but he also explains that catechumens ♦ Ibid. Lib. I. c. 6, p. 118, line 27. were regularly trained for it. and that 8 yurio/iarae — this is a common name they had reason to expect that their pre* i- for baptism among all the fathers. ons preparation, with which they came to oi> yup av Ixoif eindv rdv gpovov. the Sacrament, would be specially bl o ate d . Sec. IE.] OF BAPTISM. 658 faith, and faith, at the very time of baptism, is instructed by the Spirit." ! It may be remembered that, under Article XXV., Origen waa quoted as saying, that some, who receive baptism unworthily, re- ceive not the Spirit of God with it ; as Simon Magus, " not being baptized to salvation, received water, but not the Spirit of God." * Yet Origen distinctly asserted that baptism was ordained for re- mission of sins and spiritual regeneration. " Children," says he, " are baptized for the remission of sins .... By the sacrament of baptism the uncleanness of our birth is put away ; and therefore even infants are baptized .... In the regeneration of baptism, the Sacrament is received, that, as Jesus, according to the dispensation of the flesh, was purified after His birth by an oblation, so we should be purified by spiritual regeneration." 3 We have already spoken of the error, into which Origen fell, of believing that deadly sin after baptism was the sin against the Holy Ghost. 4 Such a notion would have been impossible, had not a very high esteem of the blessings of baptism been prevalent when he wrote. This brings us to the age of Cyprian. Thenceforth it would be far easier to convict the fathers of holding the opus operatum, than of doubting that grace was given in baptism. Cyprian himself says, " All who come to the Divine laver, by the sanctification of baptism put off the old man by grace of the saving laver, and be- ing renewed by the Holy Spirit, are purged of the filth of the old contagion by a second birth." 5 " Thence begins the origin of all faith, and a salutary entrance to hope of eternal life." 6 His own experience of the blessings of baptism he sets forth in the enthusi- astic language of a young convert. 7 We perhaps need not attrib- ute very much weight to such a glowing picture ; for the passage was written soon after his baptism ; and Augustine has expressed his opinion, that it was in the taste of a young writer, not of a ma- tured divine. 8 Cyprian appears to have followed Tertullian in con- and their faith instructed, d/xa ru /3a7r- ramentum et quomodo Jesus secundum riofian, "at the very moment of baptism." dispensationem carnis oblatione purga- Bishop Bethell has some good remarks tus est, ita etiam nos spiritali regener- in reply to this argument of Mr. Faber. atione purgamur." — Homil. xiv. in La- Bethell, On Regeneration, pp. 254-260. cam. Fifth edition. * See under Art. xvi. sect. i. 1 Pcedogog. Lib. i. c. 6, p. 116, line 13. 5 De Habitu Virginum. Oxf. 1682, p. 2 In Numeros, Homil. m. num. I. ; In 103. Ezechiel. Horn. vi. num. v. cited under 6 Epistol. lxxiii. p. 203. Art. xxv. 7 Ad Donatum de Gratia Dei, circ. init. 8 " Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem p. 2. peccatorum Et quia per baptismi 8 Augustine, De Doctr. Christ, iv. 14. sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponun- The passage from Cyprian is quoted by tur, propterea baptizantur et parvuli. . . . Bishop Bethell. — Fifth edit. p. 127. In regeneratione baptismi assumitur sac- 654 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVU. sidering chrism, or the imposition of hands, essential to the com- pletion of the grace of baptism. 1 From Cyprian we may pass to the great Athanasius. A few- words will express his doctrine. " He who is baptized, puts off the old man, and is renewed, being born again of the grace of the Spirit." 2 It is natural, on this subject, to turn with much interest to the works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem ; whose Catechetical Lectures were addressed to catechumens preparing for baptism. His pref- atory lecture sets forth at once the great blessings of baptismal grace, and the great need of duly preparing the mind of the adult recipient, lest by unbelief or hypocrisy he should miss the benefit. To those who were training for it he says, that already " the sa- vour of blessedness was upon them, and they were gathering spirit- ual flowers, to wreathe heavenly crowns. The blossoms of the trees have budded ; may the fruit be brought to perfection." But he adds, that an honest intention was necessary to blessing ; " for though the body be present, yet if the mind be absent, it is of no avail." 3 He then goes on to speak of Simon Magus, as brought to baptism, but not enlightened ; " dipping his body in the water, but not permitting the Spirit to illuminate him." 4 He therefore bids his catechumen to look, " not on the bare water, but to salvation from the working of the Spirit." 6 The blessings, however, of the Sacrament, if duly accepted, he rates at the highest value. " Great is the baptism which is set before you. Liberty to the captives ; re- mission of sins ; death of sins ; regeneration of the soul ; garmtnt of light ; holy seal, indissoluble ; chariot to heaven ; delight of Paradise ; procuring for us the kingdom ; the free gift of the adop- tion of sons." 6 " Jesus sanctified baptism by being Himself bap- 1 See Ep. lxxii. p. 196 ; Epist. lxxiii. lion of hands, both then considered parts p. 207, quoted under Art. xxv. of baptism. — See Bingham, xn. i. 1, Mr. Faber quotes, as of great conse- 4. quence to His own theory, the former of ' 2 'O 6i fiairri&pevoc rov ph> izaTjuhv these passages: " Turn denmm plene unodidvoKerai • uvaKatvi&rat 6k uvudev yev- sanctificari et esse filii Dei possunt, si vr/ddc ry rov Ilir lyiaTOf fuptn. — Epist. saeramento utroque nascantur, cum scrip- iv. ad Sirapion. 18. The passage is given turn sit, Nisi qui.* unatusfuerit ex aqua rt more at length by Bishop Betliell, p. 311. Spiritu," &c. — Prim. Ihct. of Reqener. p. 8 Pnrfiit. Catech. 1. 68. He strangely infers that Cyprian * Ibid. held water to be one sacraim sir, ami the 6 M») to tyikij rob v6aroc npoaext, oAAu Spirit the other; ns though any Divine ry rov uyiov Uvci'paToc tvtpyeig r^v avrripiav could really call God's Holy Spirit a tv6ixov. — Catech. in. 2. See Beveridge Sacrament: i. e. an oniimnl s'an of an on this Article. inward grace. So common a book as ■ Miya rd irpoKeiptvov fiuirnopa. alx- Bingham's Antiquities will icll us that the pa7.Cnoic Xvtov • aunp-r^uuTuv uQeotc- dava- two sacraments by which Tertullian and rat upapriac • xnAiyyewoia yvxvt' Mvpa Cyprian believed regeneration to be be- Qurttvuv • ofpayic ayia uKaruXvTOc • b\vpa •towed upon us, were water and imposi- npbc ovpavov • irapa&eiem rpv6i) ■ fiaotXiiat Sice IT!.] OF BAPTISM. Goo tized." 1 " By baptism the sting of death is destroyed." 2 "Thou descendest into the waters dead in sins ; thou risest again quickened in righteousness." 3 Gregory Nazianzen sums up the blessings of baptism in wor!.; which bear a striking resemblance to those above quoted from Cyril. " Baptism (to <£wno-ya) is the splendour of souls, the change of life, the answer of the conscience to God. It is the aid of our infirmity, the putting off of the flesh, the following the Spirit, the participation of the word, the correction of images (TrXaa-paTwv i-n-a- vo'p#wo-is), the drowning of sin, the participation of light, the destruc- tion of darkness, the chariot of God, the travelling with Christ, the confirmation of faith, the perfecting of the mind, the key of the kingdom, the change of life, the destruction of slavery, the loosing of chains, the conversion of the constitution ( awOzn-em //.eTttTrotj/o-is), the most beautiful and glorious of the gifts of God . . . . It is illu- mination, more holy than all other illuminations .... It is called gift, charisma, baptism, unction, illumination, the clothing of incor- ruption, the bath of regeneration, the seal," 4 &c. &c. Elsewhere he speaks, like Cyril, of the need of diligent preparation, and coun- sels : " Let the laver wash, not thy body only, but thine image." 5 And, in one place, he seems to consider, that all the graces of bap- tism might possibly, though not probably, be given before the re- ception of the Sacrament, to which the Sacrament itself would then be the seal ; for of his sister Gorgonia he says, that " to her almost alone baptism was not the gift of grace, but the seal only." 6 St. Ambrose in the West, contemporary with St. Gregory in the East, calls the dividing of the waters of Jordan by Elijah (where- by some of the water must have flowed back to its source) " a type of the Sacrament of salutary laver ; by which infants, who have been baptized, are reformed from a state of wretchedness, to the primitive state, in which they were created." 7 One word more from St. Chrysostom. Comparing God's pardon to us with the pardon granted to criminals by earthly rulers, he says, that, if kings were to pardon, and even to invest their offend- npoZevov • vio&eoiae ^apiff/ua. — Catech. 6 Ibid. p. 661. Prcefat. 10. St. Basil has almost word c not fxovy oxetibv, h*' eittu ro^pr/oat, for word the same sentence. — Exhortal. atypaylc 11DJ ov x u P i<y f* a V v t° (/.vorT/piov, ad Baptism. Tom. i. p. 413. — Oral. xi. Tom. i. p. 188. 1 Catech. in. 8. " " Signifieat salutaris lavacri futura 2 Ibid. mysteria ; per qua? in priinordia naturae 3 Catech. in. 9: veupbc h> a/xapriais suae quibaptizati fuerintparvuli a malitia KaraBuc, avapaiveic faonoindelc ev dwaio- refbrmantur." — Comment, in Evangel. Luc. ovvy. — Comp. Catech. xx. 4, 5. Lib. i. § 37. The passage is given more * Greg. Naz. (hat. xl. Opp. Tom. i. at length by Wall, hfanl Baptism, pt. I \ . 638. Colon. c. 13. 656 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVU ing subjects with their own royalty, they still could not free them from their sins. " It is God only who does this ; which He will accomplish in the laver of regeneration. For His grace touches the soul, and eradicates its sins "...." As when iron or gold is recast, it is made pure and new again ; so the Holy Spirit, recast- ing the soul in baptism, as in a furnace, Consumes its sins, and makes it shine with more purity than the purest gold." * If we stopped here, might we not conclude, that the fathers uno ore affirm that baptism, rightly administered and duly received, is an ordinance appointed by God, in which He promises to receive the sinner to Himself, to give Him for Christ's sake pardon of his sins, and to bestow upon him the gift of the Spirit ? And, although some rhetorical language may obscure their meaning, is it not yet clear, that this grace is not to be looked for from baptism, as though it worked as a charm, but that baptism is to be diligently prepared for, and its grace made use of; and that the unbelieving and the hypocrite may receive the water without receiving the Spirit of God, enhancing his condemnation, rather than obtaining remission of his sins ? We have yet to consider the views of St. Augustine. No one speaks more fully, no one has a juster claim' to be heard. Perhaps the greatest of uninspired divines, he has influenced, more than any, the opinions of all succeeding generations. The reformers espe- cially drank deeply from the fountain of his thoughts. He writes, not with the rhetoric of an orator, but with the logic of a thought- ful reasoner, and yet with the eloquence of an earnest and devoted Christian. His predestinarian sentiments may, doubtless, have affected his views of baptismal grace. It has been asserted that, in one point only, he materially differed from Calvin. Both believed that God's predestination was irrespective of individuals, and to eternal life. But Calvin held, that once regenerate a person could never finally fall ; and so taught that none but those elect to glory could receive regeneration in baptism. Augustine, on the contrary, held that all infants are regenerate in baptism ; and therefore, that the regenerate may fall away. It has, however, been said that this difference is not real, but apparent only ; for that, by regeneration Calvin meant a moral change of disposition, but Augustine meant only a beneficial federal change of relative condition. 2 If we remember what was said of Augustine's predestinarianism 1 Chryaost. Homil. in 1 Epist. ad 2 Faber, Prim. Dod. of Election, Bk. i. Corinth. Homil. xl. ch. vn. p. 81, &c. Skc. III.] OF BAPTISM. 657 (under Arts. XVI. XVII.), we shall see that this statement falls short of the truth. We there saw, that St. Augustine distinctly taught, not only that persons regenerate in baptism might finally fail of salvation, but even that persons might believe, and live for some years in a state of piety and godliness, and yet fall away and be lost. He distinguished between predestination to grace, and predestination to perseverance. He said indeed, that persons could not with the strictest propriety be called elect who had not the gift of perseverance ; but yet that persons might be baptized, regenerate, believing, and for a time persevere — " that a man might live for ten years and persevere for five, and yet for the last five fall away and be lost." * " We call those elect," he writes, " and Christ's disciples, and children of God, because they are to be so called, whom we see having been regenerated, living piously ; but then only are they truly to be called so, if they continue in that for which they so are called." 2 " They were then in a good state, but because they did not continue in it, i. e. did not persevere unto the end, therefore the Apostle says, they were not of us, even when they were with us, that is, they were not of the number of sons, even when they had the faith of sons." 3 &c. He takes the case of two godly men : to one perseverance is given, to the other not. This is God's inscrutable decree (inscrutahiliora sunt judicia Dei). One, no doubt, was of the predestinated ; the other, not. " Yet were not both created by God, born of Adam, made out of the earth, and received souls of like nature ? Nay ! had not both been called, and had followed Him that called them ? Had not both been justi- fied, though before ungodly, and both by the laver of regeneration made new creatures ? " (utrique ex iniquis justificati, et per lava- crura regenerationis utrique renovati). " Whence then," he asks, " this distinction ? " and he resolves it into the decree of God. 4 Now here is the great difference between Augustine and Calvin. Whatever the latter may have held, the former certainly did not hold, that grace inevitably leads to glory. With respect to the meaning which Augustine attached to the term regeneration as applied to baptism, it is, perhaps, not in- correct to say that he held that it was not conversion of heart or " a moral change of disposition," but rather, " a beneficial federal change of relative condition." His own words clearly prove that he did not believe the necessary consequences of baptism to be con- 1 See quotations and references under 2 De Corrept. et Grat. § 22, p. 762. Art. xvi. sect. i. Art. xvn. sect. i. ; es- * Ibid. § 20, p. 761. pecially De Corrept. et Grat. §§ 16, 20, 22 ; * De Dono Persev. § 21, Tom. x. (t De Dono Persev. 1, 19, 21, 32, 33. ' 831. 83 6o8 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVH. version of heart, nay, that in infants conversion of heart could not be the immediate consequence of baptism. 1 Yet we may venture to say, that he was too profound a thinker and too sound a divine- to have believed that baptism admitted us into a new federal relation with God, or, in plainer words, that it brought us into a new covenant of grace, without also believing that it made us partakers of the blessings of that covenant. He could never have taught, that, under the dispensation of the Gospel, God would bring us into a covenanted relationship with Himself, thereby saddling us with fresh obligations to obey Him, without also be- stowing upon us the power which would enable us to fulfil those obligations. The view which he takes of the difference between baptized and unbaptized infants, clearly shows his high estimation of bap- tismal blessing. We need not herein follow his teaching, but it is quite certain that he held that all unbaptized infants, if they died in infancy, would perish everlastingly ; and, on the other hand, he clearly held that if they died in infancy, having been baptized, they passed at once into eternal life.' 2 The distinction between the state of the baptized and the unbaptized infant he thus clearly marks : " In infants, born but not baptized, Adam may be recognized ; in infants, born and baptized, and hence born again, Christ may be recognized." 3 He identifies baptized with believing infants (Jideli- bus infantibus, id est, in Christo baptizatis) ; and says of them, that, M though infants, they are members of Christ, partaken of His Sacraments, that they may have in them life." 4 When they are baptized, nothing less is done than that they are incorporated into 1 " Quibus rebus omnibus ostenditur in mortrm secundum."' — l>e iJono Per- iiliinl esse sacramentum baptismi, aliud never. § 80, Tom. x. p. N17. conversioncm cordis, sod salutem hominis " Cum videant alios parvulos non re- ex utroque complcri ; ncc si unuin horum generatos ad icternam mortem, alios an- defuerit, ideoputare debemns consequens tem rcgeneratos ad a-tcrnam vitam tolli esseutetaltcrum <lcsit; quia el ill ml sine de liac vita." — Ibid. $ '■','!. isto potest esse in infante, et hoc sine illo "Cum moriuntur inlantes, aut mer- potuit essein latrone, complenteDeosive ito regenerationis transeunt ex malis ad in illo, sive in isto, quod non ex voluntale bona, aut merito originis transeunt ex defuisset ; cum vero ex voluntate alte- malis ad mala." — De Prtedestinat. § 24, rum horum defuerit, reatu hominem in- Tom. x. p. 806. volvi. Et baptumm quidem potest inesse, " Quia parvulus non baptizatus non ubi conversio cordis di-fnerit : convtrsio autem intrat in rejjnum cxrloruni, et tu dicia cordis potest quidem inesse i. on pereeplo txi/h et ego." — Arm. 204, c. 7, Tom. v. p. tismo, sed conttmpta non potest," — [>e. Hop- 1 186. tismo contra I >omitistns, Lib. IT, c. xxv. § * " In parvulis nntis et nondum bap 82, Tom. ix. p. 141. tizatis agnoscatur Adam : in parvulis na- a " Absit ut causam parvulorum sic tis et baptizatis et ob hoc renatis agnos- relinquamus, ut esse nobis dicamus in- catur Chrtstus." — Serm. 174, c. 8, I'oni wrtum. utruin in Christo regenerati si v. p. 8:14. umriantur parvuli, transeant in icternam * " Infantes sunt, sed membra ejus •alutem, non regenerati autem transeant sunt Infantes sunt, sed sacratnenta ac Sec m.] OF BAPTISM. 659 the Church, that is, are joined to the Body and members of Christ ; and this, he says, is so important, that without it they would be damned. 1 However holy their parents may have been, they them- selves cannot be free from the taint of original sin, but by baptism. 2 But in baptism it is effected by God's grace, that all original sin is made void. Yet it is not so made void, that concupiscence is also destroyed with it, but only so that, if the child dies, it shall not operate to his destruction. If, however, the infant lives, and grows to an age of understanding and responsibility, he will have need to fight against that concupiscence, and, by God's help, he may overcome it, unless he have received God's grace in vain. 3 Those then, who are baptized, receive remission of all their sins. 4 Infants cannot believe, when they are baptized, nor make responses and stipulations for themselves. Therefore the response of others is sufficient for their consecration. 5 In Cornelius, spiritual sancti- fication preceded the Sacrament of regeneration ; but in baptized infants the Sacrament of regeneration precedes ; and if they hold fast Christian piety, conversion in heart will follow, the Sacrament of which preceded in body. 6 But how is such conversion of heart to follow? If baptism be a mere outward change, nothing in it could give hope of future conversion of heart. Accordingly, St. Augustine teaches that, " in baptized infants, though they know it not, the Spirit of God dwelleth." ' And again, that "a power is given them, by which, from the sons of this world, they may be- come the sons of God." 8 I believe these quotations give a faithful representation of the general teaching of St. Augustine on baptism. The}' are not gar- bled extracts ; but, on the contrary, if consulted at length, will cipiunt. Infantes sunt, sed mensae Ejus 5 De Baptismo c. Donatist. Lib. iv. c. participes fiunt, ut habeant in se vitam." 24, Tom. ix. p. 141. — Ibid. c. 6. e « ita in baptizatis infantibus prae- 1 De Peccat. Merit, et Remiss. Lib. in. cedit regeneration is sacramentum; et si c. 4, Tom. x. p. 78. Christianam tenuerint pietatem, seque- ' 2 Ibid. c. 12, p. 83. tur etiam in corde conversio ; cujus 3 "In parvulis eerte gratia Dei per mysterium praeeessit in corpore." — Ibid, baptismum ... id agitur ut evacuetur p. 140. caro peccati. Evacuatur autem non ut " "Dicimus ergo in baptizatis parvulis. in ipsa vivente came concupiscentia eon- quamvis id neseiunt, liabitare Spiritum 9persaetinnatarepenteabsumaturetnon Sanctum."— Bpist. 187 ad Dardm.c. vm. sit; sed ne obsit mortuo, quae inerat nato. Tom u. p. 586. So also, " Ad tempi urn Nam si post baptismum vixerit, atque ad Dei pertinent parvuli, sanctificati saera- actatem capacem praecepti pervenire pot- mento Christi, regenerati Spiritu Sanc- nerit, ibi habet cum qua pugnet, eamque to." — Ibid. c. vi. 684. adjuvante D?o superet, si non in vacuum 8 " Frustrata potestate captivatoris gratiam Ejus susceperit, si reprobatus sui, et data potestate qua fiant ex fil is esse noluerit." — De Peccat. Mentis et Re- hujus saeculi filii Dei." — De Nuptiis et miss. Lib. i. c. 39, Tom. x. p. 39. Concupiscentia, Lib. i. c. 22, Tom. x. p. 4 De Civit. Dei, Lib. i. c. 27, Tom. vn. 292. p. 25. 660 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVIL be found to give only more fully the same impression of the writer's meaning. Is it not plain then, that his meaning is, as nearly as possible, coincident with the doctrine laid down in the two preceding sections ? He teaches, that baptism is not in itself conversion of heart ; and of adults he says, that a person may be baptized with water, but not born of the Spirit. 1 In infants also, he says, that the Sacrament of regeneration precedes conversion of heart. He con- siders that the regeneration of baptism consists in a grafting into the Church, the body of Christ ; a remission of all original sin, so that baptized infants dying in infancy are sure of salvation ; and, moreover, in an assured presence of the Holy Spirit, which, if not obeyed, will profit them nothing ; but which, if held fast, and not received in vain, will lead, with the opening reason, to that faith and conversion in heart, of which, in unconscious infancy, they had been incapable. Accordingly, he uses the term " child of God " in a twofold signification. At one time, he speaks of all the baptized as regenerate in Christ, and made children of God, by virtue of that Sacrament. At another time, he speaks of baptismal grace as rather enabling them to become, than as actually constituting them God's children; and says that, in the higher and stricter sense, persons are not to be called sons of God unless they have the grace of perseverance, and walk in the love of God. 2 It has very justly been observed, concerning this teaching of St. Augustine, that over and above the great value of his own judgment and testimony, he appeals to the uniform voice of an- tiquity, and declares that, in his baptismal doctrine, he proceeds upon principles which from the earliest ages have been admitted in the Church. 8 1 He asserts that one of two things lie must not say that he is born of God. must be determined : either that adults (" Habeat caritatem : nliter non se dicat receiving unworthily, like Simon Magus, nattim ex Deo.") The sons of God are are born of water and of the Spirit, but distinguished from the children of the to their destruction, not to their salva- devil only by charity. Those who have tion ; or else that the hypocritical, and charity are born of God. Those who those not converted in heart, must be es- have not charity are not born of God. teemed to have been baptized, but not * " Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nee born of the Spirit. — De Bnptismo c. Don- conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum atist. Lib. vi. c. 12, Tom. ix. p. 169. est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica trad- a See the passages quoted above. See itum, rectissimc creditur. — Lib. iv. c. also In Epistol. Johann. c. 8, Tract, vi. 6, 24, Tom. ix. p. 140. 7, Tom. in. par. n. pp. 859, 860, where On this Mr. Faber remarks : " Thus he argues that though a man may have by this remarkable attestation he becomes received the Sacrament of baptism, so as it were a host of witnesses in him- great a thing that it makes a new man self." (Prim. Doct. of Rt generation, p. by remission of all his sins (" ut novum 824.) I am much pained at being obliged hominem faciat dimissione omnium pec- to express decided dissent from some of catorum ") ; yet if he have not charity, the positions of Mr. Faber, a writer for 8kc. Ill] OF BAPTISM. 661 It is needless to trace the chain of fathers beyond St. Augus- tine. The scholastic discussions too may have had a sufficient interest in themselves, but we have neither need of, nar space for them here, and must at once pass to the period of the Reforma- tion. The Council of Trent declared that in baptism not only remis- sion of original sin was given, but also all, which properly has the nature of sin, is cut off. In the regenerate there is nothing which God hates. Concupiscence indeed remains ; but has not the nature of sin, and will never hurt those who fight against it. 1 As a gen- eral principle, the Council decided (Sess. vn. can. viii.), that the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato. Luther and the Lutheran reformers are clear and express in their assertion of baptismal grace. Luther lays great stress on Gal. iii. 27 ; which he says " is much to be observed against fanatical spirits, who lower the dignity of baptism, and speak impiously concerning it. St. Paul, on the contrary, adorns it with glorious titles, calling it the laver of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost. And here, he says, all baptized persons have put on Christ ; as though he would say, Ye received not by baptism a sign or watchword (tesseram), by which you were enlisted into the number of Christians, as many fanatics of our day think, who make baptism a mere watchword, i. e. a short and empty sign. ' But as many,' he says, ' as have been baptized have put on Christ,' that is, Ye have been snatched from the Law into a new nativity, which was effected in baptism. Therefore ye are no longer under the Law, but are clothed with a new garment, L e. Christ's righteousness. St. Paul therefore teaches that baptism is not a sign, but a clothing in Christ, yea, that Christ Himself is whom I entertain ranch respect, and in (See Prim. Doct. of Election, passim.) whose writings I have taken great inter- Surely, then, he must consistently hold est. I believe that his view of the sub- that all baptized persons are entitled to ject cannot be so different from that the aid of God's Holy Spirit. I am which I have taken above, as might at therefore quite at a loss to understand first appear. His great argument is that him, when I find him stating that infants, the fathers did not believe moral renova- from original sin, " cannot be worthy re- tion or conversion of heart to be the ne- cipients of baptism .... without an cessary concomitant of baptism. Of this antecedent operation to make them wor- I think there can be no doubt. Mr. Fa- thy" (p. 345). Surely original sin is ber himself fully admits that " all sin is not a bar to God's pardoning mercy in pardoned in baptism " (p. 321). He also Christ, nor to the grace of His Spirit, to holds that God's predestination, as re- quicken us from such sin. And how to vealed to us in Scripture, is not, as Ar- believe that an antecedent operation is minians teach, ex prcevisis meritis ; nor necessary to make them worthy, except yet, as Calvinists teach, to eternal glory; on Arminian or Calvinistic principles, I but, as the fathers teach, to baptismal cannot imagine. blessing ; and that all baptized persons 1 Sess. v. De Pecc. Origin. See also may, if they will, become elect to glory, under Art. ix. pp. 244, 245. 662 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVII. our clothing. Wherefore baptism is a most potent and efficacious rite." * " To be baptized in God's name, is not to be baptized by- man, but by God. Wherefore, though it be done by man's hands, we must believe and hold that it is the work of God." 2 " God Himself honours baptism with His Name, and confirms it with His own power (sua virtute)? 3 " Separated from the Word, it is but water. Joined with the Word, it is Christ's Sacrament." 4 " The effect of baptism is remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit." 6 Some had urged, that to ascribe such blessings to baptism was to attribute salvation, not to faith, but to works. Luther replies, that one of the objects of faith, and one of those things on which faith rests, is the grace of God in baptism. Be- sides, baptism is not our work, but God's. On God's work we rely for salvation, not on men's. And baptism is not the work of the bather, but of God. 6 He denies that, in the case of infants, there is any need of faith. God's work is not rendered ineffectual, because they have no power to believe. 7 The work of God is then begun in the soul ; but the effect of baptism is a thing whicli remains through the whole of life. 8 For the mortification of the body of sin, which is part of the grace proper to baptism, is a work which we are con- stantly to experience through life, till the sin be altogether abol- ished, and we rise and reign with Christ. 9 " This life therefore is a perpetual spiritual baptism, till we die." 10 " Baptism is the deluge of grace ; as Noah's deluge was the deluge of wrath." u Baptism does not take away sin. " But in it God makes a covenant with you." " Immediately from your baptism God begins to renew you. He bestows on you His Spirit, and the Spirit begins immediately to mortify your nature and sins, and so to prepare you for death and resurrection." " God pledges Himself not to impute to you the remains of sin, which still cleave to you, nor to condemn you on their account." 12 A baptized person may therefore humbly say : " I know my works to be impure and defiled ; but I am baptized, and I know that God, who cannot lie, has bound Himself to me in baptism, not to impute my sins to me, but rather to mortify them in me and abolish them." 1S All this, however, on God's part, 1 Luther In m. ad Galat. Tom. v. p. 8 Ibid. 170. • Prcrfat. in Epist. ad Romano* Tom. a Catechismus Major , Tom. V. p. 667. V. p. 100. * Ibid. ™ De Sacramento Baptism. Tom. I. p « Ibid. 72. 8 Ibid. u Ibid. p. 72. 8 Ibid. p. 688. » Ibid. p. 74. ■ Ibid. p. 689. ■ Ibid. SecHI.] OF BAPTISM. 663 Luther considers to involve a corresponding obligation on ours, tc use the grace so assured to us, and to mortify by its help the deeds of the body. 1 Zuinglius took a view the exact, opposite to Luther's, on this Sacrament, as on Sacraments in general. He begins by stating, that almost all, whoever went before him, from the very times of the Apostles, have erred concerning baptism. 2 He states his own opinion to be, that a person who is signed by the sign of baptism, promises that he will be a hearer and discipb of God, and that he will obey His laws. " If," he says, " the Sacraments were the things they signified, then could they not be signs. For the sign and the thing signified cannot be the same. Baptism therefore is the sign which binds and initiates us to Jesus Christ." 3 " Ex- ternal baptism with water contributes nothing to the washing away of sin." 4 To get rid of a difficulty which naturally presented it- self, he says that " Original sin does not deserve damnation, if a person have believing parents. . . . Original sin is a disease, which yet is not blameworthy in itself, nor can bring with it the pain of damnation .... until a person, corrupted by its contagion, trans- gresses God's law ; which then mostly happens, when he sees and understands that law." 5 Accordingly, he argues for the undoubted salvation of infants, baptized or unbaptized. 6 Calvin, in his general view of Sacraments, was in accord neither with Luther nor Zuinglius. It is by no means easy to define his doctrine of baptism. Inconsistency is very little his character ; yet on baptism he appears to have been somewhat inconsistent with himself. His peculiar predestinarian system made it difficult for him to believe that infants received grace ; because, according to 1 De Sacramento Baptism. Tom. i. p. dictum esse velim) a scope- aberravisse." 73. Melancthon speaks exactly like Lu- — Zuinglius, De Baptismo Oper. pars 2, ther : " Quod Deus approbat baptismum Tigur. 1581, Tom. i. fol. 60. parvulorum, hoc ostendit, quod Deus dat Ibid. Spiritum Sanctum sic baptizatis." — Mel- * " Externus baptismus ergo qui aqua ancthon. Opp. Tom. i. p. 61. constat, ad peccatorum ablutionem nihil " Sentimus eos (h. e. parvulos) in bap- facit." — Ibid. t'ol. 71. tismo fieri filios Dei, accipere Spiritum 5 " Peccatum ergo originale damna- Sanctum, et manere in gratia tamdiu, tionem non meretur, si modo quis paren- quoad non effundant earn peccatis actu- tes fideles nactusfuerit. . . . Unde colligi- alibus ea aetate, quae jam dicitur rationis mus peccatum originale morbum quidera compos." — Tom. iv. pp. 664. See Beth- esse, qui tamen per se culpabilis non est, ell, On Regeneration, p. 155 ; Laurence, nee damnationis pcenam inferre potest Doctrine of the Church of England on Bap- .... donee homo contagione hac corrup- tism. Third edit. p. 89. tus legem Domini transgreditur, quod 2 " IUud mihi ingenue circa libri ini- turn demum fieri consuevit, cum legem tium dicendum est : fere omnes eos, quot- sibi positam videt et intelligit." — Tom. quot ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus i. fol. 90. de baptismo scribere instituerunt, non 6 Compare his D" Peccato Originak in paucis (quod pace omnium hominum Declaratio, Tom. i. fol. 116, seq. 664 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVIL him, grace given was always effectual, not to be resisted, never to be lost. Yet his sacramental system led him to teach, that Sacra- ments were effectual means of grace, by which God acted on the recipient, unless the recipient opposed an impenitent and unbeliev- ing heart. If we took only his famous work, the Institutes, (which was a youthful production, but from the general principles of which he never departed,) we might think his views of baptism scarcely higher than Zuingle's. He argues, indeed, against the Anabaptists, that infants must be proper recipients of baptism, because they can be saved, and can only be saved by being regen- erate : and therefore they must be fit to receive the Sacrament of regeneration. 1 He objects to the statement, that baptism is a mere badge or watchword (tessera), whereby Christians, like soldiers, may be distinguished among men. 2 Yet he seems to make baptism little more than a figure or sign of an inward blessing ; not a means also, whereby that blessing may be conferred. " Baptism is a sign of our initiation, whereby we are admitted into the society of the Church ; that being grafted into Christ, we may be counted among the sons of God. Moreover, it was given us, that it might serve for our faith with Him, and for our confession before men."* We must not suppose that water can wash away our sins. St. Paul connects the word of life and baptism of water together (Eph. v. 26), signifying that the promise of our ablution and sanc- tification is brought by the word, and sealed by baptism. 4 Still, he says that those who receive baptism with a right faith, perceive the efficacy of Christ's death in mortifying their flesh, and of His resurrection in renewal of the spirit ; as the branch derives nour- ishment from the stock into which it is grafted. 6 Original sin, which of itself would bring certain damnation, is by no means abol- ished by baptism ; but the elect and believers are assured by bap- tism, that the guilt of original sin will not condemn them. Ana- nias, when he exhorted Saul to " arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins " (Acts xxii. 16), did not mean that in baptism, or by virtue of baptism, sins were remitted ; but that by baptism he might have testimony and assurance, that his sins had already been remitted. 7 As regards infants : the children of faithful parents, dying before the age of reason, are certainly saved, whether bap- tized or not baptized. Therefore the children of faithful parents are not baptized, that they may then first become sons of God, bat 1 Jmtit. iv. xvi. 17. * iv. xv. 6. a Ibid. iv. xv. 1. • iv. xv. 10. » Ibid. • iv. xv. 16. « iv. xv. 2. Sec. IIL] OF BAPTISM. 665 rather are by a solemn sign then received into the Church, because by virtue of the promise they already belonged to the body of Christ. 1 He denies that John iii. 5, has any reference to baptism ; 2 and, on the whole, seems to teach, that elect children (among whom are all children of the faithful dying before the age of rea- son) receive from God the grace of remission and regeneration, and therefore are sealed with the seal of baptism, the effect of which is not to be confined to the period of baptism, but endures throughout life. 3 Here, then, notwithstanding some difference of expression, and a material difference about the guilt of original sin, 4 there is no considerable disagreement between Calvin and Zuinglius on the grace of baptism. I do not know that Calvin ever retracted any of the opinions which he thus expressed. I will not say, that he ever materially modified them. Perhaps other expressions, which he used afterwards, may be reconciled with all that has just been referred to. Yet certainly, in some of his later works, he speaks much more favourably of the grace of baptism ; as though, when off his favourite system, he were constrained, by the evidence of Scripture, to attach more importance to it. In the Catechism which he composed for the children of the Church of Geneva, (which bears date a. d. 1545,) he teaches it to be " certain that pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in baptism." 5 It is possible enough, that this Catechism was itself designed for the use of (presumed) elect children. It must therefore be read with some allowance. Yet, in other of his works, somewhat simi- lar statements may be found. In his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (in Acts ii. 38), he says, that we cannot indeed re- ceive miraculous gifts, as the Apostles ; yet the promise, " Ye shall 1 " Unde sequitur, non ideo baptizari 5 " M. Verum, annon aliud aquae trib- fldelium liberos, ut filii Dei tunc primum uis, nisi ut ablutionis tantum sit figu- fiant, qui ante alieni fuerunt ab ecclesia ; ra 1 sed solenni potius signo ideo recipi in ec- " P. Sic figuram esse sentio, ut simul clesiam, quia promissionis beneficio jam annexa sit Veritas. Neque enim, sua ante ad Christi corpus pertinebant." — nobis dona pollicendo, nos Deus frustra- Instit. iv. xv. 22. Comp. Ejrist. 193. tur. Proinde et peecatorum veniam et 2 iv. xvi. 25. vitae novitatem ofterri nobis in baptismo 8 See iv. xv. xvi. passim; especially et recipi a nobis certum est. xvi. 22, xv. 3. &c. Comp. in. iii. 9. " M. Quomodo per baptismum nobis * Zuinglius beld that original sin would haec bona conferuntur 1 not damn any in whom it had not brc- " P. Quia nisi promissiones illic nobU ken out in actual sin. Hence that all oblatas respuendo infructuosas reddimus, infants, dying in infancy, were saved, vestimur Christo, Ejusque Spiritu dona- Calvin held that it was, of its own nature, mur." — Catechtsmus Ecclesice Genevensis, fraught with damnation ; but that, in the J. Calvino Authore. Calvini Opuscula. case of elect infants, the curse was re- Geneva?. 1552. versed. 84 666 OF BAPTISM. [Abt. XXVII. receive the Holy Ghost," applies to all ages of the Church, in a more exalted sense than any promise of mere miraculous gifts. u To baptism therefore the grace of the Spirit will ever be an- nexed, unless an impediment from us occurs." * Again he says, " We must take notice, that no mere figure is proposed to us in baptism, but that an exhibition of the thing signified is annexed to it ; for God never fallaciously promises, but really fulfils, what he signifies by figure. But then again, we must take heed not to tie God's grace to the Sacraments ; for the administration of baptism profits nothing, except where God thinks fit." 2 In another place, after bidding us direct our minds in baptism, not to the water, but to Christ, he adds : " But if any one, relying on this, should make baptism a mere frigid spectacle, and void of all grace of the Spirit, he will be much deceived." 3 And again he tells us, that in Sac- raments the sign is joined with the word ; and then there is grace received by the faithful. " So Christ breathed on His Apostles. They received, not only the breathing, but the Spirit too. Why ? Because of Christ's promise. So in baptism, we put on Christ, are washed with His blood ; our old man is crucified, and God's righteousness reigns in us ... . Whence so great a power, but from Christ's promise, who effects and makes good by His Spirit what He witnesses by His word ! " * Notwithstanding these statements, which are certainly very dif- ferent from those of Zuingle, it is probable that Calvin limited the reception of sacramental grace to the elect. There can be little doubt that he was not always consistent on this head ; yet I think it cannot be denied that he did believe some grace to be promised in baptism. But then God's promises he limited to the elect. Hence, he probably believed that the elect received an accom- plishment of these promises, and therefore remission of sins, and God's Spirit in baptism ; but that the non-elect received the sign only, without the grace. 6 The followers of Calvin have, for the most part, been purely Zuinglian in their views of baptism : not indeed all predestinarians 1 " Baptismo igitur semper annexa erit cifigitur vetus homo noster, tit regnet in Spirit tis grntia, nisi a nobis impcdimen- nobis Dei justitia. In snera Coena spiri- tuni oceurrat." — J. Calvin. Commentar. tualiter Cliristi Carne et Sanguine pasci- in Act. Apostol. c. ii. v. 38. inur. Unde tanta vis, nisi ex Cliristi 3 Ibid, in c. xxii. 16. promissione, qui Spiritu suo efficit ao 8 Ibid. c. xi. 16. prajstat, quod verbo testatur ? " — J. * "Flat Christus in Apostolos : hi non Calv. In Johann, c. xx. '2'2. Hat inn modo, sed Spiritum quoque reeip- " " Neque cnim quicquam prodest ex- iunt. Cur ' nisi quia illis Christus pro- terna baptismi administratio, nisi u!>i Ua mittit 1 Similiter in baptismo Christum Deo visun est." — In Act. Af-ostol. xxiL iinliiiiiius, abluitnur Ejus sanguine, cru- 16. Sec. EX] OF BAPTISM. 6G7 since Calvin's time ; but those who have expressly adopted Calvin's predestinarianism. It may be added, that the Arminians, who sprang from the Calvinists, though on one point at least widely separated from them, not only agreed with them in their Zuinglian view of baptism, but far more decidedly repudiated baptismal grace than the Calvinists themselves, calling baptism by the name to which Calvin had specially objected, a mere watchword, or badge of profession {Tessera). 1 Our own English reformers seem to speak very strongly and plainly. It has been said of late, that it is impossible they could hold the doctrine that infants uniformly receive remission of sins and the assured help of God's Spirit in baptism, because they were all Calvinists. It cannot be meant that they were, in all respects, followers of Calvin ; for such an assertion would be obviously and notoriously untrue. The statement probably implies no more than that they were predestinarians, i. e. believers in an absolute and ir- respective predestination of individuals to eternal glory. There is very slight, if any, foundation, even for this. Yet allowing it to be true, it is by no means a consequence, that Cranmer and Ridley must have followed out to its natural conclusions this doctrine of irrespective decrees. Calvin did, no doubt, though even he appears to have had some misgivings about baptism. But much greater men than Calvin held the same doctrine of irrespective personal election to glory, but did not follow it out to what may seem its inevitable consequences, — for instance, St. Augustine and Luther ; though the latter appears ultimately to have shunned all discussions on predestination. If the English reformers were ab- solute predestinarians, it is quite certain that they took Augus- tine's, not Calvin's view. Now Augustine's, as has been shown, did not in any way influence his baptismal doctrines. There can therefore be no propriety in disposing at once of the opinions of the Anglican reformers, by saying that they were predestinarians, and that they therefore could not but have coincided with Calvin on baptism. Here, as elsewhere, Cranmer and Ridley must be our great au- thorities, because they were the chief compilers both of the Arti- cles and the Liturgy. It was their genius which directed the Reformation, and their spirit which is infused into its formularies. 1 " Baptismus ritus est, quo fideles " Baptismum non esse lavaerum regen- tanquam sacra tessera confirmantur de erationis satis .... constare potest." gratiosa Dei erga ipsos voluntate." — — Ibid. § 10. See Bishop Bethell, p. Limborch. Theol. Lib. iv. c. 67, § 5. 171, seq. 068 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVIL Cranmer, in 1548, published his Catechism, translated and mod- ified from the Latin of a Lutheran divine, Justus Jonas. In that Catechism the statements are remarkably like Luther's. It is said, that " without the word of God water is water, and not bap- tism ; but when the word of the living God is joined to the water, then it is baptism, and water of wonderful wholesomeness, and the bath of regeneration, as St. Paul writeth." 1 Again, "We ought not to have an eye only to the water, but to God rather, which did ordain the baptism of water, and commanded it to be done in His name. For He is Almighty, and able to work in us by baptism, forgiveness of our sins, and all those wonderful effects and opera- tions for the which He ordained the same, though man's reason is not able to conceive the same. Therefore, consider, good children, the great treasures and benefits whereof God maketh us partakers, when we are baptized, which be these. The first is, that in bap- tism our sins be forgiven us, as St. Peter witnesseth. Let every one of you be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins. The second is, that the Holy Ghost is given us . . . . according to this saying of St. Peter, Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Christ, and then ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The third is, that by baptism the whole righteousness of Christ is given us ... . Fourthly, by baptism we die with Christ." 2 It is then said, that before baptism we cannot have peace or quietness of con- science. " But, after our sins in baptism be forgiven us, and we believe the promise of God, and so by our faith be justified, then our consciences be quieted." 3 A sinner that is not baptized, " al- though he had the Holy Ghost to this effect to help him to fight against sin, yet oftentimes he is overcome and falleth into sin. .... But when in baptism the righteousness of Christ is given and imputed to him, then he is delivered from all those perils. For he knoweth for a surety that he hath put upon him Christ, and that his weakness and imperfection is covered and hid with the perfect righteousness and holiness of Christ." 4 Once more, M The second birth is by the water of baptism, which Paul calls the bath of regeneration, because our sins be forgiven us in baptism, and the Holy Ghost is poured into us as God's beloved children." 6 '* He that is baptized may assuredly say thus, I am not now in the wavering opinion that I only suppose myself to be a Christian man, but I am in a sure belief that I am made a Christian man ; for I 1 Cranmer'a Catechism, pp. 191, 192. * Ibid. pp. 188, 189. • Ibid. p. 186. « Ibid. p. 182. ■ Ibid. p. 187. Skc. HI.] of baptism. 669 know for a surety that I am baptized, and I am sure also that bap- tism was ordained of God .... and the Holy Ghost doth witness that he which is baptized hath put on him Christ." 1 So completely is this Luther's language, that similar statements, word for word, may be taken from all parts of his writings. But it nevertheless appears exactly to exhibit the sentiments of Cran- mer, who adopted it ; for the same tone pervades all his subse- quent writings ; and I know of no single contrary statement, though I have carefully read and noted all his remains, with spe- cial reference to this doctrine. He attributes no holiness to the water itself; 2 denies the grace of baptism to those who come feignedly, " who be washed with sacramental water, but be not washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ." 3 But as to others (infants or worthily receiving adults) he teaches, that " Through baptism in this world the body is washed and the soul is washed : the body outwardly, the soul inwardly ; the work is one ; " 4 and that " that doctrine is not to be suffered in the Church which teacheth that we are not joined to Christ by baptism." 5 " As in baptism we must think that, as the priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly, and washeth him with water ; so must we think that God putteth to His hand inwardly, and washeth the infant with His Holy Spirit, and moreover, that Christ Him- self cometh down upon the child, and apparelleth him with His own self." 6 His great friend and contemporary, Bishop Ridley, calls baptism by the name of " regeneration ; " ' says that " the water in baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration ; " 8 that " the water in baptism hath grace promised, and by that grace the Holy Spirit is given ; not that grace is included in water, but that grace cometh by water. V 9 There was little dispute in England at the time of the Reforma- tion about baptism. Most of the passages above cited occur in controversy with Romanist divines ; and it is truly remarkable that Cranmer, instead of maintaining lower ground than the Romanists on baptismal grace, maintains rather higher ground ; for the Ro- manist divines were inclined to derogate from the dignity of bap- tism, in order the more to elevate the importance of the Commu:i- 1 Cranmer's Catechism, p. 184. 6 Ibid. m. p. 553. See also II. pp, 2 Works, m. p. 490. 302, 340; hi. pp. 65, 118, 171, 276, 490, 8 Ibid. ii. p. 439. See also m. pp. 534, 553 : iv. pp. 39-44, 55, &c. 322, 323. 7 Works, Park. Soc. p. 57. * iv. p. 39. 8 Ibid. p. 12. 8 Ibid. p. 42. 9 Ibid. p. 240. 070 OF B'APTISM. [Abt. XXVTI. ion. 1 The most systematic statements are to be found in Cran- mer's Catechism, which, as noticed above, uses the very language of Luther. Luther appears exactly to have followed, on this head, his great master, St. Augustine. We may therefore naturally in- fer, that the sentiments of Cranmer and Ridley were nearly those of Augustine. Certain it is, they were not those of Zuinglius nor of Calvin. A few quotations can never bring out the full force of an author's meaning. The works of Cranmer are readily to be ob- tained. In the notes I have put a considerable number of refer- ences. It is easy to turn to them, and each reader may convince himself whether the context does not fully bear out the impression which the extracts convey. If from the reformers who first drew up our services and Arti- cles, we turn to those of the reign of Elizabeth, who adopted and slightly modified them, we shall find no different language. Jew- el's Apology says, that " Baptism is the Sacrament of remission of sins, and of our washing in the Blood of Christ." 2 " We assert, that Christ exhibits Himself truly present in His Sacraments : in baptism, that we may put Him on," 3 &c. In Nowell's Catechism, a work like Jewel's Apology, to be esteemed semi-authoritative, the child is taught thus : " M. what is the hidden and spiritual grace in baptism ? A. It is twofold : namely, remission of sins and regen- eration . . . . M. You seem to make the water only a certain fig- ure of divine things ? A. A figure indeed it is, but by no means empty and fallacious ; but such, that to it the verity of the things themselves is joined and tied. For, as God truly offers to us in baptism pardon of sins and newness of life, so are they certainly re- ceived by us. Far be it from us to suppose that God would mock us with vain images ! M. Do we then receive remission of sins by mere outward washing and sprinkling ? A. By no means ! For Christ alone washes off the stains of our souls with His own Blood. It were impious to attribute this honour to an outward element," 4 &c. If we pass to the formularies themselves, we may begin with the Articles agreed on between the Anglican and Lutheran divines in 1 See this especially in the " Dispute- imer, because there is nothing to con- tion with Chedsey," Cranmer's Works, neet him with the drawing up either of iv. pp. 41, 42. the Articles or the Liturgy ; and there- Latimer has been much referred to, as fore his testimony is no more important having in one passage denied the con- than that of any other divine of the nection between baptism and regenera- j>criod. tion. Archbp. Laurence (Doctrine of the -i JuelU A}x>logia, Enchirid. Theolog. p. Church of England on tiaftitM, Third 127. Edition, pp. 43-46) has shown that Lat- 8 Ibid. p. 129. imer's general teaching coincided with 4 AW/i Catcchismus Enchirid. Thtol»j Cranmer's. I have not quoted Bp. Lat- pp. 314. 816; cf. p. 821. S»o. HI.] OF BAPTISM. 671 15 N. In them it is said, that " in baptism remission of sins a a the grace of Christ is offered to infants and adults .... that infants in baptism attain remission of sins and grace, and become children of God, because the promise of grace and life eternal extends not only to adults but also to infants .... But because infants are born with original sin, they need remission of that sin, and this is so remitted that its imputation is taken away. Howbeit the cor- ruption of nature or concupiscence remains in this life, although it begins to be healed, because the Holy Spirit, even in infants, is ef- ficacious and cleanses them." 2 If we refer to the Articles of 1536, the Bishops' Book, a. d. 1537, and the King's Book, a. n. 1543, we shall find them all agreeing to teach, that " infants by the Sac- rament of baptism receive remission of sins, the grace and favour of God, and be made thereby very sons and children of God ; " 2 that " the effect and virtue of this Sacrament is forgiveness of sins and grace of the Holy Ghost ; " 3 that infants, " being offered in the faith of the Church, receive forgiveness of their sins, and such grace of the Holy Ghost, that, if they die in the state of their in- fancy, they shall thereby undoubtedly be saved." 4 The First Book of Homilies is the earliest public document of the reign of Edw. VI. In the " Homily of Salvation" (Part I.) it is stated, " 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 that " we must trust only in God's mercy and the sacrifice . . . offered on the cross, to obtain thereby God's grace and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed after our baptism, if we truly repent." The Second Book of Homilies was not published till the reign of Elizabeth, yet it now is united with the First ; and we may there- fore quote them together. In a former Article we saw that bap- tism and the Supper of the Lord were described as the two Sacra- ments having " visible signs, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ." 5 The " Homily of repairing of Churches" says of the 1 " Et quod per baptismum offerantur licet corruptio naturae seu concupiscen- remissio peccatorum et gratia Christi, in- tia manet in hac vita, etsi incipit sanari, fantibus et adultis . . . . et quod infantes quia Spiritus Sanctus in ipsis etiam per baptismum consequantur remissi- infantibus est efficax et eos mundat." — onem peccatorum et gratiam, et sint See Cranmer's Works, iv. pp. 279, 280. filii Dei, quia promissio gratiae et vitas * Formularies in the Reign of Henry aeternae pertinet non solum ad adultos, VIII. pp. xix. 7, 93. sed etiam ad infantes .... Quia vero 3 Ibid. p. 253. infantes nascuntur cum peccato originis, 4 Ibid. p. 254. habent opus remissione illius peccati, et 5 Horn, of Common Prayer and Sacra- illud ita remittitur ut reatus tollatur, ments. 672 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVII. Church, that " The fountain of our regeneration is there presented unto us." The " Homily of the Passion," that " We be therefore washed in our baptism from the filthiness of sin, that we should live afterward in the pureness of life." The next authoritative document, after the First Book of Homi- lies, was the First Service Book of Edw. VI. This was compiled in the same year (1548) that Cranmer's Catechism was put forth. The Baptismal Service in that Book differs from our present ser- vice for infant baptism, in that the latter lacks some of the ceremo- nies which were retained in the former. The doctrinal statements (if prayers can be said to contain statements) are the same. It is, however, desirable to postpone the consideration of these till the last. Yet one portion of the First Service Book we must not omit. It is the Catechism. Here we have (drawn up by Cranmer and set forth in the same year with his larger Catechism already cited) all the portion of our present Church Catechism, down to the end of the Lord's Prayer. The latter part, concerning the Sacraments, was not added till after the Hampton Court Controversy, in the reign of James I., more than fifty years later. The teaching in the earliest questions, however, was, as it still continues : " Who gave you that name ? My godfathers and godmothers in my bap- tism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." The child is taught to call this " a state of salvation," and to speak of himself as " sancti- fied by God the Holy Ghost," like " all the elect people of God." Immediately before the Catechism in the First Service Book there is a rubric, which now stands in the baptismal service, to the following purport : "It is certain by God's word, that children being baptized, if they depart out of this life in their infancy, are undoubtedly saved." x These were the principal public documents put forth at the period of the Reformation, in which baptism is treated of, with the exception of the Articles, and the services for Infant Baptism. Let us then next take the Articles. These were published a. d. 1552, four years after the First Service Book and Cranmer's Catechism, and the same year as the Second Service Book. Those Articles which treat on baptism, were not altered in the reign of Elizabeth. Besides the Article on Baptism itself, one or two expressions 1 Archbishop Laurence (Doctrine of adopted the opinions of the later fathers Church of England on Baptism, p. 98) and of the schoolmen, that all unbap- quotes a passage from the Reformatio tized infants must inevitably perish. fjegum, a document drawn up by Cran- " Quod longe secus habere judicamus," mer, which most satisfactorily shows are the words used. See also Laurence, that tlio English reformers by no means B. L. p. 70. Sec. HL] OF BAPTISM. 673 occur in the earlier Articles, Thus, in that on original sin (now the IXth), we read in the English, "although there is no condem- nation to them that believe and are baptized." In the Latin the word rendered " baptized " is renatis, " born again." And the Article "Of Christ alone without sin" (now the XVth) says: " All we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ." In both these there appears an identification of baptism and regen- eration. To proceed to our present Article, the XXVIIth. It is difficult to find any exact model on which it is framed. It bears little resemblance to any former Article, in any other confession, either English or foreign. It is evidently penned with considerable cau- tion. It begins with a denial of the Zuinglian notion, that " bap- tism is a mere sign of profession or mark of difference." It con- tinues, that it is " a sign of regeneration or new birth." So far, however, its statement is not much more than Zuinglius's. But then it adds, " whereby, as by an instrument, they, who receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the church ; the promises of for- giveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed.'''' The concluding words of the paragraph contain considerable difficulty. " Faith is con- firmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God," vi divince in- vocationis. The Latin and the English do not correspond, and ap- pear to convey different ideas. The former would indicate that the invocation of God, which accompanies the act of baptism, confirms faith and increases grace. The latter would imply, that the pray- ers of the congregation might, over and above the ordinance of God, be blessed to the recipient's soul, so that, whereas he migh" receive grace by God's appointment, whether prayer accompanied baptism or not ; yet the addition of prayer was calculated to bring down more grace and to confirm faith. Whence the confusion sprang, if such it were, it may be hard to say. The Latin and English have both authority ; but one does not explain the other. Perhaps they rather supply than explain each other. The Articles then speak the same language as the other formula- ries of our Church, on the subject of baptismal grace. Yet it has been truly observed, that the Article which expressly treats of baptism speaks less distinctly than any other authorized document, and is more easily explained away. Why this should have been is not apparent. The primate, and his coadjutor Ridley, perpetu- ally, both before and after the publication of the Articles, expressed their own views in strong and unmistakable language. It is cer- 85 f,74 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVII. tain that the bishops and clergy in general were not more dis- posed to Zuinglian doctrines than the primate ; but, on the con- trary, were rather more favourable to Romanism and doctrines verging on Romanism. The Article could not therefore have been softened to please them. It is not impossible, that the king him- self, young as he was, may have had some leaning to the Swiss reformers, and that to please him, and perhaps to satisfy some foreign divines, a certain degree of ambiguity may have been ad- mitted. We must remember, that the office for Infant Baptism was put out nearly at the same time with the Articles, that it was enjoined by the same authority, that it is of equal obligation on the clergy, and of still greater interest to the laity of the Church. Its mean- ing has been a fertile source of trouble in the present century. Yet, if fairly considered, its sense can scarcely be ambiguous. It perhaps would be conceded that, if the sentiments of the re- formers were clearly known and fully established, the natural sense of the service would be no longer doubtful. We have had copious extracts from their works ; and their own doctrine has been given in their own words. Most of their statements must have concern- ed infant baptism ; for so little was adult baptism known in their day, that no office for adult baptism was appointed till nearly a hundred years after them. We know that they speak of infants as regenerated in baptism. The only questions which can occur are these : Did they believe all baptized infants to be regener- ated, or only some ? And, if so, what did they mean by regen- eration ? A considerable number of men, whose piety forbids us to doubt their honesty, suppose that the reformers believed wme, but not ally infants to be regenerated in baptism. Such persons therefore say, that the well-known strong expressions in the baptismal ser- vice must be interpreted with some reservation. They adopt the notion of a charitable hypothesis. The Church charitably hopes that a particular child may be regenerate, and therefore fearlessly expresses its conviction that he is regenerate. In special confir- mation of this theory, they adduce the office for Adult Baptism, where nearly the same expressions are used, and where it is "im- possible to be sure that regeneration is bestowed ; for confessedly to adults grace is given only when there is sincerity and faith. To this they add the Burial Service ; where we give God thanks for taking our departed brother out of this world, evidently on the charitable supposition that he is fit for ■ better. Sec. EX] OF BAPTISM. 676 Now it is quite plain that the office for Adult Baptism cannot explain the office for Infant Baptism ; for this reason. The office for Adult Baptism was not drawn up till a hundred years after that for Infant Baptism, i. e. in the reign of Charles II. It was so worded as to be as like as possible to the more ancient office for infants ; and as few alterations as could be were adopted. An office drawn up a. d. 1661 cannot interpret one drawn up in 1552. Or if it be supposed that the bishops of 1661 were likely to under- stand the language of their predecessors in 1552, then we may listen to their explanation of the office for Infant Baptism, the strong terms of which were objected to by the puritans. " Seeing," say these very bishops, who compiled the office of Adult Baptism, " that God's Sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth not ponere obicem, put any bar against them (which children can- not do), we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit ; and the denial of it tends to anabaptism," 1 &c. The Burial Service does not seem a case in point. There is there no positive assertion of the certainty of the individual's bliss, as there is of the certainty of the infant's regeneration in the bap- tismal service. Concerning the individual, we indeed give thanks that God has " been pleased to deliver him from the miseries of this sinful world." But, as regards his resting in Christ, we only say, " as our hope is this our brother doth." The expression, " in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life," is a gen- eral proposition, affecting all men, and not specially the individ- ual. The very words then of the Burial Service express plainly a charitable and comfortable hope. Those of the baptismal service, on the contrary, contain a positive assertion, and a consequent thanksgiving. The one therefore cannot explain the other. But is it in any manner likely that the reformers should have intended a charitable hope, where they express an undoubting con- fidence ? The belief that some were regenerate in baptism, and others were not, was, to say the most of it, a perfectly new notion in their day. The fathers believed all infants to be regenerate ; so did the schoolmen ; so did the whole mediaeval Church ; so did Luther and the Lutherans. Zuingle and the Zuinglians, on the contrary, believed that no one was regenerate in baptism ; with them baptism was a mere outward sign. With Calvin and his followers originated the idea that the elect might receive grace, but the non-elect be left unblessed, in the Sacrament of baptism. 1 Cardwell'8 Hist, of Conferences, p. 356. 676 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVII. It is quite certain that, early in their career, our reformers could have known nothing of this theory. It was not until late, that they had any connection whatever with the Calvinistic divines. But if, at any period in their lives, they obtained from Geneva a perfectly new light on the subject of infants receiving baptismal grace, is it not most strange that their writings should exhibit no trace of this ? From 1536 to 1555 we have their documents and disputations. The same tone and statements, concerning baptism and the grace of baptism, prevail from first to last. In the Arti- cles of 1536, in the Bishops' Book of 1537, in the Articles of 1538, in the King's Book of 1543, in Cranmer's Catechism, the Baptismal Service, the Church Catechism of 1548, in the Second Service Book and the Articles of 1552, in the Answer to Gardiner 1551, and the Disputation with Chedsey 1554, exactly the same general assertions occur. There is nothing said about all infants, still less is anything said about excluding any. Unworthy adults are excluded, but infants never. Is it not most probable that the utter silence concerning the inclusion of all, or the exclusion of some, resulted from the fact that Calvin's theory, which is not very apparent even in his own published works, had never been brought to their notice? that they therefore used the ordinary language of those who went before them, speaking in the general of infants as the subjects of the grace of God, and not caring to specify all, because not dreaming that some could be excluded ? ] In fact, their own sentiments, to any one who will fairly examine their writings, must seem plainly to have been these. All men, infants as well as elders, are subject to original sin, and as such, subject to the wrath of God. But all too are subjects of the redeeming love of God. He would have all to be saved. He freely offers pardon and grace to all. Thus, even of unbaptized infants we may hope that they shall share the blessings of the atonement, and dying in infancy, shall be saved from the curse of sin. But baptism is God's special ordinance for bringing them into covenant with Him. Of those infants there- fore who have been baptized, we do not hope, but we know, that 1 It will be remembered that Calvin's but not profited by. Hence God's Spirit lilli ult v was this. His theory was, that and aid might be given to an infant, but grace was never given but irresistibly, he never grow up the holier for it, be- and once given, never was withdrawn, cause he resisted and quenched the Hence, if given to an infant, it must, Spirit; and even if he were renewed at sooner or later, renew his nature, and first, if not predestinated to perseverance, save his soul. Hence, again, if grace he might fall away. Unless it can be was Riven in baptism, the child must be proved, that our reformers had adopted saved. The predestinarians before liim Calvin's theory of irresistible grace and had not this idea. Augustine, and prob- final perseverance, it cannot be probable ably all nredestinarians from him to Cal- that they should have entertaired his vin held that grace might be bestowed, difficulties about baptism. Sec IV.] OF BAPTISM. 677 as they are partakers of the covenant of grace, so they are partak- ers of the assurance of pardon, and moreover have a right to those graces of the Holy Spirit, which, if cultivated, as they grow up, will surely new-create in them a sanctified nature, mortifying and destroying their old and corrupt nature, and making them sons of God indeed. Hence, as they are by baptism entitled to regener- ating grace, we do not scruple to use the language of Scripture and antiquity, and to call them, regenerate in baptism. Yet we do not thereby intend that original corruption is quenched in them, or that their whole moral disposition is changed; but only, that they are new-born into the Church, that their sin of nature is not imputed to them, and that they have an assurance of that spiritual aid, which, if not hindered, will renew, convert, and restore them. It will be no small confirmation to the belief that this was their sentiment concerning baptism, if we learn that the model on which their baptismal services were formed was not Calvinistic, nor Zuinglianj but Lutheran. Archbishop Laurence has shown that, on the subject of our formularies in general, there was much cor- respondence between the English and the Lutheran divines. 1 But it has been proved, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the sources of our present office for Infant Baptism were, first, the Service in common use in the mediaeval Church, and still in the Church of Rome ; secondly, a formulary adopted by Luther for his own fol- lowers in Germany ; thirdly, a Service composed by Melancthon and Bucer for the use of the Archbishop of Cologne, which was itself adapted from the ancient Liturgy of Nuremburg. 2 This fact directly associates our own formularies with those, first of the an- cient Church, secondly, of the Lutheran reformers. The parts of the more ancient services which were deemed superstitious, such as chrism and exorcism, were omitted. But the doctrine involved is evidently the same as that held by Luther and Melancthon ; who, it has been seen, followed and symbolized with St. Augus- tine. s Section IV. — INFANT BAPTISM. O much space has been occupied on the earlier part of this Article, that the latter part must be very briefly considered ; 1 See Laurence's Bampton Lectures, 2 Appendix to Laurence's Doctrine oj passim. the Church of England on Baptism. g78 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVII especially as some of what has been already said may bear on the question of infant baptism. We have already traced the analogy between circumcision and baptism. The latter indeed excels the former, as the new cove- nant excels the old ; but both were alike initiatory rites, the means of entering into covenant with God, and the seal of that covenant. If children could be admitted into the covenant of works, why not, a fortiori, into the covenant of grace? If, before they knew good from evil, they were capable of being bound by an obligation to do good and to renounce evil, and that without the assurance of quickening grace, how can they be incapable of admission to the promises of pardon, to the offer of life eternal, to the mercy and love of Him " who came to seek and to save that which was lost ? " In that case, the blessings of the old covenant, instead of being more limited, must have been more extended than those of the new ; and the Law, which was given by Moses, must have been more merciful than the grace and truth, which came by Jesus Christ. The parallel too is the more exact, if we remember, that to adults circumcision was " the seal of the righteousness of faith " (Rom. iv. 11) ; and so was not given to Abraham, till he had believed. But this prerequisite in adults was no prerequisite in infants. The infant children of the Israelites, and of the converts to Judaism, were all circumcised, though they could have no faith to qualify them. We saw, in a former Section, that not only circumcision, but baptism, was practised among the Jews ; and that, when they ad- mitted proselytes into their communion, they not only circumcised all the males, but baptized all, male and female, infant and adult. 1 When therefore our Lord sent out His disciples to " make prose- lytes of all nations by baptizing them " (fiaOrp-tvaaTC 7rdira ra ZOvr). fi<nrrl£ovTVi airovs, Matt, xxviii. 19), He addresses persons, who had been ever used to the mode of proselyting, or admitting of prose- lytes, which He commanded ; and, as they had always seen infants, as well as adults, baptized for such proselytism, they could only have understood that they too were to practise infant baptism. Unless therefore there were a special bar put upon such a practice, our Lord's words naturally implied that the practice was accord- ing to His will. The omission to specify infants is only analogous to the omission of commands to perform other obvious duties which were well understood before, and which the first teachers of Chris- tianity took naturally for granted. 1 See Lightfoot on Matt, iii.; Wall, Infant Baptism, Introduction, quoted in sect n Sec. IV.] OF BAPTISM. 679 The necessity of baptism has constantly been inferred from our Lord's declaration, " Except a man * be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God " (John iii. 5). But the same supreme authority declared too concerning infants, that "of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark x. 14). If so, they must be capable of baptism, both by water and the Spirit. Other- wise, one would think, they cannot be capable of entering into that kingdom, which is said specially to appertain to them. The whole of our Lord's teaching, on that occasion, when infants were brought to Him, seems to show, as plainly as possible, the propriety of infant baptism. If young children ought to be brought to Christ, and He has peculiar pleasure in and love for them, then can there be no possible reason why we should keep them from the Sacrament of His love. It may be said that we thereby bind them, without their own consent, to obligations which they might be unwilling to contract. But every human being, created by God, and redeemed by Christ, is, baptized or unbaptized, bound to believe, to love, to obey Him ; and hence, whether acknowledged or not, the obligation exists. And, moreover, if in baptism respon- sibility is undertaken, far greater is the blessing than the responsi- bility : for let it ever be remembered, that it is admission not to a covenant of works and to a bargain, " This do, and thou shalt live ; " but that it is to a covenant of grace, to pardon, and mercy, and spiritual aid, and the promise of eternal life. Great therefore are the blessings of baptism ; and, though of course there are con- sequent obligations, yet they are only such as, more or less, would exist for the unbaptized. Again, the statement of St. Paul, that the children of Christian parents are holy (1 Cor. vii. 14), is fairly alleged as a proof that Christians' children are fit recipients of the first Christian Sacra- ment. The other Sacrament, which is a renewal of the cove- nant made in the first, may be fitter for the adult and intelligent ; but there can be nothing to keep the infant from the first. If it be said that he has original sin, this, so far from keeping him from baptism, is his very reason for needing it. For though we may hope that, under the Gospel of the grace of God, sin will not be imputed where it has not been actual and wilful ; yet baptism is " for the remission of sin " (Mark i. 4) ; and there is no way, but baptism, whereby we can place the infant in formal covenant with God, and therefore within the terms of the covenant, and having the assurance that his sins shall not be imputed to him, and that, if he go hence, his soul shall be safe. 1 tI{ , any one. 680 OF BAPTISM. [Art. XXVII. The words of St. Peter, again, sound much like an encouragement to bring the young to baptism. For when he had exhorted those who asked what they should do, to be " baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," and assured them that then they should "receive the Holy Ghost;" he added, "For the promise is to you and to your children " (Acts ii. 38, 39). Lastly, though it is true that we read nothing of infants being baptized by any of the Apostles, it being on every account far more likely that we should hear of the baptism of adults, yet we do find that whole households were baptized by them, in more cases than one (Acts xvi. 15, 33 ; 1 Cor. i. 16) ; and in households it is most likely that there must have been children. If we consult the records of antiquity, we shall find every reason to believe that the practice of infant baptism prevailed from the very first. Justin Martyr wrote his Second Apology about a. d. 148 (i. e. 48 years after the death of the last Apostle). He there speaks of persons 60 and 70 years old, who had been made disci- ples to Christ in their infancy. 1 How can infants be made disci- ples, but by baptism ? And if these had been baptized in their infancy, it must have been during the lifetimes of the Apostle St. John, and of other apostolic men. Irenseus, next in succession to Justin, says : " Christ came to save all by Himself; all, that is, who by Him are regenerated to God, — infants and little ones, and boys and youths and old men. Therefore He went through every age, being made an infant for infants, that He might sanctify infants." a &c. If we consider that Irenaeus, like other of the fathers, com- monly calls baptism by the name of regeneration, this passage will seem conclusive of the custom and doctrine in his day. Tertullian is an important, though unwilling witness. He shows that in his day (about a century from the Apostles) the custom of baptizing infants prevailed, and that sponsors were wont to answer for them ; but he himself advocated a delay in baptism ; for he thought the innocent age of infants could scarcely need the haste of bringing them to baptism ; he thought also that sponsors might, from death or other causes, be unable to fulfil their duties, and he considered it better to seek remission of sins later in life, when temptations were less likely to make men fall away. 8 This was his own reasoning against the custom of the Church, showing what that custom of the Church, against which be reasoned, was. His 1 iroXkni rtvff nal iroXXal tfaKovTwrai nai vnre ; onirics, inqunni, qui per Eum re- tp&oftijKm>TovT<u, ol Ik naitiuv tftatiTjTcvdif- nascuntur in Dcinn ; infinites et parvu- oav ru Xpjffr^, uQtiofm dw/Jvovot. — Justin, los, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores," Apol. ii. p. 62. Stc. — Irenaeus, Lib. II. C. 89, p. 160. • " Oilmen vcnit per semetipsum sal- • De Baptismo, c. 18. Sec. IV.] OF BAPTISM. 681 own view arose from his fear of the lieinousness of sin after bap- tism, which we have already considered. Origen, a few years later, bears ample testimony to the custom of infant baptism. "Infants," he says, "are baptized for the remis- sion of sins ; " and he gives the reason, that " none is free from pollution, though his life be but of one day on the earth." 1 He tells us also, that " the Church received a custom handed down from the Apostles, to give baptism even to infants." 2 Origen, it is observed by Wall, was born about 85 years after the Apostles, and his family had long been Christian. The next father of note is Cyprian. In his day (circ. A. D. 250) there arose a question as to what day a child should be bap- tized. Fidus, an African bishop, wrote to him to inquire whether baptism, like circumcision, should be always deferred till the eighth day ; or whether, if need required, it might be administered at once. An answer was returned by Cyprian and a council of sixty- six bishops. The unanimous judgment of the council was, that there was no need of such delay, for " the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none that is born." 8 If anything could be an obstacle to persons obtaining the grace of baptism, they argue, adults would be rather hindered by their grievous sins. But if no one is so kept from baptism, how much less infants, who have no sins but such as they derived by inheritance from Adam. 4 The foregoing testimonies all occur in the first century and a half from the Apostles. It would be easy, but in this brief sketch it is unnecessary, to carry the chain further down. For a moment we may notice the view taken by Gregory Nazianzen, as it seems remarkable and indeed unaccountable. He gives his judgment, that, in case of danger, baptism ought to be administered without delay ; but if there be no danger, he advises that it be deferred for about three years. 5 Why deferred at all, if to be deferred but three years, he does not explain. That, among the later fathers, baptism was not so universally administered in infancy as amongst ourselves, there does indeed seem reason to conjecture. The great potency which many attached to it, and the fear of the contraction of heinous sin after it, appear to have induced some to delay its administration. Thus 1 Origen. In Luc. Homil. xiv. horaini nato misericordiam Dei et gra- 2 "Pro hoc (;'. e. propter peccatum tiam denegandam." — Cyprian. Epist. 64 originis) Ecclesia ab Apostolis tradi- ad Fidum. tionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptis- 4 Ibid. See this part of the passage mum dare." — Origen. In Epist. ad Roman, quoted under Art. ix. p. 240, note 4. Lib. v. 9. 6 Greg. Naz. Orat. xl. Tom. I. p. 8 " Universi potius judicavimus nulli 658, A. 86 682 OF BAPTISM. [Akt. XXVTL Constantino was not baptized till lie was dying. 1 St. Augustine, though his mother was a Christian, did not receive baptism in his infancy. He himself deplores the delay, but says it was owing to his mother's fear of the great temptations which seemed impending over his boyhood, to which she thought it better " to expose the clay, whence her son might afterwards be moulded, than the cast when made." 2 Such instances, resulting from peculiar scruples, are no proofs that the custom of baptizing in infancy did not prevail from the first. Augustine himself clearly asserts, that the Church both held the custom, and believed the efficacy of infant baptism, from all times, and so universally, that it could only have received it from the Apostles. 8 1 Eu sob. Vita Constant™. Lib. IV. c. » De Baptismo, c. Donatistas, Lib. iv. 62. c. 24, Tom. ix. p. 140, cited in the hut 8 August. Con/ess. Lib. I. c. 11. section. ARTICLE XXVHI. Of the Lorcts Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another ; but rather is a Sacrament of our Re- demption by Christ's death : insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrowetli the na- ture of a Sacrament, and hath given oc- casion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean, whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. De Coma Domini. Co3na Domini non est tantum signum mutuae benevolentiae Christianorutn inter sese, verum potius est sacramentum nostra? per mortem Christi redemptio- nis. Atque adeo, rite, digne et cum fide sumentibus, panis quern frangimus est communicatio corporis Christi; similiter poculum benedictionis est communicatio sanguinis Christi. Panis et vini transubstantiatio in Eucharistia ex sacris Uteris probari non potest ; sed apertis Scripturae verbis ad- versatur, sacramenti naturam evertit, et multarum superstitionum dedit occa- sionem. Corpus Christi datur, accipitur et manducatur in Ccena tantum coelesti et spirituali ratione. Medium autem, quo Corpus Christi accipitur et manducatur in Ccena, fides est. Sacramentum Eucharistia? ex institu- tione Christi non servabatur, circumfere- batur, elevabatur, nee adorabatur. Section L— HISTORY. npHIS Article treats generally of the Lord's Supper, but more -*- especially of the presence of Christ in that Sacrament, and of the mode in which He is received there. On this mysterious doctrine there have been four principal opinions : 1, Transubstan- tiation ; 2, Consubstantiation ; 3, The real spiritual presence ; 4, The denial of any special presence altogether. 1. Transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Church of Rome. As stated by school-authors, and other more subtle reasoners among them, it means that in the Eucharist, after the words of consecration, the whole substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the Body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood ; so that the bread and wine no 684 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVIII. longer remain, but the Body and Blood of Christ are substituted in their places. This, however, is said to be true only of the substance, not of the accident*. The accidents (such as colour, shape, taste, smell, consistence, &c.) all remain unchanged. The substance, which is interior to, and not necessarily dependent on these external accidents, is that which is converted. Yet we are not to call it a mere spiritual change, (though some of their writers have allowed even this,) but the change is a real and miraculous conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the very Body of Christ, which was born of the blessed Virgin and crucified on Calvary. 2. Con substantiation is considered to be the doctrine of Luther and the Lutherans. It differs from transubstantiation, in that it does not imply a change in the substance of the elements. Those who hold this doctrine teach, that the bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine ; but that with, and by means of the conse- crated elements, the true, natural Body and Blood of Christ are communicated to the recipients. 3. The doctrine of a real, spiritual presence is the doctrine of the English Church, and was the doctrine of Calvin, and of many foreign reformers. It teaches that Christ is really received by faithful communicants in the Lord's Supper ; but that there is no gross or carnal, but only a spiritual and heavenly presence there ; not the less real, however, for being spiritual. It teaches, there- fore, that the bread and wine are received naturally ; but the Body and Blood of Christ are received spiritually. " The result of which doctrine is this : it is bread, and it is Christ's Body. It is bread in substance, Christ in the Sacrament ; and Christ is as really given to all that are truly disposed, as the symbols are : each as they can ; Christ as Christ can be given ; the bread and the wine as they can ; and to the same real purposes to which they were designed ; and Christ does as really nourish and sanctify the soul as the elements the body." l 4. The fourth opinion is that of Zuinglius, who taught that the Eucharist is a bare commemoration of the death of Christ, and that the bread and wine are mere symbols and tokens to remind us of his Body and Blood. The subject on which we are entering is one which has pro- duced folios of controversy ; alas ! what should have been for our peace becoming to us an occasion of falling. But a brief view is all that is here possible. 1 Jer. Taylor, On the Real Pretence, sect. I. 4 Sec. L] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 685 When we consider the language of the fathers, one or two cau- tions are necessary. Of course their words were not measured and guarded, as ours have been in our times of trouble. Their writings are often rhetorical, that we say not sometimes turgid. They treat such questions as these practically, not argumentatively. Now in such writings, it may be very difficult to tell the exact intention of the writer, when subsequent ages have drawn subtle distinctions. Thus much we must premise as unquestionable. The whole prim- itive Church evidently believed in a presence of Christ in the Eu- charist. All spoke of feeding there on Christ ; eating His Body and drinking His Blood. But then was it a spiritual presence or a carnal presence ? Did they teach a carnal eating and drinking of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood ? or did they intend a spiritual manducation, — an eating spiritually and a drinking in by the soul of the life-giving efficacy of the Body broken and the Blood shed ? Did they believe the bread and wine to be actually and literally transmuted into Flesh and Blood ? or did they think the bread and wine still to remain bread and wine, though constituted Sacraments of Christ, means in God's band of conveying to us Christ's Body and Blood, and so, after Christ's own example, to be called by the name of His Body and Blood ? Here is the question ; and it must be carefully noted. If there were no other alternative, but that the fathers must have been either Papists or Zuinglians, — must have held either a carnal presence, or none at all ; then we must perforce acknowledge that they believed in a carnal presence, and were transubstantialists. For some pres- ence they undoubtedly taught ; some mode of feeding on Christ they undeniably believed in. But another alternative is possible, and has been acknowledged as possible, even by eminent scholastic and Romanist divines. They may have believed a spiritual presence. They may have thought, that the Eucharist conveyed Christ really, and yet spiritually, to the recipient ; and they may have taught, that the soul was truly nourished by spiritually feeding on His Flesh and Blood, as truly as the body is nourished by carnally feeding upon bread and wine. Whichever they held, a carnal or a spiritual presence, they may easily have used language which would sound like the carnal presence. There can be little doubt that their faith and feelings inclined them to the mysterious, and there was no controversy, no apparent need of caution. But then we may observe, that one clear statement that the presence was spiritual, or that the 386 OF THE LORDS SUPPER. [Akt. XXVIII. substance of the bread and wine remained, must outweigh state- ments innumerable, which merely sound like a belief in transub- stantiation or in a carnal presence. For the latter would naturally occur where people believed in a real presence, and had never learned the necessity of guarding their words, lest they should be thought to teach a carnal and natural presence ; but the former could never come from the lips or pens of those who acknowledged e literal change, of the elements, and that the natural Body of the Lord was actually eaten by all who communicate. For instance, Roman Catholics will never say, that the bread and wine remain unchanged, and that the feeding is only spiritual. But Protestants, of many different communions, have freely declared that Christ's " Body and Blood are verily and indeed taken." Nay ! it is acknowledged by them, that the Body of Christ then received is the very Body that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead, and buried. For there is no other Body, no other Blood of Christ. Christ's Body is now glorified, but still it is the same Body, though in its glorified condition. It is not even denied that we receive that Body really, substantially, corporally : for although the word " corporally " seem opposed to " spiritually," yet it is not so of necessity. And, as we acknowledge that it is a Body which we receive, so we cannot deny its presence corporally, i. e. after the manner of a Body. Only, when we come to explain ourselves, we say, that, though it be Christ's very Body we receive in the Eucharist, and though we cannot deny even the word corporal concerning it : yet as Christ's Body is now a spiritual Body, so we expect a spiritual presence of that Body ; and we do not believe, that we naturally and carnally eat that which is now no longer carnal and natural ; but that we spiritually receive Christ's Spiritual Body into our souls, and spiritually drink His life-giving Blood with the lips of our spirit. 1 Moreover, it has been abundantly acknowledged, not only by our English divines, but by Protestants of all sorts, that the elements, after consecration, may be called by the name of those things which they represent. But then we call them so, not because we believe them to have lost their original nature, and to have ceased to be what they were, but because, being hallowed to a new and higher purpose, they may be called that which they are the means of communicating. It was necessary to say thus much, that we might not be startled by strong terms ; and so conclude at once that we had found a doctrine, before it had yet entered even into men's dreams. 1 See this excellently laid down by Bp. Taylor, On the Real Present*, sect i. 9-11. Skc. 1] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 687 With this precaution, we shall readily see in the fathers abundant evidence that the carnal doctrine of transubstantiation had not risen in their days. Let us take one or two of the strongest expressions, and which, if not explained and qualified by other statements, would seem conclusive for transubstantiation and a natural presence. St. Jerome and others speak of the clergy as making the Body of Christ. 1 Yet, as the words of consecration make the bread the Sacrament of Christ's Body, and so the means of conveying His Body to the communicant, and as it was an acknowledged mode of speech, and fully sanctioned by the language of our Lord, to call the consecrated bread by the name of that of which it was the type and Sacrament ; it was not unnatural that the priest, by his consecration, should be said to make Christ's Body and Blood, even by those who believed no more than a spiritual and sacra- mental communication of them to the faithful. St. Chrysostom writes, " When you behold the Lord sacrificed and lying, and the priest standing by the sacrifice and praying, and the congregation sprinkled with that precious Blood (kcu 7rai/ras €K€tvw to) Tt/xta) <$>>Lvi<T(rop£vovs cu/idTi) .... are you not immediately transported to Heaven, and dismissing from your soul every fleshly thought, do you not with naked spirit and pure mind see the things which are in Heaven ? Oh wonderful ! Oh ! the love of God ! who, seated with the Father above, is held at that moment by the hands of all ; and who gives Himself to those who desire to re- ceive Him. And all see this by the eyes of faith." 2 " Behold thou seest Him, thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. He gives Himself to thee, not only to see, but to touch, to eat, and to receive within .... How pure should he be who partakes of that sacrifice ! the hand that divides His Flesh, the mouth filled with Spiritual fire, the tongue empurpled with His awful Blood ! " 8 Now these expressions are so strong that even believers in tran- substantiation could hardly use them without a figure. The Ro- man Catholics allow that the accidents of the bread and wine remain unchanged ; and would hardly therefore in literal language 1 " Absit ut de his quidquam sinistrum owe Idelv /xovov, uTOui Kal wbaadat. ml loquar, qui Apostolicogradui succedentes 6ayelv sal Tiapelv iv6ov . . . t'lvoq oiv ova Christi Corpus sacro ore conficiunt, per Idei Ka&apuTepov elvai rbv Tav-r/c unola- quos et nos Christiani sumus ; qui claves vovra ttjs -avoids ; noiag jjTuaiifft uktivoc regni ccelorum habentes," &c. — Hieron. tt/v #«pa ttjv Tavrrjv dinri/ivovaav ttjv Ad Heliodorum, Eplst. v. Tom. iv. part n. aapua, rb arofia rd nTiijpovfievov nvpb( p. 10. nvEvfiaTiKOV, ttjv y'ku>aaav ttjv ipoivictoo- 2 De Sacerdot. m. § 4. fievrjv alfiari (bpuiudeaTurif). — Chrys. Horn 8 \6oi> airbv 6pdg, avroii unTy, avrbv 83 in Matt. c. 26. ioduic . . . airbg 6e eavrov aoi diduoiv, 688 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVUL speak of the tongue as assuming the purple colour of Christ's Blood. But hyperbolic expressions are common with St. Chrys- ostom and his contemporaries ; and they use such language, that they may exalt the dignity of the blessed Sacrament ; that they may induce communicants to approach it with devotion and rev- erence ; that they may turn their minds from the visible objects before them to those invisible objects which they represent, and which as St. Chrysostom says, they may " see by the eye of faith." Still more remarkable perhaps are the expressions used by others of the Greek, especially the later Greek fathers, concern- ing the change (/xctu/JoA.^, //.cTaoroixeiWts) in the Sacraments. So Gregory Nyssen says, " These things He gives by virtue of the benediction upon it, transmuting the nature of the things which appear." 2 And Theophylact (the last of the Greek fathers, a. d. 1077), " Therefore the merciful God, condescending to us, pre- serves the form of bread and wine, but transforms them into the virtue of His Flesh and Blood." 2 Those who translate ^crao-Tot- XcioOv by transelementare, think that we have here the very word made use of, which exactly answers to the Roman Catholic doc- trine of tran substantiation, namely, a change of the elements into something different from their original substance. Yet first of all transelementare is not certainly, nor probably, a right translation. 8 Secondly, Gregory Nyssen is speaking not only of a change in the Eucharist, but in the Sacraments generally ; and whatever sanc- tifying efficacy may have been attributed to the water in baptism, no change of its substance was ever believed to take place. Thirdly, Theophylact only says that the elements are changed into the virtue or efficacy, not into the substance of Christ's Flesh and Blood, — a very notable distinction. Fourthly, he uses the same word (yxeTcun-oixeiWis) of changes very unlike transubstantiation, e. g. the change of our bodies to the state of incorruption, and the change that is made in the faithful, when they are united to Christ. 4 Lastly, we shall find abundant proof from Greek fathers, centuries before Theophylact, to show that a conversion of substance was 1 ravra 61 diduci rp ttjc ebtoyiac dwauet at length that transelementare will not nobc tKclvo ueTaaroixeiuaac tuv <paivofievuv properly express its sense. (See Sui- rf)v <j>voiv. — Gregor. Nyssen. In Chat, ccr, n. pp. 368, 364.) Jer. Taylor (On Catechet. the Real Presence, sect. XII. num. 6) ad- 3 Ata roiiTo ovYKarapaivwv i//uv 6 p/Auv- duces the words of Suarez, the learned Qponoc ■ rb (ikv cWoj uprov nal olvov tyvkux- Jesuit, in acknowledgment that fiera- rii • clc dimafuv 61 oapK.bc koI oI/mtoc fie- oroixciuotc does not properly convey the raaroixdot. — Theophyl. In Evangel. Marc, meaning of transuhitaiitiation. cap. oxiv. 4 Theophyl. In Luc. xxiv. et in Joh. vi ■ Suidas has (teTaorotxeiovoa, (icraoxvfta- apuii Jer. Taylor, w6» supra. rUjovaa, fUTaitXarrovaa. Suicer argues Sec. L] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 689 not believed by the early Greek Church ; and therefore, that Theophylact's transelementation must have meant something else, or that he himself must have adopted comparatively modern views. The same observations apply to the passages cited from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, where he speaks of Christ's changing the water into wine, and then adds, " Let us therefore with full assurance receive Christ's Body and Blood ; for His Body is given to thee in the figure of bread, and His Blood in the figure of wine." x But here St. Cyril happily explains himself; for. soon after he speaks of the Capharnaite Jews as offended at our Lord's sayings in John vi. 53. And this, he says, was from their carnal interpretation of His words : " They, not receiving His saying spiritually, being offended went backward, thinking that He invited them to the eating of flesh." 2 He then compares the Eucharist to the shew- bread, and says that, " as the bread is fitted for the body, so the Word for the soul. Look not therefore as on bare bread and wine, for they are, according to the Lord's saying, His Flesh and Blood." 3 The context plainly shows the conversion to be spirit- ual, not as the Jews had understood our Lord, as indicating a lit- eral vapKofayia, or banquet upon flesh. There is a famous passage, which the Roman Catholic contro- versialists coupled with the last from St. Cyril, and much insisted on, as plainly in their favour. It comes from the tract De Ccena Domini, in former times attributed to St. Cyprian, but which the Benedictine editors assign to Arnoldus, of Bona Vallis, a contem- porary of St. Bernard. It speaks of the bread as " changed, not in form, but in nature." 4 The words of our own reformer shall explain that, even if the language were (as it is not) St. Cyprian's, it would not prove him a supporter of transubstantiation. " The bread is changed, not in shape nor substance, but in nature, as Cyprian truly saith ; not meaning that the natural substance of bread is clean gone, but that by God's word there is added 1 kv tvtzc) yup uprov didorai aoi aufia, usually printed in the Appendix of the Kal kv TV7TU oivov didorai aoi rb alua. — works of Cyprian. In the Oxford edi- Cyril. Hieros. Cutec. Mystagog. iv. 1. tion it is in Appendix, p. 39, and the 2 EKtivot, fiTj uKijKOorec TTvev/iaTiKuc tuv above passage, p. 40. In the edition of Isyouivuv, oKavdaTuadevrec, u.nfj'kdov etc Venice, 1729, it is App. p. xcix. There ril otriou, vouitjovrec on km oapnofyayiav is also a famous passage from St. Am- avrovc TcpoTpEircrai.. — Ibid. brose, De fifyst ix. § 52, where he speaks 3 Mt) npoaexe ovv uc ipikolc t£ apry Kal of Christ's words as changing the prop- tg> olv<f) ' aufia yap Kal alfia Xpiarov Kara erties of the elements : " vulebit Chrisli ttjv deo-xoTiKrjv rvy^dvEL uTr6<f>aoiv. — Cat. Senno ut species mutet elementorum ; " and Myst. iv. 2. again, mutare natural. The answer in * " Panis iste, quern Dominus discipu- the text to the passage from the Pseudo- lis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura, Cyprian equally applies to this from St. mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est Ambrose. See also Bp. Cosin, Hist, of •aro." — De Coma Domini. The tract is Transubstanl. eh. vi. 14. 87 690 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Abt. XXVffl. thereto another higher property, nature and condition, far passing the nature and condition of common bread, that is to say, that the bread doth show unto us, as the same Cyprian saith, that we be partakers of the Spirit of God, and most purely joined unto Christ, and spiritually fed with His Flesh and Blood : so that now the said mystical bread is both a corporal food for the body, and a spiritual food for the soul." 2 We must not. omit one passage from St. Hilary, which contains certainly some startling expressions. He is arguing against heretics, who held that the Unity of the Father and the Son was unity of will, not unity of nature. He quotes against them John xvii. 21, 23 : " That they may be one, even as We are one : I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one." And he contends, that the unity of the Father and the Son must be an unity of nature, not merely of will ; inasmuch as the indwelling of Christ in His people is not by concord of will, but by verity of nature ; for He took the nature of our flesh, on pur- pose that He might dwell in us according to that human nature ; and by His human nature He dwelleth in us and we in Him. Hence our union with Him is by unity of nature, i. e. human nature. So in like manner, His union with the Father is by unity of nature, i. e. Divine nature. In the course of this argument he says, " If Christ therefore really took flesh of our body, and He is truly that Man who was born of Mary, and we truly under the mystery receive His Flesh, by means of which we shall be one ; for the Father is in Him and He in us ; what room is there for mere unity of will, when the natural property effected by the Sacrament, is the Sacrament of perfect unity ? Christ Himself says concerning the truth of His nature in us, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. Concerning the truth of His Body and Blood there is no room for doubt ; for now by our Lord's witness and our own faith, it is truly Flesh, and truly Blood. And these received, and taken in by us, make that we be in Christ and Christ in us." 2 1 Cranmer, Remains, n. p. 840; De- ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus fence of the Catftolic Doctrine, Bk. u. oh. est, nosque vere sub mystcrio earnerc) xi. corporis sui sumimus ; (et per hoc 2 " Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, et Ille in Christo negabit neget prius non natu- in nobis;) quomodo voluntatis unitns raliter vel so in Cliristo, vel Christum nperitur, cum naturalis per sacrament um •ibi incssc; quia in Christo Pater, et proprietas, perfects sit sacramentum uni- Christus in nobis, unum in his esse nos tatis: De naturali in nobis Christi veritate tac'nmt. Si vere igitur carnem corporis ipse ait : Caro mea cere est esca, et sanguit oostri Christus assumpsit, et vere homo metis cere est potus. Qui edit en item me am, Sec. L] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 691 The passage, strong as it is, does not stagger those who admit a true but spiritual presence of Christ's Body in the receiving of the Eucharist, and a true but spiritual union of Christians to the hu- man nature of their Lord. " For as concerning the word truly" they say, " it setteth not lively forth a real and substantial pres- ence ; for Christ is truly in all His faithful people, and they truly eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and yet not by a real and cor- poral, but by a spiritual and effectual presence." 1 " And although he saith that Christ is naturally in us, yet he saith also that we be naturally in Him. And nevertheless in so saying, he meant not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christ's Body and of ours ; for as our bodies be not after that sort within His Body, so is not His Body after that sort within our bodies . . . And as the union between Christ and us in baptism is spiritual . . . so likewise our union with Christ in His holy Supper is spiritual . . . and therefore Hilarius, speaking there of both the Sacra- ments, maketh no difference between our union with Christ in bap- tism and our union with Him in His holy Supper." 2 Now, although such passages admit of an explanation, whether we adopt the transubstantialist theory or the doctrine of a true but spiritual presence in the Eucharist ; yet it must be conceded that, if all the language of the fathers was similar to the above-quoted sentences, there would be just reason to suspect that, from the first, transubstantiation, or something near akin to it, was the doc- trine of the Church. But it is easy to bring a chain of testimonies, from the very earliest ages through many centuries, which cannot be interpreted to mean transubstantiation, or a carnal presence, but which declare, though plainly for a real, yet as plainly for a spiritual feeding upon Christ. The apostolical fathers, for the most part, speak in terms so gen- eral, that it is often almost doubtful, whether they speak of the Eu- charist, or of that spiritual feeding upon Christ as the bread of life, which all allow to be possible, even without the Eucharist. Thus ci libit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et Doctrine, $*c. Works, n. pp. 406, 407. ego in eo. De veritate carnis et sanguinis N.B. Just before the passage above non relictus est ambigendi locus : nunc quoted, Hilary had spoken of the union enim et ipsius Domini professione et of Christians to Christ in baptism, as- fide nostra, vere caro, et vere sanguis he speaks afterwards of their union in est. Et haec accepta et hausta efficiunt the Eucharist : "Docet Apostolus ex na- ut et nos in Christo et Christus in nobis tura sacramentorum esse banc fidelium sit." — Hilar. De Trinilate, Lib. vm. § 13, unitatem, ad Galatas scribens, Quotguot p. 222. Edit. Benedict. enim in Christo buptizati estis, Christum 1 Cranmer's Answer to Gardiner, Works, induistis," &c. — De Trin. Lib. viii. p. in. p. 254. 218. Ed. Ben. 8 Cranmer's Defence of the Catholic g92 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Abt. XXVJIL Ignatius, " I delight not in the food of corruption, nor in the pleas- ures of this life ; I desire the bread of God, which is the Flesh of Christ, and His Blood I desire as drink, which is love incorrupti- ble." 1 Again, " Let no one be deceived ; if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God." 2 His high esteem for the grace of this Sacrament he shows in general expres- sions, e. g. " breaking one and the same bread, which is the medi- cine of immortality, our antidote that we die not, but live forever in Christ Jesus." 8 One passage in this early father alludes to certain sects of the Gnostics or Docetae, who not believing that the Saviour had ever taken real human flesh, refused to receive the Eucharist, because they would not acknowledge it to be the Body of Christ. " They abstain from the Eucharist and public prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised from the dead." 4 From which we may fairly conclude, that the fathers called the consecrated bread the Body of Christ, and that some early heretics did not admit the language, or perhaps even the Sacrament, because they disbelieved in the existence of Christ's Body. But even Bellarmine allows, that the question between Ignatius and the heretics was not the doctrine of the Eucharist, but the doctrine of the Incarnation. 6 Whatever may have been the belief of the Church as to the mode of receiving Christ's Body in the Eucharist, the heretics would have been equally likely to reject the Eucharist, as not acknowl- edging that Christ had a body at all. For the Eucharist, which symbolizes, and is the means of receiving His Body, presupposes its reality. Another passage from Ignatius is as follows : " Hasten therefore to partake of the one Eucharist ; for there is but one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for the unity of His Blood ; one altar, as also one bishop," 6 &c. Here the exhortation is to avoid schism, partaking of the one Eucharist, where is exhib- ited to us the oneness of the Saviour we receive, and so the unity of the Church. 1 Ignat. Ad Roman, yn. The passage ptariav aiipna elvat rov XuTfjpoc iipuy is in the Syriac. 'Ir/aov Xpiaroii, tijv imlp Apapriuv iip£n> * Ignat. Ad. Ephes. v. ira&ovoav, i)v xPV<JTOTV ri ° Uar^p hyttpev. 8 Ad Ephes. xx. 6 De Eucharistia, i. 1, cited by Bp. 4 AdSmyrn. vu. The passage is not Cosin, Hist, of Ti-a>wilistanti<ttion, ch. vi. in the longer epistles, but it is in the 11. shorter (esteemed the genuine) epistles u Inovduoare ovv uup evxapurrig xp^oifat ■ of Ignatius, and it is cited by Theodoret pia yup oupl; r °v Kvpiov i/puv 'Itioov Xpt- (Dial. 8) and is maintained to be genuine oroti, nal tv nori/piov eif Ivuoiv rov alparot by Cotelerius, Tom. n. p. 37, note in lo*. aiirov, tv dvotuoTTipiov (if eif brioKOimc, The ( } reek is etxapioriaf nal npoocvxyt * r. A. — Ad Philadelph. iv. amxovrai, 6ul rd pi) bpjoXoyeiv -rr)v ei>x a - Sec I.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 693 Justin Martyr describes the Eucharistic feast to the heathen em- peror. He speaks first of the bread and wine as blessed by the pre- siding presbyter ; and then says, " This food is called by us Eucha- rist, which no one is allowed to take, but he who believes our doctrines to be true, and has been baptized in the laver of regener- ation, for the remission of sins, and lives as Christ has enjoined. For we take not these as common bread and common drink. For 'ike as our Saviour Jesus Christ, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation, so we are taught that this food, which is blessed by the prayer of the Word that cometh from Him, by conversion of which our flesh and blood are nourished, is the Flesh and Blood of Him, the Incarnate Jesus." * There is manifestly in this passage what may be called High Eucha- ristic doctrine. Justin was plainly no Zuinglian. The Christians of his day took not the consecrated elements " for common bread and common wine." But, if Justin was no Sacramentarian, neither was he a transubstantialist. Whereas he says it is not common bread, he evidently believes it to be yet bread; otherwise he would naturally have left out the epithet common, and have said, that they esteemed it no longer bread at all. Moreover, he speaks of the elements as changed into the nourishment of our flesh and blood. But he would never have said this had he be- lieved them to have literally become the unchangeable and incor- ruptible Body of the Lord. It is evident, therefore, that he held no change in the elements, but a Sacramental change ; although he undoubtedly declares, that in the Eucharist the Christians were taught that there was a reception of the Body and Blood of Christ. Dr. Waterland argues, that consubstantiation is as much excluded by this passage as transubstantiation, 2 though Bishop Kaye appears to admit that it sounds not unlike the former. 3 Still he has justly added, that in the Dialogue with Trypho Justin states the bread to be in commemoration of Christ's Body, and the cup of His 1 ob yap ug KOivbv aprov, ovSk Koivbv made flesh by the Word of God hath ■trofia ravra ^/tfifiavofiev, uM,' bv rpbnov flesh and blood for our saite, with that 6ui "Kbyov Qsov oapKOTroiTj&elg 'Ir/oovg in which the bread and wine .... be- Xpiorbc 6 SuT^p tin&v, nal oupua nal came the Flesh and Blood of Christ ; al/ia vnep aurnpiag rj(iuv loxev, ovrug but only to say that, as Christians were koI ttjv 6t' evxvc "kbyov rov nap' avrov taught that Christ had flesh and blood, evxaptodtioav TpotiTjv £f f/g alfia nal cup/teg so were they also taught that the bread Kara iierafioTajv Tpeipovrai ijfuJv, ine'ivov tov and wine in the Eucharist are the Body aapKonoaj^EPTog 'lijaov ml ofipua nal alfia and Blood of Christ ; bv rponov is merely ediddx^flfiev elvat. — Justin. Apd. i. p. equivalent to as." — Bishop Kaye, Jus- 98. tin Martyr, pp. 87, 88, note. "As it appears to me, Justin in this 2 Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. vn passage does not intend to compare the 3 Bp. Kaye's Justin Martyr, p. 74. manner, in which Jesus Christ being 694 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVm. Blood ; J and in another place applies to them the expression " dry and liquid food ; " 2 and such language would scarcely have been used by a believer in the natural, though the language of the for- mer passage might be readily adopted by a believer in the spiritual presence. Our next witness is Irenaeus. " As the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly ; so also our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but have hope of eternal resurrection." 8 Here we have evidently the substance of the bread remaining, still an earthly element. Yet it is no longer common bread, for by consecration there is a heavenly or spiritual grace united to it, which makes it not mere bread, but the Eucharist. Irenaeus had to contend against the Gnostics, who denied the reality of the Body of Christ. In more than one place he argues, from the real substantial character of the Eucharistic elements, that the Flesh and Blood of Christ, of which they were the repre- sentatives, must be substantial and real. This will make his lan- guage sometimes sound as though he believed in a natural pres- ence of that Flesh and Blood ; yet, if we remember his object and attentively observe his words, we shall think otherwise. u That cup," he says, " which is a creature, He recognized to be His Blood which is shed, with which He imbues (oW«i) our blood ; and the bread which is a creature, He affirmed to be His own Body, by which our bodies grow. When, therefore, both the min- gled cup and the created bread receive the word of God, and be- come the Eucharist of Christ's Blood and Body, and by them the substance of our flesh grows and consists, how can they say, that the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, namely of life eternal, when it is fed by Christ's Body and Blood, and is a member of Him?"* In a fragment edited by PfafF, we have a clear explanation of Irenaeus's view, that, by the Holy Spirit descending on the Eucha- rist, the Elements become so the Body and Blood of Christ, that, though they yet remain figure* or emblems, still the partakers of 1 irtpl rod uprov ov napidvicev fjfdv 6 Koivbc uproq kariv, tiXX' ebxapurria, tit ivo tfiirepoc Xpiorbt noidv e/f uvuftvijoiv rov rt npayfiuruv avvearriKvia • oftruf nal ru auuaronou/aaa'dai, k. t. A. — Dialog, p. i!96. oufiara tj/mjv fiiTahififiuvovra rifc ei>X a - 4 rfa rpoffK airuv frpaf koI bypu(, iv ptoriac fflKert elvnt 0#aprc}, rifv tXiri&a i tal rov wdflovf b mnovde di' avrov 6 r^f eif aliJvaf uvaardoeuf ixovra. — Ironse. 9edf rov Grov fufivrjrai. — Dial. p. 846. Lib. iv. 82 (Lib. iv. 18, Boned.) • "Qf yilp aird y$c uprof npoolaupa- * Adr. H,ir. v. 2. Of this passage we v6fuvo( r1)v lufaiotv too Beov, oirxm may observe, that if Ireneus had meant 8fx. I.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 695 those emblems obtain pardon and eternal life. 1 In another frag- ment quoted from him by (Ecumenius, we read, that during per- secution some slaves had informed against their masters, having misinterpreted the language used concerning the Eucharist, and so supposing that their masters fed on human fieeh. This, Ire- naeus says, arose from their having heard the divine Communion called the Blood and Body of Christ ; " and they, thinking it was in reality flesh and blood, gave information accordingly." 2 The inference obviously is, that Irenseus did not think the bread and wine to have become really Flesh and Blood. So he, like Justin Martyr, is a witness against the Roman doctrine, and yet perhaps, as Waterland observes, still more against the mere figurists or memorialists. For it is certain, that he believed the Body and Blood of Christ to be verily and indeed taken in the Eucharist ; but still he gives no indication of a belief in a change of the elements, acknowledging them to be emblems (mru-wra), and not thinking that those who partook of them, were indeed feeding upon flesh and blood. 3 Tertullian says, " The petition, Give us this day our daily bread, may be spiritually interpreted. For Christ is our bread. I, said He, am the bread of Life: and just before, The Bread is the Word of the Living God, who came down from Heaven: and also because His Body is understood in Bread, This is My Body. (Turn quod et Corpus Ejus in pane cmsetur, Hoc est Corpus MeumS) There- fore, by asking our daily bread, we seek perpetuity in Christ and to be undivided from His Body." 4 Again he writes, " Our body is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that our soul may be fattened of God." 5 He speaks of Christ, as calling bread His Body. 6 "Bread," again we read, "by which He represents His very Body." 7 So also, " Having taken bread and distributed it to that the elements were changed in sub- e^elnov toic eK&TWJoi. — Fragmentum ab stance into Christ's Body and Blood, he (Ecumenio in Comment, ad 1 Petri Epist. would never have spoken of them as cap. 3, p. 498, allegatnm ; Irenaei Op nourishing our bodies, which implies the Grabe, p. 469. idea of digestion, acknowledged to be 3 There is an excellent chapter in blasphemy. Beaven's Irenceus on the subject of 1 Kai kvrav&a rfjv npbotyopav reteoav- Irenaeus's statements concerning the reg hKKaTjovpev rb Hvevfia to ayiov, &kuc Eucharist. u7ro<j>yvij tt]v ■dvaiav ravryv Kal rdv dpTov * De Oratione, c. 6. auua tov Xpiarov ■ iva oi peraXujiovTEe 5 " Caro Corpore et Sanguine Christi tovtuv tuv uvtitvttuv ttjc iHpeoeuc tuv veseitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur." apapTiow Kal ttjq fu^t aluviov tvxuoiv. — — De Kesur. Cam. c. 8. Irenaei Scripta Anecdota, fragm. 2, p. 29. 6 " Christus . . . panem corpus suum 2 oi 6\rv7voi ovtoi, pi) e^ovrec tzuc to toIc appellans." — Adv. .ludce. c. 10. avayKuQyvoi na&' qoovriv epelv, nap' oaov ' " I'anem, quo ipsum Corpus suum fjKovov tuv deanoTuv, ttiv fteiav ueTu/.rnpiv repraesentat." — Adv. Marcion. Lib. I. c. alpa Kal aupa eivai Xpiorov, avrol vopi- 14. aavrec ru ovti alpa Kal oapm eivai, tovto " Repraesento — to exhibit as present ; g96 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVm. His disciples, He made it His body by saying, This is my Body, i, e. the figure of My Body. But there would be no figure, if there were no true Body. A mere phantom, without substance, would admit no figure." J In the last passage, he is arguing, like Ignatius and Irenajus, against those who denied a Body to our Lord. Now surely this testimony is plain. The bread is not really Christ's Body, but a figure of His Body, with which however He is pleased to recall (reprcesentare) His Body to His followers. In this bread His Body is understood (censetur) or accounted ; and so our bodies are fed with His Body, that our souls may be nourished of God. Though the bread then is a figure ; yet the feeding on Christ is not merely figurative, but real, and spiritual. He is the Bread of life ; and by feeding on Him we receive perpetual and indivisible union to His Body. Clement of Alexandria, of the same date with Tertullian, says, " The Blood of the Lord is twofold : the one natural or carnal, whereby we are redeemed from corruption ; the other spiritual, whereby we are anointed ; and this is to drink the Blood of Jesus, to be partakers of the Lord's incorruptibility. Also the Spirit is the power of the Word, as the Blood is of the flesh." 2 He then goes on to speak of the wine mingled with water ; and says, that the mixture of the drink and of the Logos is called the Eucharist — "Blessed and glorious grace, by which those, who partake in faith, are sanctified both body and soul." " Christ," he says a little farther on, " partook of wine ; for He was a man. He blessed it too, saying, Take, drink, this is My Blood, the blood of the vine. He thus calls allegorical !y the Word, who was poured forth for many for the remission of sins, the sacred stream of gladness .... He showed that what He blessed was wine, by saying to His disci- ples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it with you in My Father's Kingdom."' 1 8 Clement was a very mystical writer ; imoTimou, pracsentem esse facio, ob ocu- tov 'Iti<jov, -rift KvpuiK/?c ueraZaftQaveiv los pono, refero. Repnesentnre dicuntur uAdapoias laxvc & tov Aoyov rb nvevfta, u{ pictores. Item oratores grnphice quip- alua aapKog. — Padag. Lib. II. c. 2, p. piam dcscribentes." — Facciolati. 177. 1 " Aooeptam panem et distrilnitum 3 Ei yup lore, ueTeXaj3tv alvov nal avrbc • discipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit. Hoc nal yup urdpunof nal avTo(. Kai ev?J>yr)oiv est Corpus Meum, diorado, id est, figura ye rbv oivov, elnitv, h'tjierc, mere- tovto Co-poris Mci. Figura autein nun fuis- pov iarl to alfta, alfta ttjs upiri?JW rbv set. nisi veritatis esset Corpus. C;eterum Aoyov, rbv nepl noTAtiv luxvvouevov tic vacua res, quod est phantflima, figuram uptoiv ufkopnuv, ei>$poayvi)c uyiov uMj/- »pere non posset" — Ado, Afurcion.tib. yopel vupa . . . 6ri ik oivof t/v rd ti>Xo)7f- iv. c. 40. dtv, um<\cifr iruXiv, rrpbc tovc uadnriic 1 Atrrbv 6i rb alfta roii Kvpiov • rb pev ?Jyuv. Ov pi/ mu in tov ytyvijpaTOC r^f yap tortv ai'Toi) oapKinbv, $ rf/f Qdopuc iipni'kov ravrrK, uixptC <* v ntL > av i T0 M 1 ^' XtAvrpupcda ' rb tie irvtvuaTutbv, tovt£otiv iu&v tv r» iiaaiXtia tov narpdf iifiuv. — y Ktxpiopcda ■ nal tovt' tart meiv to alfta Padag. Lib. II, c. 2, p. 186. Sec. I.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 697 but we can discern this much at least from the foregoing passages : that, whilst he attached great spiritual blessings to the Eucharist, he yet believed the substance of the wine to remain in it, and the Blood received therein to be spiritual, not natural Blood. In Origen, as in his predecessors, we perceive at the same time deep reverence for the Body of Christ received in the Eucharist, and yet a belief that the reception of that Body was spiritual and heavenly, not carnal and natural. " When ye receive the Body of the Lord, with all caution and reverence ye preserve it ; lest any, the least thereof, be lost, or any portion of the consecrated gift pass away." ] " Acknowledge that they are figures, which are written in the sacred volumes ; therefore as spiritual, not carnal, examine and understand what is said. For, if as carnal you re- ceive them, they hurt, not nourish you. Not only in the old Tes- tament is there a letter which killeth ; but also in the new there is a letter which killeth him who does not spiritually consider it. For, if according to the letter you receive this saying, Except ye eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, that letter killeth." 2 St. Cyprian, in his 63d Epistle, is very full on the subject of the cup in the sacrament. He is writing there against the Aquarii, who rejected wine as evil, and so used water at the communion. He argues that the tradition of the Lord should be preserved ; and that nothing should be done but what Christ did before : that there- fore " the Cup, which is offered in commemoration of Him, be offered mixed with wine. For whereas Christ says, I am the true Vine, the Blood of Christ is surely wine, not water. Nor can it appear that in the cup is His Blood, with which we are redeemed, if wine be absent, by which Christ's Blood is represented." 3 There is much there to the same purpose. But these words alone prove, that Cyprian, whilst calling the consecrated wine the Blood of Christ, and believing (as is abundantly evident through his writ- ings everywhere) that there was in the Sacrament a real partaking 1 " Cum suscipitis Corpus Domini, cum spiritalitor quae dicuntur adverterit. Si omni cautela et veneratione servatis, ne enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ip- ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati sum quod dictum est : Nisimanducaverilis muneris aliquid dilabatur." — In Exod. camera meant, et biberitis sanguinem meum, Horn. xiii. occiditlitera." — In Levit. Horn. vn.n. 5. 2 " Agnoscite quia figurae sunt quae in s " Ut calix, qui in commemoratione divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo Ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur. tanquam spiritales et non tanquam car- Nam cum dicat Christus ; Ego sum vitis nales examinate et intelligite quae dicun- vera ; sanguis Christi, non aqua est uti- tur. Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipi- que, sed vinum. Nee potest videri san- tis, laedunt vos et non alunt. Est enim guis Ejus, quo redemtiet vivificatisumus, et in evangeliis litera qua? occidit. Non esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici solum in veteri Testamento occidens lit- quo Christi sanguis ostenditur." — Cyp- era deprehenditur ; est et in novo Testa- rian. Episl. lxiii. ; Ccecilio Fratri, p. 148. men to litera quae occidat euni qui non Oxf. 698 OF THE LORD'S SUPPICR. [Art. XXVTII of Christ, yet considered that there was still remaining the sub- stance of the wine ; for, says he, M The Blood of Christ is wine," i. e. that cup which we drink, acknowledging it to be the Blood of Christ, is wine. Moreover, he considered the wine to be a repre- sentation or means of showing Christ's Blood, and the cup to be ■ffi'red in commemoration of Him. St. Athanasius, quoting John vi. 16-63, observes, " Christ dis- tinguished between the flesh and the spirit, that believing not only what was apparent, but also what was invisible, they might know \hat what He spake was not carnal but spiritual. For to how many could His Body have sufficed for food that this might be for nour- ishment to all the world ? But therefore He made mention of His ascension into heaven, that He might draw them from understand- ing it corporally ; and that they might understand that the Flesh He spoke of was heavenly food from above, and spiritual nour- ishment given them by Him. For, says He, the things that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life. Which is as though He had said, My Body, which is shown and given for the world, shall be given in food, that it may be spiritually distributed to every one, and become to each a preservative unto the resurrection of eternal life." 1 We have already heard St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the contempo- rary of Athanasius, declare his belief, that the Body and Blood of Christ are given us under the figure of bread and wine, and that the Capharnaites were misled by interpreting our Lord carnally, as though He meant a banquet upon flesh, not, as He ought to be in- terpreted, spiritually. 2 So, in a former lecture, speaking of the unction, which was given with baptism, figuring the anointing of the Holy Ghost, he writes, " Beware of supposing this bare unc- tion. For as the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no longer mere bread (ov* In dprcxs An-os), but the Body of Christ ; so also this holy ointment is no longer simple oint- ment, nor common, after the invocation, but the gift of Christ .... While thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is 1 rd nvevpa npbf rd. Kara aapna itiaretXev, pa&uoiv. u yap feXultina, $r)alv, ifdv rrvriV lya pi) povov rd <pwv6pevov, MXa koI to pa tort koI tjui)- ioov tu elireiv, rd piv uuparov avrov niOTei>oavTt( pu&uaiv, on nai deucvvpevov kuI dioopevov virep tov Koopov t teyei ota Ion oapKinu aXh\ rrvevparuca • oodf/oerat Tpo^tf), £>c TrvevpartKuf tv tutum? noaotf y<ty fjpKU rd o£>pa npbf (Spuoiv, Iva ravr/pi uvadiooodat, xal yiveo&ai ituoi fv- ical rail Koapov Trovrdf tovto rpotyii yivrjTOi ; hucriipwv tl( uvuoraotv fwi/c aluviov. — aMA dta Toiro rr^ elf ovpavovf foafluoeut Atliiinns. In Mud Erauqelii, " Quicumque kpvripiivevae tov viov rod uvdpuirov, Iva rifa dixerit." 0}>. Tom. I. p. 979. oupariKi/s twoiac avroi>{ (tytfavon ical totndv ■ Cyril. Cateche*. Mystag. IT. 1, cited t^v elptjpevijv oupKa (3puoiv uvudtv wpaviov, abote. koI TrvevpariK^v rpotfiv nap' avroii diAopivrp- Sue. I.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 699 sanctified by the Holy, life-giving Spirit." 1 Here is a denial that the bread is mere bread, not that it still continues really bread ; and a statement that it is the Body of Christ, but so the Body of Christ, as the unction was believed to be the Holy Ghost ; i. e. not in a natural change of the substance, but in spirit, and power, and life. St. Jerome clearly distinguishes between the natural Body and Blood of Christ, which were crucified and shed, and the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, which are eaten and drunken by the faithful. 2 And so we must explain that language of his, which, as we saw above, appeared to savour of the later doctrine of the Latin Church. St. Chrysostom too, who used such glowing terms of the real presence of Christ, elsewhere explains himself, that we should look on all Sacraments, not outwardly and carnally, but spiritually and with the eyes of our souls. 3 And in the Epistle to Csesarius, which is mostly esteemed to be his, and if not his, was certainly by a contemporary of his, we read that, " before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread ; but, when it is consecrated, it is no longer called bread, but is held worthy to be called the Body of the Lord, yet still the substance of the bread remains." 4 We must now proceed to St. Augustine, whom all agree to hon- our. He has so much to the purpose, that how to choose is diffi- cult. " Prepare not thy teeth, but thy heart." 5 " Why make ready thy teeth and thy belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten." 6 " Our Lord hesitated not to say, This is my Body, when He gave the sign of His Body." 7 " Spiritually understand what I have spoken to you. You are not to eat that Body, which you see, and 1 Cat. Myst. in. 3. 4 " Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur 2 " Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et panis, panem nominamus : divina autem caro intelligitur : vel spirituals ilia et ilium sanctifieante gratia, mediante sacer- divina, de quo Ipse dixit : Caro tnea vere dote, liberatus est quidem ab appellatione est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus: et, panis; dignus autem habitus Dominici Nisi manducaveriti s carnem meant, et san- Corporis appellatione, t-tiamsi natura panis guinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora, sed ceternam: vel caro et sanguis quae cru- unum Corpus Filii praedicaiuus," &c. — cifixa est et qui militis effusus est lancea. Chrysost. Ad Casarium Monach. Tom. in. Juxta banc divisionem et in Sanctis p. 743. On the history and genuineness ejus diversitas sanguinis et carnis accip- of this Epistle see Cave, Histor. Literar. itur, ut alia sit caro quae visura est salu- Tom. i. p. 315; Routh's Scriptor. Eccles. tare Dei, .alia caro et sanguis quae regnum O/tuscula, p. 479; Jenkyns's Cranmer, u. Dei non queant possidere." — Hieronym. p. 325, note. In Ephes. cap. i. v. 7. Tom. iv. pt. i. p. 8 " Noli parare fauces, sed cor." — 328. De Verbis Domini, Serm. 33, Tom. v. p. 8 t'l de ion rb aapKtxuc vor/aai ; rb uwXuc 566. eic tu npoKsifieva bpuv, /cat ptj nteov ti <pav- 6 " Quid paras dentes et ventrem 1 ra^eaOai. tovto yap earn aapKtKuc. XP*I & Crede et manducasti." — InJoann. Tract, pr] oiitu Kpiveiv role bpupivoie, aXku nuvra 25, Tom. m. pars. n. p. 489. Ta p.voT7)pia role hvdov 6<j>$a?>p.oi<; KaroivTe- 7 "Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere veiv. roiiTo ynp eari nvEvpartKug. — Chry- Hoc est Corpus Meum, cum signum daret eost. In Joann. c. vi. ; Hotnil. xlvii. Tom. Corporis sui." — Contra Adimantum, Tom. till. p. 278. vin. p. 124. 700 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVUL drink that Blood, which they will shed, who will crucify me. I have commended to you a Sacrament. Spiritually understood, it will quicken you. Though it must be visibly celebrated, yet it must invisibly be understood." * " What you see is bread and the cup. But as your faith requires, the bread is Christ's Body, the cup His Blood. How is the bread His Body ? and the wine His Blood? These things, brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood. What ap- pears has a bodily form : what is understood has a spiritual fruit." 2 " The Body and Blood of Christ will then be life to each, if what is visibly received in the Sacrament be in actual verity spiritually eaten, spiritually drunk." 3 Theodoret may be our last witness, a witness against transub- stantiation, but not against the truth of Christ's presence, nor the real participation in His Body and Blood. " Our Saviour," he tells us, " changed the names of things ; giving to His Body the name of bread, and to the bread the name of His Body. His ob- ject was, that those who partake of the mysteries, should not have regard to the nature of the visible elements, but by the change of names, might believe that change which is wrought by grace. For He, who called His own Body food and bread, and again called Himself a vine, He honoured the visible symbols with the name of His Body and Blood, not changing the nature, but adding to the nature grace." 4 And afterwards he says, " The mystic sym- bols depart not after consecration from their own nature, for they remain in the former substance ; yet we understand what they have 1 " Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus 8 " Vita unicuique erit Corpus et San- sum : non hoc Corpus quod videtis man- guis Christi, si quod in sacramento visi- dicaturi estis, et bibituri ilium sanguinem biliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spirital- quem fusuri sunt qui mi' erucifigent. iter manducetur, spiritaliter bibatur." — Sacramentum aliquod vobis commen- Arm. 2, De Verbis Apostoli, Tom. v. pars davi. Spiritaliter intellectum, vivinca- i. p. 64. bit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibili- * 'Q di ye 2utt)p 6 rjftirepoc tvii'XXa£e rd ter celebrari, oportet tanien invisibiliter bvbftara- nail to /ikv au/iart rb rov ovfifib- intelligi." — In Psalm, xcviii. Tom. iv. Xow Te&eucev bvofia, ru de <rv/x/?6Aw rb rov p. 1066. au/iaTO(. ovrug uuneAov iavrbv bvbfiaaac, 8 " Quod videtis, panis est et ealix, aifia rb ovpfioTjov npooyybpcvoev. quod vobis etiam oculi vestri rcnunuiant: Ai/toc b OKOKbc role tu deia fieuvn/tevotc. quod auti'in fides vestra postulat instru- kjiovkiidri yup robe t<jv deiuv uvorripiuv enda, panis est Corpus Christi, calix sun- fiera?uiyxavovTa{, p) tt} Qvoci rtJv (ifanoue- guis Christi .... Quomodo est panis vuv npoaexetv, ci/Ud but rijr ruv bvo/iuruv corpus Ejus ? et calix, vel quod habet evaXhayijc moreiciv ry fk rf/c x a P lT< K yejev- calix, quomodo est sanguis Ejus ; Ista, vrtfiivn uerafioXy. b yup di rb aCiua alrov fratres, ideo dtcuntur sacraim-nta, quia /cot uprov ■npoaayopevoac, nal av nuXtv rav- in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. rbv uuireXov bvofutaac, ovroc rd bpupcva Quod videtur, spcciem habet corpora- avui3o\a tt/ rov ou/mtoc kiu alfutroc rrptxny- lem.quod intelligitur fructum habet spir- yopia TeriftrjKev, ov tt)v Qvaiv (ieraf3atev, italem." — Serm. 272 ad Infantes, Tom. v. 6X)Jl tt)v ju/jiv tt} Qvoei npoartdnKuc. — pars i. p. 1108. Dial. 1, ed. Sirmond. Tom. IT. p. 17. Sec. I] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 701 become, and believe and adore, as though they were what they are believed to be." l Space and time will not allow us a longer list of authorities. Those already adduced have been fairly chosen, and should be fairly weighed. The Christian student must not argue for victorv, but search for truth. That search is seldom unattended by difficul- ties. Yet may it not in this case be safely concluded, that, weigh- ing all considerations, and notwithstanding some remarkable phrases, the doctrine of the early ages was not in favour of a miraculous change in the consecrated elements, not in favour of a carnal pres- ence of the natural Body of the Lord, but in favour of a real, effectual, life-giving presence of Christ's spiritual Body communi- cated to the faith, and feeding the souls, of His disciples ? There is, perhaps, another possible alternative. The early Church held firmly Christ's presence in His Sacraments. The tendency was, for the most part, not to explain, but to veil such subjects in a reverential mystery. It may therefore have been that, whereas a spiritual presence was originally and generally recognized, yet some may have suffered their reverence to degen- erate into superstition, and have spoken, and perhaps thought, as though there were a carnal presence. There was probably a vague- ness of apprehension on the subject among some. Their very re- ligion tended to foster this. But one thing is certain, namely, that the doctrine of a carnal presence was never the ruled doctrine of the primitive ages, was not received, or rather was emphatically denied, by many of the greatest of the fathers, and that it does not come down to us with the sanction and authority of that which was always, everywhere, and by all men, anciently acknowledged (jquod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est). And another thing is most certain, namely, that, if any of the fathers did contemplate any beside a spiritual presence, it was not in the way of transubstantiation, but rather of consubstantiation. For, let us take the example of St. Hilary, who, if any one, used lan- guage most like the language of later ages. Still the very object of his reasoning was to prove, that in Christ's Person there are two natures : one not extinguished, because the other is added. He illustrates this by the bread of the Eucharist, which still retains the nature of the bread unchanged, although the nature of 1 Oi<5e yilp fiera rbv kyiaaubv ru //votiku ical nporepov rjv, votirai de unep tyevero ml ov(i(56Xa ttjq o'lKeiag ifiaTarac tpvaeug- fievet mareveTcu, aid npooKvveircu ug eicdva trvra yap knl T7ig irpoTepag ovmag ml tov oxq/iarog unep marevercu. — Dial. 2, ed. Sirmond. hdt tov eldovg, ml bpara tori ml utttu, ola Tom. iv. p. 85. 702 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER [Art. XXVIH. Christ's Body is added to it. Now, interpret this how we may, it is a plain witness against transubstantiation. It may mean consub- stantiation ; it may mean a spiritual presence ; but transubstantia- tion it cannot mean : for it was an error of Eutyches, not of the orthodox St. Hilary, that the human nature of the Saviour was ;ilw>rl)ed and transubstantiated into the Divine. 1 We must now pass on to the controversies of the Middle Ages. About a. d. 831, Paschasius Radbert, a monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie, maintained the corporal presence. 2 Whether even he taught the full-grown doctrine of transubstantiation, or only consubstantiation, our divines have questioned. Certainly he speaks some things very unlike the former, and even more resem- bling the doctrine of spiritual feeding. 3 Yet he says, that H after the consecration nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ are to be believed ; " an expression nearly approaching, if not fully expressing, the Roman doctrine. 4 Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, a divine of the highest credit in the Church, wrote against the statements of Paschasius. The work is lost indeed ; but the evidence of its former existence is strong and clear. 5 Johannes Scotus Erigena, who at this period lived at the court of Charles the Bald, and sometimes with our own king Alfred, and who at his death was esteemed a martyr, and placed in the Roman Calendar, wrote a book by the command of the Emperor Charles, against the substantial change in the Sacraments ; a book, which, two hundred years afterwards, was condemned at the council of Verceil, upon the ground that it made the bread and wine to be mere empty signs. 6 Bertram too, or Ratramnus, a monk of Corbie, wrote, also at the desire of Charles the Bald, concerning this doctrine, which now began to agitate the Church. The book is still extant, and is well worthy to be read. Its genuineness has been attacked by the 1 See above, p. 69. nothing in his whole book " that favours 2 Cave places him a. d. 841. the transubstantiation of the bread, or its 8 " Christus ergo cibus est angelorum, destruction or removal." However, In* et sacramentum hoe vere caro ipsius et quotes Bellnrmine and Sirmondus as sanguis, quani spiritualiter manducat et esteeming him so highly, that they «cre dibit homo." — De Carport et Sain/uine not ashamed to say that he was the first Domini, c. 5. that had written to the purpose concern- * "Quia voluit (Dominus), licet in ing the Kucharist; but there are some ligura panis et vini, line sic esse, omnino spurious additions to his book, which nihil aliud quam caro Christi It sanguis speak a stronger language than the book {ost consecrationem credenda sunt." — itself. See also Cave, //. /.. Tom. t. p. bid. cap. 1. 686. Bishop Cosin gives several specimens 6 See Cave, //. L. p. 642. of his language {lfi*t.q/Transul>st(iiiti<itioM, • Ibid. Tom. I. p. 649. ch. xxv. s. 2J), and argues, that there is Sec. L] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 703 Roman Catholic writers, but with little success. Others have charged him with heresy ; whilst others again have allowed him to be Cath- olic, but yet, like other Catholics, not free from some errors. 1 The book was finally prohibited by the Council of Trent. Bertram's statements are clear for the spiritual, and against the carnal pres- ence in the Eucharist. " The change," he says, " is not wrought corporally, but spiritually and figuratively. Under the veil of the material bread and wine the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ exist .... Both (the bread and wine), as they are corporally handled, are in their nature corporal creatures ; but, according to their virtue, and what they become spiritually, they are the myste- ries of Christ's Body and Blood." 2 " By all that hath been hith- erto said, it appears, that the Body and Blood of Christ, which are received by the mouths of the faithful in the Church, are figures in respect of their visible nature ; but in respect of the invisible substance, that is the power of the Word of God, they are truly Christ's Body and Blood. Wherefore, as they are visible creat- ures, they feed the body ; but as they have the virtue of a more powerful substance, they do both feed and sanctify the souls of the faithful." 3 The Middle Ages, if favourable to a reverent, were not less fa- vourable to a superstitious spirit. Hence the principles of Pascha- sius were more likely to gain ground than those of Bertram ; yet there are not wanting testimonies, for some time later, in favour of the spiritual and against the carnal presence. Especially it has been observed that the doctrine of the Anglo-Saxon Church was more than others in accordance with the primitive truth. The fa- mous iElfric was born probably about a. d. 956, and died about 1051. He was abbot, some say of St. Albans, others of Malmesbury or Peterborough ; and afterwards Archbishop of York. 4 Some valu- 1 Index Expurgator. Belgic. jussu et iter factae sunt, mysteria sunt Corporis auetoritate Philip. II., cited by Aubertin. et Sanguinis Christi." — Ratramnus, De De Eucharist, p. 930; Cosin's Hist, of Corpore et Sanguine Domini. London, Transubst. ch. v. § 35 ; Bishop Taylor, On 1686, p. 24. § the Real Presence, § xn. 32. 8 " Kx his omnibus, quae sunt hactenus 2 " At quia confitentur et Corpus et dicta, monstratum est quod corpus et Sanguinem Christi esse, nee hoc esse pot- sanguis Christi, quae fidelium ore in uisse nisi facta in melius commutatione, eeclesia percipiuntur figurae sunt secun- neque ista commutatio corporaliter sed duni speciem visibilem : At vero secun- spiritualiter facta sit, necesse est ut jam dum in visibilem substantiam, i. e. divini figurata facta esse dicatur : quoniam sub potentiam Verbi, Corpus et Sanguis velamento corporei panis, eorporeique vere Christi existunt. Unde secundum vini, spirituale corpus Christi, spiritualis- visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt, jux- que sanguis existit .... Secundum nam- ta vero potentioris virtutem substantia?, que quod utruinque corporaliter contin- mentes fidelium et pascunt et sanctifi- gitur, species sunt creaturae corporeaj ; cant." — Ibid. p. 64. secundum potentiam vero, quod spiritual- * See Cave, H. L. Tom. i. p. 588 ; 704 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVm. able fragments of his writings remain in Latin and Anglo-Saxon, full of clear statements on the doctrine in question. " This is not," he says, " that Body in which He suffered for us, but spiritually it is made His Body and Blood." l " That housel " (i. e. the Eu- charist) " is Christ's Body, not bodily but ghostly : not the Body which He suffered in, but the Body of which He spake, when He blessed bread and wine to housel, a night before His suffer- ing," 2 &c. Not much later than iElfric was Berengarius, Archdeacon of Angers, who appears to have been a man of great piety. He strenuously maintained the doctrine, which had been taught by Bertram, Scotus, and JElfric, teaching that the bread and wine remained in their natural substance, yet not denying the invisible grace of the Sacrament. It is probable that many of the Galli- can Church sided with him. He was condemned, however, and with him the writings of Johannes Erigena, by a Council at Ver- ceil under Leo IX., a. d. 1050, on the ground that they taught the bread and wine in the Eucharist to be only bare signs. Under Victor the Second, another Council was held at Tours, a. d. 1055, at which Hildebrand presided as legate, where Berengarius freely declared that he did not believe the bread and wine to be mere empty shadows. Under Nicholas II., a new council was called at Rome (a. d. 1059) ; where Berengarius was forced to recant, and to declare that the " bread and wine after consecration became the very Body and Blood of Christ, and that they are touched and broken by the hands of the priests, and ground by the teeth of the faithful, not sacramentally only, but in truth and sensibly." After a time, however, he again maintained the doctrine of the spiritual presence ; and Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, entered the lists of controversy against him, in whose work are fragments preserved to us of the writings of Berengarius. At length Hildebrand came to the papal chair, as Gregory VII. He summoned another council at Rome, a. d. 1078 ; and another a. d. 1079. " At the former Berengarius acknowledged, that the real Soames's Anglo-Saxon Church, ch. iv. pp. effudit : sed spiritualiter Corpus Ejus 218-229. There appear to have been eflicitur et sanguis." — JElfrici Epistola two iKlfrics, one Archbishop of Canter- ad Wulfstamtm ; Uoutli. Ovuscvla, p. 620. bury, and the other of York. The latter, i From Mtfric's Epistle to Wul/sine, a friend and disciple of the former, is Bishop of Sherbnm, Routh. p. 628. The generally supposed to have been the passage quoted is from the Old English author of the Homilies. See Hardwick, translation of the reign of Queen Kliza- Ch. Hint, of the Middle Ages, p. 187. beth. The Anglo-Saxon is given by Dr. 1 " Non sit tamen hoc sacriflcium Cor- Routh (loc. cit.) with the English and pus Ejus in quo passus est pro nobis, Latin versions, neque Sanguis hjus, quern pro nobis Sec. I.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 705 Body and Blood of Christ were present at the Eucharist, without saying anything of transubstantiation ; and it is supposed that the Pope was satisfied with this, and unwilling to proceed further. But at the latter, the enemies of Berengarius prevailed, and he was forced to declare that the bread and wine are substantially con- verted into the Body and Blood of Christ, which Body after conse- cration is present, not only sacramen tally, but in verity of sub- stance. 1 It is very doubtful when the term transubstantiation was first used. It is said to have been invented by Stephen, Bishop of Augustodunum, about the year 1100, in his book De Sacramento Altaris. 2 Under Innocent III., a. d. 1216, sat the famous Council of Lateran, by which that term, and the full form of the doctrine, were sanctioned and made authoritative. Seventy chapters were drawn up by Innocent himself. When proposed to the Council, they were received without debate, and silence was supposed to imply con- sent. The first chapter is directed against the Manichaean heresy, and among other things, declares that, in the sacrifice of the Mass, " Christ's Body and Blood are really contained under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into His Body, and the wine into His Blood." 3 It has been acknowledged by the Schoolmen and Romanists, that before this Council the doc- trine of transubstantiation was not an article of the faith. 4 From this time, however, it became established as part of the Creed of the Roman Church. The Council of Constance, a. d. 1415, in the eighth session, condemned Wicliffe for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the corporal presence. The Council of Florence, a. d. 1439, at which Greek bishops and deputies were present, left the doctrine untouched. But the instruction to the Armenians, which runs only in the name of Pope Eugenius, and was not submitted to the Council, but which Roman Catholic au- thors often cite as a synodical decree, says, that " by virtue of the 1 " Corde credo et ore profiteor panem substantiae." — Concil. Tom. x. p. 378. et vinura quae ponuntur in altari, per See Cosin's Hist, of Transubst. ; also raysterium sacrae orationis et verba nos- Mosheim, E. H. cent. xi. part II. cb. tri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in in. veram ac propriam et vivificatricem car- a In B. Patrum, Tom. x. p. 412. See nem et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Jer. Taylor On the Real Presence, sect. Christi, et post consecrationem esse xn. 32. verum Christi Corpus, quod natum est s Concil. Tom. xi. p. 117. de Virgine, et quod pro salute mundi 4 See Bramhall's Answer to M. de la oblatum in cruce pependit — non tantum Milletiere, pt. i. disc. i. ; Works, Anglo- per signum et virtutem sacramen ti, sed Cath. Lib. i. p. 14; Jer. Taylor, On the et in proprietate naturae et veritate Real Presence, § i. 2. 89 706 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER [Art. XXVm. words of Christ, the substance of the bread and wine is turned into the substance of His Body and Blood." x At length the Council of Trent, a. d. 1551, decreed, that by u consecration there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood." 2 An anathema is pro- nounced against all who deny such change of the substance (the forms yet remaining), a change which the Church Catholic aptly calls transubstantiation. 8 Finally in the Creed of Pope Pius IV., (a. d. 1563,) there is a profession of faith, that the Body and Blood of Christ, together " with His Soul and Divinity, are truly and really and substantially in the Eucharist, and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood ; which conver- sion the Church Catholic calls transubstantiation." 4 The doctrine then of transubstantiation, and (as it is improperly called) the real presence, is the established doctrine of the Roman Church. There is still, however, a room for difference of state- ment and difference of thought upon the subject. It appears to be ruled, that the substance only, not the accidents, undergo a change. Now it is almost questionable, whether the accidents do not com- prise all the properties of matter. If so, the change may still be spiritual rather than material. And here we get a phenomenon by no means without parallel in other Roman Catholic articles of faith. For, as in saint worship some only ask departed friends to pray for them, whilst others bow down to the stock of a tree ; so in the Eucharist, the learned and enlightened appear to acknowledge a far more spiritual change than is taught to the equally devout but more credulous multitude. For the latter all kinds of miracles have been devised, and visions, wherein the Host lias seemed to disappear, and the infant Saviour has been seen in its room ; oi where Blood has flowed in streams from the consecrated wafer, im- piously preserved by unbelieving communicants. But on the other hand, by the more learned and liberal, statements have been made perpetually in acknowledgment of a spiritual rather than a car- nal presence ; and such as no enlightened Protestant would cavil at or refuse. 1 See Cosin, On TraHtuhstantiation,'B]i. esse vere, rcaliter et substantialiter cor- vn. § 80. pus et sanpuincm, una cum anima et a Bess. xiii. cap. iv. diviniuitc Domini nostri .Jcsu Ohristi, • 8ess. xiii. Ih Kucharist. can. iv. flcrique convcrsionem totius substantia* * " Profitoor pariter in missa offerri pnnis in corpus, et totius substAiitiae vini Deo f vcrum, preprint) et propitiatorium in MM I gBhw n, quam conversionem Ca- ■acrificium pro vivis et defunctis, atque tbolica Kcclesia transubstantiationem sp- in sanctissimo Kucbaristite sacramento pellat." Sec.L] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 707 St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the immediate forerunner of the schoolmen (a. d. 1115), acknowledged no feeding but a spiritual feeding. 1 Peter Lombard, the famous Master of the Sentences (a. d. 1141), though speaking of the conversion of the bread and wine, declines to determine whether that conversion be formal or substantial, or of some other kind. 2 Aquinas (a. d. 1255) spoke of Christ's Body as present, not bodily but substantially ; 3 a dis- tinction not easy to explain. Durandus (a. d. 1320) said that, though we believe the presence, we know not the manner of the presence. 4 Cuthbert Tonstal, Bishop of Durham, said that, " Be- fore the Lateran Council it was free to every one to hold as they would concerning the manner ; and that it would have been better to leave curious persons to their own conjectures." 5 Cardinal Cajetan writes, that " The real Body of Christ is eaten in the Sac- rament, yet not corporally but spiritually. Spiritual manducation, which is made by the soul, reaches to the flesh of Christ, which is in the Sacrament." 6 And Gardiner, in his controversy with Cranmer says, " The Catholic teaching is, that the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament is spiritual and supernatural, not corporal nor carnal, not natural, not sensible, nor perceptible, but only spiritual, the how and manner whereof God knoweth." 7 Let us now pass to the doctrines of the Reformation, merely observing by the way, that the dogma of transubstantiation, though formally decreed by the Roman Church, has never been adopted by the Greek. Luther, if not the inventor, has been esteemed the great patron of the doctrine of consubstantiation. Whilst re- jecting the idea of a change in the substance of the elements, he believed in a presence ivith the elements, of the material substance of Christ's Body and Blood. He appears to have had recourse to the same illustration which had been used to explain the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ ; namely, that, as in red- hot iron there is the nature both of iron and fire, so in the Eucharist 1 "Eadera Caro nobis, sed spiritualiter mus, modum nescimus, prsesentiam cred- utique, non earnaliter exhibeatur." — imus." — Neand. Synops. Chron. p. 203, Sermo. De S. Martino. See Jer. Taylor, quoted by Jer. Taylor, as above, § i. 2. Real Presence, § i. 8; Cosin, On Transiib- 5 Tonstal, De Eucharist. Lib. i. p. 46 : stantiation, ch. vn. § 13, who gives several Jer. Taylor, as above. quotations from St. Bernard to this 6 " Manducatur verutn Corpus Christi effect. in sacramento, sed non corporaliter, sed 2 "Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ilia spiritualiter. Spiritualismanducatio, quae conversio, an formaliter an substantial- per animam fit, ad Christi carnem in sac- iter, vel alterius generis, diffinire non ramento existentem pertingit." — Opusc. sufficio." — Sent. iv. Dist. 10. See Cosin, Tom. u. Tract. 2, De Euch. c. v. ; Jer. as above, § 15. Taylor, as above, § vn. 8. 8 See Jer. Taylor, as above, § xi. 20. 7 Cranmer's Works, in. p. 241, Anstoa * " Verbum audimus, motum senti- to Gardiner. 708 OF THE LORDS SUPPER. [Art. XXVIH there is both the bread and the Body of the Lord. Strong as are his expressions in the arguments which he used with the Sacra- mcntarians, still from his less controversial statements, we may almost be led to think that Luther did not much go beyond a faith in the spiritual presence. Controversy often produces extreme statements : and it may have been so with him. 1 He does indeed say in a comparatively uncontroversial tract, that there are " the real Body and Blood of Christ in and under the bread and wine." 2 But then he speaks of faith as the means whereby we obtain the benefits of the Sacrament, as that to which they are exhibited. 8 As to the public documents of the Lutherans, the Confession of Augsburg simply declares, that the Body and Blood of Christ are really given with the bread and wine. 4 But the Saxon Confession says, that " In this communion Christ is truly and substantially present, and His Body and Blood are truly exhibited to those who receive." 5 The great leader among the reformers, of those who took an opposite view to Luther, was Zuingle. He was not satisfied to reject a material presence ; but he even denied a presence of any sort. With him the bread and wine were empty signs. Feeding on Christ was a figure for believing in Him. The Communion was but a ceremony to remind us of Him. Spiritual manducation was resting upon the mercy of God. 6 He probably may have mod- ified these statements afterwards ; yet they thoroughly belonged to his system. Calvin took a middle course between Luther and Zuingle. With the former he acknowledged a real presence of Christ in His Sup- per ; with the latter he denied a corporal or material presence. Having stated the view of the Sacramentarians, that to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ is merely to believe on Him, he says, " But to me Christ appears to have intended something 1 See, for instance, De Sacramento At- non potest quam signum aut symbolum tarts, Opp. Tom. i. p. 82. edere." — De Vera et Falsa Religione, Opera 1 " Esse verum corpus et sanguinem Zuinylii, pars 2, Tom. i. fol. 216. He Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, iii et sub denies that there can be any spiritual pane et vino perverbum Christi."— Cate- Body of Christ, except His Church, fol. rhismun Major, Tom. v. p. 641. 216. Again :" Sacramentum est sacrorei * Ibid. signum. Cum ergo Sacramentum Cor- * " De Coena Domini docent quod cum poris Christi nomino, non quicquam pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et aliud, quam panem, qui Corporis Christi sanguis Christi, vcscentibus in Coena pro nobis mortui figure et typus est, in- Domini." — Con/ess. August. Art. x. ; Syl- tolligo."— De Cana Domini, Ibid. fol. 274. logt, p. 172. " Spiritualiter edere Corpus Christi nihil • " Vere adcsse Christum, ct vere ex- est aliud, quam spiritu acmenteniti mis- •ijbcn Mimentibus corpus et sanguinem ericordia et bonitate Dei, propter Chris- Christi." — Si/llogr, p. i»2. turn." — Fida Christiana hxpositio. Ibid • " Sacramcntalitcr edere esse aliud fol. 666. Sec. I.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 709 more express and sublime in that famous discourse of His, where He commends to us the eating of His flesh ; namely, that by a real participation of Him we be quickened ; which He therefore designated under the words eating and drinking, lest any should think that the life we derive from Him is received by simple cognition. For as, not the sight, but the eating of the bread gives nourishment to the body, so it is needful that, for the soul to be wholly partaker of Christ, it should be quickened by His virtue to life eternal." 1 The elements, according to him, receive the name of Christ's Body and Blood, " because they are, as it were, instruments where- by Christ distributes them to us." 2 And, "if we believe the truth of God, we must believe that there is an inward substance of the Sacrament in the Lord's Supper joined to the outward signs ; and so, that, as the bread is given by the hands, the Body of Christ is also communicated, that we be partakers of Him." 3 " That Body, which you see not, is to you a spiritual aliment. Does it seem incredible, that we are fed by the Flesh of Christ, which is so far from us ? We must remember, that the work of the Spirit is secret and wonder-working, which it would be profane to measure by our intelligence." 4 Thus then to receive Christ in the Eucharist is not merely to believe in Him ; yet it is by faith we are enabled to receive Him. By believing we eat Christ's Flesh, because by faith our feeding on Him is effected ; and that feeding is the fruit of faith. " With them," (i. e. the Zuinglians,) he writes, 1 Institut. iv. xvii. 6. " Itaque fatendum est si vera sit rep- 2 " Corporis vero et sanguinis nomen raesentatio quam adhibet Deus, in coena eis attributum, quod sint velut instru- substantiam interiorem sacramenti visi- menta, quibus Dominus Jesus Christus bilibus signis conjunctarn esse, et quem- nobis ea distribuit." — Calvinus, De Ccena admodum panis in manu distribuitur, ita Domini, Opuscula. Geneva?, 1552, p. 133. Corpus Christi, ut Ejus participes simus, • 3 " Ita in communione, quam in Christi nobis eommunicari. Hoc certe etiam, si corpore et sanguine habemus, dicendum nihil aliud esset, nobis abunde satisfacere est, mysterium spirituale esse, quod nee deberet, cum intelligimus Christum nobis oculis conspici, nee ingenio humano com- in Coena veram propriamque corporis et prehendi potest. Figuris igituretsignis, sanguinis sui substantiam nobis donare quae sub oculorum sensum cadunt, ut na- — ut pleno jure ipsum possideamus, et tura? nostra? imbecillitas requirit osten- possidendo in omnem bonorum suorum ditur ; ita tamen ut non sit figura nuda soeietatem vocemur." — Ibid. pp. 133, et simplex, sed veritati sua? et substan- 134. tia? conjuncta * " Corpus, quod nequaquam cernis, " Necesse est igitur nos in Coena vere spirituale est tibi alimentum. Incredibile corpus et sanguinem Christi recipere, hoc tibi videtur, pasci nos Christi came, cum utriusque communionem Dominus qua? tam procul a nobis distat? Memi- repra?sentet. Quid enim sibi vellet, nos nerimus, arcanum et mirificum esse Spir- panem comedere ac vinum bibere, ut itus Sancti opus, quod intelligentia? tuas significent carnem ipsius cibum esse nos- modulo metiri sit nefas." — Calvin. In 1 trum, et sanguinem potum, si veritate Cor. xi. 24, cited by Waterland, On th» spirituali pra?termissa, vinum et panem Eucharist, c. vn. Bolummodo pra?beret 710 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVm. ** the feeding is faith : with me the power of feeding comes as a consequence of faith." 1 Melancthon, the disciple, friend, and successor of Luther, is sup- posed to have hesitated between a material and a spiritual pres- ence. In the Confession of Augsburg, which is due to him, we have already seen strong words, which sound like con substantia- tion. He is said to have used in earlier days the word corporat- or, to express the mode in which Christ communicates His Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist, but to have avoided such expressions, after much intercourse on the question with OEcolampadius. 2 After Luther's death, he had the chief voice and influence among the Lutherans ; and through his peaceful counsels in Germany, and Calvin's sound views in Switzerland, much greater concord pre- vailed on this question among the continental Protestants, than had existed during the lifetime of the great reformer of Wittem- berg ; the Lutherans and Zuinglians both consenting to modify their views and statements. 8 Insomuch that Hooker observed concerning them : " By opening the several opinions which have been held, they are grown for aught I can see on all sides, at the length to a general agreement concerning that which alone is material, namely, the real participation of Christ, and of life in His Body and Blood by means of this Sacrament.'" 4 From the continental Protestants, we must turn to England. Cranmer and Ridley appear to have retained the doctrines of the corporal presence and of transubstantiation throughout the reign of Henry VIII. The formularies of that reign all seem to teach it. Ridley is said to have been converted to a belief in the spirit- ual (instead of the natural) presence, by reading the treatise of Bertram or Ratramn, probably about the year 1545. 5 At this time Cranmer was zealous for transubstantiation. But Ridley com- municated to the Archbishop 'what he had discovered in the writ- ings of Ratramn ; and they then set themselves to examine the matter with more than ordinary care. 6 Ridley indeed refused to take the credit of converting Cranmer ; 7 but Cranmer himself always acknowledged his obligations to Ridley. 8 It has been thought that Cranmer went through two changes : to consubstan- tiation first, and then to the spiritual feeding ; and most probably 1 " Illis manducntio est fides, milii ex * Hooker, E. P. Bk. v. ch. i.xvu. 2. fide potius consequi videtur." — Institul. 6 Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 166. IT. xvii. 6. 6 Burnet, Hist, of Reformation, pt n. 9 So© Jer. Taylor, On Real Pretence, Bk. i. p. 107. 1 1. 9. 7 Ridley's Life, p. 169. * Bee Mosh. E. H. Cent. xvi. sect. in. • Cranmer' t Remains, (Jenkyis,) it. p. pt ii. ch. i. 27, and ch. n. 12. 97. Sec. I] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 711 there may have been some gradual progress in his convictions. 1 Yet it was constantly affirmed by him that, before he put forth the translation of the Catechism of Justus Jonas, commonly called Cranmer's Catechism, he had fully embraced the spiritual doctrine, and that the strong phrases there used concerning the real pres- ence and the real feeding on Christ, were intended of a spiritual presence and a spiritual feeding, not of consubstantiation. 2 After this both Cranmer and Ridley, to whom we are chiefly in- debted for our formularies, maintained a doctrine nearly identical with that maintained by Calvin, and before him by Bertram. With the latter Ridley expresses his entire accordance. 3 He constantly declares that, whilst he rejects all presence of the natural Body and Blood, in the way of transubstantiation, he yet acknowledges a real presence of Christ, spiritually and by grace, to be received by the faithful in the Communion of the Eucharist. 4 Cranmer has by some been thought to incline nearer to Zuinglianism ; yet, if fair allowance be made for hasty expressions in the irritation of controversy, it will probably appear that he, like Ridley, followed the doctrine of the ancient Church, and held a real reception of Christ in the Spirit. Certainly we find him writing as follows : " I say (as all the holy fathers and martyrs used to say) that we re- ceive Christ spiritually, by faith with our minds eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood : so that we receive Christ's own very nat- ural Body, but not naturally nor corporally." 5 " It is my constant faith and belief, that we receive Christ in the Sacrament, verily and truly . . . But . . . you think a man cannot receive the Body of Christ verily, unless he take Him corporally in his corporal mouth . . . My doctrine is that . . . He is by faith spiritually pres- ent with us, and is our spiritual food and nourishment, and sitteth 1 The subject is discussed by Dr. Jen- " That heavenly Lamb is (as I confess) kyns, note to Cranmer's Works, iv. p. 95. on the table : but by a spiritual pres 2 Cranmer's Works, n. p. 440, in. pp. ence, and not after any corporeal pres- 13, 297, 344. ence of the Flesh taken of the Virgin 8 See Enchiridion Theologicum, i. p. 56. Mary." — Ibid. p. 249. 4 " I say that the Body of Christ is " Both you and I agree in this, that in present in the Sacrament, but yet sacra- the Sacrament is the very true and nat- men tally and spiritually (according to ural Body and Blood of Christ, even His grace) giving life, and in that respect that which is born of the Virgin Mary really, that is, according to His benedic- .... We confess all one thing to be in tion, giving life. . . . The true Church of the Sacrament, and dissent in the manner Christ doth acknowledge a presence of of being there. I confess Christ's natu- Christ's Body in the Lord's Supper to ral Body to be in the Sacrament by Spirit be communicated to the godly by grace and grace .... You make a proper and spiritually, as I have often showed, kind of being, inclosing a natural Body and by a sacramental signification, but under the shape and form of bread and not by the corporal presence of the Body wine." — Fox, Martyrs, n. p. 1598. Lond. of His Flesh." — Works, Parker Society, 1597, cited by Laud against Fisher, § 35. p. 236. 5 Remains, in. p. 5. 712 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVm in the midst of all them that be gathered together in His Name ; and this feeding is spiritual feeding and an heavenly feeding, far passing all corporal and carnal feeding, in deed and not in figure only, or not at all, as you most untruly report my saying to be." * 44 1 say that the same visible and palpable Flesh that was for us crucified, &c. &c, is eaten of Christian people at His Holy sup- per . . . The diversity is not in the Body, but in the eating there- of; no man eating it carnally, but the good eating it both sacra- mentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is, figuratively." 2 These sentiments of our reformers are undoubtedly embodied in our Liturgy and Articles. One thing indeed has been thought to savour of a tendency to Zuinglianism. The first Service Book of Edward VI., drawn up undoubtedly after Cranmer had embraced the doctrine of the spiritual presence, contained, as did all the an- cient Liturgies, an invocation of the Holy Ghost to bless the bread and wine ; 44 that they might be unto us the Body and Blood of Christ." This was omitted in the second Service Book ; probably lest the grace of the Sacrament should thus seem to be tied to the consecrated elements. But a still more remarkable departure from the ancient forms was this. Whereas, in the first Service Book, the words of administration were, 44 The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto eternal life ; " in the second Service Book they were merely, 44 Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving." 8 This seemed to im- ply that the reformers believed in no real spiritual reception of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, but only in a remembrance of His death and passion. Accordingly, in the reign of Elizabeth the two forms were combined together, and have ever since continued in use in the Church. But though this change looked like an inclination on the part of the earlier reformers to the doctrine of the mere figu- rists, yet it is by no means certain that some of the alterations in the Service Book were agreeable to our leading divines ; 4 and not- withstanding this alteration, there remained numerous statements in our formularies to prove that a real but spiritual presence of Christ was, and is the doctrine of the reformed Church of Eng- land. Thus we are told in the exhortation to communion, that God 1 Remains, IB. pp. 288, 289. « Tiro Liturgie* of Edward VI. p. 297. " Ibid. p. 840. See also u. p. 441, iv. Oxf. 1888. P- 16- ■ Set- above, p. 12, note 1. Sec. 1] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 713 " hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy- Sacrament." It is said that, " if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament .... we spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink His Blood." In what is called the " prayer of humble access," we ask that God would " give us grace so to eat the Flesh of His dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most precious Blood." In the prayer of consecration, we speak of being " partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood ; " and in the post-communion we thank God that He doth " vouchsafe to feed us with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ." So likewise in this Article it is professed, that " to them who worthily receive, .... the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ." All these are expressions in the second Service Book of Edward VI., and in the Articles drawn up in that reign. The latter part of the Catechism is of later date, but in strict accordance with the earlier documents. Its words are. that " the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and re- ceived by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." In this XXVIIIth Article, as first drawn up a. d. 1552, there was a clause stating, that Christ in bodily presence is in Heaven, and therefore that we ought not to confess " the real and bodily pres- ence (as they term it) of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." This nearly corresponds with the state- ment of the rubric at the end of our present communion Service. 1 Both the clause in the Article and the rubric were omitted in Elizabeth's reign, lest persons inclined to the Lutheran belief might be too much offended by it ; and many such were in the Church, whom it was wished to conciliate. The rubric was again restored in the reign of Charles II. The meaning of it clearly is, not to deny a spiritual, but only a " corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood," "and a consequent adoration of the 1 Concerning that rubric see above, p. God's right hand, and thence shall come 106, note 1, p. 113, note 2. to judgment; and according to that na- Luther much insisted on the ubiquity ture He is not every where. " Cavendum of the human nature of our blessed Lord, est enim, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus derived to it from the union with the hominis, ut veritatem Corporis aufera- Divine nature. But we must not believe mus." — Epist. 187, Tom. ii. p. 681, the human nature transubstantiated into quoted above, p. 113, note 2. See this the Divine, as Eutyches taught. subject most admirably handled by St. Augustine observes that Christ, ac- Hooker, E. P. v. 65. cording to His human nature, is now on 90 714 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVHL elements, as though they did not remain still in their very natural substances." The Homilies are very express. " Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent (Matt, xxvi.) ; but as the Scripture saith, The table of the Lord, the bread and cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of His death, yea, the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a mar- vellous incorporation, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost (the very bond of our conjunction with Christ) -is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to immortality " * (1 Cor. x.) Bishop Jewel, who perhaps was the chief writer of this Second Book of Homilies, says in his Apology : " We plainly pronounce in the Supper the Body and Blood of the Lord, the Flesh of the Son of God, to be truly exhibited to those who believe." 2 And again, after protesting against transubstantiation, he says, " yet when we say this, we do not lower the Lord's Supper, nor make it a mere frigid ceremony. We assert, that Christ exhibits Himself really present in the Saoraments ; in baptism, that we may put Him on, in His Supper, that we may feed on Him by faith and in spirit .... and this we say is not done perfunctorily, nor frigidly, but in very deed and truly." 8 It appears, then, that our reformers symbolized herein with Cal- vin ; though it is not likely that they learned their doctrine from him. Points of difference may be discovered between them ; but in the main, Calvin, Melancthon in his later views, and the Angli- can divines, were at one. There have, no doubt, been different ways of explaining the spiritual presence, among those who have agreed to acknowledge such a presence. But perhaps the safest plan is to say, that because it is spiritual, therefore it needs must be mystical. And so Bishop Taylor concludes, that our doctrine dif- fers not from that of ancient writers, who acknowledged Christ's presence, but would not define the manner of His presence. For 1 Second Book of Homilies, " First part .... Christum enim asserinms, vere of the Sermon Concerning the Sacra- sesc pnusontem exhibere in sacramentis nunt." suis ; in baptismo, ut Eum induamus, in 8 " Diserteque pronunciamus in coena coena, ut Eum fide tt spiritu .omedamus, credentibus vere exhiberi Corpus et San- et tie Ejus crueo et sanguine habeamus Juinctn Domini, carncm Kilii Dei." — vitam reternam ; idque dieimus non per- uelli Apologia. Ench. Theolog. p. 126. functorie et frigide, sed re ipsa et vere 8 "Non t'amen cum ista dieimus, ex- fieri."— Ibid. p. 129. Compare Noel's tenuamua Cumam Domini aut earn frigi- CattekUm, Kixh. 'l%d. p. 820, where dam tantum casremoniam esse docemus. the same doctrine is propounded. Sec II.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 715 he observes that we say, " the presence of Christ is real, and it is spiritual ; and this account still leaves the Article in its deepest mystery ; because spiritual perfections are indiscernible, and the word ' spiritual ' is a very general term, particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural." L It would be endless, and it is unnecessary, to say much con- cerning our divines since the Reformation. Some perhaps, who have followed Calvin in his predestinarian theory, have followed, not him, but Zuingle, upon the Sacraments. And this too may have been the bent of those who afterwards mOre especially fol- lowed Arminius, both here and on the Continent. 2 But from the time of the Reformation to the present, all the great luminaries <>f our Church have maintained the doctrine which appears in the face of our formularies ; agreeing to deny a corporal, and to acknowledge a spiritual feeding in the Supper of the Lord. It is scarcely necessary to recount the names of Mede, Andrewes, Hooker, Taylor, Hammond, Cosin, Bramhall, Usher, Pearson, Patrick, Bull, Beveridge, Wake, Waterland. All these have left us writ- ings on the subject, and all have coincided, with but very slight diversity, in the substance of their belief. They have agreed, as Hooker says, that " Christ is personally present ; albeit a part of Christ be corporally absent ; " 3 that " the fruit of the Eucharist is the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ " — but that " the real presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament (i. e. in the elements) ; but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament." 4 Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I. The Words of Institution. \^7E know that almost all the sacrifices, among both Jews and ' " Gentiles, were succeeded by a feast upon the body of the sacrificed victim ; the persons, who thus fed upon the sacrifice, declaring their interest in the sacred rite, and through it entering * Jer. Taylor, § i. 2. if I understand it, its doctrine is purely 2 There is a very pious work by one Zuinglian. of the Arminian writers in the English 8 Book v. lxvii. 11. Church (Horneck's Crucified Jesus). It 4 Book v. xvii. 6. has much to edify and spiritualize, but 716 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVIH. into covenant with the God. 1 Now the Passover was the most soli-mil and significant of all the sacrifices of the Law, the most remarkable of all the types of our redemption. In its first institu- tion, it was ordained that the lamb should be slain, evidently in the way of a propitiatory offering, 2 in order that the destroying angel, which smote the Egyptians, might not destroy those for whom this offering was made. Yet no one had a claim to exemp- tion from the destruction, except those on whose lintels and door- posts the blood of the lamb was sprinkled, and who had partaken of the feast upon the lamb slain, — they and all their households. 8 The feast was, as it were, the consummation of the sacrifice; the efficacy of the latter being assured only to those who partook of the former. It is not a little observable then, that our blessed Saviour, the night before He suffered, or (if we take the Jewish reckoning from evening to evening) the very day on which He suffered, super- seded the typical feast of the Passover by the commemorative feast of the Eucharist. He first, according to the Law, ate the Passover with His disciples. Then, supper being ended, 4 and probably after He had washed the feet of His disciples, 6 He instituted a new rite appropriate to the New Covenant, but with peculiar reference to the rite under the Old Covenant. With the Passover, by Divine ordinance, there had been always eaten unleavened bread ; and, by immemorial custom, there had been four cups of wine poured out ; over each of which thanks were offered up, " and of which the third cup was specially called the cup of blessing." 6 Now the bread and the wine, thus eaten and drunk solemnly at the Passover, our Lord adopts, as the signs or elements for the institution of His new Sacrament. The bread at the Passover was blessed and broken, the wine was blessed and poured out. 7 These same ceremonies our Lord now uses. He breaks the bread and blesses it ; He pours out the wine and blesses it. In the feast of the Passover the bread and wine ha 1 been but subordinate ; the latter not even of Divine authority. Our Lord makes them now the chief. Before, the chief place had been occupied by the Paschal Lamb. It was slain and eaten in commemoration of the first Passover, in type and 1 See Cudworth, True Notion of the * (utu t6 ienrvrjaai, Luke xxii. 20. Lord't Supper, eh. i. » John xiii. 2, seq. 8 See the true sacrificial nature of the • Buxtorf, De Carta Dom. § 22 ; Light- Passover proved, Cudworth, as above, foot, //. //. on Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. ch. ii. 7 Lightfoot, Ibid. • Exod. xii. 2-18. Sec. II] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 717 anticipation of the Saviour Himself. But now that the type was succeeded by the antitype, and that the feast must therefore be commemorative, not anticipatory, our Lord puts the bread and wine in place of the flesh of the Lamb ; that, as the latter had been eaten as a type of Him, so the former should be eaten and drunk in remembrance of Him. It has been observed, that the lamb, when set on the table to be eaten at the Passover, was commonly called by the Jews " the body of the Paschal Lamb ; " and it seems not unnatural to sup- pose that our Lord, as adopting otherwise on this occasion their customs and language, should here also have alluded to their common phrase. They had spoken of eating " the body of the lamb " (nD5n ttns bt» i^2), and when He blessed the Bread, He said of it, " This is My Body ; " as though He would say, " Heretofore you ate the body of the Lamb, a type of Me to be delivered to death for you. Now I abrogate this forever; and instead, I give you My Body to be crucified and broken for you ; and so hereafter, when you eat this bread, think not of the Paschal Lamb, which, like all types, is now done away in Me ; but beheve that you feed on My Body broken, to deliver you, not from Egyptian bondage, but from the far worse bondage of death and hell." 1 Again, when our Lord had broken and blessed the bread, and giving it to His disciples, had called it His Body, He then took the cup, poured it out, blessed it, and called it His Blood. And it is observable that, as when Moses sprinkled the people with the blood of the sacrifice, he said of it, " Behold the blood of the Covenant ; " 2 so our Lord and Saviour, in giving His disciples this cup to drink, said of it, " This is My Blood of the New Covenant" (Matt. xxvi. 27 ; Mark xiv. 24). In almost all respects then, the institution of the Eucharist was likened to the sacrificial feasts of the Jews ; most especially to the feast of the Passover. 3 It had only this point of difference : 1 Buxtorf, De Caena Dom. § 25 ; Light- " With desire have I desired to eat this foot, H. H. on Luke xxii. 19. Passover with you before I suffer." 2 Exod. xxiv. 8; Heb. ix. 20. (Comp. Matt. xxvi. 17-19; Mark xiv. 8 A question has been raised whether 12-16). The true solution of the diffi- our Saviour and His disciples had been culty has always appeared to me to be eating the Paschal lamb or not, before He this. The commandment was that the instituted the Eucharist ; the ground for Passover should be slain on the 14th the question being that other well-known day of the month, " between the two doubt, namely, Was the Thursday or the evenings," Q^-^n V2 (Exod. xii. 6) ; Friday the day on which the Passover h y » y '>m the' evening of the ought to be eaten? However this la ter M h tQ the ^ yening of the l 5t h day may be solved there seems no possibility f ^ h according to the common of evading the force of Luke xxn. 15: ' ° 713 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVIII. that, whereas in all the ancient feasts the victim was actually killed, and then its natural body was eaten ; here the feast was instituted (though on the day of His death, yet) before our blessed Lord was crucified, and bread and wine were substituted in the room of His natural Flesh and Blood. Yet the bread and wine He called His Body and Blood ; even as the flesh of the lamb was called the body of the Paschal lamb. And we can scarcely fail to infer that, as the flesh of the old sacrifice was never called the Body of Christ, but (what it really was) the body of the lamb, and as on the contrary the elements in the newly founded feast were called the Body and Blood of Christ, so the new festival must have had a closer connection with the great and true sacrifice than had the slaughtered victim, which represented Him in the old festival. The bread and wine were His Body and Blood, in a sense beyond that in which the Paschal lamb was Christ ; that is to say, not merely in a figure, but in more than a figure. Now this the very nature of the case would lead us to expect. Under the Law were mere lifeless ceremonies ; but under the Gospel there is substance, instead of shadow. Under the Law there were sacrifices of slain beasts ; and the feast was therefore on the flesh of slain beasts. But under the Gospel there is no sacrifice, but of the Lamb of God ; and a feast upon the sacrifice must therefore be a feeding upon Him ; and we may add, that though the Law were true as coming from God, yet emphatically and peculiarly the Gospel is the truth. Hence, if in the legal ceremony there was a true feeding upon the victim, we cannot doubt that in the Gospel Sacrament there is a true feeding on the Saviour. And yet once more, the Law was carnal, but the Gospel is spiritual. And so, whereas the Paschal festival involved a carnal eating of the typical sacrifice, we infer that the Eucha- ristic festival would involve a spiritual eating of the true Sacrifice. And hence, as in all respects the Passover squared well with the place it occupied in its own dispensation, the Eucharist would fall into its place in the higher dispensation. The one a feast on a sacrifice ; the other a feast on a Sacrifice. The one on the lamb : the other on the Lamb of God. The one true ; the other true. Jewish mode of counting time. Thus on the morning of the Friday, though our Lord ate the Passover on the right our Lord had eaten it on the evening of day, i.e. on the evening of the 14th ; the Thursday. See Duty of Ottrrrimi the yet He was crucified on the same day ; Christian Sal>bath, by Samuel Lee, D. P., for from evening to evening was hut a &c. note 15; where he quotes the Ge- •ingle day. And this will solve all the dif- mara on the Jerusalem Talmud in con- flculty in John xviii. 28 ; for many of the flrmation of this interpretation of Exod Jews may not have eaten the Passover xil. 6. Seo II.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 719 But the one carnally true ; the other spiritually, and therefore even more true. There are three things especially to be observed in the form of institution : 1, the blessing ; 2, the declaration ; 3, the command. 1. The blessing. " Jesus took bread and blessed it : " so say St. Matthew (xxvi. 26) and St. Mark (xiv. 22). This was the cus- tom with the Jews. The master of the house pronounced over the bread a form of benediction, placing both his hands upon it. And this blessing, we are told, was by them called E?-"np »• e. sanctifica- tion. 1 Whether or not our Lord adopted the common form of words, we cannot tell. At all events, He gave utterance to some words of blessing, whereby He set apart the bread from its common use, to a new, sacramental and sacred purpose. For blessed (euAoyijcras) St. Luke (xxii. 17) and St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 24) have gave thanks (evxapio-T>jo-as). The words seem nearly synonymous. They are so used concerning the blessing of the bread, when our Lord fed the four thousand with the seven loaves (Mark viii. 6, 7) : the Vulgate translates ( euxapioTia) by benedictio (1 Cor. xiv. 16) : and the Hebrew word Tjna to bless, is rendered indifferently by words which signify either blessing or thanksgiving. And so, no doubt, our Lord and Saviour, when consecrating this bread to a sacred ordinance, gave thanks to God His Father, and with the thanksgiving joined a blessing ; which changed the bread, not in substance, not in quantity, not in quality — but in use, in purpose, in sanctity ; so that what before was common, now became sacramental bread ; even the sacrament and mystery of the Body of Christ. 2 2. From the blessing we pass to the declaration : — " Take, eat ; this is My Body." So St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. Paul. St. Luke adds, " which is given for you " (xxii. 19). St. Paul, "which is broken for you" (1 Cor. xi. 24). There is a little more difference in their account of the cup. St. Matthew and St. Mark say, " This cup is My Blood of the new Testament which is shed for many." St. Luke and St. Paul say, " This cup is the new testament in My Blood." We have already compared these phrases with the Jewish form of speech, and have seen how the one throws light upon the other. We have seen also reason to infer, that the ordinance thus insti- tuted was for the purpose of a spiritual feast upon the one true Sacrifice, a feeding on the Body and the Blood of Christ. But 1 Buxtorf, as above, § 46. 2 Ibid. § 48. Compare Waterland, On the Eucharist, ch. v. 8. 720 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Akt. XXVIIL we have now come to a point, where those who believe in the verity of the feeding upon Christ, branch off from eafh other into two opposed and unhappily hostile divisions. The Protestant ad- mits that the words of institution assure us of the blessing of feed- ing upon Christ, and give us ground to call the consecrated ele- ments Christ's Body and Blood. But the Romanist maintains, that they moreover assure us that the bread, when blessed, no longer remains bread, but has become the very natural Flesh of Christ, and in a like manner the wine His natural Blood. The Romanist reasons from the plain meaning of the words, and the duty reverently to believe what Christ has spoken. " This is My Body ; " therefore it is no longer bread. And to make it clearer, they say that, whereas the substantive " bread " (aoros , i-, masculine, the relative " this " (tovto) is neuter ; and that therefore the word this means not, " This Bread is My Body ; " but on the contrary means, " This, which is no longer bread, is My Body." 1 The grammatical argument is too futile to keep us long. Bread, being a thing without life, though in Greek and Latin it is expressed by a masculine substantive, in wellnigh all languages might be re- ferred to by a neuter pronoun ; and though we could not say Hoc est frater meus ; yet we may say Hoc est aqua, or Hoc est panis. Nay ! would it not have been a more singular mode of speech, if our Lord, when He took the bread in His hand, instead of saying concerning it, tovto, hoc, this thing, had said, ovtos, hie, he f But more weight lies in the verb «rri, U ; and yet, if no better argument than its use could be adduced, we must admit that the mere figurists have almost as strong ground as the transubstanti- alists. If the simple use of the substantive verb proves an absolute change of substance, how are we to interpret " The seed is the word ; the field is the world ; the reapers are the angels ; the har- vest is the end of the world ; I am the door ; I am the vine ? " a We cannot here understand a substantial change, but must admit a figure of speech. And so, in truth, we must admit in the Eucha- rist ; for though we acknowledge Christ's presence, and not only acknowledge but rejoice in it ; yet we hold not that presence to be in the material bread; nor can these words prove that it is there. The passage which perhaps most nearly corresponds to this, is that wherein St. Paul says that " That Rock was Christ " (1 Cor. x. 4). It is indeed generally contended that the Rock was Christ by a mere figure of speech ; and hence the illustration is urged to support the doctrine of the figurists. But this is scarcely true. : Bellarmine, Lib. i. De Eucharistia, ch. x. a See Taylor, Real Prettmct, sect ti. Sec. H.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 721 If the illustration be correctly interpreted, it will prove the real but the spiritual presence of the Body of Christ. The Apostle's argument is strictly this : The Israelites, in their pilgrimage in the wilderness, were like Christians, subjects of grace. Christ followed, and Christ fed them. They had bread from Heaven, and drank out of the rock ; and as the literal manna fed their bodies, so there was a heavenly manna prepared for their souls. And as from the rock of stone Moses called forth the stream of water ; so there was with them also a spiritual Rock, by which their souls were watered ; and that spiritual " Rock was Christ." It was not then, we may observe, that the spiritual Rock was a figure of Christ. The rock of stone was a figure of Christ ; but the spiritual Rock — " that Rock was Christ." So it is in the Eucha- rist. The bread in the Eucharist is an emblem of the Bread of life : but that Bread is Christ. As with the natural rock in the wilderness there was present the Spiritual Rock, which is Christ : so with the natural bread in the Sacrament there is present the Spiritual Bread, which is Christ's Body. And next for the cup. Our Lord calls it, " My Blood of the new Covenant ; " or, according to St. Luke, " The new Covenant in My Blood 1 which is shed for you." The reference here to the language of the old Testament, and to the rites of sacrifice, has been already noticed. 2 If we take the words as recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, " This is My Blood of the new Covenant," they will mean, " As in the old dispensation God made covenant with Israel with the blood of beasts, so now He makes covenant with Christians through the Blood of Christ ; and this wine is the emblem of that Blood, and the means of partaking of its benefits." If we take St. Luke's version (which is also St. Paul's), then we must understand, " The blood of old was the sign and pledge of the Covenant, the medium of its ratification. This cup is the sign and pledge of the new Covenant, which is now to be ratified jn My Blood." In either case we see obviously in the Eucharist a federal rite. 1 I unhesitatingly translate Covenant, erly agrees with tzorfipiov, though it not Testament, believing that diadfjHn may by a solecism refer to alfia. Light- should always in the Bible be rendered foot H. H. in loc. says, " This seems to Covenant. The only apparent exception have reference to that cup of wine which is in Heb. ix. 15-20. Even here, how- was every day poured out in the drink- ever, Covenant will probably make the offerings in the daily sacrifice, for that more pertinent sense. See Professor also was poured out for the remission of Scholefield's Hints for a New Translation, sins. So that the bread may have refer- ad h. I. ence to the body of the daily sacrifice, 2 Tovro rd noriipiov j) Katvy dia&ijKri kv and the cup to the wine of the drink- ru> atfiari (jlov, rd vnip vpuv eKxvvoftevov offering." 'Luke xxii. 20). The participle prop- 91 722 OF THE LORDS SUPPER. [Art. XXVIIL As sacrifices, and especially feasts on sacrifices, were the means of ratifying covenants between man and man, or between man and God ; so the Eucharistic feast upon the Sacrifice is the means of ratifying the covenant between the Lord and His people. The Blood of the covenant was shed upon the cross. So peace has been made. But the peace is accepted, and the covenant assured by this sacred banquet ; where we are God's guests, and where the spiritual food spread for us is the Lamb slain for our sins, and where our souls may be washed by His most precious Blood. 1 3. The third thing to be observed in the institution of the Eu- charist is the command, " This do in remembrance of Me " (Luke xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25). This do, tovto iroiciTc. Hoc facite. Do what? Make My Body ? Sacrifice Me ? If our Lord had commanded them to make His Body, why did He say " in remembrance of Me ? " Remem- brance and actual bodily presence are scarcely compatible ideas. Besides, did our Lord then sacrifice Himself? Surely not. It was the next morning that He offered up Himself a Sacrifice ; not then, when He sat with them at meat. But, just as, when the first Passover was instituted, the Israelites were commanded " to keep this feast by an ordinance forever" (Exod. xii. 14; xiii. 10), — to sacrifice the lamb and eat it, as they had been instructed by Moses : so the disciples are commanded to observe this new feast, even as they were instructed by their Master and Lord. " Do this," i. e. " Do what you now see Me do." Break the bread, bless it, and consecrate it ; then distribute among yourselves, and eat it ; and likewise with the wine. And this all is to be done " in remem- brance of Me." The Passover was in remembrance of the deliv- erance from Egypt and from the destruction of the first-born ; and when it was kept, the Israelites were to tell their children what the ordinance meant (Exod. xiii. 8). But this Sacrament is a remem- brance of greater deliverance, and of that gracious Master who wrought the deliverance ; and " as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we do shew the Lord's death till He come " (1 Cor. xi. 26). In all ways therefore it may be a remembrance of Christ ; but specially it is a remembrance of His death. It is a memorial, a showing forth of that sacrifice which He offered on the cross, and which we feed upon in our souls. As it is a commemoration of the sacrifice, so may it be called a commemorative sacrifice. But, as Christ was Himself present alive when He instituted the ordi- nance, and as He did not then offer up Himself a sacrifice on the 1 8oe Cud worth, aa above, eh. ti. Sec. H.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 723 cross, nor hold in His own sacred hands His own crucified Body ; so we believe not, that we are commanded to offer Him up afresh, or that we are to expect to feed upon His natural Flesh and Blood. His Body has been offered up once for all, a full, perfect, and suffi- cient sacrifice. We may present the remembrance of that sacrifice to God, may tell it out to the world, may believe that, whilst we eat the symbols with our mouths, we feed upon the Saviour in our spirits ; but we have no warrant to believe, and we could find no greater comfort in believing, that Christ was to be newly sacrificed every day, and His very Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunk by our bodily mouths. II. Our Lord's Discourse at Capernaum. John vi. A great many, both of the Roman Catholic divines and of the mere figurists, have denied that the discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John has any reference to the grace of the Eucharist. The motive of such denial is obvious ; for it is next to impossible to ad- mit that the Eucharist is there referred to, without also admitting that no material presence is tenable, and at the same time, that some real spiritual feeding of the soul is promised. It is said in- deed that the discourse was delivered before the Eucharist was in- stituted, and therefore could not have applied to it : an argument, which must surely seem veiy strange, if we consider how very much our Lord's discourses are anticipatory and prophetic. Indeed almost all His teaching seems suitable to instruct His followers in " the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God," the things that were to be in His Church and reign upon earth, rather than suitable to the time of His bodily presence. So His discourse with Nicode- mus was as nrnch anticipatory of the institution of baptism, as this discourse at Capernaum was of the institution of the Holy Commun- ion. And, to bring but one more example, if our Lord be never supposed to speak and to teach but concerning things already re- vealed and manifested, what could have been His meaning in His many declarations that Christians " must take up their Cross, and follow Him ; " * when as yet all those who heard Him knew not for certain that He would die at all, and most assuredly understood not H what death He should die ? " It is quite clear then, that the mystery of the discourse in St. John vi. required something to make it intelligible. Many even of our Lord's disciples were so offended at it, that they at once M went back, and walked no more with Him " (ver. 66). What 1 See Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24 ; Mark viii. 34, x. 21 ; Luke ix. 23, xiv. 27. 724 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVIII so sorely puzzled them must doubtless have sunk deep into their memories ; and when next our blessed Saviour used the same lan- guage as He had used on this memorable occasion, is it not cer- tain, that His first words would recur with all their force, and that the teaching of the first discourse would be coupled with that of the second ? Now the only occasions on which we read that Jesus said anything about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, were, first in this instance at Capernaum, secondly at the last Pass- over, when He instituted the Eucharist. How the disciples who heard both discourses could fail to couple them together, it is hard to conceive. In the former, inestimable blessings were said to accom- pany the eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood : in the latter, a special mode appeared to be pointed out, by which His Body and Blood might be eaten and drunken. Both, no doubt, sounded strange and wonderful. Those who wondered at them both, would naturally compare the one with the other, to see if the one would not explain the other. And surely the one does explain the other. In the sixth chap- ter of St. John we read that our Lord had just fed five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes. They who had seen the miracle, on the next day followed Jesus ; but as He well knew, not for spiritual blessing, but that they might again be fed and be filled (v. 26). To this carnal and unbelieving multitude He en- joins, " that they should labour not for earthly, but for spiritual food, which endureth unto everlasting life " (v. 27) ; and taking occasion of their own reference to the manna in the wilderness (v. 31), He tells them, that, as God gave their fathers manna, so now He would give them " true bread from Heaven " (v. 32). He then declares Himself to be " the Bread of life : " and adds, " he that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst " (v. 35), t. e. neither hunger nor thirst, be- cause, thus coming and believing, he shall be fed upon the Bread of life. The Jews, who were present, now begin to murmur. They disbelieve the Saviour's saying, that He had come down from Heaven, supposing that they knew both His father and His mother. He then goes on, not to explain His statements, but to enforce, and rather put them with more mystery and difficulty. He tells them that, not only had He come down from Heaven, that not only was He the Bread of life, but that, whereas the fathers ate manna and died, yet those who should eat that Bread, should never die. And then most startling words of all, He says that the bread which He should give was His Flesh, which he would give for the life of the SflC.Ik] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 726 world (v. 51). And when this saying caused fresh striving amongst them, He adds, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you. . . . My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. ... As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father ; so he that eateth Me, even he shall live bv Me " (w. 53-57). Now those who tell us that this had no reference to the Eu- charist, say that nothing is here meant but that faith in the death of Christ is the great means of union to Christ, and that which raises us to life and immortality. But surely Calvin's belief, that something more express and sublime is intended by such striking language, must commend itself to our reason. It is not the way of Scripture to expound to us simple doctrines by such mysterious lan- guage ; but rather by simple figures and analogies to bring down deep doctrines in some degree to the level of our capacities. Yet, if all this discourse be merely to teach us that we must believe in the death of Christ, we have an example of most difficult language, and, we may add, language most likely to give offence, in order to express what requires no figures to make it intelligible, when sim- ply and plainly stated. But if it be true, that to those who believe in Christ, to those who come to Him believing, He, in some man- ner far above our comprehension, so communicates His blessed Self, so joins them to Him by an ineffable union, that they may be said to be one with Him, and He with them, that He dwelleth in them and they in Him, that as He liveth by the Father so they live by Him ; — if this and the like of this be true, then can we understand, that some deep language, some strong metaphors, may be needful to express the doctrine, and that the greater and more mysterious the blessing, the stranger and more hard to understand may be the language. Now, -certainly it is true that the faithful Christian lives by union to the glorified, divine humanity of His Lord. Christ, who is one with the Father by His Godhead, becomes one with His disciples by His manhood : and by an union with us, which is in- effable, and to be comprehended only by a devout and reverent believing, He supports, sustains, and feeds that spiritual life which He creates in us. That this is one chief fruit of His incarnation, all Scripture bears witness. That this, and perhaps much more than this, is taught in the chapter we are considering, there can be no reasonable question. And, although faith is an essential instru- ment for enabling us to receive such blessing (see v. 85) ; yet 726 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVIH. something much deeper and sublimer than the mere act of believ- ing is plainly intended by it, — even that in spirit we are truly joined to the Man Christ Jesus, our great Head and Lord ; that our whole spiritual man is sustained and nourished by Him ; tliat by His life we live ; by His might and power our weakness is up- held and strengthened. We do not presume to say that this is all the mystery conveyed to us by the language of our Lord. But this we may boldly affirm is the character, though it be not the sum of the mystery. And when we come to find the like language used by Him concerning the holy ordinance which He established at His passion, can we fail to infer, that with that ordinance, rightly and faithfully partaken of, are communicated those very blessings which in the discourse at Capernaum are so marvellously ex- pressed ? Such thoughts must free us from the frigid notions of the disci- ples of Zuinglius ; but will they lead us to the carnal notions of the transubstantialists ? Most surely, No ! There are two state- ments, in the chapter we are considering, quite fatal to the doctrine of the material presence. One is, where our Lord tells us that whosoever eats of the bread of life shall " not die " (ver. 51), " shall live for ever " (ver. 58) : that " he who eateth His Flesh and drinketh His Blood, hath eternal life " (ver. 54). Now, if the bread and wine in the communion are changed into the substance of the Body and Blood, then every unworthy partaker, notwith- standing his unworthiness, partakes of Christ's Body and Blood ; and hence, according to this chapter, eating the bread of life shall " not die " — " shall live for ever " — " hath eternal life." He cannot, as St. Paul says, eat to condemnation, but must eat to sal- vation. The other statement is stronger still. When those who heard murmured at our Lord's promise to feed them with His Flesh and Blood, Jesus said unto them, " Doth this offend you ? What and if ye shall see (*av ovv Oanprfrt) the Son of Man ascend where He was before ? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (vv. 61-68). Do my words offend you? If ye see Me ascend where I was before, how then will ye judge ? Will ye then be still more offended, thinking my words still more impossi- ble ? Or will ye then begin to understand the truth, and to know that they must be spiritually interpreted ? The mistake ye have made, is that ye have interpreted them carnally. But it is the spirit which profiteth ; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Such Sec. II] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 727 was the obvious meaning of our Lord's reply ; and it penetrates to the very depths of the difficulty. The meaning of the discourse was all spiritual. The feeding on Christ's Body and Blood is a spiritual feeding. No other feeding profits. It would do no good. To eat the material substance of His Flesh, and drink the material substance of His Blood, would be useless. It is the spirit only which gives life ; and the words which He had spoken, were spirit and life. And be it noted, whether the discourse did, by anticipa- tion, concern the Eucharist, or whether it did not, yet this much is clear : we have it revealed in the unfailing and unerring words of our Redeemer, that carnally to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood would profit us nothing ; and therefore we may be assured infalli- bly, that such a carnal feeding, being profitless, would never have been ordained by Him in a Sacrament for His Church. III. The statements of St. Paul. These occur in 1 Cor. x. and 1 Cor. xi. The argument from the former chapter (1 Cor. x.) is of this nature. The Christians of Corinth, living among idolaters, were tempted to join in idol-feasts, at which meats that had been offered in sacrifice were solemnly and religiously eaten. However innocent it may be to eat meat of any kind, St. Paul points out that it is no longer innocent when the eating it implies a partici- pating in an idolatrous ceremony, especially an idolatrous sacrifice. He that partakes of a sacrificial feast declares thereby his respect for the sacrifice, and his interest in it. He claims to be a partaker of the sacrifice. The Apostle illustrates this in three ways : first, by our participation of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist (vv. 16, 17) ; secondly, by the Jews' participation in the sacrifices of which they eat ; thirdly, by the heathen's participation of the sacrifices of demon-gods. To take the last two illustrations f rst. He observes with regard to " Israel after the flesh," that " they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers (kowcWi) of the altar." That is to say, by eating of the meat of the sacrifice they have a share, a participation in the benefit of that which is offered on the altar (v. 18). As for the Gentiles, he says, that they offer sac- rifice, not to God, but to demon-gods (8ai/xoviois) ; and it is unbecoming in Christians to be partakers or communicants (koivoji-o!) of demon-gods. Nay ! it is altogether inconsistent to drink of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of demon-gods ; to partake of the Lord's table, and the table of demon-gods (vv. 20, 21) ; the " table of demon-gods " here meaning the feast upon the 728 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Art. XXVI1L heathen sacrifices, " the table of the Lord " meaning the banquet of the Holy Communion, and probably alluding to Malachi i. 7, 12 ; where the expression " table of the Lord " is used in imme- diate connection with the word " altar," and refers to the sacrificial feasting connected with the Jewish sacrifices. In juxtaposition then, and immediate comparison with these feasts on Jewish and heathen offerings, St. Paul places the Christian festival of the Eucharist ; and as he tells the Corinthians, that the Israelites in their feasts were partakers of the altar, and the heathen partook of the table of devils, so he says, Christians partake of the Lord's table. But more than this, he asks, " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a joint-partaking (kohwmi) of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a joint-partaking of the Body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread, and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread " (vv. 16, 17). The natural signification of the word Kouwia, and the sense de- ducible from the context, require that it should be rendered, as above, joint-partaking or joint-participation. 1 The parallel is be- tween partaking of idol sacrifices, partaking of Jewish sacrifices, and partaking of the Christian Sacrifice, i. e. Christ. And the 17th verse is added to show, that by such participation there is a joint fellowship, not only with Christ, the Head, but with His whole Body the Church. Now, what must we infer from this teaching ? Does it not plainly tell us, that the feeding at the Lord's table corresponds with the feeding at the Jewish altar and the heathen idol-feasts. That, as the latter gave them participation in their sacrifices and their demon-gods, so the former gives us participation of Christ's Body and Blood ! This much we cannot, and we would not deny. The bread and wine are to us means or instruments, whereby, through God's grace, we become partakers of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. But, on the other hand, must we therefore infer, that we partake of Christ's Body, naturally and materially ? The very words appear to teach us otherwise. If there were a real change of the elements into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood, it seems altogether unaccountable, that the force of the argument should have been weakened by the introduction of the word Kowwia participation. If the bread be literally and substantially 1 Koivor common, koivou to mnko com- narily uses KOtvuvia for partaking. See 2 mon, impart, noivuvoc a partaker, xotvuvia Cor. viii. 4, ix. 3. Comp. koivuvoi ix. 18. participation. This is the natural mean- In Rom. xv. 26, Heb. xiii. 16, xoivwia is in^. KOtvuvia means also close commun- communication. ion or joint partnership. St. Paul onli- Sec. II.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 729 the Body, it would have been more natural to say, " Is not the bread which we break, Christ's Body ? " And the inference would be immediate ; Can we eat Christ's Body and demon-sacrifices together ? The word koivwh'ci, on which the peculiar strength of the passage depends, whilst it clearly points to the Eucharistic elements as ordained means to enable us to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet shows too that they are means of partak- ing, not themselves changed into the substance of that which they represent. They are ordained, that we may partake of Christ ; but they are not Christ themselves. The other passage of St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 19-30) has the same object as that which we have just considered ; namely, to increase our reverence for " the dignity of this holy mystery." The early Christians appear to have joined with the reception of the commun- ion an agape or love-feast. In such a feast it was seemly, that the rich should provide for the poor, and that all things should be in common. But in Corinth, a city long famous for luxury, the richer Christians appear to have overlooked the Christian principle, and to have made their feasts of charity minister to their own indulgence, rather than to their poor neighbours' wants. This was in itself wrong ; it was not, as the Apostle says, to eat the Lord's supper ; l and it was despising the church of God, — shaming those who had no houses to feast in. And what made it worst of all was this, that with these feasts of charity was joined a reception of the Holy Communion ; and to receive that at a time when some were feasting gluttonously, and others suffering from hunger, was to treat contemptuously the most sacred and blessed ordinance of the Lord. It was receiving that Sacrament unworthily. It was not only treating the agape as a private feast, and one in which self-indulgence was permissible, but it was making the Eucharist itself a common thing. To enforce his lesson on this subject, the Apostle reminds the Corinthians of the mode and the words in which our Lord had instituted the Eucharist. This part of his teaching we have already considered. But he goes on to reason that, as our Lord had instituted bread and wine as Sacraments of His Body and Blood, " therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood i Kvpuiicbv delirvov (payelv, v. 20. This On the Eucharist, ch. i. 3 ; Suieer, s. v. probably does not refer to the Eucharist, 'kyairal ; Cave, Primitive Christianity, pt but to the Agape, the feast of charity, i. ch. u. ; Bingham, E. A. Bk. xv. eh. which was joined with it. See Ham- vu. §§ 6, 7, 9. mond and Whitby, in toe. ; Waterland, 92 730 OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. [Akt. XXVUL of the Lord," ver. 27. He then exhorts to self-examination, ver. 28, and adds, ver. 29 : M For he that eateth and drinketh unwor- thily, eateth and drinketh to himself condemnation, not setting apart as holy the Body of the Lord " (^xpipa cavrw lubUt *cai irivtL, fir/ buLKpivuiv to 2w/xa tov Kvpluv). 1 The Lord's own words of institution pointed to this Sacrament as the means of participating in His Body and Blood ; he therefore who received that Sacra- ment, not as a thing most sacred and venerable, but as part or adjunct of a common feast, was guilty of great and heinous impiety, because he did not set apart as a holy thing the Body of the Lord. This is the plain meaning of the passage, according to the obvious rendering of the original ; and it certainly teaches a lesson of deep reverence, and speaks home plainly to our faith. It seems an unanswerable argument against those who esteem the Eucharist as " a bare sign of a thing absent." We, of the Church of England, who believe Christ really present in His Sacraments, and spiritually there feeding our souls, as much as those who look for a natural reception of Him, can feel the truth and awfulness of such apostolic warnings. We do not differ with the believers in transubstantia- tion, so far as their statement goes, that in the Eucharist there is a real presence of the Lord. And therefore we feel, as they do, that to receive unworthily is to do dishonour to the Body of Christ. Our difference with them is not concerning the truth of Christ's presence, which the Apostle's words seem forcibly to teach us ; but we differ with them only concerning the mode. That they define carnally, whilst we believe it mystically. And herein we can scarcely use words more apposite than the words used long ago by Calvin : " If any ask me concerning the mode, I am not ashamed to confess the mystery to be more sublime than my intel- lect can grasp, or than words can tell ; and, that I may speak more openly, I essay rather than understand. Therefore here I embrace without controversy the truth of God, in which I may safely acquiesce. He pronounces His Flesh the food of my soul, His Blood the drink. I offer my soul to be fed with such aliments. In His sacred Feast He bids me, under symbols of bread and wine, 1 dtaxpivuv, discernens, separating, with the sense of to set apart for holy pur- letting apart as holy. So the Syriac, posej. So Pindar, Oti/mp. x. 64-56: Tlepl .r»|L T i. . ie iraZatr uXnv uev oy' iv Kadapu dtaxpivci. e*_2>U ? . ro dtscern, as we in modern Thp ^ m JJJ t [, lcrc fore of St. Paul English use that word, is only a second- is, that people who mixed up the Kucha- ary and improper sense of otaxpiveiv, as rist with a profane feast, treated the it it also of discernere. The natural Lord's Body, which is given us there, as meaning is to separate, to mala u distinction no better than a common thing, not as of one thiiKj from another. It is used in sacred and holy, classical as well as in Hellenistic Greek, Skc. H.] OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 731 to take His Body and Blood, to eat and to drink. I doubt not but that He really offers, and that I receive. All I reject is what is in itself absurd, unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, or alien from the verity of His nature as man." * So Calvin ; and so our own Hooker : " What these elements are in themselves it skilleth not. It is enough that unto me that take them they are the Body and Blood of Christ. His promise in witness hereof sufficeth. His word He knoweth which way to accomplish. Why should any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful communicant ; but, O my God, Thou art true : O my soul, thou art happy ? " 2 It is in this way that the Scriptures have left it : so the devout soul has ever embraced it : and so we may safely and thankfully receive it, — not speculate curiously, nor expound carnally ; but believe and live. i Institut. iv. xvii. 32. ■ E. P. Bk. v. ch. lxvi. 12. Note. I have confined myself in this Article almost wholly to the presence in the Eu- charist, and the mode of receiving Christ ? s Body and Blood. The latter part of the Article has thereby been deprived of its due attention. It is, however, but a sim- ple corollary. Elevating the host resulted from a belief in transubstantiation. If that doctrine be rejected, we shall not believe the wafer to have been really trans- formed into Christ's Body, and so shall not worship it, nor elevate it for worship. There is evidently no Scriptural authority for the elevation of the Host, the com- mand being, " Take, eat." The Roman ritualists themselves admit, that there is no trace of its existence before the 11th or 12th centuries ; and no certain documents refer to it till about a. d. 1200. See Palmer, On the Church, Vol. i. part i. ch. xi p. 311. [Two particulars of the Tridentine doctrine of Transubstantiation are especially to be noted for their contrast to the Anglican doctrine of the real Spiritual Presence in the Eucharist. (1.) The annihilation of the elements. With regard to which, remember: — (a.) The absence of Scriptural proof. (b.) The patristic teaching that the elements remain in their original substance; es- pecially the use by Gelasius and others of the accepted Eucharistic doctrine as an argument against the Eutychians. See Pearson On the Creed, p. 247, and note. (c.) That if this view is correct, it is a solitary instance of a miracle which contra- dicts the senses, instead of appealing to them. (2.) The identification of the consecrated elements not with the Body and Blood of Christ, but with His entire Personality by affirming the presence in them of His Human Soul. With regard to which, remember: — (a.) The absence of Scriptural proof. The language is, "this is my Body," "this is my Blood," not " this is I myself; " the sole exception being St. John vi. 57 : " He that eatcth me, even he shall live by me," where the manner of feeding upon Christ lad been explained in the preceding verse to be the eating of His flesh and drinking of His Blood. (b.) The language of the Fathers is similar. (c) So also is the statement of the Orthodox Eastern Church, Guettee, Exp. de la Doctrine, p. 135. On the subject of the Eucharistic Presence, see the invaluable Introduction to Par' II. of the Principles of Divine Service by Archdeacon Freeman. — H. A. Y. — J. FT.] ARTICLE XXIX. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of De manducatione Corporis Christi, et impiot Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper. Mud non manducare. The Wicked, and such as be void of Impii, et fide viva destituti, licet a lively faith, although they do carnally carnaliter et visibiliter (ut Augustinus and visibly press with their teeth (as St. loquitur) corporis et sanguinis Christi Auffustine saith) the Sacrament of the Sacramentum dentibus premant, nullo Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no tanien modo Christi participes efficiun- wise are they partakers of Christ : but tur. rather, to their condemnation, do eat and Sed potius tantae rei Sacramentum, seu drink the sign or Sacrament of so great symbolum, ad judicium sibi manducant a thing. et bibunt. Section I. — HISTORY. TF the last Article be true, this most probably follows on it. ■*■ There are but two possible views of the question. Either the wicked and unbelieving do not eat Christ's Body and Blood, but only their sacred symbols ; or they eat the Body and Blood, but to condemnation, not to salvation. The former alternative has gen- erally been held, in latter times, by the advocates of a spiritual feeding; the latter, by the believers in transubstantiation, and, I suppose, by most believers in consubstantiation. The fathers' teach- ing is naturally obscure on this point. They so constantly called the symbols by the name of that they symbolized, that they would commonly speak of eating the Body of Christ, when they meant only the consecrated bread, the Sacrament of His Body. Yet plain passages occur, which are strongly in favour of the view taken by our reformers in this Article. Origen speaks concerning " the Word who was made flesh, the true food, which no wicked man can eat. For, if it were possible that one continuing in wickedness should eat Him who was made flesh, the Word, the living bread ; in vain would it have been written, whoso eateth this bread shall live forever." 1 Cyprian tells 1 UoXM 6' uv nepl airov Xeyotro rov lo&ictv rbv yevouevov capita Koyov ovra, koI K6yov, 6c ytyovt aap\ koI aXiydti<i) Pftuotc, uprov favra, oIk av iyiypairro, brt rrdf 6 ^v riva 6 tMiyuv irdvruc tfjocrai tic rbv eliiyuv rbv uprov rovrov tjfoerai tic rip •ilfjva, oi6evbc dwauevov ^aiihw iotiietv aldva. Origen. In Matt. xr. Comment, atripi • el yap olov re ip> in favXov pcvovru Sec I.] THE USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 733 a story of the Eucharistic bread becoming a cinder in the hands of one who had lapsed, as a proof that Christ could not be received by the unworthy communicant. 1 So St. Hilary, " The bread that came down from Heaven, is not taken but by him who hath the Lord, and is a member of Christ." 2 St. Augustine is quoted in the very words of the Article. Some part of the passage is thought by the Benedictine editors to have been interpolated ; which I will put between brackets. What remains, however, is fully sufficient to serve the purpose for which it is adduced. " By this, he who abides not in Christ, nor Christ in him, without doubt eats not [spiritually] His Flesh, nor drinks His Blood ; [though he car- nally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of His Body and Blood] ; but rather he eats and drinks, to his condemnation, the Sacrament of so great a thing." 3 So elsewhere, he clearly distinguishes between sacramental eating and real eating : " Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him. Here our Lord shows what it is, not only sacramentally, but really, to eat Christ's Body and drink His Blood ; even to dwell in Christ and Christ in him. And He said this, as much as to say, Whoso- ever does not abide in Me and I in him, let him not say, nor think that he eats My Body or drinks My Blood." 4 So Jerome also says, that " lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God eat not the Flesh, nor drink the Blood of Jesus." 5 It has been argued indeed, that the prayer in the ancient Litur- gies, for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the elements, implied of necessity a belief that after that descent the elements of them- selves become so truly the Body and Blood of Christ, that the com- 1 " Et quidem alius, quia et ipse mac- turn ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit." ulatus sacrificio a sacerdote celebrato — In Joan. Tract. 26, Tom. in. pars 11. p. partem cum caeteris ausus est latenter 500. accipere, sanctum Domini corpus edere * " Denique Ipse dicens Qui manducat et contrectare non potuit : cinerem ferre Carnem meant, et bibit Sanguinem menm, se, apertis manibus invenit. Documento in Me manet, et Ego in eo ; ostendit quid unius ostenditur, Dominum recedere cum sit non sacramento tenus, sed re vera negatur, nee immerentibus ad salutem Corpus Christi manducare, et Ejus san- prodesse quod sumitur, quando gratia guinem bibere : hoc est enim in Christo salutaris in cinerem, sanctitate fugiente, manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. mutatur." — Cyprian. De Lapsis, p. 133, Sic enim hoc dixit, tanquam diceret, Qui Fell. non in me manet, et in quo Ego non 2 " Pan is qui descendit de coelo, non maneo, non se dicat aut existimet mandu- nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet, care Corpus meum aut bibere sanguinem et Christi membrum est." — Hilar. De meum." — De Civitate Dei, Lib. xxi. c. Trinit. Lib. vm. 25, Tom. vn. p. 646. 3 " Ac per hoc qui non manet in 6 " Omnes voluptatis magis amatores, Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, quam amatores Dei .... nee come- procul dubio nee manducat [spiritualiter] dunt carnem Jesu, neque bibunt sangui- carnem Ejus, nee bibit Ejus sanguinem nem Ejus: de quo Ipse loquitur: Qui [licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat den- comedit carnem meam, et hibit sanguinem tibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis meum, habet vitam ceternam." — Hieronym Christi :] sed magis tantas rei sacramen- In Isai. c. 66, ver. 17. Tom. fir. p. 506. 734 OF THE EATING OF THE WICKED [Art. XXIX. municants, whether worthily or unworthily receiving, must neces- sarily partake of the Body and Blood. This, if it means anything of the kind, means the full doctrine of transubstantiation. But no such conclusion can be deduced from the fact of the invocation. For first, the like invocation of the Spirit was made in baptism ; and of this we hear much earlier than of the invocation in the Eu- charist. 1 Now, though the fathers believed, as the English reform- ers did, that the Holy Ghost " would sanctify the water to the mystical washing away of sin ; " 2 yet they neither believed in a change of the substance of the water, nor in an admixture of the Holy Spirit with the water ; 8 nor that an unworthy recipient ob- tained the blessing of the Spirit's sanctification. We must suppose the same principle to apply to the sanctification of the symbols in the Eucharist. As the minister was to consecrate, so the fathers looked for the Spirit to bless the elements to a sacred use. " We beseech the merciful God," says St. Cyril, " to send the Holy Ghost upon the elements ; that He may make the bread Christ's Body and the wine His Blood. For, undoubtedly, whatever the Holy Ghost touches, that is sanctified and changed." 4 But, though the Holy Spirit sanctifies and changes, it follows not that the change is a change of substance. The sanctification of the elements is to a sacred use and office, — to a new relation, not to a new nature. Accordingly, St. Cyril speaks afterwards of the illapse of the Holy Spirit, as making the elements holy, and at the same time making the communicant holy. " Holy also are ye, being now endowed with the Spirit." 6 So, some of the ancient Liturgies have a prayer for the descent on the communicants first, and then on the elements. 6 And so, in several Liturgies, and especially in the Gregorian Sacramentary, 7 from thence derived to the canon of the mass, the words " to m«," are inserted ; thereby restricting the blessing upon the elements to their effects on the recipient. Nay! that transubstantiation could not have been intended, has been admitted by many Romanist divines ; inas- 1 Tertull. De Baptismo, c. 4. that He may make this bread to become a Office of Public Baptism. the Body of Thy Christ, and this cup to * (uyvvvruv tu iifwcTa, says Basil, of become the Blood of Thy Christ" — See those who spoke of the mixture of the Waterland, as above. Spirit and water. Basil, De Sj>. S. Tom. 5 Ibid. c. l'.». iii. p. 80. See Waterland, On the Eucha- 6 "Super nos et super haec dona." rial, ch. x. (See the Liturgies in Fabricius and *_ Cyril Ilierosol. Catech. Myttiig. v. Kenaudotius, cited by Waterland, as c. 7. This is the oldest certain mention above.) of the custom ; i e. in the middle of the 7 " Quam oblationcm Tu, Deus, in om- fourth century. The next oldest form is nibus quacsumus benedictam lacere dig- in the Aftostaiicai Constitutions, Lib. vi 1 1. urns, ut nobis corpus ct sanguis fiat," Av c. 12 : " We beseech Thee, O God, to send — Cited by Waterland. Thy Holy Spirit on this Sacrifice .... Sec. II.] IN THE USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 735 much as, in the Greek Liturgies, the invocation of the Spirit fol- lowed the words of institution. Now, the Latin divines fix the consecration to the words of institution. Hence, if there be any truth in transubstantiation, the change must, according to them, have taken place before the invocation, and could not therefore be the effect of the invocation. 1 In short, " all circumstances show, that the true and ancient intent of that part of the service was not to implore any physical change in the elements, no, nor so much as a physical connection of the Spirit with the elements, but a moral change only in the elements, as to relation and uses, and a gracious presence of the Holy Spirit upon the communicants." 2 But, when a belief arose in the opus operatum, and in the a' so- lute change of substance in the elements, then, naturally, it was held, that not only the faithful, but even the unbelieving, must receive the very Body and Blood of Christ, though of course the latter, only to condemn them. And then too, the fathers (who spoke freely of the elements under the name of that they signified, and, no doubt, believed in a sanctification of them to holy purposes) were cited as holding the same language, and as witnesses to the same doctrine. It seems by no means necessary that the like result should fol- low from the doctrine of eonsubstantiation. Indeed Luther greatly abhorred the opus operatum. Still, I suppose, the Lutherans rather inclined to the belief that the wicked eat the Body of Christ, yet impiously, and to their ruin. And so this Article was, for a time, expunged by Queen Elizabeth and her Council ; 3 probably as not agreeable to those members of the Church who were of Lutheran sentiments. All other branches of the Reformation seem to have agreed that, as the presence of Christ was not in the ele- ments, but only vouchsafed with the elements " to the faithful," so His presence would be withheld from those who were unfaithful and impenitent. I Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. N one sense of the words, then, we may admit that every com- municant eats Christ's Body and drinks His Blood ; because he eats the symbol which is called His Body (corpus, h. e. figura' 1 Waterland, as above, p. 407. (Cam- 2 Ibid, bridge, 1737.) The subject is very fully 3 See above, Introduction, p. 15 discussed in this place by Dr. Waterland. Tit) OF THE EATING OF THE WICKED [Art. XXIX. corporis), and drinks the symbol which is called His Blood. But all that has been said in former Articles to disprove the doctrine of the opus operatum, applies here. The actual reception of Christ's Body and Blood is the reception, not of the outward sign, but of the inward grace. Now, the inward grace of the Sacraments be- longs only to the faithful, not to the impenitent and unbelieving. Of course, if we admit a physical change in the elements, we must believe Christ's Body to be eaten, not only by the wicked, but, as has been often argued, by mice or dogs, or any other animal, that may accidentally devour a portion of the consecrated bread. Hence the contrary position to the statement of this Article follows, of necessity, on the doctrine of transubstantiation. But then, the op- posite doctrine of an efficacious, spiritual presence, and that rather in the recipient than in the element, seems inevitably to issue in the doctrine here propounded. As for the direct statements of the new Testament, we must lay aside the words of institution ; which will not aid us, until we have determined whether they imply a spiritual or a carnal presence ; and confine our attention to the eleventh chapter of 1 Cor. and to the sixth chapter of St. John. In the former we are told, that " whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord " (ver. 27) ; and that " he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself, not setting apart as holy the Lord's Body" (ver. 29). Perhaps the first view of this pas- sage rather appears to favour the doctrine of the opus operatum. The unworthy communicant is " guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord," which he pollutes ; and he eats and drinks condemna- tion because he does not set apart and treat with reverence the Lord's Body. At least, candour may oblige us to admit that there is nothing in St. Paul's words thus cited, which will not square with the hypothesis that every recipient equally eats the Flesh and drinks the Blood of Christ. But, on the other hand, we are justi- fied in contending that there is nothing inconsistent with our own belief, that the wicked do not eat Christ. In the former case, we can see how great the profanation would be ; but in the latter, it is still very fearful. The feast provided for the faithful is doubtless a spiritual feast on the Lord's Body and Mood ; hence, the profane receiver is unquestionably " guilty concerning Christ's Body and Blood" (tioxos toC tni/aaTos, k. t. X.). And again, as the bread and wine are the means of communicating to us the Body and Blood of Christ ; so he, who treats the Eucharist as part of a mere com- Skc n.] IN THE USE OF THE LORDS SUPPER. 737 mon feast, (which the Corinthians did,) does clearly refuse to treat with reverence, and to set apart as holy the Body of the Lord. But if there be any ambiguity in the words of St. Paul, there can be none in the words of our Lord. He plainly tells us, " He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him " (John vi. 56). " He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me " (ver. 57). " He that eateth of this bread shall live for- ever " (ver. 58). "Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day " (ver. 54). Now all this is plain, that the real feeding on Christ is to salvation, not to condemnation. All are agreed, that the wicked do not profit, but rather suffer loss by eating in the Eucharist. But then, if they do not profit, we inevitably infer from the words <•■{' our Lord, that they have not eaten His Flesh nor drunk His Blood ; for those who do so, "live by Him," — " live forever," — "have eternal life," — have Him dwelling in them, — "have eternal life, and are raised up at the last day." The only escape from the inference seems to be in an assertion, that John vi. does not refer to Eucharistic feeding, but to spiritual feeding apart from the Eucharist. But whatever conclusion we may come to on that head, the statement seems clear and general, " He that eateth Me shall live by Me " (ver. 57). Now, granting that this eating of Christ may be apart from the Eucharist, yet is it not quite clear that, howsoever it be, it is life-giving ? The prop- osition is perfectly universal. Though, therefore, we may admit that it may be applicable to a mere spiritual feeding by faith, yet we must contend that, if in the Eucharist it be real, then it must bring life with it. " He that eateth shall live." The only ques- tion is therefore — who eateth ? Whosoever eateth, if the eating be real eating, eateth life. If, therefore, in the Eucharist a man really feeds on Christ, he lives by Him. Hence, those who eat and drink unworthily, cannot really feed on the Lord's Body ; though, " to their condemnation, they do eat and drink the Sacra- ment of so great a thing." And this seems, at the same time, to prove the proposition of our Article, and to disprove the whole theory of transubstantiation, and of the natural presence. ARTICLE XXX. Of both Kinds. The Cup of the Lord is not to be de- nied to the Lay-people : for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike. De utraque Specie. Calix Domini laicis non est denegan- dus, utraque enim pars Dominici Sacra- menti ex Christi insti tutionc et pnecepto, omnibus Christianis ex aequo ad minis trari debet. Section I. — HISTORY. 1"T is not so much as pretended by the more candid Roman Cath- -*■ olics, that there is patristic authority for withdrawing the cup from the laity. In the earliest account we have of the ministration of the Eucha- rist, that of Justin Martyr, we read that " the deacons gave to every one that was present to partake of the bread, over which thanks had been offered, and of wine mixed with water, and that they carried them also to those not present." l This is fully confirmed by St. Cyprian, who speaks of the deacons as " offering the cup to those who were present." 2 St. Chrysostom especially notices, that there was no distinction between priests and laymen in this respect: " Whereas under the old Covenant the priests ate some things, and the laymen others ; and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things, of which the priest partook ; it is not so now, but one Body is placed before all, and one cup." 8 These and similar expressions of the fathers are fully borne out by the language of the ancient liturgies ; from which we infer, not only that both elements were administered alike to clergy and laity, but that they were ministered separately. The fear of spilling the 1 Eijoptffr^aavrof 6e tov npoeoruroc Kal lirtv^rjfirjaavrof iruvrof tov Xaav, ol koXov- fiivm irap ijpiv iuwovoi didoaoiv inunTt.i rdv irapovruv (UTaXafltiv tov cvxaptoriidivToc uprov Kal olvov Kal MaTOi, Kal role ov napovotv unofipovot. — Justin. Apol. I. p. 97. 8 " Ubi solcnnibus ndimpletis calicem diaconus offerre prncsentibus ccepit." — Cyp. tie Lapsis, p. 94, Fell. 8 Ot Kaduireft em tt/c naXaiac tu (it* 6 Upci'C f/otiu, ril it 6 upxofuvoc • KalM/ttc ovk ip> to Mu (terixetv civ pertix** o iepevc, uAA* ob viv, (iXKi't TrtKTtv ev o£>pa wpoKetTOi koI (v mrrijputv. — Chrysost. Homil.xir. in 1 'or. Sec. L] OF BOTH KINDS. 739 consecrated wine (of right to be regarded reverently, but in the course of time regarded superstitiously) led to the administering the two elements together, by dipping the consecrated bread into the cup ; which custom still continues in the Eastern Churches. But the doctrine of transubstantiation naturally led to the belief that, inasmuch as the elements were wholly changed into the substance of Christ, therefore whole Christ, Body and Blood, was contained in either element; and hence that, if only one element was received, yet Christ was fully received under that one element. It was not at first without opposition, both from councils and from eminent divines, that the custom which this belief gave rise to, gradually gained ground. Thus the xxvinth canon of the Council of Clermont (a. d. 1095) decrees, that all, who shall communicate at the altar, shall receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under both kinds, if there be no provision to the contrary. 1 And in the next century, Geoffrey, Abbot of Ven- dome, censures the custom of a certain monastery, where both species were not administered separately, but the bread was steeped in the wine. 2 In the time of the schoolmen, however, the question was pretty much discussed, whether it was lawful to receive in one kind only. They were by no means agreed that either element could be dispensed with. But the temptation to withhold the cup was great. Thereby the danger was avoided of spilling on the ground the sacred Blood of Christ. Thereby too, it was left in the power of the priesthood to dispense only so much as they chose, even of the ordinance of Christ. 3 There was scarcely any corruption of Popery so much com- plained of by Wickliffe, Huss, and other early reformers, as this withholding from the faithful what they cherished, as a portion of their birthright. It was one of the abuses which, it was fondly 1 See Dupin, Cent. xi. Vol. ix. p. 74. una specie in usu fuit. Primie parti asser- 2 Dupin, Cent. xn. Vol. x. p. 138. tionis eonsentiunt omnes, tarn Catholiei 8 It is a remarkable acknowledgment quam seetarii ; nee earn negare potest, qui of Cardinal Bona, that " always, every- vel levissima rerum Kcclesiasticarum where, from the very first foundation of imbutus sit. Semper enim et ubique, ab the Church to the 12th century, the ecclesine primordiis usque ad saeculum faithful always communicated under the duodecimum, sub specie panis et vini species both of bread and wine." communicarunt fideles : ecepitque paula- " Certum est omnes passim clericos et tim ejus saeculi initio usus calicis obsoles- \aicos, viros et mulieres sub utraque cere, plerisque episcopis eum populo specie sacra mysteria antiquitus sump- interdicentibusobpericulum irreverentiae eisse, cum solemni eorum celebrationi et effusionis." — Bona, Keo. Liturg. Lib. aderant, et offerebant et de oblatis par- n. c. 18, n. 1, quoted by Bingham,/?. A ticipabant. Extra sacrificium vero, et xv. v. 1. extra ecclesiam semper et ubique sub 740 OF BOTH KINDS. [Art. XXX. hoped, the Council of Constance (a. d. 1415) would reform and eradicate. But so far from reforming it, that famous Council decreed that, as the reception of one element was sufficient for the receiving wholly both the Body and Blood of Christ, so the Eucharist should be received by the laity in one kind only. 1 This decree led to serious results in Germany. The sects of the Calixtines and Taborites sprang up in opposition to it; the former protesting against the depriving them of an inalienable right and privilege, the latter not satisfied with protesting, but having recourse even to arms and violence. 2 It is only further necessary to add, that, whilst every reformed Church in Christendom restored to the laity the cup in the Eucharist, the Council of Trent, following the Council of Con- stance, decreed anathemas against all who held, that both kinds were necessary to all the faithful — against all who denied that the Catholic Church had been led by just causes to order the laity and the non-ministering clergy to communicate under the species of bread alone — and against all who denied that whole Christ was received according to His own institution under one kind. 8 Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. npHE only passages in Scripture which can be appealed to, are -■- those which relate to the institution of the Eucharist. In all of these there appears no difference between the bread and the cup, save only this : that in St. Matthew (xxvi. 27) our Lord is specially related to have used, concerning the latter, the words " Drink ye aU of it," and in St. Mark (xiv. 23) it is specially recorded, that " they all drank of it ; " whereas, concerning the bread, it is only said, " Take, eat." If therefore we can at all infer that one should be of more universal extent and applicability than the other, our inference should surely be rather in favour of the cup, than in favour of the other element. But I believe it is never argued that Scripture gives au- thority for the withdrawing of the cup. The mode of argument is this. It is true, all the Apostles received both elements. But 1 Concil. Constant. Seas. xm. See * Mosheim, Cent. xv.pt n.ch. m. §§ 5,6. Also Mosheim, Cent. xv. ch. n. § 8. • Sess. xxi. Can. i. n. in. Sec II] OF BOTH KINDS. 741 then all were priests. This therefore is not sufficient ground for assuming that the laity are of necessity to receive both elements. It is granted, that it is not a matter de fide and of absolute obligation to withdraw the cup from laymen, but merely a Church- ordinance, for greater decency and edification. It is indeed neces- sary to consecrate both bread and wine, in order to follow our Lord's example ; and, for the same reason, necessary that some one should receive them both. Hence the officiating priest always communicates in both kinds. But it is no injury to the rest, that they receive but in one kind, for whole Christ (Body and Blood and Spirit and Godhead) is received perfectly under either species ; and therefore he who receives but one, has no need to receive more. It is a similar case to that when our Lord said to St. Peter, " He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit " (John xiii. 10). Now this is surely very unsafe reasoning. It is true, the Apostles were all ministers of Christ. But if this be ground for withdrawing the cup, it might be as well pleaded for withdrawing the Sacrament altogether from the laity. There were at that memorable Passover none present but our Lord and His Apostles. But surely the example was intended for all the Church. Besides which, the Church of Rome withholds the cup, not only from the laity, but even from all the clergy, except the consecrating priest ; which clearly is inconsistent with the original institution, wherein our Lord did not drink of it Himself alone, but said, " Drink ye all of it," and " they all drank." If we take St. Paul's statements and reasonings in 1 Cor. x. xi., we shall find much ground to conclude that not only presby- ters, but the people too, partook of the two elements. His ad- dresses, warnings, exhortations in those two chapters are evidently general. We should almost infer, that they were rather to the laity, than to the clergy. It is more likely that laymen, than that clergymen, should have been guilty of partaking of idol feasts, and of neglecting to hallow the feast of the Eucharist. Now one argument by which he tries to persuade the Corinthian Christians not to eat what had been offered to idols is, " Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils " (1 Cor. x. 21). This would be no great argument to laymen, unless they were permitted to drink " the cup of the Lord." And in the following chapter he presses on them the duty of self-examination before communion, and of reverently partaking of that holy Sacrament, in terms which show clearly that all those whom he addresses, •'. e. both clergy and 742 OF BOTH KINDS. [Art. XXX. laity, were wont to receive both the bread and the cup : " As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show, the Lord's death till he come ; wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a man (i, e. any man, whosoever receives the Sacrament) examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup " (1 Cor. xi. 27-29). With such strong evidence, that the cup was not only insti- tuted by our blessed Lord, but also received by all His people, it is surely very hazardous to conclude from certain inductions of reason, that one half of His ordinance may be withheld from the great body of His Church. On what do we rest, as an assurance that we shall receive blessing in the use of Sacraments, but on our knowledge that we are acting in obedience to our Lord's com- mands, doing as He has ordained that we should do, and therefore have a right to expect that He will give that grace which He has promised to give in the due administering of his ordinances ? But if we, resting on our own fallible judgments, curtail His ordinances, and administer but half of what He has enjoined, what right have we to expect a blessing to rest upon us ? A Sacrament is no Sacrament without these three requisites : the minister, the ordained elements, and the words of consecration. We should not think baptism valid, if we substituted sand for water ; nor the Eucharist valid, if we substituted water for wine, or meat for bread ; although the rite which of old answered to the Eucha- rist, was celebrated with the flesh of lamb. It leaves therefore a very serious question, whether the Sacrament is a valid Sacrament when there is only ministered one half of what Christ ordained, of what the Apostolic Christians received, and of what the Catholic Church administered for very many centuries after the Apostles. It is quite clear that only one thing can give even a colour of pretence for this mutilation of the ordinance : namely, the hypothesis that the elements are transubstantiated, each element into the entire substance of the Saviour. If this hypothesis fail, the alter- native remains, that the Sacrament is not as Christ ordained it, and that (unless He, of His mercy, supplies the deficiency) it is not such as to warrant us in the assurance that it is more than a piece of will- worship and human invention. We do not indeed wish to deny that those who, in faith and ignorance, receive a mutilated Sacrament, may receive the full blessing. We trust that such is the case, because we believe our gracious Lord will Sec. H.] OF BOTH KINDS. 743 give the food of everlasting life, His own blessed Body and Blood, even through imperfect means (or, it may be, without means at all) to those who come to Him in faith and penitence, not with per- verse neglect, but in unwilling ignorance. But this does not prevent us from saying, that the Eucharist without the cup is not the Eucharist ordained of Christ. [It is worthy of remark that the Councils of Constance (Sess. xiii.) and Trent (Sess. xxi. chaps, i. in.) both admit, that our Lord instituted and administered in both kinds. Constance also admits that the Primitive Church exhibited in both kinds ; while Trent (Sess. xxi. chap, n.) says, that ''the use of both species has, from the begin- ning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent." Constance appears to justify its action on the ground that as our Lord instituted after supper, and it was afterwards the rule to receive fasting, so the Church may also change Christ's actual institution, and — quoad recipientem — the matter of the Sacra- ment. Surely, to state such reasoning is to answer it See Sir Humphrey Lynde's Via Tuta, Sec. ix. Par. 6. — J. W.] ARTICLE XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ Jinis/ted upon the Cross. The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual ; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous de- ceits. De unica Christi oblatione in trace perfecta. Oblatio Christi semel facta, perfecta est rederaptio, propitiatio et satisfactio pro omnibus peccatis totius mundi, tarn origuialibus quam actualibus ; neque prater ilia in unicam est ulla alia pro pec- catis expiatio : unde missarum sacrificia, quibus vulgo dicebatur, sacerdotem of- ferre Christum in remissionem paenae, aut culpae, pro vivis et defunctis, blas- phema tigmenta sunt, et perniciosse im- posture. Section I.— HISTORY. TT cannot be doubted that, from the very first, the fathers spoke A of the Eucharist under the name of an offering or sacrifice. Clement of Rome writes of the bishops of the Church, as " unblam- ably and holily offering the gifts ; " l where he is evidently allud- ing to the Eucharist. The gifts were the bread and wine, and the other offerings presented on the table of the Lord. The verb made use of is irpo<r<p£ptiv ; so that Clement calls the Eucharist by the name 7rpoo-<pop<i, offering. Justin Martyr not only calls it irpoo-<popa, offering, but moreover 0vo-i'a, sacrifice. He quotes Malachi (i. 10, 11) as prophesying, " Of the sacrifices to be offered by us Gentiles in every place, i. e. the bread of the Eucharist, and the cup of the Eucharist." a Irenaeus cites the same prophecy, and applies it to the same Sacrament ; saying that the prophet foretold " the new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world to God." 8 Tertullian 1 ifiipmuf nat 6oiu( npoaeviyKovrat tu topa.— Clem. 1 Ad Corinth, c. 44. * Ilept ruv kv itavrt Ton<f) b<p bptiv ruv WWjp rrpoo^tpofuvuv aiiy dvoiwv, Tovriort roO iproi) tt)c Ei^apttrrinf Kal roi> nort)piov 6poiu( i% Ei>;fap«m'ac, npoteyci rorc eln&v, %al rd bvopa avroii do£u&tv r/puf. — Dial. z. Trmh. p. 260 ; cf. pp. 844, 845. * " Not! Testamcnti novam docuit ob- lationcm, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis ac- cipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo." — Lib. iv. c. 82, p. 828, Grabe. So quoting Matt. v. 23, 24 : " Cum igitur offers uiunus tuum ad altare," &c., he says, " Offerre igitur oportet Deo primitias ejus creatur»." — Lib. it. c. 84 p. 826. Sec. L] OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST. 745 constantly speaks of oblations and sacrifices, using the word offer (off err e), 1 and so probably oblation 2 of the Eucharist; though the word sacrifice is applied by him rather to the sacrifice of prayer or praise. 3 These are all authorities of the first two centuries ; all wit- nesses within little more than a century from the Apostles. The question which occurs concerning them is, in what sense do they speak of offering and sacrifice ? Justin Martyr says : " The offering of fine flour, for those who were cleansed of leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, which the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to offer, in remem- brance of His suffering." 4 Clemens Romanus speaks of " offering the gifts." Justin and Irenaeus both refer to the " pure offering " of Malachi, which, though Justin after the LXX. translates it by Ovala, sacrifice, is in the Hebrew nHJEJ, mincha, i. e. an oblation. Now the mincha was an offering of meal or flour baked, or of parched corn. It is a "meat-offering" according to the English version ; but, as Joseph Mede observes, we might more correctly call it a bread-offering. 5 Again, Tertullian speaks of the Christian sacrifice as a sacrifice of " pure prayer ; " as Justin Martyr also had done before him. 6 We have very similar witness from Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The former calls the sacrifice of the Church, " Speech exhaled from holy souls, whilst the whole understanding is laid open before God together with the sacrifice." 7 And the holy altar, he says, is the righteous soul. 8 Origen, in like manner, fre- quently spiritualizes ; but specially concerning the Eucharist he says, that " Celsus would give first-fruits to demons, so we offer first-fruits to God." 9 In all these fathers, then, we find no certain reference to any 1 " Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia Kadapi^opevuv unb 1% tenpag 7rpoo<t>epe<r&at loqui, seel nee docere, nee tinguere, nee napadodeloa, rvnog tjv tov uprov ttjq svxapi- offerre." — De Veland. Virginibus, c. 9. onag, bv elg uvapvrimv tov naQovg 'Irjaovg 2 " Oblationes pro defunctis, pro nat- Xptardg Kvpiog r/fiuv miptdwue iroielv. — alitiis annua die facimus." — De Corona Dial. pp. 256, 260. Militis, c. 2. 5 Mede, On the Christian Sacrifice, eh. 8 " Sacrificamus pro salute iinperatoris III. sed Deo nostro et ipsius, sed quo modo 6 "On piv ovv nal evxal Kal evxo-pioriat prsecepit Deus, pura prece. Non enini vitb tuv a^iuv yivopevai, reXecai fiovai Kal eget Deus, Conditor universitatis, odoris evupearoi eloi t& 0e<i -frvoiaL nal avrbg §i)\ii. aut sanguinis alicujus." — Ad Scaptdam, — Dial. p. 346. c. 2. Cf. Coni. Marc. Lib. iv. c. 1, where 7 'H -dvaia ttjq tKKT^rjciag, Myog unb tuv he calls Sacrificium mundum .... sim- dyiuv ipvx&v uvafrvpiufievog, hKKakvKTopAvrig plex oratio de eonscientia pura. So De upa rf/g dvoiag nai rfjt, diavoiag anuoqg rw Orat. 28. " Hsec (i. e. oratio) est hostia Gew. — Clem. Strom, vn. p. 848. epiritualis, qua? pristina sacrificia dele- 8 fiupbv de akrjtiug ayiov, tt)v diicaiav bit." i>vxyv. — Ibid. 4 'H Tfjg aepi6d?ie(jg irpoatyopa 7 vnep tuv 9 Contra Celsum, Lib. vm. c. 33. 94 746 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Art. XXXL offering in the Eucharist, except the offering of the bread and wine in the way of gifts or oblations to the service of God ; as the fine flour and the meat or bread-offerings were presented by the Jews, and with them a sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving. The use of the word Ovo-Ca, sacrifice, gives no contradiction to this statement : for besides that it is the rendering of the Hebrew mincha by the LXX. translators, it has been clearly proved that the word by no means of necessity implies an offering of a slain victim, though such was its primary signification ; but that it is also applicable to all other kinds of offerings and oblations, whether it be in classical or biblical Greek. 1 Very early we have express mention of a Christian altar. 2 But we can infer no more from the use of the word altar, than from the use of the word sacrifice. A sacrifice (Ova la) implies an altar (0vo-iaoTT/piov). If the offering of the bread and wine, as first-fruits to God, be esteemed a sacrifice, then that whereon it is offered would be esteemed an altar. If the offering of prayer and praise be a sacrifice, the soul, from which they rise up to God, would be the altar. We need not question that these early fathers, as undoubt- edly those after them, believed that the bread and wine offered to the Lord were offered in remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, and so, that the Eucharist was a commemorative sacrifice. But it is remarkable, that even this view of the Eucharistic sacrifice does not expressly appear before the time of Cyprian. If the earliest fa- thers really believed that Christ in the Eucharist was offered afresh for the sins of the quick and dead, it is certainly a most extraordi- nary example of silence and reserve, that, for two centuries after Christ, they should never once have explained the sacrifice of the Eucharist in any manner, but either as an offering of first-fruits to God, like the mincha or fine flour of the Israelites, or else as an of- fering of praise and thanksgiving and spiritual worship. In Athenagoras indeed (a. d. 150) occurs, I believe, the first example of that remarkable expression, so universally adopted by later fathers, the unbloody sacrifice. " Of what service to me are whole burnt-offerings, of which God has no need ? Although it be 1 See Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice., eh. I. a sacrifice, dvoia, as well a» Abel's offer- •ect. 1. He shows, from classical author- ing of cattle. Heb. xi. 4. Hence, the ities, that " to sacrifice is to give to the Christian and theological application of gods" (Meiv oupeio&ai tan role tieoic); the term, not only to animal, but also to and especially, that tivoia in the Greek, inanimate offerings, and sacrificium in the Latin, are the com- 3 tivoiaarripiov. See Ignat. Ad Enhea mon rendering of HP^S in the Hebrew. »« 5 > Mag»es. 7 ; Troll. 7 ; Philadelpk The Apostle calls Cain's offering of fruits Sec. I.] OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 747 right to offer an unbloody sacrifice, and to bring the reasonable ser- vice." l Mr. Johnson sees " no occasion to doubt, that he means the oblation of material bread and wine." 2 It may be so ; though we cannot with certainty say that he had the Eucharist in view at all. If he had, the very term, " unbloody sacrifice," takes us back to the distinction among the Israelites between offerings of slain beasts, bloody sacrifices, and offerings of bread, flour, and fruits, un- bloody sacrifices. And so the very name by which the Eucharist was so constantly called afterwards, and which possibly Athenag- oras first applied to it, seems to place it, as a material offering, rather with the mincha, or bread-offering, than with the oAornvrup, the burnt-offering, or bloody sacrifice of the Jews. From the time of Cyprian, however, it is a fact too plain and no- torious to need demonstration, that the fathers speak of the Eu- charist as a sacrifice, with special reference to the Body and Blood of Christ, commemorated and spiritually present in that holy sacra- ment. St. Cyprian, referring to the priesthood of Melchizedek as a type of Christ's priesthood, says, that " in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the Sacrament of the Lord's sacrifice." 3 " Who was more a priest of the most High God, than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father ? and He offered the same which Melchizedek had offered, i. e. bread and wine, even His own Body and Blood." 4 He then goes on to argue for the use of wine in the Eucharist, and not of water merely, which he considers essential for the perfect following of Christ, in His first institution of the sacrament. He says, that " therefore Christ's Blood is not offered, if there be no wine in the cup." 5 " If Jesus Christ our Lord and God is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and first offered Himself a sacrifice to His Father, and then commanded this to be done in remembrance of Him, then that priest truly performs the part of Christ, who imitates what Christ did, and then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, if he so begin to offer, as he sees Christ to have offered before." 6 1 t£ 6e fioi bTMKavTUfiaTuv uv fir) dtirai 6 obtulit ; et obtulit hoc idem quod Mel- Qeoc; Koi toi npoo~<j>epeiv dtov avaifianTOv chisedec obtulerat, id est panem et yi- dvoiav, koi ttjv XoyiKrjv npoaayetv Tuaxpeiav. nuni, suum scilicet corpus et sangui- — Leqatio pro Christianis, 12. nem." — Ibid. 2 Unbloody Sacrifice, ch. n. sect. 1. 5 " Unde apparet sanguinem Christi 8 " Item in sacerdote Melchisedec sac- non oflerri, si desit vinum calici." — rificii Dominici sacramentum praefigura- Ibid. p. 151. turn videmus." — Epist. 63, p. 149. Oxf. B " Nam si Jesus Christus, Dominus et 1682. Deus noster, ipse est summus sacerdos 4 " Num quis magis sacerdos Dei Dei Patris ; et sacrificium Patri se ip Summi quam Dominus noster Jesus sum primus obtulit, et hoc fieri in sui Christus 1 qui sacrificium Deo Patri commemorationem praecepit ; utique ille 748 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Art. XXXI. This is the first use of such language ; but it was common from this time. The Roman Catholics claim it, as clearly proving that a true sacrifice and offering up anew of Christ in the Eucharist was believed in the earliest time. Protestants have, on the con- trary, asserted that no material sacrifice is intended at all ; that there is allusion only to a spiritual sacrifice, wherein the whole Church considered as Christ's Body is offered to God. 1 We may be so said symbolically to offer up in sacrifice ourselves ; and that is all. 2 Time and space will not permit a full investigation of the many passages which would elucidate this question, nor a full ex- amination of the arguments. Against the Romanist theory the fol- lowing facts appear to me fatal. First, there is the already noticed silence of all the fathers, till the middle of the third century, on so essential a part, if it be a part, of the Eucharistic doctrine. That Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen, should never have known of it, or, knowing, should never have mentioned it, seems utterly incredible, if the doctrine were from the beginning. Secondly, if there were always offered in the Church a real sacri- fice of Christ Himself, then no other sacrifice could be compared with it. It must far exceed in glory and in value everything be- sides. Yet we find the fathers preferring spiritual sacrifices even to the oblation in the Eucharist. M Will they drive me from the altars ? " says Gregory Nazianzen. " But I know there is another altar, whereof these visible altars are but the figures To that will I present myself; there will I offer acceptable things, sac- rifice and offering and holocausts, better than the one now offered, as much as truth is better than a shadow. From this altar no one can debar me." 8 Is it possible that any one should prefer an altai and a sacrifice, " all," as he says, " the work of the mind " ( oXov tov vov to tpyov), before the very offering up of the Saviour of the world ? We may add, that the fathers too frequently speak of the sacrifice of Christians as spiritual sacrifices, 4 for lis to imagine that sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui a This seems to be Waterland's opin- id quod Christus fecit imitatur; et sac- ion. See On the Eucharist, oh. xu. rificium verum et plenum tunc offert in 8 Qvaiaarnpiuv elp^ovmv ; uAA' olda nal Kcclesia Deo I'atri, si sic incipiat offerre uMo dvoiaoriipiov, ov Tvirot tH vvv dpupeva. secundum quod ipsum Christum videat . . . rovry napatrrijoopai, retry &i>ou 6cictu, obtulisse." — Ibid. p. 165. tivaiav nal irpoafopuv nai okoKavTu>paTa, 1 This undoubtedly was one of the Kpcirrova tuv vvv npoaayofxewjv, toy Kpeir- views which the fathers took of the Eu- tov okwlc utejdeia. . . . tovtov p\kv oix charittic Sacrifice. " Hoc est sacrificiura uiru£ei ue tov ■dvotaoTijpiw nar 6 liovUfu- Christianum ; multiunum Corpus in Christo. voc. — Greg. Nnzianz. Orat. xxvm. Tom. Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus i. p. 484, cited by Waterland, On the Eu- nota frequentat Kcclesia, ubi i>i demon- charist, ch. xu. •tratur, quod in ea re quam offert, ipsa * See for instance Euseb. Dem. Erangel. offeratur." — Augustin. De Civit. Dei, Lib. I. c. x., cited by Waterland. as lib. x. c. 6, Tom. vn. p. 248. above. Cyril of Jerusalem calls th« Sec. L] OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 749 they held a literal offering up of a literal sacrifice (that sacrifice being Christ's Body and Blood) on the altar in the Eucharist. But, on the other hand, it seems to me that we cannot at once dismiss the whole question without farther inquiring in what sense the fathers did see in the Eucharist the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, for the propitiation of our sins. Their language, from the time cf Cyprian, is both too uniform and too strong, for us to doubt that it had a pregnant significance. The Eucharist undoubtedly succeeded to, and corresponded with the Passover. The latter was the type ; the former is the memo- rial of the death of Christ. One typical of the great sacrifice ; the other commemorative of the same. The one was the great federal rite of the Jews ; the other is the great federal rite of the Christians. In this view the fathers much considered it. And so, as they viewed the Passover as a typical sacrifice, they viewed the Eucharist as a commemorative sacrifice. We have already heard Chrysostom imagining and depicting, in his own fervid language, " the Lord sacrificed and lying, the priest standing by the sacrifice and praying, 1 &c." And it is admitted by most persons, that the Lord's Supper, if not a sacrifice, is yet (spiritually of course) a feast upon a sacrifice. Now the sacrifice feasted on is undoubtedly the Lord Jesus, the Lamb of God. Our ordinary idea of offering a sacrifice, when that sacrifice is a living victim, is that it must be slain when it is offered. But the early Christians appear to have understood that, although Christ was once for all slain, and so did once for all offer up Himself to God ; yet, that every time His sac- rifice is commemorated, and that sacrifice spiritually fed upon, we do, as it were, present before God, plead before the Father, the effi- cacy of that great offering, the all-prevailing merits of His precious Blood. The same is true, more or less, in every act of devotion. No well-instructed Christian ever prays to God, without pleading the atonement and the death of Christ. So, in effect, at every prayer we present to the Father the sacrifice of His Son. But more especially, and with most peculiar significance, we may be said to plead His merits, to present His efficacious passion, and so, in a certain sense, to offer His all-prevailing sacrifice before the Eucharist " a spiritual sacrifice, an un- signum est." — De. Civitate Dei, Lib. x. bloody service," rijv nvevfianK^v dvoiav, c. 5, Tom. yii. p. 241. ■ri)v avainaKTov TMrpriav. — Cat. Mystayog. All such language is quite inconsistent v. c. 6. St. Augustine describes the with the notion of an actual offering up Christian sacrifice as the Sacrament or of Christ afresh for the sins of the sacred sign of the invisible sacrifice, world. " Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis J Chrysost. De Sacerdotio, m. quoted sacrificii sacramentum, hoc est. sacrum under Art. xxvm. 750 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Aiit. XXXL mercy-seat of God, when with the consecrated symbols of His Body and Blood before us, we approach the Table of the Lord, to be fed by Him with the food of everlasting life. In this sense then, most especially, the fathers seem to have esteemed the Eucharist, not only a sacrificial feast, but also a sac- rifice. It was indeed by a metonymy. The Eucharist was a remem- brance (dva/xiT/o-i?) of the great sacrifice on the cross. And so it was called by the name of that which it recorded. But it was not only a remembrance to ourselves, it was also esteemed a special mode of pleading it before God ; and therefore it was named a sac- rifice. And as the sacrifice of the cross was the propitiatory sacri- fice, so this too was called a sacrifice of propitiation, both because of its recalling that great propitiatory sacrifice, and because by en- abling us spiritually to feed on, and to take the blessed fruit of that sacrifice to ourselves, it was the means of bringing home to our souls the pardoning efficacy of Christ's death, the propitiation for sins which He has wrought. 1 No doubt, the other notions concerning the oblations in the Eu- charist were kept in constant view. First, the fathers esteemed it an offering or presenting of the gifts of bread and wine, and of the alms of the faithful to the service of God ; secondly, as an offer- ing of the sacrifice of prayer and praise ; thirdly, as a presenting of ourselves, our souls and bodies, and so of the whole mystical body of the faithful, to the Lord ; but, fourthly, they esteemed it a memorial of Christ's sacrifice, a recalling of the efficacy of that sacrifice, and a pleading of its efficacy for the salvation of their souls. This last notion it is which makes them use such solemn and awful language concerning it, which could not be applicable to the other views of it. Thus the Liturgy of St. James calls it the "tremendous and unbloody sacrifice." St. Chrysostom calls it " the fearful and tremendous sacrifice." 2 So also " most tremen- dous sacrifice." 3 Yet the same father, when he enters into an ex- planation, tells us that it is not a new sacrifice, or an offering up of Christ afresh ; for he says, " There is but one sacrifice ; we do not offer another sacrifice, but continually the same. Or rather we make a memorial of the sacrifice." 4 And so St. Augustine, 1 Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, in the pas- 8 ppiKuAearurri dvoia. •age just cited. Cat. Mtatmptr- v. c. 6, 4 Ovk uX\ijv dvoiav, (WAi r^v ainifv atl speaks of the" spiritual Sacrifice, and the rmuriifiev fta?JXov 6i uvapvTjmv lpya&fir9a bloodless service over that sacrifice <<f pro- tfvoiac. — Homil. xvn. in Epist. ad He- initiation " tnl rf/c tivoiat roi> iXaa/iov. brtros. See Suicer, s. v. vvoia, n. 2, 2 tofjcfxl Kai ^oikMjjc tivoiit. — flomil. Tom. I. p. 1421. XXXIV. r'li 1 <ut Corinth. Sec. I.] OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 751 " Christians celebrate the memorial of the same fully finished sacrifice, bv sacred oblation and participation of Christ's Body and Blood." 1 ' It is easy to see that, when the doctrine of transubstantiation had once been invented and defined, the doctrine of the fathers con- cerning the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice in the Eucharist would be perverted into the Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacri- fice of the mass. That doctrine is plainly enough expressed in the canons of the Council of Trent. Therein it is forbidden to deny, that a true and proper sacrifice is offered to God, — that Christ made His Apostles priests, on purpose that they might offer His Body and Blood, — that there is a propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, — that it profits others as well as the partakers, 2 &c. From the belief, that in the mass there was a true offering up of Christ, not only for the benefit of the receiver, but anew for the sins of all the world, came naturally the custom, that the priest should offer the sacrifice, but the people should not communicate. Among the early Christians, all who did not communicate, left the Church. But, when the doctrine of the mass was once established, the people stayed to witness the offering up of the sacrifice, which they believed to be profitable both to them and to all the world, though the priest alone offered it, and the priest alone received. The Eucharist had, in fact, ceased to be a Sacrament. It had become, in the belief of the majority, a propitiatory offering, not a covenanting rite. There was perhaps nothing against which the reformers gener- ally were so strong in their denunciations, as against this. They deemed it derogatory to the one, full, perfect, and sufficient sacri- fice, once offered on the Cross. " Christ," says Luther, " once offered Himself; nor did He will to be offered up anew by any; but He willed that a memorial of His sacrifice should be observed." 3 1 " Hebrsei in victimis pecudum quas dotes, aut non ordinasse, ut ipsi aliique offerebant Deo .... prophetiam cele- sacerdotes offerrent Corpus et Sanguinem brabant futura; victimae, quam Christus suum ; anathema sit." obtulit. Unde jam Christiani peracti Can. m. " Si quis dixerit missas sac- ejusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant, rificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum sacrosaneta oblatione, et participatione actionis, aut nudum commemorationem Corporis et Sanguinis Christi." — Contra sacrificii in cruce peracti, non propitiato- Faustum, Lib. xx. c. 18, Tom. vm. p. rium, vel soli prodesse sumenti, neque 315. pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, pcenis, a Sess. xxn. Can. i. " Si quis dixerit satisfactionibus, et aliis necessitatibus of- in missa non offerri Deo verum et propri- ferri debere ; anatliema sit." um sacrificium .... anatliema sit." The Creed of the Council has : " Pro- Can, n. "Si quis dixerit in illis fiteor in missa offerri Deo verum, pro- verbis Hoc facile in meam commemorationem, prium et propitiatorium sacrificium." Christum non instituisse Apostolos sacer- 3 " Christus semel stipsum obtulit, non 762 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Art. XXXI. Calvin, after explaining the meaning of the word sacrifice as ap- plied to the Eucharist by the fathers, does not blame them for the use of that term, but still regrets that they should have approached too near to Jewish notions. " Now that the sacrifice has been offered and completed," he says, " God gives us a table where we may feast, not an altar on which the victim is to be offered. He has not consecrated priests to immolate, but ministers to distrib- ute." 1 He calls the sacrifice of the mass, the greatest abomina- tion of all those erected against the Eucharist. 2 The language of the English reformers is of still more interest to us. Let us hear Ridley, the most esteemed among them. " The whole substance of our sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church in the Lord's Supper, consisteth in prayers, praise, and giving of thanks, and in remembering and showing forth of that sacrifice upon the altar of the Cross ; that the same might continually be had in reverence by mystery, which, once only and no more, was offered as the price of our redemption." 3 Elsewhere he acknowl- edges, that " the priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice, if it be rightly understood ; " which he explains by saying, that " It is called unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner and in a mystery, and as a representation of that bloody sacrifice." 4 But the mass he calls, " a new blasphemous kind of sacrifice, to satisfy and pay the price of sins, both of the dead and of the quick, to the great and intolerable contumely of Christ our Saviour, His death and passion ; which was, and is the only sufficient and everlasting, available sacrifice, satisfactory for all the elect of God, frorh Adam the first, to the last that shall be born to the end of the World." 6 The dread of the mass, which has prevailed generally among the reformed Churches, has made the majority of their members fear to speak at all concerning an Eucharistic sacrifice. Yet there have not been wanting, in the English Church especially, men of profound learning, deep piety, and some of them by no means attached to peculiar schools of doctrine, who have advocated the propriety of speaking of the Christian sacrifice, and of adopting, in some measure, the language of the primitive Church concern- ing it. voluit denuo ab ullis offerri, sed memo- 2 Inst. iv. xviii. 1. riam sui sacriflcii voluit fieri." -De 8 Disputation* at Oxford, Works, P»r- Abroaanda Missa Privata, Tom. It. p. 249. ker Society, p. 211. 1 " Mensam ergo nobis dedit in qua * Ibid. p. 260. epulcmur, non altare super quod oflfera- 6 A Piteous Lamentation, Works, p. 62. tur victima ; non sacerdotes consecravit, Compare Cranmer, Defence of the True qui immolent, sed ministros qui sacrum and Catholic Doctrine, 6k. y., Works, n. i-pulum distribuant." —Instit. ir. xviii. 12. pp. 447-468. Sec. I] OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 753 The first who spoke strongly and clearly to this effect, was the learned Joseph Mede (a. d. 1635). His discourse was origi- nally a Sermon on Malachi i. 11, which he maintained to be pro- phetic of the Eucharistic offering. And the offering in the Eucha- rist he defines to be an oblation of prayer and praise, of bread and wine, analogous to the mincha of the old Testament, and a com- memoration of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. 1 Dr. Cudworth shortly after wrote his treatise on The true notion of the Lord's Supper, wherein he denied to the Eucharist the name of a sacrifice ; but especially insisted that it was " a feast upon a Sacrifice." Grabe, in the notes on his edition of Irenseus (a. d. 1702) maintained the sentiments of Joseph Mede ; for which he was attacked by Bud- deus, a learned Lutheran, 2 who accused him of advocating the sac- rifice of the mass, and afterwards by others, though he was defended by Pfaffius, also a Lutheran. 3 Sentiments in accordance with Mede's, and not much diverse from Grabe's, were undoubtedly adopted by a large number of our divines : e. g. by Hammond,* by Archbishop Bramhall, 5 by Bishop Patrick, 6 by Bishop Bull, 7 by Hickes, 8 by John Johnson, 9 and many others. Bishop Bull's words may express the view which most of these divines have taken : " It is true, the Eucharist is frequently called by the ancient fathers an oblation, a sacrifice; but it is to be remembered that they say also, it is 6v<rla XoyiKrj koI avaipjxKTos, a reasonable sacrifice, a sacrifice without blood: which how can it be said to be, if therein the very Blood of Christ were offered up to God ? ... In the holy Eucharist we set before God bread and wine, ; as figures or images of the precious Blood of Christ, shed for us, and of His precious Body ' (they are the very words of the Clementine Liturgy) ; 10 and plead to God the merit of His Son's Sacrifice once offered on the cross for us sinners, and in this Sacrament represented, beseeching Him for the sake there- 1 See Mede's Works, p. 355. London, acknowledge a representation of that ac- 1677. The discourse is most valuable, tion to God the Father : we acknowledge and deserving of all attention. an impetration of the benefit of it : we 2 Buddeus, De Origine Alissce Pontifi- maintain an application of its virtue. So dee. here is a commemorative, impetrative, 3 Pfaffius, Jrencei Fragm. Anecdot. applicative sacrifice .... To make it a * Practical Catechism, p. 413. London, suppletory sacrifice, to supply the defects 1700. of the only true Sacrifice of the Cross, I 5 Epistle to M. De la Milletiere, Works, i. hope both you and I abhor." p. 64, Edit. Angto-Cath. Library. " We B On the Christian Sacrifice. do readily acknowledge an Eucharistical " Answer to the Bishop of Meaux, Lect. Sacrifice of prayers and praises ; we pro- ill. Works, II. p. 251. Oxf. 1827. fess a commemoration of the Sacrifice of B Treatise on the Christian Priesthood, the Cross; and, in the language of Holy ch. u. Church, things commemorated are re- 9 On the Unbloody Sacrifice. lated as if they were then acted .... We 10 Constitut. Apostol. vu. 25. 95 754 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Art. XXXI. of to bestow His heavenly blessing on us. . . . The Eucharistical sacrifice thus explained is indeed Aoyuo) 0voxa, a reasonable sacri- fice, widely different from that monstrous sacrifice of the mass taught in the Church of Rome." 1 ' Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I. YX7 E have seen, that in the mass the priest is said to offer * ' up Christ afresh, as a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of quick and dead. That is to say, the mass is a repetition or iteration of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. This is in direct contravention of a large portion of the Epistle to the Hebrews. There (from eh. v. 1 to the end of ch. x.) St. Paul is showing the superiority of Christ's priesthood to that of the Levitical priests ; the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ over the sacrifices offered under the Law. Now the very line of argument which he takes, all rests upon the permanency of Christ, His priesthood, and His sacrifice. " They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. But this Man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood .... who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice first for His own sins, and then for the people's : for this He did once for all (l<f>aira.£) when He offered up Himself" (Heb. vii. 23, 24, 27). So, again, having observed that the Jewish high-priest entered into " the Holiest of all once tuny year, not without blood" (Heb. ix. 7) : he adds, that Christ, ,k not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood entered in once for all («</>a7ra£) into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- tion for us " (ver. 12). And again, " Christ is not entered into the holy places .... that He should offer Himself often .... but now once for all (W) in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment ; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many," &c. (Heb. ix. 24, 26, 27, 28). The first twenty-two verses of the 10th Chapter are devoted to farther insisting on this truth. The repetition of the Jewish sacrifices, St. Paul tells us, resulted from their imperfection. If 1 Bishop Bull, as above. Sec. H.] OFFERED ON THE CROSS. 755 they could have made " the comers thereunto perfect .... would they not have ceased to be offered ? " (vv. 1, 2). But " it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin " (v. 4). Hence, " every priest " under the Law " standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But He, after He had offered one, sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God .... For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified " (vv. 11, 12, 14). And the conclusion which is drawn is, that, as Christ has obtained remission for our sins, and " where remission of these is there is no more offering for sins " (v. 18) ; therefore we may " draw near with a true heart with a full assurance of faith " (v. 22) ; plainly, as being assured, that the . one sacrifice, once offered, has been fully sufficient for all our sins. Now, nothing can be plainer than this argument ; and if it proves anything, surely it must prove, that to believe in the repe- tition of Christ's sacrifice is to believe in its imperfection. And if it be imperfect, in what a state are we ! — we, who are lost sinners, and who have no hope but in the efficacy of the atoning Blood of Christ. If that atoning Blood be not of infinite value, we are of all creatures most miserable. But if it be of infinite value, and if the Sacrifice be perfect, and " able to make the comers thereunto perfect," then the Apostle assures us, that it cannot need, that it will not admit of, repetition. " The worshippers once purged shall have no more conscience of sins " (ch. x. 2). " We are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all " (ver. 10). There is " a new and living way consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, His Flesh " (ver. 20). And not only may we know, to our eternal comfort, that the one sacrifice has been full, perfect, and all-sufficient ; but to our warning too we are told, that, " if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (ver. 26). All combines to assure us, that the one Sacrifice has been once offered, that it admits no addition, that it can never be renewed. It is once for all, as man's death is but once. It is one and forever, as God's judgment is one and to eternity (Heb. ix. 28). We may therefore confidently adopt the strong language of o:i: Article, that " the sacrifices of masses were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." II. Yet the Christian Church is said to be " an holy priesthood ; " and is " to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through 756 OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST [Art. XXXI. Jesus Christ " (1 Pet. ii. 5). Those spiritual sacrifices are, 1. The aacrifice of prayer and praise : " By Him let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of the lips, giving thanks to His name " (Heb. xiii. 15). 2. The sacrifice of alms and of the first-fruits of our substance : " To do good and to commu- nicate forget not ; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased " (Heb. xiii. 16). 3. The sacrifice of ourselves to the Lord : " I be- seech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye pre- sent your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service " (r^v Aoyixip Xarpeiav v/xwy), Rom. xii. 1. Hence, though the propitiatory sacrifice of our blessed Saviour has been offered once for all, never to be repeated ; it is still our privi- lege and duty to offer Eucharistic sacrifices or thank-offerings — "a reasonable ministration": — "acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Such Eucharistic offerings correspond, as we have already seen, with the thank-offerings, the wave-offerings, the meat-offer- ings, the unbloody sacrifices of the Jews ; not with the bloody sac« rifices, or offerings of atonement. It was the belief of the whole ancient Church, that the Lord's Supper consisted of two parts : one from God to us, God feeding us with the spiritual Body and Blood of His dear Son ; the other from us to God, we sending up to Him the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, consecrating to Him of the fruits of our increase, and " presenting ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto Him." Hence the whole ordinance was esteemed, not only as a feast, but also as an Eucharistic sacri- fice, or thank-offering. And moreover the Apostle has declared it to be a " showing forth (/caTayyeAia) of the Lord's death till He come " (1 Cor. xi. 26). It was therefore, as we have seen, esteemed by the fathers a commemoration, or " continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ." And, not only did they think of it as reminding themselves of God's infinite mercy to their souls, but also they be- lieved it a proper occasion for pleading the greatness of that nnivv before Him, from whom it comes down. It was a telling forth of Christ's sacrifice to man, a supplicatory representing of it to God. 1 1 There has been mucli questioning as the Lord," 1 Cor. x. 21. This, however, is to the propriety or impropriety of calling put in opposition to the " table of deraon- the Lord'B Table an Altar. The word gods," which was probably an altar. Also appears to have been used by the fathers, in Mai. i. 7, 12, " altar" and " table of the even from the time of Ignatius. Sec Ign. Lord " seem to be synonymous. In Matt. Ad Ephes. v. ; Tertullian, De Oral. xix. v. 23, whether our Lord speaks of things &c. The only name by which we are as they were under the Jewish economy, certain that it is called in the new Testa- or prophetically of what should be in the ment, is rpaittQi Kvpiov, " the table of Christian Church, cannot certainly be re- Sue n.] OFFERED ON THE CROSS. r57 Lastly, they believed the prophecy in Malachi (that " among the Gentiles, in every place, incense should be offered to God's name, and a pure offering," mincha jpurum, Mai. i. 11) to have especial reference to the spiritual sacrifices thus offered in the Holy Com- munion. And we, in accordance with the saints of old, and with the chief lights of our own communion, adopt such language in such a sense ; though the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, as suppletory to the sacrifice of the cross, we may reject as monstrous, and fear as profane. solved ; and therefore it cannot be con- cluded, whether he calls the Eucharisti- cal table an altar or not. In Heb. xiii. 10, St. Paul says, " We have an altar, where- of they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." This is by many thought conclusive in favour of the use of the term altar for the Lord's table ; for, though we may speak of the cross, on which the great Sacrifice was offered up, as the Christian altar, yet the Apostles could not have spoken of eating of the cross. The Christian feast is at the Eu- charist, though the great Sacrifice was offered at the crucifixion. Hence it is contended, that the altar, at which Chris- tians have a right to eat, must be the ta- bleof the Lord. The English reformers seemed, latterly at least, determined to give up the word altar, for fear of appear- ing to give sanction to the sacrifice of the mass. But the general language of Christians, both early and late, has been favourable to the use of it. AETICLE XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests. De Conjugio Sacerdotum. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not Episcopis, prcsbyteris et diaconia commanded by God's Law, either to tow nullo mandato divino pneceptum est, ut the estate of single life, or to abstain from aut coelibatum voveant, aut a matrimo- marriage : therefore it is lawful for them, nio abstineant. Licet igitur etiam illis, ut as for all other Christian men, to marry cseteris omnibus Christians, ubi hoc ad at their own discretion, as they shall pietatem magis facere judicaverint, pro judge the same to serve better to god- suo arbitratu matrimonium contrahere. tineas. Section I. — HISTORY. TT admits of evident proof, that in the earliest ages of the Church -*- bishops, priests, and deacons, were allowed to marry. St. Poly- carp speaks of Valens, a presbyter, and his wife. 1 Chaeremon, Bishop of Nilus, a man of very great age, is mentioned by Euse- bius 2 as flying from the Decian persecution, together with his wife. The same Eusebius, speaking of Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis, and Philoromus, says that they were urged, in the persecution under Diocletian, to have pity on their wives and children, and for their sakes, to save their own lives. 8 St. Clement of Alexandria, in which he is followed by Eusebius, says, that the Apostles Peter and Philip begat children, and that St. Paul also was married, but did not take his wife about with him, that he might not be hindered in his missionary journeys. 4 The same statement, namely, that St. Peter, St. Paul, and the other Apostles, were married, occurs in the interpolated epistles of St. Ignatius ; 6 a spurious work in- deed, and no doubt of much later date than the real Ignatius, but not altogether valueless on that account ; as forgers always aim at verisimilitude, and would hardly express an opinion which was universally exploded and condemned at the time they wrote. Ori- gen also appears to have believed that St. Paul was married. 6 1 Epist. Polyc. c. XI. yov, fjv oh ircpUKOutljev, dui rb ttk birrjpeoiaf • H. E. Lib. vi. c. 42. tioratet- — Strom. Lib. in. p. 686 ; Pot- • lb. viii. c. 9. ter, cf. Lib. iv. p. 607 ; Euseb. //. E. 111. • rUrpof (tb> yap nal Qikmmc brcudonot- 80. T«»ffvro . . . . Kal bye llavAoc aix bxvei b> • Coteler. Tom. 11. p. 81. *«v« hrurroXg rijv avToi itpooayopcieiv ovty- 8 " Paulus ergo (sicutquidam tradunt} Sec. L] OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. 759 Tertullian, on the contrary, thought St. Peter was the only mar- ried Apostle. 1 Eusebius, after Hegesippus, clearly records that St. Jude was married, for he speaks of his grandchildren. 2 Epiphanius considered Peter, Andrew, Matthew, and Bartholomew, all to have been married men. 3 There is no doubt but that in very early times second marriages were considered as disqualifying for ordination. Thus Origen says, that u no digamist could be a bishop, presbyter, deacon, or widow in the Church." 4 And Tertullian adduced this custom, as an argument against second marriages generally. 5 This, of course, was derived from the rule laid down by St. Paul, that a bishop should be " the husband of one wife " (1 Tim. iii. 2). Yet many eminent fathers did not so interpret the words of the Apostle. For instance, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact understand, that the custom so common among the Jews of divorcing one wife and marrying another is that which the Apostle is forbidding, when he would have no one ordained, save those who were monog- amists. 6 And it appears, that in the earliest times it was by no means universal to refuse ordination to those who had been mar- ried twice." It is not to be concealed, however, that very soon an exagger- ated esteem for celibacy crept in. The ascetic views of the Es- senes, of the Montanists, of the Gnostics, and of other sects exter- nal to the Church, affected more or less the Church itself. The dread of heathen vices, felt especially by those who had themselves once been heathens, made many attach some notion of impurity even to marriage. Hence, the language of our Lord (in Matt. xix.) and of St. Paul (in 1 Cor. vii.) was pressed to its utmost con- sequences. They had spoken of a single life as more favourable to piety, inasmuch as it separated more from worldly distractions and gave more leisure for attending to the things of the Lord. But the primitive Christians by degrees fell into the notion, that though marriage was a state permitted, it was still, if possible, to be shunned. cum uxore vocatus est, de qua elicit ad diaconus nee vidua possunt essedigami." Philippenses scribens, Rogo te etiam, ger- Orig. Horn. xvn. in Luc. mana compar," &c. — Origen. Com. in s Tertull. De Monogam. c. 11. Rom. i. 6 Chrysost. Horn. x. in 1 Tim. : Horn. 1 "Petrum solum mari turn invenio per n. in Tit. ; Theodoret. Com. in 1 Tim. iii. 80crum." — De Monogamia, 8. 2; Theophyl. In 1 Tim. iii. 2. a H. E. Lib. in. c. 20. Y So Tertullian, addressing the Catho- 8 Hceres. lxxviii. 10. Tom. i. p. 1042. lies says, " Quot enim et digami praesi- Colon. See more such authorities in Co- dent apud vos, insultantes utique aposto- telerius's note 44, Tom. i. p. 80. lo." — De Monogam. c. 12. See also other 4 "Ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus non authorities; Bingham, E. A. Bk. it. ch solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiae repellunt : v. sect. 4. Deque enim episcopus, nee presbyter, nee 700 OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. [Art. XXXII. It was not actually unholy, but it was inconsistent with a high de- gree of holiness. 1 Hence, by degrees also, the belief began to pre- vail, that the special ministers of God ought to choose the higher condition, and devote themselves to celibacy. Hence, some of the clergy began to separate from their wives. Hence, too, some laymen were disposed to withdraw themselves from the ministra- tions of the married clergy. But these errors, when first they sprang up, were opposed by councils and canons. The Canons of the Apostles order, that " A bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall not put away his wife under pretext of religion. If he does, he shall be separated from com- munion ; and, if he persevere, he shall be deposed." 2 The Council of Ancyra (a. d. 314) decrees, that those who, at the time of or- dination as deacons, declared their intention to marry, should be allowed to marry and to remain in the ministry ; but it forbids the marriage of those who professed continence at the time of ordina- tion. 3 The very important Council of Gangra, the canons of which were received throughout the East and West (a. d. 324), anathe- matizes " those who separate themselves from a married priest, as though it were not right to communicate in the oblation, when such an one ministers." * But especially observable is the decision of the first and greatest of the general councils, the Council of Nice (a. d. 325). There it was proposed, that the clergy should be obliged to abstain from the society of their wives, whom they had married before ordination. But Paphnutius, an eminent Egyptian prelate, himself unmarried, earnestly protested against putting so heavy a burden on the clergy ; for he said, that marriage was hon- ourable in all men, and that it ought to suffice, that the clergy should not marry after ordination, but that they should never be required to separate from their wives. Thereupon, the whole council assented to the words of Paphnutius ; and the motion was repressed. 6 1 Two extreme views are taken of this sort in Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, Ig- fact. The Komanist argues that, from natius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement the very first, the Church was in favour Alexandrinus. Any one who will read of clerical eelihacy ; therefore it must be Clem. Alexand. [Stromal. Lib. in.) will right. The author of Ancient Christianity see, how highly that learned father es- contends, that the exaggerated esteem for teemed matrimony, and how little he a single lift* prevailed from the beginning ; made of celibacy. The first trace of the therefore the Church was corrupt from exaggerated notion in question is to be the very days of the Apostles. A little found in the writings of the ascetic Mon- vandour will lead us to a conclusion differ- tanist, Tertullian ent from both of these. We may admit, a Can. Apostol. Can. v. ; cf. Can. li. that an undue esteem for virginity was a 8 ('one. Ancyr. Can. x. natural prejudice for the first Christians 4 Concii. Gunyr. Can. iv. to fall into ; and accordingly, before very 6 Socrat Hist. Ecrl. Lib. i. c. 11 ; So«- long, they gradually slid into it. But it omen, Lib. i. c. 28, &c. wm gradually. We find nothing of the Sec. 1] OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. 761 It is true, the Council of Illiberis (Elvira in Spain, a. d. 300) had prohibited the clergy from the use of marriage. 1 But this does not appear to have been a council of much weight ; nor can its de- crees, or those of such as agreed with it, be compared with the decrees of the Canons of the Apostles, the Council of Gangra, and the first great Council of Nice. It is certain, that for a long time, not only priests and deacons, but bishops also, were allowed to marry. Socrates says that, even in his day, many eminent bishops lived with their wives, and were the fathers of families. 2 In the East, the Council in Trullo (a. d. 692) laid down the rule, that though bishops must observe celibacy, yet presbyters and deacons might live with their wives ; 3 and this rule has governed the cus- tom in the Eastern Church from that day to this. Yet this very canon of the Trullan council speaks of it as then a received rule in the Roman Church, that deacons and presbyters should profess before ordination that they would no more live with their wives. That council itself declares that, in decreeing other- wise, it followed the ancient rule of Apostolical order. 4 It is not easy, nor necessary, to trace exactly the progress of the principle of clerical celibacy in the West. There appears long to have been a struggle between the natural feelings of the clergy and the rigid discipline of the Church : the clergy, from time to time, in different parts of Europe, relapsing into the custom of living with their lawful wives, and the sterner disciplinarians among the bishops striving to repress it. Gregory VII. (a. d. 1073) is con- sidered as having most effectually restrained the marriage of the clergy. He held several councils in Italy, and especially one at Rome, a. d. 1074 : where the marriage of priests was condemned under the name of concubinage. Two years afterwards (a. d. 1076), a synod of English bishops was held at Winchester, under Archbishop Lanfranc. That Synod decreed, that canons should have no wives, and forbade in future any priest to marry, or bishops to ordain such as would not declare that they were unmarried ; but it permitted such priests as lived in the country, and were already married, to retain their wives. 6 1 Concil. llliber. Can. xxxiii. So the Xovrac dianovov t/ npeofivrtpov ^etporwtaf Council of Carthage (a. i>. 390). Can. u^iovadai Kado/ioioyelv uc ovketi rale avruv II. enjoins continence on all the clergy. avvairrovrat yafieralc- rjfielc ru upxaiu £&• 2 Socrates, Lib. v. c. 22. koXow&ovvtec icavovi rye imorsro'kuiTjc uicpi- 8 Concil. Trull. Can. xni. The Coun- jieiac /cat rul-suc ra rdv iepuv uvdpuv Kara cil in Trullo was held at Constantinople, vofiovc ovvoiKEoia ml uird rov vvv tp'f>u<r&ai It is also called Concilium Quinisextum , PovXdfieda, k. t. 2.. — Concil. Trull. Can. from being supplementary to the fifth and xiii. sixth councils. 6 Concil. Winton. Can. i. ; Wilkins'a * 'Eireidfj h 'Vufwluv ennhiaia- kv raijei Concil. I. p. 367. tkvovoc rtapadEdoo'&ai dieyvwfiev, rovg (ie%- 762 OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. [Art. XXXIL Under Anselm, the successor of Lanfranc (a. d. 1102), it was finally decreed in England, that neither priest nor deacon, nor even subdeacon, should be ordained, who did not profess chastity, t. e. celibacy : a decree which was further confirmed by the Council of London, a. d. 1108. 1 In general, it may be considered that the laity in the middle ages were favourable to the celibacy of the clergy ; but many of the wiser prelates of the Church considered it a doubtful, if not a dan- gerous restraint. It perhaps tended, in a considerable degree, to dispose many of the clergy themselves to the doctrines of the Ref- ormation. Yet nothing could be a more effectual instrument for uniting the priestly orders together, and giving them common inter- ests. At the same time, no doubt, it often made them more effi- cient, and left them more disengaged from secular employments and pursuits. The reformers were all opposed to the vows of continence. Lu- ther, though a monk, and therefore doubly bound to celibacy, married. It was matter of much debate, whether those who had once bound themselves to a single life did well to abandon it, even though they had discovered that such vows were undesirable and wrong. Luther's views were very peculiar. He held monastic vows to be impious and demoniacal : 2 and marriage he sometimes speaks of as a duty incumbent on all men. Indeed, though we may probably make much allowance for the vehemence of his lan- guage and the impetuosity of his character, he says many things on this subject which no well instructed Christian can approve. Our own Cranmer not only married, but married twice. He, however, had not been, like Luther, a monk. Monastic vows were much more stringent than the mere profession of celibacy made by the priesthood. Some there were, like Bishop Ridley, who, though disapproving of restrictions on marriage, thought it not dec- orous to contract matrimony after they had promised celibacy, even though it were in the days of their former ignorance. Of course, those who did marry, laid themselves open to the charge of embrac- ing the reformed doctrines for the sake of worldly indulgences. 8 The Council of Trent has one canon condemnatory of those who would permit the clergy to marry. 4 The Confession of Augsburg has not imitated the conciseness of the Romish council, having two very long Articles, one on the marriage of the clergy, the other on monastic vows. 6 1 Wilkin«*i Condi, i. p. 387. * Sesi. xxiv. Dt Sacr. Matrimon. Can. IX. » De Kofi* Monastic*, Tom. It. p. 277. * Sylloqr., pp. 211, 219. » Bee Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 298. Sec. II.] OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. 763 At this day then, the Eastern Church allows presbyters, but not bishops, to - marry : the Roman Church enjoins celibacy on all : the Reformed Churches leave all to marry at their own discretion. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. I. SPHERE are, no doubt, some strong arguments in favour of the •*• celibacy of the clergy, which it may be well to consider before proceeding to the arguments on the other side. Both our blessed Lord and St. Paul unquestionably give the preference to an unmarried life, as being a more favourable state for religious self-devotion than the state of matrimony. Our Lord's words are, " He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." To some it is a gift of God, and those who have the gift are advised to abstain from marriage, "for the kingdom of Heaven's sake " (Matt. xix. 12). I assume this to be the sense of the passage: first, be- cause the whole stream of Christian antiquity so explained it ; 1 secondly, because I know no commentator of any credit in modern times, of whatever Church or sect, who has explained it differently. St. Paul's language illustrates our Lord's. He begins by saying, that it is a good thing for a man not to marry (1 Cor. vii. 1). Still, as a general rule, he recommends marriage (vv. 2—5). He recom- mends it, however, as a matter of permission, not as giving a com- mand, (Kara a-vyyvwfjuqv, ov kolt iirirayyv, ver. 6) ; for he would pre- fer to see all men as he was himself; "but every man has his proper gift, one after this manner, and another after that " (ver. 7). To the unmarried he says, it is good for them, if they abide as he abode (ver. 8). Celibacy is indeed particularly to be advised "for the present distress " (ver. 26) . 2 And as a general rule, he lays it down, that there is benefit in an unmarried condition, because it is less subject to the cares of this life, and causes less solicitude and anxiety, giving more time for religion and devotion to God. These are his words : " I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord ; but he that is married careth for the things that are of 1 See for instance, Tertull. De Virgini- 2 It may be a question whether " the bus Velandis, c. 10 ; De Cultu Faminarum , present distress " means the state of per- il. 9 ; Origen In Matt. Tom. xv. 4, 5 ; secution, to which the early Christians Chrysostom, Homil. lxii. in Matt.; were exposed, or the distress and anxi- Epiphanius, Hares, lviii. 4, Tom. i. p. ety of the present life. — See above, p. 491 ; Theophylact. In Matt, xix., &c. 350, note 3. 764 OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. [Art. XXXII. the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also be- tween a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit ; but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit ; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend on the Lord without distraction " (w. 32 -35). Here then, though the Apostle is far from finding fault with marriage, he evidently prefers celibacy ; not because there is evil in marriage, but because there is less distraction in an unmarried life. 1 Such a life, undertaken and adhered to from religious mo- tives, involves a stricter renunciation of the world, a greater absti- nence from earthly comforts and enjoyments, a more entire devotion of the soul to the one end of serving God. We may fairly conclude from such language of the Apostle, coupled with the words of our Lord, that the tone of popular opin- ion, concerning marriage and celibacy, is low and unscriptural. With us marriage is ever esteemed the more honourable state ; celibacy is looked on as at least inferior, if not contemptible. " But the base things of the world, and things that are despised, hath God chosen " (1 Cor. i. 28). And a true tone of Christian senti- ment would make us honour those who live apart from earthly joys, that they may live more to God. 2 Now these considerations, at first sight, seem to make for the celibacy of the clergy. God's ministers should ever seek the most excellent way. Marriage may be good and honourable ; but if celibacy be a more favourable state for religious advancement, giv- ing us leisure, like Mary, " to sit at Jesus' feet," not " careful and troubled about many things ; " then must it be well for Christ's special servants to choose that good part, that they may " attend upon the Lord without distraction." We may add to this prime argument some motives of Church policy. An unmarried clergyman is expeditior, more readily moved from place to place, abler to go where his duty may call him, to do what his calling may require of him. He has no children to think about, no wife to carry about with him, no interests, but those of the Church and of the Church's Head. His strength, his wealth, his intellect, he may devote all to one end ; for he has no need to 1 "For the eril is not in the cohabita- a Matt xix. and 1 Cor. rii. hare been tion, but in the impediment to the strict- considered in another point of view under ness of life." — Chrysost. Horn. xx. in Art. xiv. pp. 848-861 : which see. Matt. iV Sec. H.] OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. 765 have anxieties to provide for his own, or to preserve himself for their sakes. He has no temptation to heap up riches for others ; none to form worldly schemes and seek worldly interest, for the ad- vancement of his family. " He careth only for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord." II. Now, I do think, we ought not to underrate such argu- ments as these. They have, doubtless, much weight ; and accord- ingly long prevailed to keep the clergy in a state of single life. But no inferences from Scripture, or apparent policy and expe- diency, can weigh against plain declarations to the contrary ; and that more especially when the question concerns a penal enactment, — a restraint upon a law of nature, and upon instincts implanted in us by the Creator, and sanctified to us by His blessing. And we assert, that Scripture does contain plain and direct evidence that God Almighty not only sanctions and blesses marriage in gen- eral, but sanctions and blesses it in the clergy, as well as in the laity. " What God hath cleansed, that call not we common." 1. If we look at the old Testament, the priests were not only allowed, but encouraged to marry. This is not, of course, a proof that the clergy under the new Covenant may marry ; but the Ro- man Church is especially fond of comparing all things concerning the Levitical priesthood with the priesthood of the Gospel. 2. That some of the Apostles were married is admitted by all. But it is asserted by the Roman Catholics, that they did not live with their wives after they were ordained to the Apostleship. St. Paul, however, says, " Have we no power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas ? " (1 Cor. ix. 5). It is true, that some of the fathers understood this, not of a wife, but of those Christian women who ministered to the Apostles, as some had ministered to our Lord when on earth (Luke viii. 2, 3). 1 But the more ancient fathers understood it of carrying their own wives about with them. We have already seen that Clement of Alexandria so interpreted this passage ; and his testimony is quoted with approval by Eusebius. 2 Tertullian also distinctly asserts from the same passage of Scrip- ture, " that it was permitted to the Apostles to marry, and to lead about their wives with them." 3 The earlier interpretation, there- fore, according with the more obvious sense of the words, we can- 1 See Theodoret and Theophylact ad H. E. in. 30, cited in the first sec- h. I. Isiflor. Pelus. Epist. clxxvi. Lib. in. tion. The same is the opinion of Ambrose, Je- 3 " Licebat et Apostolis nubere et rome, and Augustine. uxores circumducere." — De Exhortat 2 Clem. Strom. Lib. in. p. 535 ; Euseb. Castitat. c. 8. 766 OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. [Art. XXXII. not but suspect that the later fathers interpreted them otherwise, from the then unduly increasing esteem for celibacy. 1 3. But further St. Paul especially directs that bishops and dea- cons should be the husbands of one wife (1 Tim. iii. 2, 12 ; Tit. i. 6) ; and lays down special rules concerning their management of their children (1 Tim. iii. 4), and the conduct of their wives (ver. II). 2 A strange interpretation has been given to this passage by some of the Roman Catholics ; namely, that the Apostle speaks figuratively, meaning that a bishop should have but one diocese. Yet I, imagine that this would not be often pressed. St. Chrysos- tom, and after him Theodoret and Theophylact, 3 as we have seen already, understand the Apostle to forbid that any should be or- dained who had divorced one wife and married another ; a custom which seems not only to have been common with Jews and hea- thens, but to have crept in even among Christians. 4 Some indeed among the fathers held, that second marriages after baptism were thus forbidden by St. Paul ; 5 but the ancient Church always inter- preted the passage, as permitting and sanctioning at least a single marriage to the clergy, though, in some sense, forbidding a second. St. Chrysostom has even been thought to express himself as though it might be a question whether St. Paul did not enjoin marriage, though himself declaring that he understood it of permission, not of injunction. 6 And in another place he says, St. Paul speaks of the marriage of the clergy on purpose " to stop the mouths of heretics who condemned marriage ; showing that marriage is not unholy in itself, but so honourable, that a married man might ascend the holy throne." 7 Thus then the words of the Apostle, as interpreted by all the ancient Church, whatever they may say about a second marriage, unquestionably sanction a single marriage to the ministers of Christ. 1 From this interpretation arose that 5 Origen, Horn. xvn. in Luc; Tertull. objectionable custom in the Church, that De Monogam. c. 11, quoted in last Section, presbyters should have female attendants See also Ambros. De Oflic. Lib. i. c. 60; instead of wives, called mnlieres svbintro- Hieronym. Ep. u.ud X*/>otian. ductte, aweiaaKToi, &c. This was forbid- 8 Aet ovv tojoi rdv tmaKonov uveniXrjKTov den by the Council of Ancyra, Can. xix. elvat, ftuic yvvaiKoc uvipa- oi >>o//oo>eTwv It is condemned by Epiphanius, llcrrex. tovto 6ijaiv, wf /tr) dvm uvev tovtov yivc- lxxviii. See Suicer, Tom. i. pp. 28, a&cu, uXASi riyv iuirrpiav nukiuv. — Horn. 88, 810. X. in 1 Tim. See also Erasmus on 1 1 yvvfUKac in this verse does not cer- Tim. iii. 2. tainly mean the wives of the bishops and 7 rivof tvcicev rov Totoirrov el( (uam> deacons. It is interpreted by some of itapuyu ; imarofti^ei roi)c aiperucoiif roi>c the widows or deaconesses. rov yu/wv dtajii&AovTac, dtucvix hrt rd 8 Chry808t. Horn. x. »Vi 1 Tim. ; Horn, irpuy/ia ovk l<rru> Ivaylf. uXX' oiru rifuov li. in 'Jit.; Theodoret In 1 Tim. iii. 2; «if uer' airov Awaodat nai lirt rdv uywv Theophylact In 1 Tim. iii. intftaivttv dpovov. — Horn. II. in Tit. * See Hnmmond on 1 Tim. iii. 2. Sec H.] OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. 767 These words alone are fully sufficient to prove the truth of the Ar- ticle we have in hand, — to prove that " bishops, priests, and dea- cons are not commanded by God's law either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage." And we may ask, if God has not bound us, what power in Heaven or earth has authority to bind ? What can be more presumptuous than to add to the moral laws of the Creator, to forbid as sinful what He has ordained as holy? Again, our Lord especially says, that " all men cannot receive the saying " that single life maybe more profitable for the kingdom of Heaven (Matt. xix. 11). St. Paul says, that " every man has his proper gift " (1 Cor. vii. 7) ; and that he does not speak of the benefits of celibacy, "to cast a snare upon" us (1 Cor. vii. 35). It is therefore strangely presumptuous to impose that on whole bodies, which our Lord says some cannot receive, which St. Paul calls a peculiar gift, and which he will not enjoin on any, lest it be a snare to them. 4. There are some general considerations which much strengthen the above more particular arguments. " Marriage is honourable in all men " (Heb. xiii. 4). What is honourable in all, cannot surely be prohibited to any. The " forbidding to marry " is expressly spoken of by the Spirit, as a sign of the apostasy of the latter days, and as arising from " the hypocrisy of liars, whose own consciences are seared with a hot iron." 1 Above all, marriage is a type of the union of Christ and his Church (Eph. v. 23-32). It is " conse- crated to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and rep- resented the spiritual unity of Christ and His Church." Can we believe that to be unfit for the ministers of Christ, which Christ Himself has honoured with such high approbation and blessing ? 5. Lastly, it is said that many benefits are derived to the Church from an unmarried priesthood. Such expediency, however, cannot be set up against the word of God. Romanists themselves have often admitted, that, if there were good reasons for the clergy not to marry, there were still better reasons why they should many. And, but that such addition to our Scriptural proof seems un- necessary, we might easily bring many arguments from experience to show, that the snares of celibacy have been as great as those of matrimony ; and that the charities of wedded life have been as profitable to the married, as the asceticism of single life can have been to the unmarried priesthood. 1 tv imoKpiacL ipevdoXoywv, KeKavnjptaa[iEvo)v ttjv iiiav aweidr/oiv, Kuikvovruv yautiv, k. T.X. — 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3. ARTICLE XXXIII. Of Excommunicate Persons, how they are De Excommunicatis Vitandis. to be avoided. That person, which by open denuncia- Qdi per publicam Ecclesiae denunciatic- tion of the Church is rightly cut off from nem rite ab unitate Ecclesise prsecisus est, the unity of the Church, and excommu- et excommunicatus, is ab un i versa fide- nicated, ought to be taken of the whole lium multitudine, (donee per poenitentiam multitude of the faithful as an Heathen publice reconciliatus fuerit arbitrio judi- and Publican, until he be openly recon- cis competentis, ) habendus est tanquam ciled by penance, and received into the ethnicus et publicanus. Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto. Section L— HISTORY. CUTTING off from the people is a punishment often denounced and commanded in the old Testament. It appears in general to have meant death by the judgment of God (1 Kings xiv. 10), or by the hand of man (Exod. xxxi. 14, 15 ; xxxv. 2 ; Levit. xvii. 4, &c). But the later Jews understood it of excommunication, of which they had three different kinds. The first and lightest sort was called *wj (Niddui), separation or excommunication for a month ; to be extended to two or three months in case of impeni- tence. The second and more severe kind was called enn ( Cherem), excommunication accompanied with imprecations from Deut. xxviii. and other places of Scripture. A person so separated was not allowed to have intercourse with any of the Jews, except for the purchase of necessary food : they might not consort with him, " no, not to eat ; " a custom to which St. Paul is thought to allude in 1 Cor. v. 11. The third and heaviest form of excommunication was called SFISC7 (Shammata), a word the derivation of which is obscure, and which some have supposed to be of the same signifi- cation with the Maranaiha of St. Paul, namely, " the Lord com- eth." l Whether originally the second and third form may not have been the same is still doubtful. From the very earliest times the Christian Church exercised a » See Buxtorf, Lex. Chald Talm. Rab- 827, 2468 ; also John's Archaologia Bib- bin, t. tv. vna, D^P, NP$B?, pp. 1808, lica > § S 52 - Sec. I.] OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS. 769 power of the same kind. Clemens Romanus probably alludes to it in his First Epistle to the Corinthians. 1 Hernias speaks of some that have sinned and are " rejected from the tower," (which in his vision means the Church,) and who have afterwards to do penance for their fault. 2 Irenaeus tells us of several persons of heretical tendency, who were obliged to perform penitential acts ; s and of Cerdon, as having been several times put to penance, and finally excommunicated. 4 Origen says, that " offenders, especially such as offend by incontinence, are expelled from communion." 5 Ter- tullian speaks of the gravity of Church censures ; and of excommu- nication as a kind of anticipation of the judgment of God. 6 From him indeed we obtain a considerable insight into the customs of public confession, of the penance and humiliations to which offend- ers were put, of their absolutions and restoration to communion, and of the utter and final excommunication from Church privileges of obstinate and incorrigible sinners. 7 The canons of the Apostles, being especially directed to the ordering of discipline in the Church, are full of sentences of separation and excommunication. 8 It is difficult to assign the exact date of these venerable canons ; but Bishop Beveridge places them at the end of the second, or the beginning of the third century. It being thus apparent, that, from the very first, excommunica- tion was a regular part of the discipline of the Church, it is unneces- sary to continue our history through the following centuries, when no one questions that such a punishment was in frequent use. We may be content to notice, that among the Christians, as among the Jews, there prevailed a distinction of greater and lesser ex- communication. The lesser excommunication, called a<popKTfj.o<i or separation, consisted in exclusion of offenders from the participation of the Eucharist and from the prayers of the faithful, but did not expel them wholly from the Church ; for they might be present at the psalmody, the reading of the Scriptures, the sermon, and the prayers of the catechumens and penitents, but might not re- main to the service of the Communion. But the greater excom- 1 § 67; Coteler. Tom. i. p. 178, vid. 6 "Nam et judicatur magno cum pon- note 93. dere, ut apud certos de Dei oonspectu ; * Herm. Pastor. Lib. i. Vis. til. § 5. summumque futuri judicii praejudicium 3 Lib. i. c. 13. est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communi- 4 " Modo homologesin faciens, modo catione orationis, et omnis sancti com- ab aliquibus traductus in his quae doce- mercii relegetur." — Tertull. Apolog. c. 39. bat male, et abstentus est a religiosorum 7 See Bishop Kaye's Tertullian, pp. hominum conventu." — Lib. ill. c. 4. 251-254, 262. 6 Ota 6' koTiv avrolc uyu>yfi ml nepl 8 See for instance Canons 5, 8, 9, 10, apapTavovTuv ml pukwro. tuv uKoKaorai- 12, 28, 29, 31, 36, 48. On this subject vovtuv, oic uneXavvovoc tov kolvov, k. t. a. see Marshall's Penitential Discipline, ch. — Origen. Cont. Cels. Lib. m. n. pt. 1. 97 770 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, [Art. XXXIIL munication, called Anathema or total separation (wawcX^t afapi- <r/io?), excluded from all Church communion whatever, from ap- proaching to any assembly of the faithful for prayer, or sermon, or reading of the Scriptures. 1 The former kind, it is needless to :><ld, was used for lighter offences ; the latter for grievous and deadly sins. Something has already been said (under Art. XXV.) concerning the custom of public confession, which was a penitential discipline, enjoined on those who were sentenced either to the greater or lesser excommunication, previously to their restoration to Church fellowship ; and also concerning the private confession, which grad- ually superseded public confession, and so loosened discipline and weakened the hands of the Church. Yet excommunications, in cases of heresy, or of royal and national opposition to the authority of the Church, assumed a new and more formidable aspect in the Middle Ages ; so that, although private offenders against morality or piety might escape more easily under the shield of private con- fession, the obstinate heretic, and the nation whose ruler was not submissive to the see of Rome, were handled with a severity un- heard of before. The excommunications of Huss and Wickliffe and Luther are evidence of the mode of proceedings against indi- vidual dissenters from the established faith. The excommunication of the Emperor Henry IV. by Pope Gregory VII., and the inter- dict on England under John by Innocent III., exemplify the use which the successors of St. Peter made of the keys of the kingdom, when kings and nations bowed down before them. 2 The latter part of the Article speaks of reconciliation to the Church by penance, and of reception into the Church by :» compe- tent judge. Besides exhomologesis or public confession, the early Church used to impose a term of public penance on those who expressed contrition for their sins, and desired to be restored to communion. The performance of penance was anciently a matter of considerable time, in order that the sincerity of the repentance might be tested, and that full evidence of sorrow might be given to the Church. Accordingly, penitents were divided into four distinct classes, called respectively fientes^ audientes^ substrati, and conshtentes. The flen- tes, or mourners^ were candidates for penance, rather than persons 1 Seo Bingham, B. A. Bk. xvi. eh. n. sius, whom St. Ambrose excommunicato ML 8. ed and put to penance for the slaughter 8 The primitive Church did by no of seven thousand men in Thessalonica. means exempt princes from its discipline, — Theodoret, Lib. v. c. 18 ; Bingham, as is well known in the case of Theodo- xvi. Hi. 6. Sec. I] HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED. 771 actually admitted to penitence. They used to lie prostrate at the church-door, begging the prayers of the faithful, and asking to be admitted to do penance. When they had been admitted to pen- ance, they became audientes or hearers ; because then, though not restored to communion, or the prayers of the Church, they might hear the Scriptures and the sermon. From this condition they passed into the state of substrati or kneelers. These were allowed to stay in the nave of the Church, and to join in certain prayers, specially put up for them, whilst they were on their knees. Lastly, they became consistentes or co-standers, persons allowed to stand with the faithful at the altar, and join in the common prayers, and to witness, but not partake of the Holy Communion. 1 During the term of their penance, penitents were obliged to appear in sack- cloth, with ashes on their head, to cut off their hair, to abstain from all feasting and innocent amusements, to show liberality to the poor, and to make public confession of their sins. 2 How early this distinction of four orders of penitents was made, and the special rules concerning their penance were laid down, is not indisputably certain. The time of the Novatian schism, i. e. the middle of the third century, is the earliest period at which it is thought that mention is certainly made of these distinctions and rules of disci- pline. 8 It was only for heavy offences that excommunication, and therefore penance, were ever inflicted. In general it may be said, that the crimes were reducible to three classes ; namely, unclean- ness, idolatry, bloodshed. 4 The duration of the term of penitence was different, according to the magnitude of the offence, the aggra- vation of its guilt by circumstances, and the penitence or impeni- tence of the offender. For the heavier crimes, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years, and even the whole of a life, were not thought too long. Some were not reconciled to the Church but on imminent danger of death, and some were thought to have rebelled against God too grievously ever to have communion in this world ; though God's mercy might be hoped for them in the next. Moreover, we may add, that, generally speaking, public penance was allowed but once to sinners of any sort. 5 As for the judge or officer who had power to restore to com- munion and give absolution, it was ordinarily the bishop. He, for just reasons, might moderate and abridge the term of penance ; 6 1 Bingham, E. A. xvm. ch. il. 4 Marshall, Penitential Discipline, ch. 2 Ibid. ch. in. ii. pt. ii. sect. 1. 8 Ibid. xvm. ii. 2. & See Bingham, E. A. xvm. iv. 6 Ibid. § 8. T72 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, [Art. XXXIIL and, as all discipline was considered to be lodged in his hands, lie was esteemed both as the excommunicator, and also as the absolver of the penitent. 1 Yet, in many cases, the power of abso- lution was committed to presbyters; who, by authority of the bishop, or in his absence, and on great necessity, such as danger of death, might reconcile the sinner to communion, and give him the absolution of the Church. 2 Nay ! as in cases of extreme necessity even deacons were allowed to give men the absolution of baptism, so, under the like circumstances, they were authorized to grant penitents the conciliatory absolution. 8 Having thus considered the primitive customs, and spoken of some abuses in the Middle Ages of the Church, we may proceed to the time of the Reformation. The Council of Trent says, the power of excommunication is to be used " soberly and with great circumspection ; " still, if an excommunicated person will not re- pent, it enjoins that, not only shall he be prohibited " from Sacra- ments, and the Communion, and intercession of the faithful ; but it may even be needful to proceed against him as one suspected of heresy " (etiam contra eum tanquam de hceresi 8uspectum procedi p088lt).* The Reformers generally insisted on the power of excommu- nication. The Augsburg Confession gives bishops authority " to exclude from the communion of the Church impious persons, whose impiety is notorious, by the word, not by human violence." 6 The Saxon Confession says, that " those guilty of manifest crimes ought to be excommunicated ; nor is just excommunication an empty sound " (inane fulmeri). 6 Calvin, who was himself the great legis- lator for all the Calvinistic communions, divides the discipline of the Church into (1) private monition ; (2) reprehension before witnesses ; (3) excommunication 7 (Matt, xviii. 15-17). For light offences reprehension is enough ; but for heavier, exclusion from the communion of the Supper, humiliation before God, and testifi- cation of penitence before the Church, are needful. 8 No one, not even the sovereign, must be exempted from such censures ; which he illustrates by the case of Theodosius. 9 The Calvinistic com- munions in general have been very strict observers of the discipline thus maintained by their great reformer. 1 Bingham, xix. iii. 1. ■• " Impios, quorum nota est impietas, * Ibid. § 2. excluders ex communione Ecclesire, sine 8 Ibid. § 8. On the whole subject of vi humana, sed verbo." — Sylloge, p. 220. 6-imiti w discipline read Bingham, E. A. • Ibid. p. 298. k*. xvi.-xix.,and Marshall"* Penitential 7 Imtit. iv. xii. 2. Diecipline. » Ibid, f 6. * Sess. xxT. cap. in. 9 Ibid. § 7. Sec. II.] HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED. 773 The Church of England is clear enough in its principles, though restrained in its practice. This Article speaks plainly her doctrine. The rubric before the Communion gives to the curate the power of repelling evil livers from the Eucharist, provided that he shall at once acquaint the bishop. The introduction to the Commination Service speaks with great regret of the relaxation of godly dis- cipline, and with earnest desire that it may be restored. The canons of 1663 are sufficiently free in denouncing excommunication against heretics, schismatics, and dissenters of all kinds. The peculiar nature of the connection between the Church and State in England, and the prevalence of what are called Erastian opinions, have been the great causes why ecclesiastical censures have lost their power, and become a dead letter amongst us. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. npHERE appear two points here to be demonstrated. I. That -*■ the Church is divinely authorized to excommunicate offenders, and to restore them to communion on their repentance. II. That certain persons in the Church are judges, having authority thereto. I. Our Lord Himself gave power to His Church to excom- municate and absolve. In Matt, xviii. 15-18, He enjoins that, if one brother or fellow Christian sin against another, and refuse to listen to private rebuke, or to the admonition of others to whom the offence may be told, then the grievance is to be communicated to the Church. 1 But if, when it is told to the Church, the erring brother still neglects to hear and to show penitence, then he is to be looked on no longer as a Christian and a brother, but it is said, " Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican " (ver. 17). The meaning of this would be intelligible enough to 1 ttj hnKfaiGiy. There is no sufficient thereof, who would already have excom- reason to doubt that our Lord meant munic-ated and rejected them. Whilst here His Church. It was not, indeed, He was with them, He Himself would then fully set up, but He was continually be the natural referee. Afterwards he foretelling its establishment; why then constitutes His Church the judge; the might He not speak of it by name ? The Church, that is, acting through its elders, word itself is probably a translation of as the Jewish ^pfp acted through its el- the Hebrew brrp ; but it is by no means ders. Hence Chrysostom and Theophy- likely, that our Lord should intend His lact explain rrj ittitkrioiq. by role trpoedpev- ©hristian followers to tell their troubles ovoi. — See Suicer, Tom. i. p. 1052. to the Jewish congregation, or the elders 774 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, [Art. XXXm. the first disciples of Christ. They had been bred Jews, and knew that Jews had no communion with heathen men and publicans, not merely not in religious ordinances, but not even to eat. This direction then Christ gives to His Church, that those who, having sinned openly against their brethren, would not listen to her godly admonitions, should be separated from the fellowship of the faith- ful, and treated as heathens or publicans. Then, to confirm the Church in her authority, to assure her that her censures, and her remission of censure both had a warrant from God, He adds : " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven " (ver. 18). In this context there can be no reasonable question, that the binding means to place in a state of bondage or excommunication from Church privilege, that the loosing signifies to restore again to the freedom of Christian com- munion. At the risk of anticipating the subject of our second division, we ought to compare with this the promise to St. Peter (Matt. xvi. 19) and to the Apostles at large (John xx. 23). To St. Peter, as to the Church, it is promised, that by means of the keys of the kingdom he shall bind, and it shall be bound in Heaven ; he shall loose, and it shall be loosed in Heaven. And to all the Apostles it is promised : " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted : and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained " (ver. 23). Now to no human being, save to Christ alone, has the power of for- giving sins primarily and absolutely been committed by God. (See Matt. ix. 6. Rev. iii. 7.) But to admit to the Church (i. e. to the kingdom of Heaven, Christ's kingdom on earth) by baptism, to exclude from it by excommunication, to restore again by abso- lution and remission of censure, — these are powers which Christ commits to His people, and especially to the rulers and elders of His people. To illustrate this, we must look at the practice of the Apos- tolic Church. In 1 Cor. v. 5, we find St. Paul enjoining the Corinthians to " deliver " the incestuous man " to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." It is true many of the ancients were of opinion that St. Paul meant here to inflict by a miracle some bodily disease upon the man. But the Apostle does not say that he himself will deliver him to Satan, but bids the Corinthian Church to do •o. If it were a miraculous punishment, it is far more likely that he should have inflicted it himself. But he bids them (ver. 4) Sec. H.] HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED. 775 assemble together, " in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ; " prom- ises that, as their bishop, he will be with them in spirit; and then tells them, with the power of the Lord Jesus to deliver the offender to Satan. Now the world is Satan's kingdom ; the Church is Christ's. To expel from Christ's kingdom is to turn over into Satan's kingdom. What more fit than such language to express excommunication ? And to prove that this is what is meant, we find (in 2 Cor. ii.) that, when the incestuous man had repented, the Apostle enjoins the Corinthians to restore and forgive him ; and promises that he will forgive whomsoever they forgive. (See vv. 5—11.) All this exactly corresponds with a case of excommu- nication, succeeded by restoration and absolution. 1 We may compare with these many passages, in which the Apos- tles enjoin upon Christians to withdraw from the company of breth- ren who do not live according to their Christian profession, but who are either impure in their lives, or heretical in their belief. (See Rom. xvi. 17. 1 Cor. v. 9 ; xv. 33 ; xvi. 22. 2 Cor. vi. 14, 17. 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14. 2 John 10, 11.) These, though not all directly bearing on the subject, show that Christians ought to keep themselves from all communion with ungodly men ; and therefore make it probable, that they should be enjoined to exclude them from Church-fellowship. II. We have next to show, that our Lord gave certain officers in His Church special authority, both to excommunicate, and to restore to communion. The Church in the early ages must be viewed as a distinct soci- ety, separated from the world at large, held together by great and independent interests, governed by laws peculiar to itself, and or- dered by its own officers. It was in the midst of the wilderness, with wolves and wild beasts all around it ; a sheepfold, and with shepherds of the sheep. The shepherds or governors were the bishops and elders. " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine " (1 Tim. v. 17). " We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you ; and to esteem them very highly in love for 1 See Theodoret and Theophylact In 1 text. On the opposite side see Grotius Cor. v. 5 ; Balsamon and Zonaras In and Lightfoot on 1 Cor. v. 5 ; also Ham- Basil. Can. vn.; Beza In 1 Cor. v. 5; mond, who combines both views in one, Estius In 1 Cor. v. 6 ; Beveridge, Not. in thinking both excommunication and bod- Van. A/Mstol. x. ; Pandeclm, Tom. II. Ad- ily disease to have been inflicted. So, I notat. p. 20 ; Suicer, Tom. n. p. 940. rather think, does St. Chrysostom. See These all advocate the view taken in the Homil. xv. in 1 Cm-, v. 776 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, [Art. XXXm their work's sake " (1 Thess. v. 12, 13). " Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God " (Heb. xiii. 7). " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves unto them ; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account," &c. (Heb. xiii. 17). Such pas- sages show, that the primitive pastors had a pastoral authority, as well as a pastoral care. Now we have seen, that our Lord committed to His Church the keys of discipline, the power to bind and to loose. But, as all bod- ies act through their officers, so, what at one time He gave to the Church as a body, at another He specially assigned to the rulers of that body, the Apostles and elders. To St. Peter, the first and most honoured of the college of the Apostles, He promised, " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven " (Matt. xvi. 19). And the power which he thus bestowed on St. Peter, He afterwards yet more solemnly conveyed to all the Apos- tles, and apparently with them to other elders of the Church (see ver. 19), in the words, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and Avhose soever sins ye retain, they are retained " (John xx. 22, 23). The hypothesis, that this commission to the first disciples of Christ was miraculous, and therefore temporary, is utterly untenable. If a miraculous power were bestowed, it was no less than a power of searching the heart, and pronouncing authoritatively a judgment of perdition on the guilty, and pardon of sins to the penitent. But such power is the attribute of God alone ; and He will never so give His glory to another. The Apostles, though endued with the gift of tongues, of prophecy, of miracles, were not endued with the power to bestow an actual remission of offences, such as would free the soul from all danger, when appearing before the judgment-seat of Christ ; and as little might they hurl the thunderbolt of ven- geance, and sentence transgressors to the lake that burnetii with fire and brimstone. It is plain, therefore, that the keys committed to St. Peter were the badge of his stewardship, as " minister of Christ, and steward of the mysteries o!' Gnd." The power to bind and to loose was the same as the Church's power to bind and to loose. And the power to retain and to remit sins, was but the same authority conveyed in different terms. 1 1 Bm Dr. Hammond's note on John Kparelv in St. John are all one with the xz 28. He shows that the uficvat and Xv«»< and dietv in St Matthew. Sec. II.] HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED. 777 Now this power, considered as the power of admitting to, and. excluding from the Church and her fellowship, as the Church exer- cised it, so the Apostles especially claimed it, as immediately result- ing from their own commission from Christ. In the case of the incestuous man at Corinth, St. Paul enjoins the Church to excom- municate and afterwards to restore him ; but, in both instances, he himself is to be considered as judging with them and ratifying their sentence, by virtue of his own special authority as an Apostle of Christ ; in which office he claims to be exercising Christ's own authority. Thus (in 1 Cor. v. 3, 4, 5), he says, " I verily, as ab- sent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already .... In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one to Satan." Here is a solemn excommunication, per- formed by the Church, ratified by the Apostle, and so confirmed by Christ Himself. And, in 2 Cor. ii. 10, when enjoining that the penitent sinner should be restored to communion, he writes, " To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also : for if I forgave any- thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it, in the per- son of Christ." What can be plainer than that, in both these cases, St. Paul considered that he had himself, as a chief governor in the Church, an especial power, coupled with the general assent of the Church, to judge, to expel, and to restore ? So (in 1 Tim. i. 20) he says that he had himself excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander. Whether we must infer that he did so of his own au- thority alone, or calling in other members of the Church, as asses- sors to him, we cannot say. Again, in 2 Cor. xiii. 1, 2, 10, we find him threatening to hold a regular judicial inquiry, summoning witnesses, not sparing those who should be proved to have sinned, but using sharpness, " according to the power which the Lord had given him, to edification, not to destruction." To pass to other chief pastors, besides the Apostles themselves, we find that to Timothy and Titus, appointed bishops in the Church, St. Paul lays down rules, how they should judge, rebuke, and re- ject (1 Tim. v. 19-21. Tit. hi. 10, 11). Moreover, we have at least one case of the abuse of this power recorded in the new Tes- tament. Diotrephes, who aimed at a primacy (<£iA.o7r/3o>reuei), cast the brethren out of the Church (3 John 10). And herein we may recognize that Divine wisdom which ordained that, though the chief officers of the Church should be the principal executors of its authority, yet the authority should not be vested in them alone, but, with them, in the whole body of the faithful. (See again 98 778 OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS. [Art. XXXm Matt, xviii. 17, 18.) And it may appear that, as our Lord, in im- mediate context with the promise of ratifying Church censures and Church absolutions, promised that " where two or three were gath- ered together in His name, He would be in the midst of them " (ver. 20) ; so it was with a kind of synodical authority that the Apostles ordinarily armed themselves, when they administered dis- cipline (compare again 1 Cor. v. and 2 Cor. ii), that so they might not seem to lord it over the heritage of God, and that their power might be obviously for edification, not for destruction. 1 1 If we pass from the early to the pres- mate, whose delegates they are ; and ent times, we may observe, that our Ec- secondly, as Ixing themselves laymen, clesiastical Courts are, in theory, formed and as holding power from our civil, as upon the primitive principle. They are, well as our ecclesiastical rulers, they rep- indeed, lay tribunals. Yet their judges resent not only the hierarchy, but also represent, first, the authority of the pri- the laity of the Church. ARTICLE XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church. It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and ut- terly like ; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be or- dained against God's Word. Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurt- eth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church, ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying. Traditiones Ecclesiastical. Traditiones atque caeremonias eas- dem non omnino necessarium est esse ubique aut prorsus consimiles. Nam et va- riae semper fuerunt et mutari possunt, pro regionum, temporum, et morum diver- sitate, modo nihil contra verbum Dei instituatur. Traditiones, et caeremonias Ecclesiasti- cas, qua? cum verbo Dei non pugnant, et sunt autoritate publica institutae atque probata?, quisquis privato consilio volens, et data opera, publice violaverit, is, ut qui peccat in publicum ordinem Ecclesiae, quique laedit autoritatem Magistratus, et qui infirmoruni fratrum conscientias vul- nerat, publice, ut caeteri timeant, arguen- dus est. Quaelibet Ecclesia particularis, sive na- tionalis, autoritatem habet instituendi, mutandi, aut abrogandi caeremonias, aut ritus Ecclesiasticos humana tantum au- toritate institutes, modo omnia ad aedifi- cationem fiant. THE Reformation was in a great measure a national movement. The power and authority of the see of Rome had annihilated the distinctions of national Churches, and produced an uniformity, not only of doctrine, but also of ceremonial and discipline, through- out the West. This Article, like the XVth of the Confession of Augsburg, is an assertion of the right of particular Churches to retain or adopt, in things indifferent, local and peculiar usages. The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, headed " Of Ceremo- nies, why some be abolished and some retained," is a farther and fuller exposition of the sentiments of our Reformers on this head. It should be read in connection with the Article. The two points insisted on, and which we have to consider, are I. That traditions and ceremonies were not to be everywhere alike, but that particular or national Churches may ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies of mere human authority, so all be done to edifying. II. That private persons, of their private judgment, are not 780 OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH. [Art. XXXIV. justified in openly breaking the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to God's word. I. There is little direct proof, either for or against our first po- sition, to be drawn from holy Scripture itself. The Apostolic rule was, that all things should " be done to edifying " (1 Cor. xiv. 26) ; " all decently and in order " (ver. 40). This certainly leaves a great liberty, and a great latitude, to order the ceremonies and offices of the Church. But, if we come to Christian history, we shall find that the dif- ferent Churches, in early times, though having wonderful concord in doctrine, and in Apostolical government, had yet great variety in discipline and ritual. The well-known controversy concerning Easter very early divided the East and West. The Church of Rome kept Easter, as we keep it now, so that it always falls on a Sunday ; whilst the Churches of Asia Minor observed it on the fourteenth day of the month Abib, after the manner of the Jewish Passover, let it fall on whatever day of the week it might. The Apostolical Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, paid Rome a visit, to en- deavour to arrange with Anicetus an uniformity of custom on this head ; but though they could come to no agreement here, they agreed that the unity and harmony of the Churches should not be broken on such a point of tradition and ceremony. 1 Later indeed, Victor, Bishop of Rome, was disposed to excommunicate the Asi- atic Churches, because they did not follow the Roman custom ; for which uncharitableness Irenseus sent him a letter of reproof. 2 The still more important controversy concerning the rebaptizing of heretics arose in the next century ; Cyprian and the African bishops maintaining the propriety of baptizing anew those who had received baptism from heretics ; whilst Stephen and the Roman Church maintained, that such baptism was valid, and therefore that it could not be repeated. The controversy indeed ran high ; but for a length of time each branch of the Church followed its own views. 8 Another instance of diversity of custom was the mode in which the Jewish Sabbath was treated. Some Churches, those of the Pa- triarchate of Antioch especially, not only observed the Christian Lord's day, but also the Jewish Sabbath. On the other hand, some Churches used to fast on the Saturday, or Sabbath, as well as on the Friday ; because on the former our Lord lay in the grave, as 1 Euiob. //. E. iv. 14, v. 24. (mum, gmc. in. § xvm. Also Mosheim, 1 Il'i'l Ecelu. Hist. Cent. lit. Pt. n. eh. in. § ' Boo Moiheim, Lk Rebus ante Constan- 18. Art. XXXIV.] OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH. 781 on the latter he was crucified. St. Augustine mentions, that St. Ambrose wisely determined to fast on the Saturday, when he was in those places where it was customary ; but not to fast on that day, where the custom was against it. 1 Another observable 'thing in the early ages is, that the different bishops were so far independent of each other, that they were al- lowed to frame their own Liturgies, and even to express the Creed in different forms. 2 Accordingly, we hear of the Liturgies of An- tioch, and Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Rome, of Gaul, of Spain, 3 &c. &c. Now, all these facts prove the right of particular Churches to some degree of independence one of another, as regards bare cere- monies and traditional rites and customs. II. That private persons should not wantonly break or neglect the traditions of the Church to which they belong, may be said to result from the very nature of a Christian society, and indeed of society altogether. The scriptural authority is strong in favour of obedience to both civil and ecclesiastical authorities ; even when both are corrupt. Of the former see Rom. xiii. 1 ; Tit.iii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17. Of the latter, we have our Lord's injunction to His disciples to obey the Pharisees, because they sat in Moses' seat, Matt, xxiii. 2, 3 ; and the example of the Apostles, who, in all things not unlawful, ad- hered to Jewish observances and the customs of their own nation, even after the Church of Christ had been set up in the world. See Acts ii. 46 ; xxi. 20, 26 ; xxviii. 17. The Apostles indeed denounce severely those who cause divisions and schisms in the Church (Rom. xvi. 17. 1 Cor. iii. 3, &c.) ; and enjoin all Christians to obey their spiritual rulers, and to submit themselves to them (1 Cor. xvi. 16. 1 Thess. v. 12. Heb. xiii. 17). It seems unnecessary to add authority from the primitive ages. The whole system of discipline and order, then so strictly observed, of necessity involves the principle, that laws and regulations made by the body of the Church were binding on, and to be observed by, every individual Christian who belonged to the Church. The de- crees of Councils and Synods, often relating to discipline and cere- mony, of course proceeded on the same understanding and principle. 1 " Cum Roraam venio, jejuno Sabba- liv. ad Januariam, Tom. ii. p. 154, to; cum hie, non jejuno; Sic etiam tu quoted by Beveridge on this Article, ad quam forte Ecclesiam veneris, ejus 2 See Bingham, E. A. Bk. n. ch. vi. morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse 3 See Palmer, Origines Liturgicce, scandalo, nee quemquam tibi." Epist. " Dissertation on Primitive Liturgies." ARTICLE XXXV: Of the Homilies. The second Book of Homilies, the sev- eral titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time Of Edward the Sixth ; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently and distinctly, that the}' may be uuderstanded of the people. Of the names of the Homilies. 1 Of the right Use of the Church. 2 Against Peril of Idolatry. 8 Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches. 4 Of good Works : first of Fasting. 6 Against Gluttony and Drunkenness. 6 Against Excess of Apparel. 7 Of Prayer. 8 Of the Place and Time of Prayer. 9 That Common Prayers and Sacra- ments ought to be ministered in a known tongue. 10 Of the reverend estimation of God's Word. 11 Of Alms-doing. 12 Of the Nativity of Christ. 18 Of the Passion of Christ. 14 Of the Resurrection of Christ. 16 Of the worthy receiving of the Sac- rament of the Body and Blood of Christ. 16 Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. 17 lor the liogatwn-days. 18 Of the State of Matrimony. 19 Of Ilepentance. 20 Against Idleness. 21 Against Rebellion. De T lorn Hi is. Tomus secundus homiliarum, quarum singulos titulos huic articulo subjunxi- linis, continet piam et salutarem doctri- nam.et his temporibus necessariani, nun minus quam prior tomus homiliarum, quae edita; sunt tempore Edwardi Sexti. Itaque eas in Ecclesiis per ministrosdili- genter et clare, ut a populo intelligi pos- sint, recitaudas esse judicavimus. De Nominibus Homiliarum. Of the right Use. of the Church. Against Peril of Idolatry. Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches. Of good Works : first of Fasting. Against Gluttony and Drunkenness. Against Excess of Apparel. ■ Of Prayer. Of the Place and Time of Prayer. That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be minisUred in a known tongue. Of the reverend estimation of God's Word. Of Alms-doing. Of the. Nativity of Christ. Of the Passion of Christ. Of' the Resurrection of Christ. Of the worthy receiving of the Sacra- ment of the Body atid Blood of Christ. Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. For the Rogation-days. Of the State of Matrimony. Of Repentance. Against Idleness. Against Rebel lion. | The American revision adds, " This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Books of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. But all references to the constitution and laws of Eng lan d arc considered as inapplicable to the circumstances of this Church : which also suspends the order for the reading of said Homilies in churches, until a re» vision of them may bo conveniently made, for the clearing of them, as well from obsolete words and phrases, as from the local references." It is needless to add that the revision has never btMl made. — J. W.\ Art. XXXV.] OF THE HOMILIES. 783 JTTHERE is not much to be said concerning this Article. At the -*- time of the Reformation there was great need of simple and sound instruction for the people, and but few were competent to give it. Many of the clergy were but partially affected to the so- called new learning. Many were very illiterate. In many par- ishes, therefore, the clergy were not licensed to preach, and hence the reformers put forth these popular discourses, to meet the exi- gencies of the times. The First Book of Homilies, which was published in the reign of Edward VI., is attributed to the pens of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and others. The second, published in Elizabeth's reign, is supposed to be due in great part to Jewel. The former seems to be written with much greater care and accuracy than the latter, and is indeed most full of sound and valuable teaching. It is not possible to prove the assertion, that they " contain a godly and wholesome doctrine," without going through the whole book of Homilies, and commenting on them all. All writers on the subject have agreed, that the kind of assent, which we are here called on to give to them, is general, not specific. We are not expected to express full concurrence with every statement, or every exposition of Holy Scripture contained in them, but merely in the general to approve of them, as a body of sound and orthodox discourses, and well adapted for the times for which they were composed. For instance, we cannot be required to call the Apoc- rypha by the name of Holy Scripture, or to quote it as of Divine authority, because we find it so in the Homilies. We cannot be expected to think it a very cogent argument for the duty of fast- ing, that thereby we may encourage the fisheries and strengthen the seaport towns against foreign invasion. 1 And perhaps we may agree with Dr. Hey, rather than with Bishop Burnet, 2 and hold, that a person may fairly consider the Homilies to be a sound col' lection of religious instruction, who might yet shrink from calling the Roman Catholics idolaters. The Homilies are, in fact, semi- authoritative documents. The First Book is especially valuable, as having been composed by those who reformed our services and drew up our Articles. The second also shows popularly the general tone of instruction, which the divines of the reign of Elizabeth thought wholesome for the people. They are therefore of much 1 See Homily On Good Works ; and first, ■ See Burnet on Art. xxxv. ; Hey, Of Fasting. iv. p. 466. 784 OF THE HOMILIES. [Art. XXXV. value in throwing light on docupients more authoritative than them- selves ; and may be useful for the instruction of our clergy and people in the doctrines of the Reformation. The higher education of our parish priests, and the now somewhat antiquated styl the discourses in question, render it not very likely that they will ever again be much read in Churches. Something has been said before of the " Homily of Salvation," l which is of greater authority than th°. rest, being referred to in Article XI. as a fuller exposition of the doctrine there delivered. It was written by Cranmer, and is indeed of great value, sound, simple, and eloquent. It has been apparently thought doubtful by some, whether any- thing uninspired ought to be read in Churches. The Bible should be read there, prayers offered up, and sermons preached ; but to read ancient writings which are not inspired, is to put them on the same level with the inspired Scriptures. This objection has been considered, with reference to the reading of the Apocrypha, under Article VI. 2 What was said of that will fully apply to the read- ing of homilies. There can be no danger that the Homilies, or any such things, should ever be esteemed by the people as of like authority with the Scriptures. The same objection would apply to sermons and hymns, at least as strongly as to homilies. It is not possible, in any ordinary state of the Church, that all sermons should be, not only extempore effusions, but uttered by direct in- spiration of the Spirit. We must therefore esteem them as merely human compositions. And, though special blessing may be ex- pected on the teaching of faithful ministers of Christ ; yet it is difficult to see what there is to raise their written or precomposed discourses to an eminence above the writings of martyred bishops, such as Cranmer and his fellows. The lawfulness therefore of the putting forth of the Homilies seems unquestionable. 1 See above, p. 299. » Art VI. sect. in. No. n. p. 188. ARTICLE XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers. The Book of Consecration of Archbish- ops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering : neither hath it anything, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites ; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered. De Episcoporum et Ministranun Conse- cratione. Libellds de consecratione Archi-episco- porum, et Episcoporum, et de ordinatione Presbyteroruin et Diaconorum, editus nuper temporibus Edwardi VI. et author- itate Parliament illis ipsis temporibus confirmatus, omnia ad ejusmodi consecra- tionem, et ordinationem necessaria con- tinet, et nihil habet, quod ex se sit, aut superstitiosum, aut impium : itaque qui- cunque juxta ritus illius libri consecrati, aut ordinati sunt, ab anno secundo prae- dicti regis Edwardi, usque ad hoc tem- pus, aut ordinabuntur, rite, atque ordine, atque legitime statuimus esse etfore con- secrates et ordinatos. [The only change, in the American revision, is the omission of the references to the time of Edward the Sixth, and the insertion of a reference to the General Con- vention of 1792, by which the Ordinal was set forth. One change was, however, made in the Ordinal itself, of which something must be said ; since the alteration of the age requisite for the Diaconate, — which only recurs to the provisions of the period antecedent to 1662, — and the local adaptations of promises and oaths, require no special consideration. In the Proposed Book, the English Ordinal was accepted, with a proviso omit- ting "any oaths inconsistent with the American Revolution." Bishop White says, that " the alterations of the Ordinal were prepared by the Bishops ; " and adds, " there was no material difference of opinion, except in regard to the words used by the Bishop at the ordination of Priests." Bishop Seabury was urgent for retaining the words in the English Ordinal, though he finally consented to the insertion of the alternative form. Bishops White, Provoost, and Madison appear to have been disposed to omit the words, though they also agreed to the alternative. Indeed, it is believed that Bishop White proposed it. Some, doubtless, may object to the alternative form as insufficient. To sucli persons it is quite enough to reply that no special form of words has ever been con- sidered requisite, as accompanying the imposition of hands. Others will fault the first form, as savouring of Romish superstition. Let such remember that the words objected to are the very words used by our Lord in commissioning His Apostles ; that unless they involved Romish superstition in His using, they need not in ours ; that to give up all Scripture which the Roman Church has corrupted is something worse than folly ; and that the retention and use of our Lord's words in the Ordi- nal is, when rightly viewed, the strongest possible protest against such corruption. —J. W.] 786 OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. [Art. XXXVI. WHEN the Liturgy of the Church was undergoing a revision in the reign of Edward VI., it was obviously desirable that the Ordinal should be revised too. Accordingly, a. n. 1549, an act of Parliament was passed to appoint six prelates and six other learned men, to devise a form of making and consecrating archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons, and other ministers. 1 The Ordinal, drawn up by these divines, was in use till 1552 ; and six bishops were consecrated by means of it. According to the forms in the Ancient Roman Pontificals, those who were ordained priests had their hands anointed, the vessels of the Eucharist were delivered to them, and authority was given them to offer sacrifice. The new Ordinal omitted the Chrism, and all mention of offering sacrifices, but retained the custom of delivering " the chalice or cup with the bread." 2 In the year 1552, the Second Service Book of Edward VI. came forth ; and with it a still further revision of the Ordinal. In the latter, the porrection of the chalice and paten was omitted. The form of ordination was nearly as in our present services ; except that in the prayer of ordination of priests it was only said, " Receive thou the Holy Ghost," without adding, M for the office of a priest," &c. ; and in the prayer of consecration of bishops, it was said, "Take the Holy Ghost," without the words, "for the office and work of a bishop," &c. On the accession of Queen Mary, the new Ordinal was imme- diately suppressed. The orders conferred in the late reign, and with the use of the reformed Ordinal, were not declared invalid ; but those who had been so ordained, were to be reconciled, and the deficiencies supplied, such as unction, porrection of the chalice, 8 &c. In the reign of Elizabeth the reformed Ordinal was again restored, and in its use were consecrated Parker, the primate, and other bishops of the reformed Church. In confirmation of its authority, the Convocation of 1562 inserted this present Article among the XXXIX., in place of the XXXVth Article of 1662, which was more general, and concerned the whole Prayer Book, this being restricted to the Ordination Services. It was farther enforced by Act of Parliament, a. n. 1566 ; and the Article of 1562 was confirmed in 1571. On the accession of Charles II. and 1 Heylyn, Hi»tory of Reformation, p. 82. 8 Heylyn, Hi$t. Re/. HUtory of Queen ■ Liturqie* of Kdtoard VI. Parker So- Mary, p. 86. clety, p. 179. Akt. XXXVI.] OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. 787 the restoration of Episcopacy, which had been abolished during the Commonwealth, the ordination services, being restored, were, however, subjected to a review, and reduced to their present form. The most important additions were the insertion, in the prayer of ordination of priests, after the words "Receive thou the Holy Ghost," of the words " for the office and work, of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands ; " and a like change in the prayer of consecration of bishops ; so that the office of a bishop is distinctly expressed, whereas at first the words were general, and as applicable to a priest as to a bishop. The Preface, which is assigned to Cranmer, was the same in the first reformed Ordinal as it is in the present Ordination Ser- vice in our Prayer Books. 1 The object of this Article is to meet objections to the validity and propriety of ordinations conferred in the use of this Ordinal. The objections are of two kinds : I. That the Ordinal lacks some essential ceremonies. II. That it has some superstitious forms and expressions. I. The first objection comes from the Romanists. 1. It is urged, that our bishops do not confer the chrism, nor offer the sacred vessels, nor more especially give the power of sac- rificing ; therefore none can be truly ordained by them to the Chris- tian priesthood. To this we answer, first, that Scripture gives no authority for all these forms. All that we read of there, is laying on of hands with prayer. Secondly, we say that we find no authority for such forms in the customs of the primitive Church. Gregory Nazian- zen 2 indeed speaks of unction, but he means the unction of the Holy Ghost. The earliest specimen we have of a form of ordina- tion is in the VHIth book of the Apostolical Constitutions, c. 16, which is as follows. " When thou ordainest a presbyter, O bishop, place thy hand on his head, the presbytery standing with thee, and also the dea- 1 The question concerning the un- xu.; On the Church, part vi. ch. x. ; broken succession of our Bishops might Harington's Succession of Bishops in the naturally occur to us here. But it does English Church. not properly come under consideration in [The student may profitably read Dr. this or any other of the xxxix. Articles. Evan's excellent Essai/ on Anglican Ordi- The student may consult Courayer, De- nations, and Dr. Oldknow's small, but fence of English Ordinations ; Bramhall, very useful tract on the same subject. — Protestants' Ordinations Defended; Ma- J. W.) son's Vindicice Ecclesioz Anglicance. See 2 Orat. v. Tom. I. p. 136. also Palmer, Origines Liturgicw, n. ch. 788 OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. [Axit. XXXVL cons ; and pray thus : O Lord, Almighty, our God, who hast cre- ated all things by Jesus Christ, and by Him providest for all, in whom is the power of providing in various ways. Now therefore, O God, Thou providest for immortals by preservation, for mortals by succession, for the soul by care of laws, for the body by supply of necessity. Do thou, therefore, now look upon Thy holy Church, increase it, and multiply those who preside over it ; and give power that they may labour in word and work to the edification of Thy people. Do thou also look now upon this Thy servant, who, by suffrage and judgment of all the clergy, is chosen into the presby- tery ; and fill him with the Spirit of grace and counsel, that he may aid and govern Thy people with a pure mind ; in like manner as Thou hadst respect to Thine elect people, and as Thou com- mandest Moses to choose elders whom Thou filledst with Thy Spirit. And now, O Lord, make gOod this, preserving in us an un- failing Spirit of Thy grace, that he, being filled with healing powers, and instructive discourse, may with meekness teach Thy people, and serve Thee sincerely with a pure mind and willing soul, and may perform the blameless sacred rites for Thy people. 1 Through Thy Christ, with whom to Thee and the Holy Ghost, be glory, honour, and reverence forever. Amen." This is the whole form of ordaining priests given in the Apostol- ical Constitutions. The words in Italics are the only words which can refer to sacrifice or Sacraments ; and they are certainly as gen- eral as those in our own Ordinal, " Be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of His holy Sacraments." The words in the Roman Pontifical, " Receive thou power to offer sacrifices to God, and to celebrate the mass for the quick and the dead," were not in any ancient form of consecration. Morinus, as cited by Bishop Burnet, acknowledges that he could not find any such words for the first 900 years. 2 The Greek Church merely prays God to grant to the newly ordained presbyter, " that he may stand blame- less at Thy altar, may preach the gospel of Thy Salvation, offer to Thee gifts and spiritual sacrifices, and renew Thy people by the laver of regeneration." 8 This again is perfectly general ; and the earlier we go, the simpler we find all the forms of ordination, in all parts of the world. " Not a father, not a council, not one ancient author at any time mentions the delivery of the paten or chalice, or the formal words used by the Church of Rome, even when they 1 rd( birlp rov Xaov Upovpyiac afiufwvc * Morinus, De Sacr. Ordin. pt n. p. UTtTA. 66 ; Walcott's English Ordinal, p. 260. * Burnet, Vindication of English Orders, p. 34 ; Bingham, it, xix. 17. Art. XXXVI. ] OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. 789 describe the ordination of their da^s, and where this could not have been omitted, if it had been essential." 1 This is surely proof enough that the omissions complained of are not sufficient to invali- date all the orders of the Church. 2. It has also been objected, that the bishops consecrated accord- ing to the Ordinal of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, could not have been rightly consecrated, because the words of consecration were only, " Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands : for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love and soberness." Here is nothing which might not apply to a priest or deacon, as well as to a bishop. But we may reply, that the whole service concerns bishops, not priests and deacons ; and that, if the words, " for the office of a bishop," &c afterwards inserted, were not at first added, it is quite evident that they were sufficiently implied. Everybody must have felt that it was episcopal consecration which was conferred. The form of ordination does not consist merely in the prayer of conse- cration. The whole service forms part of it. And, moreover, even in the Roman Pontifical, the words which accompany the im- position of hands are simply, " Receive the Holy Ghost ; " and the prayer, which follows, does not directly mention the office of a bishop. 2 II. Another objection proceeds from a very different quarter. The Puritans, and many well-meaning Christians since them, have much stumbled at our using those memorable words of our Lord and Saviour Christ, " Receive the Holy Ghost .... Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost re- tain, they are retained." The objection is of this nature. 1. The power of remitting and retaining sins was miraculous, and confined to the Apostles, and so not to be expected by other ministers. 2. Man cannot bestow God's Spirit, and it is profane to claim the power to do so. It is remarkable, that the reformers who rejected as superstitious some mere ceremonies, such as delivering the paten and chalice, 1 Bramhall, Protestants' Ordinations De- useful information, maybe found in Wal- fended, Works, Anglo-Cath. Library, v. p. cott, On the English Ordinal, ch. VI. 216. Several ancient forms, and much • Palmer, On the Church, pt vi. ch. x. Vol. ii. p. 460. 790 OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. [Art. XXXVI. and the anointing of the hands', should yet have retained this form of words, which to many seems nothing short of blasphemy. Was it that the reformers had a deeper insight into Scripture than those who now object to their proceedings ? 1. Under Art. XXXIII. I have already considered at length the question concerning the remitting and retaining sins. There it has been shown that such power was not miraculous, nor peculiar to the Apostles. A power of that higher kind never was given to mere man. The only authority which our blessed Lord thus con- veyed to His first ministers was, more solemnly than before, au- thority to bind and to loose, — that which is elsewhere called the power of the keys, — so that ministerially they had the keys of the Church or kingdom, to admit men to it by preaching and baptism, to exclude men from it by excommunication, to restore them to it again by absolution. The assurance given them is, that their acts, as Christ's ministers in all these respects, shall be ratified in Heaven. It has been shown moreover, that this power of the keys is a por- tion of the Church's birthright. It is committed to the Church as a body, and more particularly to her bishops and presbyters. Hence every bishop, having authority to ordain, has also authority to de- clare that the power of the keys is committed to the person or- dained by him. And no more is meant by these solemn words in our ordination service, than that, as Christ has left to the presby- tery the right of ministering His Sacraments, and of excluding from His Sacraments ; so the newly ordered presbyter now receives by Christ's own ordinance that right, — a divine commission to minister, and at the same time a divine commission duly to exercise the authority of excluding the unworthy, and admitting again the penitent sinner. 1 2. On the words, " Receive thou the Holy Ghost," we may ob- serve, that, as the power to remit and retain sins was not a personal and miraculous power conferred on the Apostles, so neither was the gift of the Spirit then breathed upon them the personally sanctify- 1 I have not fully entered into the son of peace be there, your peace shall question of the efficacy of absolution, rest upon it ; if not, it shall turn to you when pronounced on a repenting sinner, again. Here the blessing of the minis That it may restore to Church coinmun- ter was to be accompanied by blessing ion, none can doubt. But many, in our from above, if the recipient was rightly day, question, or rather deny, that it can disposed for blessing. But if the ncip be accompanied with any spiritual grace, ient was unbelieving and impenitent, the The whole subject of ministerial blessing blessing could not reach his heart; but and absolution seem 8 to be explained by yet the minister would himself have the words of our Lord (Luke x. 5, 6_) : comfort from having acted on his coin- " Into whatsoever house ye enter, first mission, and having sought to convoy •ay, Peace be to this house. And if the comfort to others. art. XXXVI.] OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS. 791 ing influence, nor yet the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. We cannot doubt that they had long ago received the sanctifying grace of God in their hearts, and so the ordinary operations of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. And the miraculous baptism of the Spirit, which gave them powers peculiar to the Apostolic age, they did not receive until the day of Pentecost. Hence, this be- stowal of the Spirit in the twentieth chapter of St. John was nei- ther the one nor the other of these. What then must it have been ? Evidently the ordaining grace of God. All ministerial authority has ever been believed to proceed from the Holy Ghost. Ministry, the right to minister, is one of the charismata of the Spirit. That charisma our Lord then for the first time fully bestowed upon His Church. But the same charisma was afterwards given " by the laying on of the Apostle's hands (2 Tim. i. 6), and, " with the lay- ing on of the hands of the presbj'tery " (1 Tim. iv. 14). Not that the Apostles or their successors could from themselves send forth the Spirit of God, or the gifts of the Spirit ; but that, as our Lord had appointed ordination to be the means of receiving the grace of ordination, so the Church in undoubting faith believes, that, when- soever ordination is rightly ministered, the proper gift of orders flows down direct from the ordaining Spirit ; not to sanctify the in- dividual personally, but to constitute him truly a minister of Christ, and to make his ministry acceptable to God. Hence, when the bishop's hand is laid on the head of him whom he ordains, we doubt not that the charisma of God's Spirit is given, " for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God." The difference between such an ordination and our Lord's ordaining of His first ministers recorded in St. John chap. xx. is this. In the latter case, Christ Himself, to whom the Spirit is given without measure, gave of that Spirit authoritatively to His disciples ; and so, in giving, He breathed on them, as showing that the Spirit proceeded from Him. But in the other case, our bishops presume not to breathe, nor did the Apostles before them, for they know that ordaining grace comes not from them, but from Christ, whose ministers they are ; and so they simply, according to all Scriptural authority, use the outward rite of laying on of hands, in use of which they believe a blessing will assuredly come down from above. 1 That blessing is the gift of the Spirit of God, for the office and work of a priest. And thus we conclude, that, as the Ordinal lacks nothing essen- tial to the due administering of orders in the Church, so does it not contain anything that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. 1 See Hooker, Bk. t. 77, 78. ARTICLE XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrates. The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of nil Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any for- eign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended ; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify ; but that only pre- rogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scrip- tures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all states and degrees com- mitted to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdic- tion in this Realm of England. The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences. It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons and serve in the wars. De Civilibus Magistratibus. Regia Mujestas in hoc Angliae regno, ac caeteris ejus dominiis, summam habet potestatem, ad quam, omnium statuum Imjus regni, sive illi ecclesiastici sint, sive civiles, in omnibus causis, suprema gubernatio pertinet, et nulli externa ju- risdiction! est subjecta, nee esse debet Cum Regiae Majestati summam guber- nationem tribuimus, quibus titulis intel- ligimus, animus quorundam calumniato- rum offendi, non dam us regibus nostris, aut verbi Dei, aut Sacramentorum ad- ministrationem, quod etiam injunctiones ab Elizabetha Rcgina nostra, nuper edits, apertis8ime testantur. Sed earn tantum praerogativam, quam in sacris Scriptu- ris a Deo ipso, omnibus piis Principibus, videmus semper fuisse attributam, hoc est, ut omnes status, atque ordines fldei sua? a Deo commissos, sive illi ecclesias- tici sint, sive civiles, in officio contineant, et contumaces ac delinquentes, gladio civili coerceant. Romanu8 pontifex nullam habet juris- dictionem in hoc regno Anglian. Leges Regni possunt Christianos prop- ter capitalia, et gravia crimina, morte punire. Christianis lioet, ex mandato magistra- tus, arma portare, et justa bella adminis- trare. [The American Article reads : — "Abt. XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates. " The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal ; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted." The writer ventures to consider it unfortunate that the two declarations concern- ing " capital punishment," and the propriety of Christians bearing arms, were omitted. The reasons for the omission, though he can conjecture what they were, he does not feel sufficiently sure of, to state. — / W.J Sec.1] of the civil magistrates. 793 Section I. — THE SUPREMACY OF THE CROWN. HPHE present Article concerns one of the most involved and diffi- ■*■ cult questions that have agitated Christian men : the question, namely, of the due proportions and proper relation between the civil and ecclesiastical powers in a Christian Commonwealth. The whole course of Church History, from the time of Constantine to the present, seems to have been striving to unravel the difficulty and solve the problem. Perhaps it never will be solved, until the coming of the Son of Man, when there shall be no king but Christ, and all nations, peoples, and languages, shall bow down before Him. Without pretending then to clear up all that is dark in such a question, we may by a hasty survey of past events be enabled to place ourselves in such a position, that the mists of prejudice, whether religious or political, may not blind us to the perception of that light which Providence has given to guide us. For the first three hundred years, the spiritual kingdom of Christ was on earth, having no relation to any earthly kingdom. The kingdoms of this world, instead of fostering, persecuted it. There was a direct antagonism between the Church and the world ; and the external development of that antagonism was plainly visible in the opposing organization of Church and State. Christians indeed were from the first obedient subjects, wherever obedience was not incompatible with religion. They even marched in the armies of the heathen emperors, prayed for them in their public liturgies, and in persecution took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, resisting none but those commands which could be obeyed only by disobedience to God. But the whole Christian Church, as far as possible, shrank within itself from the polluting atmosphere of hea- thenism and heathen morality. The Apostle had condemned the Corinthians for going to law before the unbelievers (1 Cor. vi. 1), and had encouraged them to erect private tribunals among them- selves, for the decision of disputes, which would inevitably arise. 1 The result was naturally, that the courts of the bishop became the ordinary courts of judicature, when Christians impleaded Chris- tians. The rulers of the Church were looked up to with that kind of veneration which we call loyalty ; whilst obedience to the em- 1 1 Cor. vi. 4. Some consider the to mean persons destitute of any public irord IgotrdevTipivovg, used in this verse, authority in the state. 100 794 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXV1L peror was the result of no natural enthusiasm, but of a principle of self-denying, self-sacrificing obligation. The accession of Constantine to the throne of Augustus, his conversion to Christianity, and his removal of the seat of empire to Byzantium, produced a remarkable revolution. Christians fondly hoped, that the kingdoms of this world had become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ. They naturally recognized the duty of Christian princes to protect the faith of the Gospel. They joyfully embraced the newly opened course for the progress of the Gospel. They reasonably were thankful for the promised freedom to worship God according to their consciences ; and alas ! it is to be feared, that they were not averse to using the civil authority to put down the pride of the now fast increasing heresy of Arius. Con- stantine, on his part, whether sincere or politic in his adoption of the Gospel, could not be ignorant of the vast machinery which his connection with the Church might put into his hands. In heathen times, the supreme ruler at Rome was also the supreme adminis- trator of the affairs of religion. There was a sacredness attached to him, however vile his personal character. The Roman Emperor even became the Pontifex Maximus. 1 And, although Constantine found it not possible to assume a sacerdotal function in the Chris- tian Church, he yet claimed a peculiar supremacy ; which was sufficiently undefined to be inoffensive to others, and yet satisfac- tory to himself. "You," said he to the Christian prelates, "are bishops of the things within the Church ; but I am constituted by God bishop of those which are without." 2 The words were per- haps originally spoken in jest, but time led him to apply them in earnest. From this period the Church, though never endowed by the State, received a full and ample protection for the revenues which it might acquire. The Christian princes ever considered them- selves as its protectors, and in some sense as its governors. There is good reason to think, that the power, which they so exercised, was often by no means paternal, but as tyrannical and arbitrary as was their more secular administration. The bishops indeed main- tained the exclusive right of the clergy to minister in sacred things ; and the emperors readily admitted that to the clergy alone such functions appertained. 3 Moreover, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of bishops and patriarchs was carefully preserved to them. Patri- 1 Gibbon, ch. xx. Theodosius to enter the chancel (The * Euseb. \'it. Constant. 1 v. 24. odoret, 1. v. c. 18) is well known. ' The story of St. Ambrose forbidding Sec. I.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 795 archs were permitted to call provincial, and bishops to call diocesan synods ; but a synod of the universal Church was never called but by the Emperor himself. Though the decrees of the councils were made by the bishops, yet the Emperor thought himself justified in enforcing them by his own temporal power. Thus Arius, con- demned at Nice, was banished by Constantine ; and there is too good reason to fear that court influence was unsparingly used to intimidate the members of a synod into voting with the Emperor, or absenting themselves altogether. Eusebius assigns to Constan- tine a principle, which was probably never admitted by the Church at large, but which may have materially influenced him in his own conduct ; namely, that as a kind of universal bishop, he assembled councils of the ministers of God. 1 From this time, then, the Church and the State were no longer in the position of a persecuting power and a patient victim. They no longer represented, respectively, the principle of good and the principle of evil. The good of the one had penetrated the other ; and it may be feared, that there was something of reciprocal interchange. They had, however, entered into an alliance ; but still, more or less, the Christianized state was sure to retain some of the worldly elements which characterized it when heathen ; and there was still a struggle, though less conspicuous, between the Church in the Church and the world in the State. In the East, the power of the Emperor over the Church was the greater, because the East had become the seat of empire ; and there is little doubt, that the degeneracy of the Eastern Church had much connection with the influence of the court. Nay ! the power of that court became at once apparent, when, on the adoption of heresy by the Emperor, the whole East seemed suddenly overspread with Arianism. There was a different state of things in the West ; the result, it may be, in part, of the greater vigour of the Western bishops, but still more of the absence of the seat of government from Rome. The Church was no longer the same isolated, distinct body that it had been when the empire was heathen ; and had it not been for the nucleus formed for it by the clergy, it might have been all dissipated in the midst of the half Christianized people that were around it. But the clergy were still a substantive, tangible body; and, irrespective of any ambition of their own, it was almost essen- tial to the existence of the Church, that they should form them- 1 Old tiq KOivbq tmononoc e/c Qeov «ai?t- ovvenpoTei. — De Vit. Constantin. Lib. i. c. orapevos, awodovg ruv rov Qeov Tieirovpyuv 44. 796 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVII. selves into that kind of close corporation which had before em- braced the whole society of Christians. Besides which, as their sacred character brought them respect even in the eyes of then- tyrants, as they had a prescriptive right to hold private tribunals for the settlement of their private differences, as their sacred buildings had conceded to them the right of sanctuary possessed of old by heathen temples ; they had in their hands the power, not only of supporting religion, but also of evading, or at least limiting, both for themselves and their fellow-Christians, the tyrannical domination of the emperor. The subject has been so clearly and liberally set forth by an accomplished writer of the day, that we may well use his own words. " If it be right to condemn the fiscal tyranny of the Roman rulers, it can hardly be also right to condemn those sacerdotal claims, and those imperial concessions, by which the range of that tyranny was narrowed . . . The Church is arraigned as selfish and ambitious, because it formed itself into a vast clerical corporation, living under laws and usages peculiar to itself, and not acknowledging the jurisdiction of the temporal tribunals. That the Churchmen of the fourth century lived be- neath a ruthless despotism no one attempts to deny. That they opposed to it the only barrier by which the imperial tyranny could, in that age, be arrested in its course, is equally indisputable. If they had been laymen, they would have been celebrated as patriots by the very persons who, because they were priests, have denounced them as usurpers. If the bishops of the fourth century had lived under the republic, they would have been illustrious as tribunes of the people. If the Gracchi had been contemporaries of Theodosius, their names would have taken the place which Ambrose and Martin of Tours at present hold in ecclesiastical history. A brave resist- ance to despotic authority has surely no less title to our sympathy, if it proceeds from the episcopal throne, than if it be made amidst the tumults of the forum." * If this was true of the relation of the Church to the empire, it was certainly not less true as regards its condition under the several kingdoms which were formed by the Gothic barbarians out of the ruins of the empire. The feudal monarchies, whether in their earlier condition or in their more matured and full-grown despotism, were amongst the most lawless, oppressive, and tyran- nical forms of government that an unhappy people have ever groaned under. In those days when might was the only right, " we may rejoice to know," says the just-cited authority, " that the 1 Lectures on the History of France, by the Rt. Hon. Sir James Stephen, i. p. 88. Sec. I.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 797 early Church was the one great antagonist of the wrongs which were then done upon the earth, that she narrowed the range of fiscal tyranny, — that she mitigated the overwhelming poverty of the people, — that she promoted the accumulation of capital, — that she contributed to the restoration of agriculture, — that she balanced and held in check the imperial despotism, — that she revived within herself the remembrance and the use of the franchise of popular election, — and that the gloomy portraits which have been drawn of her internal or moral state, are the mere exaggerations of those who would render the Church responsible for the crimes with which it is her office to contend, and for the miseries which it is her high commission effectually, though gradually, to relieve." 1 The same may be said of much later times. The struggle between the crown and the clergy was, in fact, often a struggle of religion against lawlessness, avarice, licentiousness, and tyranny. The clergy were the guardians not only of the Church, but of the people ; and one great secret of their increasing power was the conviction, even among their opponents, of the righteousness of their cause, and, among those whom they defended, of the bless ings of their protection. But there was one important element at work, which we have now to take into account. From the earliest times, the Bishop of Rome was the most important prelate in the West. His see was in the imperial city. It claimed the chief of the Apostles as its founder. The Apostolic sees were everywhere respected ; and Rome was the only Church in Europe certainly Apostolic. So early as the third century, St. Cyprian had urged the priority of St. Peter, and the precedence of the Bishops of Rome, as an argu- ment for the unity of the Church. To all Europe Rome was, on every account, a centre ; and the ambition of its prelates never ceased to turn such advantage to their own account. There were few Churches which owed not some obligation to the Roman Church ; if not as founding, yet as strengthening and enlightening them. There were a thousand causes tending to give additional importance to the Popes. The emperors found it politic to court them. The patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch sought defence from them against the overwhelming power of Constantinople in the East. The kings of distant nations asked for missionaries from them, to instruct their people more perfectly in the Gospel. The removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople, whilst it raised the see of that city to the position of eminence next to that i Lectures on the History of France, by the Rt. Hon Sir James Stephen, i. p. 37 798 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXV1L of Rome, yet rather favoured the increase of the power of the latter. When there was an emperor at Rome, the Pope was con- trolled by a superior ; but when the emperor was at a distance, the Christian bishop became the most important person in the imperial city. By degrees a primacy, which might have been reasonable, became a supremacy which was pernicious. The whole constitution of Europe favoured such an arrangement. As all Europe looked to Rome as its civil centre, so Christian Europe looked to Rome as its ecclesiastical centre. Then, the power of the Pope was a happy counterpoise for the power of the sovereign. In the Middle Ages the barons owed fealty to their feudal suzerain ; and the bishops and clergy owed a spiritual fealty to their ecclesiastical head. The Church, as an united body, was disposed to look to one visible centre, one visible head. Evil as its consequences have been, still in these dark and troubled times such union and sub- mission on the one hand, and a corresponding aid and protection on the other, may possibly have been the means of keeping the Church from utter disintegration, by protecting it from that law- less and arbitrary feudalism which might otherwise have swept away both Church and religion from the earth. But the authority, thus fostered and matured, now overtopped all other authorities, and grew into a tyranny as intolerable as that against which it once promised to be a bulwark. Like a dic- tatorship after a republic, it was more absolute than legitimate monarchy. The power of the Pope was not merely spiritual, but political. 1 In the first place, the clergy were not esteemed as subjects of the crown, in the country in which they lived. The Pope was their virtual sovereign ; to him they owed a supreme allegiance. All causes concerning them were referred to spiritual tribunals, and there was a final appeal to the jurisdiction of Rome itself. Bishops felt the grievance of such a power, when the Pope at his pleasure exempted monasteries from their control, and claimed all benefices, as of right vested in the supreme pontiff, and not held legally without his permission. But kings felt it still more ; when a large portion of their subjects were withdrawn from their authority ; when a large number of causes, under the 1 Bellarmine calls it a heresy not to Pont. v. 1 ; Baronius, Anno 1058, § 14; allow to the Pope power over sovereign Anno 1073, § 13, quoted by Barrow, On princes in temporal affairs. And Baro- the Pope's Supremacy, p. 17. Bellarmine nius says, " They are branded as here- states it as the general Catholic senti- tics, who take from the Church of Rome ment, that popes have not directly tempo- and the see of St. Peter one of the two ral authority, hut that indincili/, by vir- swords, and allow only the spiritual." tue of their spiritual authority, they have This heresy Baronius calls the " Heresy temporal authority, of the Politici." Bellarmin. De Rom. Sec. L] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 799 name of ecclesiastical, were withdrawn from their courts ; when taxes were levied in the name of Peter's pence upon their king- doms ; when their clergy and many of their people could be armed against them by a foreign influence ; and, worst of all, when the right was asserted of putting their whole country under an inter- dict, nay, even of either granting to them new kingdoms, 1 or of deposing them from their thrones, and releasing their people from their oaths of allegiance. 2 The Reformation was a reaction from this state of things, as well as a throwing off of internal corruption of faith. It was viewed in- deed by different persons according to their respective feelings and interests. The prince desired it, for the sake of regaining his for- mer, and more than his former authority. The nobles desired it, that they might fatten on the spoils of the Church. The reforming prelates and clergy desired it, that they might be freed from the power of Rome, and have liberty to order God's worship aright. The people desired it, that they might have freedom of conscience and purity of faith. As the fathers had hailed the conversion of an emperor, to free them from heathen tyranny ; as clergy and people in the Middle Ages had sought a refuge at Rome from the exactions of their domestic oppressors ; so now the reformers hoped that the throne would prove to them a protection from the tyranny of the Vatican. We must plead this in excuse for what is the foul- est stain on the Reformation, namely, the undue servility of the ecclesiastical leaders of it to the vicious and tyrannical princes that sided with it. In England, Henry, whose love for reformation was love only for his own power, passions, and interests, wished not to free relig- ion from restraint, but to transfer to himself the power formerly wielded by the Pope. And we may partly account for the oppo- sition to reform among the commonalty, who had originally sighed for it, by remembering that they discovered now a prospect for themselves of the same tyranny here in England which had here- tofore been as distant as Rome. Their desire for a restoration to a simpler worship and a purer faith had been met by a rapacious seiz- ing of those ecclesiastical revenues from which so much benefit had 1 As Alexander III. gave Henry II. a down as a principle, that the subjects of grant of Ireland. excommunicate princes are released from 2 As Gregory VII. did to the Emperor their allegiance. " Quum quis per sen Henry IV. a. n. 1076 ; Alexander III. tentiam denunciatur propter apostasiam. did to the Emperor Frederick I. a. d. excommunicatus, ipso facto ejus subditi 1168; Innocent III. did to the Emperor a dominio et juramento fidelitatis ejus Otho IV. a. d. 1210; and to our own liberati sunt." — Tom. n. Secund. qu. King John, a. d. 1212. Thomas Aqui- 12, Art. II.; Barrow, On (he Pope's Su- nas, the great school authority, lays it premacy, p. 3. 300 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Akt. XXXVIL over been derived to the poor and to the oppressed ; and by a transference of a power over their consciences from one whom they did look up to as a Christian prelate, to an avaricious and blood- stained sovereign. However, notwithstanding the difficulties of the case, and the evil passions of some, the problem was working itself out. The Pope's power was happily abolished. Appeals to Rome were no longer legal. Ecclesiastical as well as civil causes were heard in the king's name. The acts of Convocation in the reforming of the doctrines and formularies were sanctioned by the crown. The clergy were all made amenable to the civil tribunals, and became in fact subjects of the throne of England, not of the throne of St. Peter. But in what sense had the king thus become the head or chief governor of the Church ? The very principle of the Reformation may be said to have been, that there is no Supreme Head of Christ's Church but Christ Himself. Yet by the acts 26 Henry VIII. c. 1, and 35 Henry VIII. c. 3, the king is declared in express terms, " the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England." And in the following reign, the Article of 1552 is worded in accordance with such acts, " The King of England is supreme head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and Ireland." » Many thoughtful men, not disinclined to the Reformation, were much offended at this apparent assumption of spiritual authority over Christ's flock by a temporal sovereign. Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More went to the scaffold, rather than acknowledge it. But among those who submitted to the authority, there was a diversity of feeling as to the sense attached to it. Henry himself doubtless wished to be both pope and king. The Parliament prob- ably accepted the title in no very definite signification ; but re- joiced in any advance of the lay power to preeminence over the clergy. The Convocation thought it doubtfully consistent with their allegiance to God, and recognized the title only " so far as by the law of Christ they could." a What was the opinion of the leading divines of the Reformation on this subject, and especially of the Archbishop, must be an in- teresting question. I have been surprised to find so little about it in the writings of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. Cranmer had x " Rex Anglise est supremum caput in singularem proteotorem et supremum tcrris, post Christum, Ecclesiffl Angli- Dominum, et, quantum per Chrisli legem cansB et Hiberniro." licet, ctiam supremum caput ipsius maj- 2 " EcclesiaB et cleri Anglicani, cujus estatem recognoscimus." Sec. L] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 801 evidently, at one time, a very extravagant notion of the sacredness of kings, as he had a very low view of the office of the ministry ; so that he even ventured a statement, that the royal power might make a priest. 1 But this sentiment he afterwards entirely abandoned. We may remark then, that he ever constantly affirmed that in all countries the king's power is the highest power under God, to whom all men by God's laws owe most loyalty and obedience ; and that he hath power and charge over all, as well bishops and priests as others. 2 But the occasion on which he gave the fullest exposition of the meaning which he and his fellows attached to the supremacy, was in his examination before Brokes, just before his death. Then he declared, that " every king in his own realm is supreme head, and therefore that the king of England is supreme head of the Church of Christ in England." He admits that on this principle, " Nero was Peter's head," and " head of the Church ; " and that " the Turk is the head of the Church in Turkey." 3 " After this, Dr. Martin demanded of him, who was supreme head of the Church of England ? Marry, quoth my Lord of Canterbury, Christ is head of this member, as He is of the whole body of the universal Church. Why, quoth Dr. Martin, you made King Henry the Eighth supreme head of the Church. Yea, said the Archbishop, of all the people of England, as well ecclesiastical as temporal. And not of the Church, said Martin. No, said He, for Christ is the only head of His Church, and of the faith and re- ligion of the same. The king is head and governor of his people, which are the visible Church. What ! quoth Martin, you never durst tell the king so. Yes, that I durst, quoth he, and did. In the publication of his style, wherein he was named supreme head of the Church, there was never other thing meant." 4 Whether Cranmer durst or durst not tell the king thus, the king probably took it differently ; and indeed it is pretty clear, that something more than the power of Nero, or of " the Turk," over Christians in their dominions, was intended to be assigned to Chris- tian kings over their Christian subjects. Whatever too was meant by the publication of the style, " Supreme head of the Church," it caused offence to many besides those who were sure to take offence. Accordingly, when the Acts of Henry VIII. and Edw. VI. had been repealed by the Statute 1 Philip and Mary, c. 8, the title, " Su- preme head," was never revived by authority, but was rejected by 1 Answers to Questions on the Sacra- 2 See Cranmer's Works, iv. Appen- ments, a. d. 1540. See this subject con- dix, pp. 266, 308, 328, &c. sidered under Article xxiii. 8 Works, iv. p. 98. 4 Cranmer's Works, iv. pp. 116, 117. 101 802 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVIL Elizabeth, and " Supreme governor " substituted in its place. 1 The Statute 1 Eliz. c. 1, is an "act for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same." In this act all foreign jurisdiction is abolished, and the power of visiting and correcting ecclesiastical abuses is, by the authority of Parliament, annexed to the imperial crown of the realm. But the acts confer- ring the title of " Head of the Church " (26 Henry VIII. c. 1, 35 Henry VIII. c. 3) are not revived, and thenceforward "govern- ment " is substituted for " headship. " 2 In Elizabeth's reign, the authorized formularies explain, to a considerable extent, the meaning attached at that time to the authority in question. First comes this article, the words of which should be carefully considered. It excludes all foreign domination, assigns to the sovereign the only supreme authority over all sorts of men, whether civil or ecclesiastical, but especially denies that sovereigns have any ministerial function in the Church, whether as regards the Sacraments or the word of God ; but the power which they have is such as godly princes in Scripture had, — " to rule all estates and degrees, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, and re- strain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers." The Injunctions of Elizabeth, to which the Article refers, enjoin all ecclesiastics to observe the laws made for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical, and abolishing all foreign authority. The queen's power is declared to be " the highest under God, to whom all men within the same realms and dominions by God's law owe most loyalty and obedience." 8 In the reign of James I. the Convocation agreed on the Canons of 1603. The second canon expressly affirms, that the M king's majesty hath the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the godly kings had among the Jews, and Christian emperors of the Primitive Church ; " and both the first and second canon speak of the laws, as having " restored to the crown of this kingdom the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastic:! 1." The XXXVIth Canon contains three articles, which are subscribed by all ministers at their ordination. The first is, I. " That the king's majesty, 1 Jewel mentions the Queen's refusnl ever." — Collier, Church History, pt. n of (lie title of Head of the Church in a Rk. vi. letter to BulliiiRer, May 22, 1569 : " The J See a very learned pamphlet entitled Queen is unwilling to be addressed. The l\i)ml Britf Votukknd, by Ralph either by word of mouth, or in writ- Rarnes, Esq. Rivingtons, 1850. Note, inR, ns the Hc.id of the Church of Kng- pap 90 land. For h lie seriously maintains, that H Sparrow's Co/lection of Article; p. 67. this honour is doc to Christ alone, and See also p. 88. cannot belong to any human being what- Sec. I.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 803 under God, is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal ; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, or potentate hath, or ought to have any ju- risdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesias- tical or spiritual, within his majesty's said realms, dominions, and countries." These documents, then, which at present form the charter of union between Church and State, evidently assign to the sovereign no new functions. The principle enunciated by them is, that the sovereign is entitled to those ancient privileges which belonged, 1, to devout princes in Scripture ; 2, to Christian emperors in prim- itive times ; 3, to the ancient sovereigns of England before the times of Papal domination. The very reference to Scriptural and prim- itive examples seems to be a demonstration of the justice of the claims ; for, if nothing is claimed beyond what Scripture warrants and the Catholic fathers allowed, the claim should seem to be both Scriptural and Catholic. Yet some important objections may be urged, which we must not neglect to consider. 1. It is said that " godly princes in Scripture " must mean " godly kings among the Jews." Now the Jewish dispensation was utterly dissimilar from the Christian ; for the Jewish Church was national, the Christian Church is not national, but Catholic. Hence naturally among the Jews the king, as head of the nation, was supreme over the Church. But the Catholic Church acknowledges no local distinctions ; and to assign a national supremacy is to rend the Church of Christ into separate societies. Kings, as well as others, are but members of the one spiritual body, which meddles not with temporal distinctions, but holds all alike as subjects and servants of Christ. To this we reply, that our kings, since at least the time of Elizabeth, have not an authority such as should separate one por- tion of the Church from the other. It is not our national distinc- tions, but our doctrinal differences, which divide us from our fellow- Christians. Our sovereigns claim only those powers which were exercised by their predecessors, in times which Romanists must acknowledge to have been Catholic, but before the full-grown authority of the see of Rome. Gregory VII. was the original founder of that great authority, and it culminated under Innocent III. But we see not that the Church was less Catholic in the days of Alfred and Edward the Confessor, than in the reigns of the Plantagenets. If then we concede to our princes the influence of 804 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Abt. XXXVIL the Saxon monarchs, we shall not have destroyed the Catholicity of the Church, more than it was destroyed centuries before the Reformation. 2. It is said again that the Jewish princes can be no examples (or us, because, from the theocratic nature of the Jewish kingdom, there was a sacredness attaching to their office, as that of God's special vicegerents, which cannot attach to ordinary rulers. Israel, as a theocracy, was a type of the Church ; and its kings were types of Christ. As the high priests foreshadowed His priestly office in His Church, so the kings foreshadowed His regal authority over His spiritual kingdom. But there is no vicegerent of Christ on earth ; no type now of His spiritual sovereignty. Hence earthly kings now cannot claim the position and privileges of the ancient Jewish kings. This is doubtless a very weighty argument, and is a just reply to some who would unduly magnify the royal authority in things ecclesiastical. But it has been observed in a former Article, 1 that the Jewish state may be considered in some respects as a model republic ; and that, notwithstanding the peculiar circumstances and special object of its institution, we may still derive lessons of political wisdom from the ordinances appointed by the All-wise for the government of His own chosen race. Now, in that govern- ment, He was pleased to conjoin the spiritual and secular elements, in such a manner that the king was to show a fatherly care for religion, yet not to intrude upon its sacred offices (see 1 Sam. xiii. 8-14 ; 2 Chron. xix. 11, &c.) ; and we may humbly conclude, that. what was ordained by heavenly wisdom then, cannot be wholly evil now. 2 Besides which, we see throughout Scripture that there is a sacredness in civil government. Kings are always said to hold their power of God, and to be especially under His protection and guidance. They are His ministers for good ; and therefore to be esteemed by God's people, as exercising in some degree God's authority (see Prov. viii. 15 ; Dan. ii. 21, 37 ; Rom. xiii. 1-5 ; 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, &c.). 8 1 Art vii. See above, p. 214. of the ancient fathers, that " omnit anima, * The way in which kings and rulers every soul, comprehends all without ex- among the .lows interfered in the affairs ception.all spiritual men, oven the highest of religion may be seen from the follow- bishop : Uaai ravra diaruTTtrai, koi Upcvoi. ing passages : Josh. xxiv. 26, 26 ; 1 ... Omnibus ista imperantur et sacer- Chron. xv. 12; xxiii. G; 2 Chron. viii. dotibus et monachis . . . . Et postea : 14, 16; xv. 8, 9; xvii. 9; xx. 3, 4; Etiamsi Apostolus sis, si evangelist*, si xxix. 8-6, 26 ; xxxiv. 81, 82. proplieta, sive quisquis tandem t'ueris. — • Ilom. xiii. 1 : " Lot every soul be St. Chrysost. Horn. xxiu. m Rom. Sive subject to the higher powers." Arch- est sacerdos, sive antistes. — Theodnret. bishop Laud thus sums up the consent In Horn. xiii. Si otnnis anima est vestra. Sec. I.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 805 3. Another objection to the precedents claimed by the English monarchs is, that the influence of the Christian emperors, and the connection of religion with the state, which sprang up after the time of Constantine, were the very origin of evil and corruption in the Church. It was an unhallowed alliance between the Church and the world, and never had God's blessing on it. It perhaps cannot be denied that the sunshine of worldly pros- perity has never been the most favourable condition for the devel- opment of Christian graces. When the Church could no longer say, " Silver and gold have I none," it could no longer command the impotent man to " arise and walk." Yet we cannot thence conclude, that the Church is ever to seek persecution, or to refuse such vantage-ground as God's providence permits it to stand upon. To court or fawn upon the great is indeed most earnestly to be shunned. The minister of God must reason before the governor, of " righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come ; " and, if possible, make the ungodly ruler " tremble," as much as the mean- est of the people. Yet St. Paul rejoiced to gain converts in Caesar's household (Phil. i. 13 ; iv. 22). And, as there seems no more prob- able way to Christianize a people than to Christianize their rulers, it is obviously desirable that the government of a country should be induced to support religion in it. And again, on the other hand, it is the plain duty of sovereigns and constituted authorities to maintain true religion in the land. Nations and rulers are as much responsible to God's judgment as private individuals. Scrip- ture condemns ungodly rulers and ungodly nations, as much as ungodly individuals ; and praise is given to such sovereigns as fear God and honour His name. (See Psalm ii. 10. Jer. xviii. 7-10. Jonah passim.') National, as well as individual, mercies and judgments come from Him. Now, nations and their rulers can only show their piety to God in a public and national manner, by maintaining true religion and the public service of religion. More- over, it was prophesied concerning the Christian Church, that *' kings should be her nursing fathers and queens her nursing mothers " (Isai. xlix. 23) ; and it is difficult to know how they can be nurses to the Church, if it be forbidden her to have any connection with them. 1 Quis Tos excipit ex universitate ? . . . . ylact lived in the time of Pope Gregory Ipsi sunt qui vobis dicere solent, servatis VII., and St. Bernard after it; and yet vestrae sedis honorem Sed Christus this truth obtained then: and this was oliter et jussit et gessit, &c. — S. Bernard, about the year 1 130." — Laud, Conference Epist. 42 ad Henriatm Senonensetn Archie- with Fisher, p. 170, note. Oxford, 1839. piscopum. Et Theophylact. In Rom. xiii., ' The Eastern Church admits the su- where it is very observable that Theoph- preiuacy of the Crown, probably in a 800 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXX VH If we once admit the propriety of a connection between the Church and the State, and at the same time deny the supremacy of the Pope, it seems almost to follow of necessity, that we should admit a supremacy of the sovereign. The sovereign must in that case hold some position in the Church ; and it can only be the highest. It is not consistent with his sovereignty that he should have a superior in his own kingdom. But, in considering the sovereign as chief ruler over all persons in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, we must remember one or two particulars. " It may be, that two or three of our princes at the most (the greater part whereof were Roman Catholics) did style themselves, or gave others leave to style them, ' the Heads of the Church within their dominions.' But no man can be so simple as to conceive, that they intended a spiritual headship, — to infuse the life and motion of grace into the hearts of the faithful ; such an Head is Christ alone ; no, nor yet an ecclesiastical headship. We did never be- lieve that our kings, in their own persons, could exercise any act pertaining either to order or jurisdiction ; nothing can give that to another which it hath not itself. They meant only a civil or political head, as Saul is called ' the head of the tribes of Israel ; ' to see that public peace is preserved ; to see that all subjects, as well ecclesiastics as others, do their duties in their several places ; to see that all things be managed for that great and architectonical end, that is, the weal and benefit of the whole body politic, both for soul and body." 1 The sovereign *• assumes not the office of teaching or of explain- ing the doubtful points of the law, nor of preaching or of minister- more unrestricted sense than the Angli- " 1. The Eastern Orthodox and Apos- can Church. Yet they maintain the sole tolic Church of Greece, which spiritu- spiritual Headship of Jesus Christ, as op- ally owns no head but the Head of the posed to the supremacy of the l'ope. Christian faith, Jesus Christ our Lord, ia " In 1590 certain prelates of the Rus- dependent on no external authority, aian Church joined the Roman commun- while she preserves unshaken dogmatic ion on some concessions being made to unity with all the Eastern orthodox them. Thus Rome raised the Unia ; and churches .... with respect to the ad- it continued nearly '250 years. At the ministration of the Church, which bo- first partition of Poland, between two longs to the Crown, she acknowledges and three million uniats returned to the the King of Greece to be her supreme Knstern Church ; ami in 1888 the remain- head as is in nothing contrary to the holy ing Russian uniats were reiei veil into the Canons. unity of the Eastern Church, UN only act " 2. A permanent synod shall be estab- of profession required being, thai 'Our lislied, consisting entirely of archbishops Lord Jesus Christ is the only true Head and bishops appointed by the king, to be Of the one true Church.' " — Ncalc's //is- highest ecclesiastical authority, after the tori/ of the F.tistern Church, i. pp. 6b, 67. model of the Russian Church." — Ibid. p. " In 1888 a Synod met at Naupiia for CO. the regeneration of the Greek Church. l Archbishop Rramhall, Anstrer to hi. The two following propositions were np- de Milletihrt, Work*, i. pp. 29, 80. proved by thlrty-aix prelates : — Sec. I] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 807 ing Sacraments, of consecrating persons or things, of exercising the power of the keys, or of ecclesiastical censures. In short, he undertakes not anything which belongs to the office of the min- isters of Christ. But in matters of external polity lie claims he right of legislating ; and we gladly give it him. The care of re- ligion is an affair of the sovereign and the nation, not merely of the clergy." ! Again, the supremacy of the crown must not (according to our constitution in Chui*ch and state) be considered as an arbitrary and unlimited supremacy. Everything in England is limited by law ; and nothing more than the power of the sovereign. In matters of state, the power of the crown is limited by the two houses of Par- liament ; in the affairs of the Church, it is limited also by the two houses of Convocation. Legally and constitutionally, the sovereign or the sovereign's government can do nothing concerning the state of the Church, her doctrine and discipline, without first consulting the clergy in Convocation, and the laity in Parliament ; so that, when we acknowledge the supremacy of the crown, we do not put our consciences under the arbitrary guidance of the sovereign or the ministry ; for we know, that legally nothing can be imposed upon us, but what has received the consent of our clergy and laity, as represented respectively. Indeed, of late, no small difficulty has arisen. The supremacy of the crown is now wielded, not by the sovereign personally, but by the minister ; that minister is the choice of the House of Com- mons : that House of Commons is elected by the three kingdoms ; and, in two out of those three kingdoms, the vast majority of elec- tors are not members of the Church of this kingdom of England. In short, the supremacy of the crown has insensibly passed, or at least is rapidly passing, into a virtual supremacy of Parliament. This unhappily is not a supremacy of the laity of the Church of England ; because Parliament is composed of representatives from England, Ireland, and Scotland ; and in the two last the majority are Roman Catholics and Presbyterians. This difficulty existed not at the period of the Reformation ; but is steadily increasing on us 1 The words are those of Bishop An- tale munus spectant, seu potestatem or- drewes, selected by James I. to defend dinis consequuntur. Procul hasc habct his supremacy against Bellarmine. " Do- Rex ; procul a se abdicat. cendi munus vel dubia lcgis explieandi " Atqui in his quae exterioris politiae non assumit, vel conciones habendi, vel sunt, ut praecipiat, suosibi jure vendicat ; rei sacra? praceundi, vel sacramenta cele- suosque adeo illi lubentes merito deferi- brandi ; non vel personas sacrandi vel mus. Heligionis enim curam remregiam res ; non vel clavium jus, vel censurae. esse, non inodo pontificiam," &c. — An- Verbo dicam, nihil ille sibi, nihil nos illi drewes, Tortura Torti, p. 380, p. 467, fas putamus attingere, quae ad sacerdo- Anglo- Catholic Library. 808 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXX VI L at present. Up to the time of the Reformation, the whole nation was of one faith, and united as one Church. The Reformation did not introduce a new faith, but restored purity to the old, and re- moved the abuses which time had permitted. It was the work of prince, prelates, and people ; and the Church, which had from the beginning been protected by the state, was protected by it still. 1 It has been reasonably thought, that the supremacy of the Pope, which was suffered before the Reformation, was (to use a term growing into use) the extreme expression for the superiority of the clergy and their dominance over the laity ; whereas the supremacy of the crown was the counter expression for the independence and power of the laity. The same principle only would be expressed by the supremacy of Parliament, and so of the minister, if Parliament represented only the laity of the English Church. But, as at present con- stituted, it in part represents, not only the laity, but the clergy also of other communions, which we must, alas ! almost call hostile to us. It is utterly vain to speculate on the future. We cannot ques- tion, that the relation between Church and state is now widely different from that which once existed, and that it is fraught with new dangers. Yet perhaps it may also bring new advantages. And the Rock of the Church still stands unshaken ; and shall for- ever stand. There is our hope ; not in the favour of princes, nor of multitudes of the people. Nor need our fear be of their frown. Our real danger is, lest the lukewarmness of the Church lead to Erastian indifference, or her zeal degenerate into impatience, fac- tion, or intemperance. [Note. A few words may be added, on a point which, it is believed, is not gen- erally understood. It is matter of history, that Cranmer and other Bishops took out commissions from Edward VI. for the exorcise of their Episcopal functions. This has been in- sisted on, especially by the late Lord Macaulay, as proof positive that they regarded the Sovereign ns the source of their spiritual authority. The truth however is, that the act was the natural result of a distinction which was made between .«/>!>- itual power, and the right to exercise that ;x>tr*r, after a corrcire manner, in any country or state. There is contemporaneous evidence, in the book called the Institution of a Chris- tian man, published in 1537, that this distinction was made. It is therein asserted, 1 The remarks in the text are iibun- tent, truly represented as to its clergy in dant answer to the cavil, that the Church Convocation, ns M its laity in Parliament, of England is mi Act of l'arliament The acts of Convocation and Parliament, Church. At the time of the Reformation, ratified by the Crown, were therefore the and at the various reviews of our Ser- true acts of the Church of England, king, vices, the Church was, to a very great ex- priests, and people. Sec. H.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 309 that " God's law committed to bishops or priests the power of jurisdiction .n ex- communicating or absolving offenders, but without corporeal restraint or violence." This last is something which it clearly contemplates as coming from the State, and which, therefore, the State can revoke. So too Bramhall, in his first Vindication, says, " It is true the habitual jurisdiction of bishops flows from their ordination ; but the actual exercise of it, in public courts, after a coercive manner, is from the gracious concessions of Sovereign Princes." And again, " Habitual jurisdiction is derived only by ordination. Actual jurisdiction is a right to exercise that habit, arising from the lawful application of the matter or the subject." And yet again, " We must distinguish between the interior and the ex- terior courts, — between the court of conscience and the court of the Church. . . . The power which is exercised in the court of conscience is solely from ordination. But that power which is exercised in the court of the Church [1. e. as he explains it, coercive power imposing other than spiritual penalties] is partly from the Sover- eign Magistrate." The commissions, then, which Cranmer and his brethren in the Episcopate re- ceived from the Sovereign, were not considered to convey habitual jurisdiction. That had been received in ordination. But they gave them the right to exercise that habitual jurisdiction, in recognized courts, and after a coercive manner. The idea of course grows out of the union of Church and State ; and however little it may approve itself to us, however undesirable it may seem to add temporal penalties to spiritual censures, it at least proves that no such theory was entertained as the tak- ing out of the commissions has been supposed to indicate. — ./. W.\ Section II. — THE SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME. T^HIS is a most extensive subject, and of primary importance in the •Ir controversy between the Churches of Rome and England. For, if once the supreme authority of the Roman Patriarch is con- ceded, all other Roman doctrines seem to follow as of course. And so it will probably be found, that all converts to the Roman Church have been led to it from a conviction of the necessity of be- ing in communion with the Supreme Pontiff, not from persuasion of the truth of particular dogmas. The grounds on which the claim rests, are as follows : I. That St. Peter had a supremacy given him over the universal Church. II. That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. III. That this supremacy is inherited by his successors ; those successors being the Bishops of Rome. I. It is said, that St. Peter had a supremacy given him over the rest of the Apostles, and over the universal Church. 1. We may readily admit that St. Peter had a certain priority among his brother Apostles assigned to him by our blessed Lord. It is constantly the case that, in a company of equals, one, from 102 §10 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVBL greater age, greater energy and zeal, greater ability, or greater moral goodness, takes a lead, and acquires a superiority. This may have been the case with St. Peter. Our Lord certainly ap- pears to have honoured him and St. John, and St. James, with His peculiar love and favour. And, both during our Lord's ministry and after His resurrection, St. Peter appears to have been signally forward in the service of Christ. The fathers observe much this quickness, boldness, activity, and energy of St. Peter ; which natu- rally brought him into the foremost position, and also qualified him to take the lead among the disciples. 1 Accordingly, a kind of priority of position or rank was appar- ently conceded by the other Apostles to St. Peter. This is what St. Augustine observes, that " St. Peter being the first in the or- der of the Apostles, the most forward in the love of Christ, often alone answers for the rest." 2 The fathers account for this on the grounds : 1, that he was the first called of the Apostles ; 3 2, that he was the eldest ; for which cause St. Jerome supposed that he was preferred to St. John, lest a youth should take precedence of an elderly man ; 4 3, that he outstripped his brethren in a ready confes- sion of faith in Christ. 6 So, St. Peter's name is ever first in the catalogue ; and he seems to take the lead in speaking and writing. 2. But this priority of order involved not a primacy of power, or preeminence of jurisdiction. (1) If it had done so, we should have found some commission of this kind given to him in Scripture. There is plain enough com- mission to the Apostleship ; but none to a hyper-apostleship, nor any mention of the existence of such an office in the history of the Gospels and Acts, or in the Epistles of the Apostles. (2) There is no title of preeminence given to St. Peter, such as Vicar of Christ, Sovereign Pontiff, or Arch-apostle. (3) There was no office known to the Apostles or the primitive Church higher than that of Apostleship. This, St. Chrysostom tells us, is " the great- est authority, the very summit of authorities." 6 (4) Our Lord dis- tinctly declared against any such superiority ; and said that if any of the Apostles coveted it, he should be counted least of all (Matt. 1 depporepoc twv uXXuv elc kitiyvuaiv 8 " Qucm primum Dominua elegit." XpioTov. — Greg. Naz. Omt. 84. Tom. i. — Cypr. A'/>. 71. 8.649. Colon. See several passages to a * Hier. In Jotin. X. Tom. iv. part n. ke effect in Barrow, On the Pope's Sit- p. 168. prnnuri/, pp. 80, 81. 6 " Siipereminentem boatas fldei sua ■ "Ipse enim Petrus in Apostolorum confcssione gloriam pronuTiiit." — Hilar, ordinc primus, in Cliristi anion- prnmptis- De Trin. Lib. vi. simus, srope unus respoixlet pro otnni- 6 upx^f ptyiarii . . . unpvfi) up.fuv. Chry». bus." — August. De Vet bit Evamjelii, De bttlit. <CtoL Script, in I'riucip. Actorum Matt. xir. 8erm. 76, Tom. t. p. 416. iii. Tom. m. p. 76. Edit. Benedict. Sec. II.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 811 xx. 27 ; xxiii. 8. Mark ix. 34, 35 ; x. 44. Luke ix. 46 ; xxii. 14, 24, 26). (5) St. Peter, in his Epistles, claims no peculiar authority (see 1 Pet. v. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 2) ; and in the history, there is no appearance of his taking it. The appeal in Acts xv. is not to St. Peter, but to the Apostles and elders ; and the decree runs in their names, ver. 22. If any one presided there, it was not he, but St. James. Nay ! the other Apostles took upon themselves to send Peter and John into Samaria (Acts viii. 14) ; and " he that is sent is not greater than he that sends him " (John xiii. 16). (6) If St. Peter had been the visible head of the Church, those who were of Paul or of Apollos might indeed have been factious ; but St. Paul as severely reproves for a schismatical spirit those who say, " I am of Cephas " (1 Cor. i. 12 ; iii. 21). (7) The complete independence of the Apostles in all their proceedings, in their missionary journeys, their founding of Churches, &c. shows the same thing (see 1 Cor. iv. 14, 15 ; ix. 2 ; Gal. iv. 19, &c). (8) St. Paul's conduct especially proves that he owned no dependence on St. Peter, nor subjection to him. He declares himself, " in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles" (2 Cor. xii. 11). On his conversion, he took no counsel with men, not even with the Apostles (Gal. i. 16, 17) ; but acted on his independent commission derived direct from Christ (Gal. i. 1). James, Cephas, and John gave him the right hand of fellowship, as their equal and co-Apostle (Gal. ii. 9). He hesitated not to " withstand St. Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal. ii. 11). And St. Chrysostom observes, that thus St. Paul showed himself equal to St. Peter, St. John, and St. James, and that by comparing himself, not to the others, but to their leader, he proved that each enjoyed equal dignity and im- portance." 1 Lastly, all these arguments from Scripture, against a supreme authority of St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles, are fully borne out by the statements of the fathers, who, though they speak much of the high honour of the former, yet declare that the other Apostles were all equal and coordinate with him in power and authority. Thus St. Cyprian : " The other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal share of honour and power ; but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church might be shown to be one." 2 " His was," says St. Ambrose, " a precedence 1 de'iKwoiv avTolg 6/ioti/wv ovra fa>nrbv, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti K<it oi) rolg iMmut iavrdv, (OCkd rw Kopt/dtuw et honoris et potestatis ; sed exordium Gvynpivet, deiKvv<; on rfjr avrrft enaaroQ uni- ab unitate proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia una \avoev uJ-iag . — Chrys. In Gal: ii. 8. monstretur." — Cyp. De Unit. Eccles. p. 2 " Hoc erant utique et caeteri Apostoli 107. 812 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVIL of confession, not of honour ; of faith, not of order." * St. Jerome says that, though the Church were founded on St. Peter, yet it was equally on the other Apostles. 2 So Isidore : " The other Apostles received equal share of honour and power with St. Peter, and dispersed throughout the world preached the Gospel ; to whom, on their departure, succeeded the bishops, who are consti- tuted through the world in the sees of the Apostles." 3 Let us now, on the other side, consider those passages of Scripture, on which it is contended that a distinct supremacy over the universal Church was granted to St. Peter. 1. The first is Matt. xvi. 18 : "I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Here, say the Roman divines, St. Peter is called the foundation of the Church ; and foundation implies government and superiority. It is observable, that our Lord called St. Peter neVpos, in the masculine, which properly signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock; and that He said He would build His Church, «Vi Ta&nj rrj 7rtTpp, using the feminine noun, which more expressly denotes an entire rock. This has led many commentators, ancient and modern, to believe that the Rock on which the Church should be built, was not St. Peter ; since in that case, the Lord would have used the masculine word 7r«To<{>. 4 Accordingly, a large number of the fathers were of opinion that the Rock, on which the Church was to be built, was either Christ Himself, or, which is much the same thing, the faith of Christ thus confessed by St. Peter. Thus, St. Chrysostom inter- prets " On this Rock," by " On the faith of this confession." 6 So 1 " Primatum confession is utique, non _._ __. ,.„ „„„,„ k«»u i_jm I«m*» honoris ; primatum fldei, non ordinis." - word8 are the 8ame ' ^ be,ng ^^ LM>. de tncarn. T. iv. It is, however, justly observed by Bp. 2 " At dicis super Petrum fundatur Beveridge on this Article, that the sec- ^SshJlss^srz Mlio Ioco 8upcr « nd M^, where * m ™™ « «**. *• omiK'8 :i | Histoids fiat, ft ex aequo super r— r— » eos Kcclcsiosfortitudosolidetur." — Ilier. shown to be feminine, by the use of the In Jovin. i. Tom. iv. part. n. p. 168. ... « • i«^— . _i ,i a .< r« m ««.-: a~ .i- I. . teminine pronoun l>01 ; whereas the (.'ffiteri Apnstohcum Pctroparcon- r '• ' sortium honoris et potestatis acceperunt, first must be masculine, since it is a qui etiam in totoorbc dispersicvangclium man's name. Hence the difference be- pnedicaverunt, quibusque decedentibus tween Uirpo^ and Ilcrpa is not quite lost •uccesseruntepiscopi, qui sunt constituti in the Syriac ; though that language per totum mundum in sedibus Apostolo- does not admit of the same changes of rum." — Isidor. Hispal. D« Offic. Lib. II. tennin itinn ;is the (iroek has. C 6. *> iiri ravry ry iri rpa • ■ • rovriari titi rp * It is thought that the Syriac version niaret TTKdfiokoyiat. — Horn. lvi. in Matt. refutes this opinion ; since our IsnrA xvi. •poke Syriac, and in that version the Sec. II] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 813 St. Augustine says that our Lord meant, " On this Rock, which thou haet confessed, will I build My Church." 1 And, in his Retractations, he tells us that he had formerly interpreted the passage of St. Peter, but that he afterwards thought it metre correct to understand it of Him whom St. Peter confessed. Non enim dictum est Mi, Tu es Petra, sed Tu es Petrus. Petra enim est Christus, quern confessus Simon, sieut tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Yet he leaves to the reader to choose which is the more probable interpretation. 2 In like manner St. Ambrose had said, that not Peter, but the faith of Peter, was the founda- tion of the Church ; 3 and in another place the same father writes, that " The Rock is Christ, who granted to His disciple that he should be called Petrus, as having from the Rock the solidity of constancy and firmness of faith." 4 To the same effect write Hilary, 5 Cyril of Alexandria, 6 Basil of Seleucia, 7 Theodoret, 8 Isidore of Pelusium, 9 Theophylact, 10 and others. On the other hand, no doubt, a great many of the ancients understood Peter himself to be the rock. Tertullian is the first who so applies the passage ; but we shall see hereafter, that he understood no supremacy to be implied in it, and certainly did not consider it to be transmitted to the Bishop of Rome. 11 Origen too applies it to St. Peter, but evidently understood all the other Apostles to have a similar promise. 12 Nay ! he declares that every disciple of Christ is a rock, as having drunk from the Spiritual Rock ; and on every such rock as this the word of the Church is founded. 13 Next comes St. Cyprian, who also calls St. Peter the rock ; and he says : " Though He committed an equal power to all the Apostles, saying, As My Father hath sent Me, so send I 1 " Super hanc Petram, quam confes- Ecclesiae aedificatio est." — Hil. De Trin. 8us es, aedificabo ecclesiani meam." — Lib. vi. August. In Johan. tr. 124, Tom. in. par. ° In cap. xliv. Jesaice, p. 698 ; Id. Dial. II. p. 822, and De Verbo Evangelii, Matt. iv. De SS. Trinit. p. 607. xiv. ; Serin. 76, Tom. v. p. 415. 7 Orat. xxv. p. 142. 2 Retractat. i. 21, Tom. i. p. 32. 8 Epist. 77. 8 " Fides ergo est Ecclesiae i'undamen- 9 Epist. 235, Lib. i. turn. Non enim de came Petri, sed de l ' In Matt. xvi. 18. fide dictum est, quia portae mortis ei non " De Pudicit. c. 21 ; De Prescript. praevalebunt, sed confessio vincit infer- Hceret. c. 22. num." — Ambros. De Incarnat. Domin. i2 el de enl rbv iva eneivov Hirpov vopi- Sacrament. c. 5. £«£• otKodop.el<j&ai ttjv kMcTaioiav povcv, ri 4 " Petra est Christus ; qui e tiara dis- uv (j>T/aacg nepl 'luavvov tov rye ppovrijs cipulo suo hujus vocabuli gratiara non vlov ical ekuotov tuv 'A.irooTofajv. — Origen. negavit, ut et ipse sit Petrus, quod de In Matt. Tom. xn. 11. Petra habeat soliditatem constantiae, fidei li Ilirpa yap nag 6 Xptarov padrjTijc, of' flrmitatem." — Ambros. Lib. vi. In Evan- ov enivov oi Ik nvevpuriKf/g uKohovdovoijC yel. Luccb. nerpag, a. r. X. — Ibid. 6 " Super hanc confessionis Petram 814 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVII. you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto him ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; yet, that He might manifest unity, He disposed by His authority the origin of that unity, so that it might take its rise from one. The rest of the Apostles indeed were what Peter was ; endowed with an equal share of honour and power ; but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church may be shown to be but one." 1 So Gregory Nazianzen, 2 Epiphanius, 3 Basil the Great, 4 Jerome, 5 and others understand, that St. Peter was the rock. But supposing this latter to be the true interpretation ; does it follow thence, that St. Peter had a supreme government over the other Apostles ? Foundation does not, of necessity, imply government. Our Lord may have promised to St. Peter, that he should be the first to found His Church ; which was fulfilled on the great day of Pentecost, when St. Peter's noted sermon brought the first-fruits of the Church of Christ. 6 But the fathers say, that the other Apostles were rocks as well as St. Peter, and that the Church was built on them also. 7 The Fathers, in no instance, suppose the other Apostles to have any dependence on, or sub- jection to St. Peter ; and Dr. Barrow justly observes, that the Apostleship itself could not be built on St. Peter, for that had been founded by Christ Himself before this promise was given ; and hence the Apostles were all clearly independent of St. Peter, and therefore their successors, the bishops, must be independent of his successors. 8 A passage so doubtful in its interpretation can never be sufficient to the purpose for which it is adduced ; especially seeing that none of the most ancient fathers, however they may interpret it, have discovered in it that supremacy of St. Peter which has since been asserted. If St. Peter be called a 1 " Super unum nediflcat ecclesiam s Hieronym. Ad Afarcellam ado. Mon- Biiam. Kt quamvis Apostolis omnibus tanum, Kpist. 27. Tom. iv. part n. p. 04. pUMI potestatcm tribuat et dicat; Sicut ° " Petrus dicitur, eo quod primus in misit Me Pater, et Etjo mitto vos, accipite nationibus fidei fundamcnta posuerit." — Spiritual Sanctum ; si cui remiseritis pec- Pseudo-Ambros. De Sanctis, Serm 2. cata, remittentur illis, si cui temteritis, tene- 7 See OrtgVD, as above. So Jerome : buiitur : tnmen ut uuitatcm manifestaret, " Picis super 1'ctrum fundatur Keclesia, unitatis ojusoriginomab uno incipicntcm licet id jpsum in alio loco sujxt omnes sua auctoritatc disposuit. Hoc erant Apostoloa fiat." — Micron. In.lwin. Tom. utique et eaiteri ApottoU quod fuit IV- IV. MUM I. p. 1(>S. So Basil. M. : Uxh/aia trus, pari consortio pnediti et honoris et uKodout/Tai ini r<J tfepeXiu rCtv unoorofajv potestatis ; sed exordium ab imitate profl- koI iroo^ijruv £v r£>v bpiuv r/v nai rirrpof, ciscitur, ut una ecclcsia monstretur." — t*' 17c nal Ilfrpar irn/yyeiXaro 6 Kvptoc Cypr. I)r Unitate, p. lOti. Fell. olKoAopjjaeiv ai/rov ri)v iKmXtfoiav. — Basil. a Omt. xxvi. Tom. 1. p. 418. fh Isai. ii. p. 869. * Barm. mx. Tom. 1. p. 500. ' Barrow, Supremacy, p. 62. * In Cap. ii. Jesaias, Tom. 11. p. 869. Sec. II.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 815 rock and a foundation, still all the Apostles were foundations, as well as he. " In the twelve foundations of the city are the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. xxi. 14). It is "built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets " (Ephes. ii. 20). In the highest sense, which indeed points out supremacy, " other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ " (1 Cor. iii. 11). And, as St. Ambrose says that the Apostle was a rock, as deriving firmness from the Rock ; so the Apostles were foundations, as themselves built on the One Foundation ; and their qualification, as rocks or as foundations, they received, not from Peter, but from Christ. 2. The next argument for St. Peter's supremacy is the verse immediately following the last ; namely, " And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " (Matt. xvi. 19). Here it is said that the power of the keys was given to St. Peter alone, and that the rest of the Church therefore derives that power through him. We may admit, that the promise being first given to St. Peter was a mark of special honour to him. But the same power was conferred upon the Church as a body ; to which our Lord said, " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " (Matt, xviii. 18). And again, after the resurrection, the same power was given to all the Apostles, when the risen Saviour " breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained " (John xx. 22). It is evident therefore, that neither the Church nor the Apostles received this power through St. Peter, but directly from Christ Himself ; and though the promise was first to St. Peter, yet the gift appears to have been simultaneous to all. So then, though St. Peter is honoured by a priority, the whole College of the Apostles is endowed with an equality of power. The fathers unanimously consent to this view of the case. " Are the keys of the kingdom of Heaven given to St. Peter alone, and shall not all the saints receive them ? And if this be common, how are not all the things common which were spoken to St. Peter?" So writes Origen. 1 And St. Cyprian, "Christ, after His resurrection, gave an equal power to all His Apostles, and 1 T A/)a ovv rw Tltrpcj fiovu diiovrai uwo 6uau aoi rac i&tldac rr/g ftaoOidag rCn> rov Kvpiov al KfeZdeg tuv ovpavuv (Jaoiheiuc, ovpavCiv, nuc ovxi kqc navTa ru te npoeu kclL ovdelc irepog i€>v paKapiuv airu( hijipe- prifdva nai tu s-jubspoueva ug npoq Jlerpov rat; el 6e koivov ton koI itpbq irepovg rb AeTiey/ieva. — Origen. In Matt. Tom. xu. 11. 816 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXX VIL said, As the Father hath sent Me, so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted ; and whose so- ever sins ye retain, they are retained." 1 " On all," says St. Jerome, " the strength of the Church is equally founded. You will say, the Church is founded on Peter ; but in another place this is said to be on all the Apostles ; and all receive the keys of the kingdom of Heaven." 2 St. Ambrose, " What is said to Peter, is said to all." 8 St. Augustine, " Did Peter receive the keys, and not Paul ? Peter, and not John and James and the rest of the Apos- tles ? " 4 Theophylact, " Though it be spoken to Peter alone, I will give thee, yet it is given to all the Apostles. When ? Why, when He said, Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted." 6 And so St. Leo, himself a famous Bishop of Rome, says, that " This power of the keys is translated to all Apostles and bishops. It was commended singly to St. Peter, because the example of St. Peter was propounded to all pastors of the Church." 6 Some indeed considered, that the whole Church received the keys with St. Peter. St. Peter they esteemed as a kind of figure of the Church, and an emblem of its unity ; and so that all received the power, even when it was ostensibly given to but one. 7 And if, notwithstanding this testimony of the fathers, we still esteem some special authority to be implied in the promise, we can only understand it of his being appointed to be the first, who, by preaching of the word and admitting converts to baptism, should unlock the gates of the kingdom, and open them to believers. " So," says Tertullian, " the event teaches. The Church was built on him, i. e. by him. He first put in the key, when he said. 1 " Christu8 Apostolis omnibus post peccata." — Aug. Tract. 124, in Joh. Tom. resurrectionem 8uam parem potestatem in. par. II. p. 822. tribuit et dieit : Sicut misit me Pater, et 6 el yup xal npbc THrpov ftovov tlptira< Ego mitto vo8, accipitc Spirituni S. Si to duau oot, uk\u. nal nuai unooroXoic 6c66- cui remiseritis peccata, remittentur ei, si rat- nore; fire elitev uv rivCiv upr/re rdf cui retinueritis, tenebuntur." — Cyprian, ufiapriac aQievrai. — Theopliyl. in toe. EM Uniiatc, p. 107. Fell. a " Hsec eluvium potestas ad omnes 2 "Dicis, super Petrum fundatur Ec- etiam apostolos et Frrlfitim prmulcc est clesia ; licet id ipsum in alio loco super translata. Quod autem sigillatim Petro omnes Apostolos fiat, et cuncti claves sit commendata, ideo factum est, quod coelorum accipiant; et ex a?quo super eos Petri exemplum universis Eoclesia? pas- ecclesiai fortitudo solidetur."— Hieron. O. toribus fuit propositum." — Leo. I. Serm. Jovinian. Lib. i. Tom. iv. part II. p. 168. de Ntilir. ■ " Quod Petro dicitur, cteteris Apos- " " In typo unitatis lYtro Dominus tolls dicitur." — Ambros. In /V xxxviii. dedit potestatem." — August. I)e Bapt. * " Numquid istas claves accepit Pe- III. 17. Tom. ix. p. 117. trus, et Paulus non accepit 1 Petrus ac- " Quando ei dictum est, Tibidabo cJnvts cepit, et Joannes, et Jacobus non accepit, .... universam signiflcavit ecclesiam.'' et cseteri npostoli?" — August. Serin. — Tract. 124 m Johan. Tom. m. pt. n. cxi.ix. Tom. v. p. 704. p. 822. 8o, again, " Ecclesia quas fundatur in " Ecclesiae claves regni coelorum dat» Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum ac- sunt, cum Petro data? sunt." — De Agomt oepit, i. e. potestatem ligandi. solvendique Chriati 80, Tom. ti. p. 260. Sec. II.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 817 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, $c. Acts ii. 22. He first opened the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven by baptism, whereby the sins were loosed by which they had been bound ; and he too bound Ananias with the bond of death," 1 &c. 3. The last argument of any weight, for St. Peter's supremacy, is the command, " Feed My sheep " (John xxi. 16). This, however, is an injunction and command, not the bestowal of a privilege. Dr. Barrow has observed, that, as well might the elders of Ephesus, whom St. Paul exhorts to " feed the Church of God" (Acts xx. 28), have esteemed, that St. Paul thereby con- stituted each of them an universal governor of the Church, as St. Peter, that he was made by this command an universal bishop. And so the fathers understood, that what was here enjoined on St. Peter was equally enjoined On all pastors. " When it is said to Peter, it is said to all," says St. Augustine.' 2 " These sheep and this flock," says St. Ambrose, " not only St. Peter did then receive, but all we pastors received with him." 3 And so St. Cvprian, " All of them were shepherds ; but the flock was shown to be one, which was fed by all the Apostles, with unanimous consent." 4 The com- mand, too, is to feed the flock, not to feed the shepherds. Hence, whatever authority may be supposed to be given over the people by these words, plainly none is given over the other Apostles. Every pastor is, in some sense, a pastor of the whole flock of Christ ; the Church of God is committed unto him. But every pastor has not therefore authority over his brethren, neither can it be shown, that, in thus committing a duty to St. Peter as regards the laity, our blessed Lord assigned him a supremacy over the clergy. The most then that can be fairly made of the case is, that St. Peter had a priority of honour among the Apostles ; that he was primus inter pares. More than this our Lord did not bestow on him ; more the Apostles did not concede to him ; more the earliest fathers never assigned to him ; and especially, more he never claimed or exercised himself. Eusebius quotes, from Clement of Alexan- 1 " Sic enim et exitus docet. In ipso ' 2 " Cum ei dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, Eeclesia extructa est, id est, per ipsura : Amas me? Pasce ores mean." — August, ipse clavem imbuit; vides quam — Viri De Agone Christi, 30, Tom. vi. p. 260. Israelite, auribus mandate quoi dico ;■ Jesum 8 " Quas oves et quem gregem non Nazarenum, virum a Deo destination et reli- solum turn B. suscepit Petrus, sed et cum qua. Ipse denique primus in Christi bap- eo nos suscepimus omnes." — Ambros. tismo reseravit aditum ccelestis regni, De Dignitat. Sacerd 2. quo solvuntur alligata retro delicta, et 4 " Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex alligantur quae non fuerint soluta secun- unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus dum veram salutem, et Ananiam vinxit unanimi consensione paseitur." — Cypr. vinculo mortis." — Tertull. De Pudicitia, De Unitate Eccles. c. 21. 103 gjg OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVEL dria, a passage markedly illustrative of all these statements. " Peter and James and John," says he, " after the ascension of the Saviour, contended not for glory, as having been most highly honoured by the Lord, but chose James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem." 1 The writer of this passage could not have believed that St Peter had, or claimed a supremacy over his brethren ; nor, we may observe by the way, could he have thought any bishopric in the Church more honourable, than that of Jerusalem. II. The next position of the Roman Church is, that St Peter was bishop of Rome. It is not to be doubted, that a tradition did exist in early times that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. But, if that tradition be sub- mitted, like others of the same kind, to the test of historical inves- tigation, it will be found to rest on very slender foundation. In the first place, Scripture is silent about his having been at Rome, — a remarkable silence, if his having been Bishop there was a fact of such vital importance to the Church, as the Roman divines have made it to be. Then, the first tradition of his having been at Rome at all does not appear for more than a century after his death. It is nearly two centuries after that event that we meet with any- thing like the opinion that the Roman bishops were his successors. It is three centuries before we find him spoken of as Bishop of Rome. But when we reach three centuries and a half, we are told, that he not only was Bishop of Rome, but that he resided five and twenty years at Rome ; a statement utterly irreconcilable with tin- history of the New Testament. To begin with the new Testament, the only evidence that can be thence adduced for St. Peter's having been at Rome, is that be seems to have written his first Epistle from Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13). Eusebius 2 says this meant Rome. He appears to say it on the authority of Papias ; though some learned men deny, that he ascribes the tradition to Papias. Jerome follows Eusebius in this statement. 8 The Roman divines generally adopt it. Yet a learned writer of their communion truly observes, that the use of such a metonymy may be very proper in a symbolical book, like the Apocalypse, »* but would only be credible in the subscription of an epistle, if arcana nomina Ecclesiarum had existed among Chris- tians." 4 If the tradition be due to Papias, he is doubtless a very 1 "Euseb. //. E. ii. 1, quoting Clement » /* Viris 111. c. 8. from the sixth book of the Hy/MMyposrs. * Hug, Introduction to the New Ttsta- • II E. Lib. ii c. 16. ment, part II. ivct. 166. Sec H] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 819 early authority (a. d. circ. 110) ; but Eusebius himself has given us to understand, that he was a person whose judgment was not to be. depended on, and particularly that he was an enthusiast about the Apocalypse. Hence his interpreting St. Peter by the language of the Apocalypse is not of much weight. Farther than this, the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul's four Epistles written from Rome, St. Peter's two Epistles, are all profoundly silent about St. Peter ever having been at Rome. Indeed, it seems almost certain that, when St. Paul went to Rome, St. Peter had not been there. Not only is there no mention of such a thing, but St. Paul, when writing to the Romans, writes much as if no Apostle had ever been amongst them. (Comp. Rom. i. 10-15 ; xv. 15-24). And, when he was at Rome, it seems clear from the narrative, that the Jews of Rome had had no communication with any chief teacher among the Christians, at least with any who had been converted from Juda- ism ; they were therefore desirous to hear of him what he thought, knowing only that the sect of Christians was everywhere spoken against (Acts xxviii. 22). Now how is this compatible with the al- leged fact, that St. Peter, the Apostle of the circumcision, to whom the conversion of the Jews had been peculiarly intrusted, had been the founder of the Church of Rome, and had been resident there for some time ? Again, if St. Peter had been at Rome, when St. Paul wrote to the Romans, St. Paul would surely have saluted him. If he had been there when St. Paul was there, it would surely have been mentioned in the Acts. If he had previously been there, and had been established as bishop of the city, it is utterly incredible that St. Paul should have assumed such author- ity over St. Peter's flock, as he does assume over the Romans, and that the Jews of Rome should have been utterly uninstructed in the Gospel. Of the fathers, the first who speaks to the purpose is Irenaeus. He says, that the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, founded and established the Church of Rome, and delivered the bishopric to Linus, to whom succeeded Anacletus, and to him Clement. 1 Clement of Alexandria says that St. Peter preached at Rome, and that St. Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of St. Peter's hearers. 2 Tertullian says, Clement was ordained by St. Peter to be Bishop of Rome. 3 Origen tells us, that St. Peter, having preached to the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, 1 Iren. in. 8. 2 Hypotyp. Lib. vi. apud Euseb. H. E. ii. 14. 8 De Prescript, c. 32. 820 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVIL and Asia, at last («Vi TeA.ci) came to Rome, and was crucified with his head downwards. 1 The Apostolical Constitutions say, that Linus was made first Bishop of Rome by St. Paul, and that after his death Clement was ordained to the same office, by St. Peter. 2 Lactantius tells us that the time of St. Peter's going to Rome was the reign of Nero. 3 Eusebius speaks of Linus as the first Bishop of Rome, after St. Paul and St. Peter ; 4 and elsewhere, that Linus was first Bishop of Rome after St. Peter, and that Clement was the third. 5 Also he assigns the date of St. Peter's first going to Rome to the reign of Claudius. 6 Now here we have a collection of the earliest and best authori- ties, concerning St. Peter's connection with Rome, and concerning the bishops that first presided there. Origen says, he went there at last ; Lactantius says, in the reign of Nero. Eusebius, later than either of them, and much later than Origen, assigns as a date the reign of Claudius. None of them say, that he was Bishop of Rome. On the contrary, all agree in saying that the first bishop of that see was Linus. All place Linus there during the Apostles' lifetime. Some say that St. Paul, others that St. Peter and St. Paul, ordained him ; whilst some say that Clement, the third bishop, was ordained by St. Peter. The inference is plainly this. At whatever time St. Peter came to Rome, (which most probably was in Nero's reign, and very shortly before that tyrant put him to death,) there was some one else Bishop of Rome then, and therefore St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome. Linus was bishop first, then Anacletus, then Clement. Very probably all three, one after the other, were bishops before St. Peter's death. But, whether one or three, some one else, not St. Peter, was Bishop of Rome, in St. Peter's lifetime. Two bishops were never permitted to preside over one see ; and therefore it is quite clear that St. Peter was not Bishop of the see of Rome. It is very true that St. Cyprian and Firmilian, in the middle of the third century, speak of Stephen, Bishop of Rome, as nlnimijg to be successor to St. Peter ; and, though not submitting to his authority, they still appear to acknowledge his claim. Yet they never said that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome ; but they acknowl- edged Stephen's succession from him, because they considered that St. Peter founded the Church of Rome, ordained the first 1 Ap. Euseb. //. E. in. 1. » De Mortihut Persecutorum, c. 2. * Constitut. Apostol. vn. 46. Here * lit. '2. Clement is made the second bishop of * m. 4. Rome ; Anacletus, whom Irenscus men- * II. 14. tions as second, being omitted. Sec. II.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 821 bishop there, and that therefore the apostolical succession came, through the Bishops of Rome, from that Apostle. The circumstances of the Roman Church were very remarkable. It was the only Church in the West that could certainly trace its origin to Apostles. The Apostles who were at Rome, were the greatest of all ; for there St. Paul undoubtedly taught, there prob- ably both St. Paul and St. Peter ordered the Church, ordained its first bishops, and finally watered it with their blood. There, if the tradition speak truly, St. John too was thrown into boiling oil, and escaped unhurt. The three greatest Apostles then had prob- ably taught and suffered at Rome. St. Peter and St. Paul had ordered the Church, and ordained very probably the first three bishops. No Church but Jerusalem could claim such privileges as this. No wonder then, that throughout the West the Church of Rome and her bishop should be had in high honour. No wonder that St. Cyprian, himself a Western bishop, should have looked up to the see of Rome as the centre of Christian unity, and the de- pository of sound doctrine. But all this does not make St. Peter the first diocesan bishop there, nor does it prove that Cyprian thought him so. The explanation of Rufinus is evidently the true, namely, that Linus, Cletus, and Clement were the Bishops of Rome ; but that St. Peter, whilst he was there, exercised apostolical authority, which was above every episcopate, and therefore not interfering with it. 1 And so it is observed, that many churches took their names from the Apostles, and were called Apostolical sees ; not because Apostles were Bishops in them, but because Apostles taught and appointed bishops there. Thus Ephesus was so called, because St. Paul founded it, and St. John resided and ordained there. Smyrna, because Polycarp was placed there by St. John or other Apostles. Alexandria, because St. Mark was placed there by St. Peter. Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi, because founded by St. Paul. Antioch, because St. Peter is said to have resided there, and to have constituted its first bishops. It is true that, when we get to the later fathers, we find that the story of St. Peter's Roman episcopate (a fiction eagerly cherished by the prelates of that see) was gaining ground and attracting credit. Epiphanius therefore speaks of St. Peter and St. Paul as 1 " Linus et Cletus fuerunt quidem ante patus curam gererent, ipse vero Apostola- Clementem episcopi in urbe Roma, sed tus impleret officium." — Rufin. in Proef. auperstite Petro ; videlicet ut illi Episco- Clem. Eecog. 822 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXX VII. the first Apostles, and also bishops of Rome ; l no very definite statement after all. But Jerome (a. d. tire. 400) positively asserts, that St. Peter, after having been Bishop of Antioch, went to Rome, where he was bishop for five and twenty years. He says this, both in his treatise De Viris Illustrious, 2 and also in his Latin translation of Eusebius's Chronical Canon; 8 which, however, contains many things not said by Eusebius, and this amongst the rest. 4 The fact, thus stated by Jerome, is simply impossible ; and the origin of it is probably to be attributed to a perversion of the account of Lac- tantius ; which account is, that, after preaching five and twenty years in divers provinces, Peter came, in Nero's reign, to Rome. 5 Thus the tradition was like Homer's "Epis : — "H r' bTuyrj fjh> npurra Kopvaatrcu, avriip eireira Obpavti kari/pi^e Kupr), nal tirl x&ovl ftaivei. 6 At first, it was but that St. Peter and St. Paul had constituted the Church in Rome, ordained Linus as its bishop, and there suf- fered for their testimony. Then they are spoken of as if they might have been bishops themselves ; the Roman bishops are then said to be St. Peter's successors ; and lastly, it is roundly asserted that St. Peter was actually Bishop of Rome for five and twenty years. That to fan the spark into a flame was the interest and the wish of such prelates as Victor and Stephen, even charity cannot make us doubt. But, after such a plain history of the rise and progress of the tradition, it is impossible not to see that it has no firm foundation. There is indeed no good reason to doubt, that St. Peter was at Rome ; that he assisted St. Paul to order and establish the Church there ; that, in conjunction with St. Paul, he ordained one or more of its earliest bishops, and that there he suffered death for the sake of Christ. But there is no reason to believe, that he was ever, in any proper or local sense, Bishop of Rome ; or indeed that, in that sense, any one of the Apostles had a fixed episcopate ; with the single exception of St. James (if he were an Apostle), who was appointed to preside over Jerusalem, lest that city, where Jesus died, 1 'Ev 'Pupy yap yeyovaot npuroi Uirpoc 6 " Apostoli per annos xxv usque ad nal riavAof ol airoaro'Koi airol koI InionoKOt, principium Neroniani imperii per omnes lira Mvoc. — Kpiph. flirr. xxvn. num. (>. provinciaseteivitatos Ecclesia- fundanu-n- * " Post episc.opatum Antiochensis Ec- ta miserunt. Cumque jam Nero impc- clesiao . . . Romam permit, ibique viginti raret, Petru.s Homam advenit," &c. — D* quinquc annis cathcdram »accrdotalem Mortibus Pmecutorum, c. 2. Pagi gives tenuit." — De V, I. c. 1. this explanation, Critic, in Baron. Ann. 43, " Chron. p. 160. num. in. quoted by Lardner, Works, vi. 4 The Greek of Eusebius is, TUrpoc 6 p. 647. KOpvQaioc rf)v tv 'KvTioxtia npurnv de/it- 9 //. A. 442. Xulxiac iKKXnoiuv tic 'Puuj)v uituat unpvrruv rd ebayyihov. — Xpov. Kav. ad Num. M. T. Sec. H.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 823 and rose from the dead, and from whence the Church first took its origin, and thence spread through the world, should lack an Apostle, and witness of the resurrection, to be constantly present there, and to form a kind of centre and home for the first preachers of the faith. All the other Apostles had the world for their diocese ; and wheresoever they came, they, as a thing of course, exercised supreme and hyper-episcopal control, discipline, and government. Indeed, if any Apostle could be called Bishop of Rome, St. Paul has more claim to that title than St. Peter. For St. Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles ; whereas St. Peter's mission was to the Jews. St. Paul wrote an Epistle to the Romans, which St. Peter did not. St. Paul lived two years at Rome, before there is any good ground for believing that St. Peter had been there at all. St. Paul is said to have constituted the first bishop there. 1 More- over, St. Paul himself speaks of having " the care of all the Churches," i. e. the Gentile Churches (2 Cor. xi. 28). All this will constitute a better case for St. Paul's Roman episcopacy, and for his supremacy over the Gentile Churches, than can possibly be made out for St. Peter's. III. The third position of the Roman divines is, that St. Peter's supremacy is inherited by his successors, the Bishops of Rome. If we have seen that St. Peter had no proper supremacy, and that he was not Bishop of Rome ; then, the premises being gone, the consequence must fall with them. If St. Peter had no suprem- acy, it could not be inherited. If he was not Bishop of Rome, the Popes could not inherit from him. But farther, whatever priority St. Peter had among his brother Apostles was personal, not official. He held no office, which they did not hold equally. There is no mention of an Arch-Apostle ; and though St. Paul speaks of the chiefest Apostles (ol vwep Xiav d7rooTo\ot), he speaks of them in the plural, not as if there were but one of supreme authority ; and he says that he himself was " not a whit behind them " (2 Cor. xi. 5). As then St. Peter's prior- ity was personal, not official, it could not be inherited. It was grounded on personal acts, especially his faithful confession of Christ. It contained some personal privileges ; e. g. the first found- ing of the Church, which, being that on which much stress is laid, is yet incommunicable to his successors, who cannot now be the first founders of the Christian temple or commonwealth. And so Tertullian observes, that the manifest intention of the Lord was to 1 Constitut. Apostol. vn. 46, as above. 824 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Abt. XXXVII. confer this privilege personally on St. Peter, and that the presuming to derive that power to the bishop of a particular see was a sub- verting of that intention. 1 Again, we can trace the rise and progress of this supremacy of Rome, and easily perceive the grounds of it. It was not admitted at the first, but crept in by degrees, till it reached its perfect stat- ure. St. Clement, who was Bishop of Rome, writes to the Corin- thians in a brotherly tone, and with less appearance of authority than St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, seems to assume when writ- ing to the Romans. St. Polycarp knew nothing of the supremacy of Anicetus, when he went to consult with him about the keeping of Easter. He yielded in no degree to the Roman Bishop's author- ity ; but both determined to retain their own customs and sentiments, yet not on that account to divide the Catholic Church. 2 Not very long after this, we find Polycrates, a successor to Polycarp in the see of Smyrna, again at issue with Victor, Bishop of Rome, on the Easter controversy. Victor indeed showed much of the spirit which has since prevailed at the Vatican, and excommunicated Polycrates. But Polycrates and the Synod of Asiatic bishops refused to acknowledge the authority of that prelate. 8 Several bish- ops, though agreeing in Victor's opinion, were much displeased at his violence ; and letters were written by them severely reproving him for such conduct. Especially St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in the name of the Christians of Gaul, over whom he presided, wrote a dignified remonstrance, warning Victor not to break the unity of the Catholic Church.* At the end of the second century, we find from Tertullian that the Bishop of Rome claimed that he, and all other Churches founded by St. Peter, derived through St. Peter the power to bind and to loose. 5 This claim Tertullian disallows ; but it is a claim very dif- ferent from that of universal dominion ; for it must have admitted the Bishops of Antioch and others to the like privilege. 1 " Qualis es evertens atque commu- by the resort of so many, Apostolical tra- tans manifestam Domini intcntionem per- dition is preserved." — Ado. ILrr. in. 8. sonaliter hoc Petro eonferentem." — De All that we can gather from this is, that Pudirii. c. 21. See also Bishop Kaye's the city and the Church of Rome had a Ttrtullitni, pp. 286, 287. (Treat preeminence, that it was the «reat ■ Ktiscb. //. E. iv. 14, v. 24. centre or focus Of the Christian world, and • " Si qui discrepahant ah illis Victori so the truth was best preserved there, non dederunt manus." — Hieronyin. !)e 6 " Llcirco pru'sumis et ad te derivasse V. /. s. v. {MEMOS, solvendi et alligandi potcstatcm, id est, * Euseh. //. E. v. 34; Hicronym. De ad omiifin SOcfrsuiM l\t,i prtwinauam." — V. I. Irenneus indeed in one place says, Dt I'udicit. e. 21. The />>■ Pudiritia is a that, "in the Church of Koine, on account Moutanist tract, hut its evidence as to the •>f her more powerful principality, the claims of Rome is as good as if it were taithful everywhere must meet, in which, Catholic. Sfx. II.] of the civil magistrates. 825 In the third century, we have the famous controversy about he- retical baptism, dividing the Western Church. It had first begun amongst the Asiatics. Afterwards, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, being consulted by the Numidian bishops, called several councils at Carthage, a. d. 255, which were attended by laVge numbers of Af- rican bishops. 1 They unanimously decreed the rebaptizing of her- etics. This brought them into collision with Stephen, Bishop of Rome ; as the Roman Church took the opposite view. Stephen refused to listen to the deputies from the Council, and renounced communion with the African Churches. They, on the other hand, maintained their own views, and expressed their disapproval of Stephen's attempt to make himself a " bishop of bishops." 2 A cor- respondence took place between Cyprian and Firmilian, Bishop of Cassarea in Cappadocia ; in which both express extreme disappro- bation of Stephen's conduct, and accuse him of schismatically intro- ducing differences throughout the Church. Firmilian says, the power of binding and loosing was given by Christ to the Apostles and the bishops who succeeded them ; and blames the manifest folly of Stephen, who gloried in the place of his episcopate, and contended that he was a successor of St. Peter, on whom the Church's foun- dation was laid, and yet himself introduced new rocks and new foundations. 3 Again on another occasion, the bishops of Africa, among whom was St. Augustine, not only submitted not, in the case of Apiarius, to the authority of the Bishops of Rome, Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine, but in the Council of Africa, A. D. 424, wrote strongly to Pope Celestinus, denying his right to interfere with their jurisdiction, complaining that he violated the canon of the Council of Nice, which directed, that causes of the bishops and clergy should be heard by their own meti'opolitan, and not carried elsewhere. 4 They had even in a previous Council at Milevis, a. d. 416, forbidden appeals to be carried beyond the seas, on pain of separation from all communion with the African Churches. 5 But above all, Pope Gregory the Great, himself an illustrious Bishop of Rome, so vehemently protested against John Nesteuta, 1 Seventy-one were present at the sec- 3 Epislol. Firmilian. Oper. Cyprian, ond, and eighty -seven at the third Coun- Epist. lxxv. p. 225, b. cil. * Conr.il. Tom. n. p. 1674; Jjstelli, 2 " Neque enim quisquam nostrum Cod. Can. Eccle. Afric. p. 408. episcopumseepiscoporutnconstituit ; aut 5 " Non provoeent nisi ad Africana tyrannico terrore, ad obsequendi necessi- concilia, vel ad primatas provinciarura ; tateru collegas suos adegit ; quando ha- ad transmarina autem qui putaverit ap- beat omnis episcopus pro licentia liberta- pellandum, a nullo intra Africam in com- tis et potestatis suae, arbitrium proprium, munionem suscipiatur." — Concil. Milev. tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam Can. 22 ; Barrow, On the Supremacy, p uec ipse potest judicare." — Cyprianus In 248. See also Bingham, tx. i. 11; Hus Concil. Carthag. sey's Rise of the Papacy, pp. 40-46. 104 826 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVII. the Bishop of Constantinople, for desiring to have the name of uni- versal bishop, that he pronounced such an assumption a proof that he who made it was the forerunner of Antichrist. 1 " None," says he, " of my predecessors ever consented to use so profane a word ; because if one patriarch is called universal, the name of patriarch is taken away from the rest." If we look to the canons of the general councils, we find that they acknowledge the great Patriarchs ; that they give them au- thority according to ancient custom within their own patriarchates ; that they put Rome first, not because of St. Peter's primacy, but because Rome is the imperial city ; Constantinople next, because it is new Rome ; and afterwards elevate Constantinople to an equality with Rome ; and that they specially forbid bishops to interfere with the dioceses of other bishops. Thus, the vith Canon of the Coun- cil of Nice says : " Let those ancient customs be in force which con- cerned Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexan- dria should have authority over them, since the like is customary with the Bishop of Rome. So also in Antioch, and the other provinces, let the dignities be preserved to the Churches." 2 Balsa- mon's gloss on this is, that they confirmed the authority of the four Patriarchs, namely, of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, over their respective patriarchates. 3 So that this great Council placed the Roman Bishop only on a level with those of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem ; and this too, as a matter of ancient custom, not of divine right. The second canon of the Council of Constantinople (a. d. 381) especially forbids that bishops should go beyond their dioceses, restrains the Bishop of Alexandria to Egypt, the eastern bishops to the East, and so on ; and forbids, that any bishop should go out of his own diocese for ordination, or any other ecclesiastical minis- trations. 4 The third canon of the same council decrees, that the Bishop of Constantinople shall take rank immediately after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome. 6 The eighth canon of the Council of Ephesus (a. d. 431) forbids 1 " Ego autcm fidenter dico quia quis- " Indignant as Gregory was at the quis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, Bishop of Constantinople calling himself seu vocari desiderat, in clatione sua An- (Ecumenical Patriarch, that title had tichristum prsccurrit, quia superbiendo been given him by law from the time of •e csBteris praeponit." — Gregor. Magn. Justinian, and was therefore no new F.pisi. vii .83. thing in Gregory's time." — See Ding- So again, "Nullus unquam decesso- ham, K. A. xvn. 21. rum meortim hoc tarn profano vocabulo * Bevereg. Synodic. Tom. i. p. 66. uti consensu, quia videlicet si unus Pa- 8 Ibid, triarcha universalis dicitur, patriarcha- * Ibid. p. 87. rum nomen cteteris derogatur." — Ibid. 6 dui rd elvtu abrlfv via* 'Pu/afv. — Ibid r. 48. p. 89. 8«c. IL] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 827 any bishop to invade another province, which has not from the beginning been under his own authority. 1 The twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon declares, that the fathers of the Council of Constantinople gave privileges to the see of Rome, because that city was the seat of empire. Where- fore also, moved by the same reason, the fathers assigned the like privileges to the see of new Rome, i. e. Constantinople, seeing that Constantinople was now honoured with the empire and the senate. 2 These decrees of the Council of Constantinople the Council of Chalcedon accordingly confirms. From all this we plainly learn, that the Roman Patriarch had no more authority given him than the other Patriarchs, of Con- stantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria ; that the first place was assigned to Rome, because Rome was the imperial city, not because her bishop had a divine right to preeminence ; that, however, the Bishop of Constantinople had a like honour bestowed upon him, when his city rose to the like position with that of his brother Patriarch ; and, above all, that no bishop was ever to invade any diocese, which had not from old times been subject to him or to his predecessors. How any of these considerations will agree with the later claims of the Roman Pontiff, it is hard to say. The first great step towards supremacy was given to the Pope by the Council of Sardica (a. d. 347). Before this time, when bishops had been deposed and had reason to complain, they appealed to the Emperors to summon a larger synod to review their cause. The great Athanasius had thus appealed to the Emperor, and had been restored, after he was deposed by the Tyrian Synod. The xnth Canon of the Council of Antioch, supposed to be directed against him, forbade such an appeal. Subsequently Athanasius, ill-used by the Eastern bishops and by Constantius the Arian Emperor, had fled for assistance and support to the Western bishops, especially to the Patriarch of Rome. As there was an Arian Emperor, and there had at all times been a difficulty con- nected with the imperial interference in doctrinal questions, it was not unnatural for the orthodox bishops to look for some other 1 &ote fiijdiva rijv fteoQiheoTaTov km- nevrriKovra -dsofjuTiEaTUTOi emononoi tu iaa okottuv knapx'iav Erspav, ovk ovoav uvu-Bev npeafttia unsvsi/j.av 7<p ttjq veac 'Pufiqc koI it; upxvs bird ttjv avrov Tjyoi/v r<jv npd aycururcj -dpovu svXoyug KpivavTEC tt)v avrov x eL P a > K-aTulapPaveiv. — Bevereg. fiaaikcia nal ovy/dr)™ Tiiirj&eiaav iroXiv, Synodic. Tom. I. p. 104. kcu tuv lauv uno'Xavovaav npeo(3eiov ttj ' Kal yup tu dpovu t% ■npEa/3vTepac npeapVTepg. paotAidi 'Pufin, nal kv tocc Tu//i?c <5w« Td (3aod.cv£iv ttjv nohv kneivriv iKKXrjacaoriKolc, uc eke'lvtjv, fiEyaMiveo&ai oi izaripEC eIkotuc uTrodsduKaat tu npEafiEla. npayfiaat, devrspav [iet' ekeivtjv vnapxovoav Kai r<p avriJ okottcj KLvovfievoi ol Enarov — Ibid. p. 145. 828 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVII. centre, where appeals might be made ; and the see of Rome most naturally presented itself. The bishop there was the most im- portant on every account. Rome was the head of the world, the centre of civilization, the centre of orthodoxy ; and the greatest number of bishops and clergy looked up to its Patriarch as their leader and chief. Accordingly, in an unhappy moment, the Synod of Sardica, in its third canon, gave to Julius, Bishop of Rome, " honouring the memory of St. Peter," the power, if he thought fit, " to appoint the neighbouring bishops of a province to hear " an appeal, " and to send assessors," such as the emperor used to send. 1 It is added, by the fourth canon, that if a deposed bishop appeal to Rome, his place shall not be filled till the Bishop of Rome has heard the case. 2 And by the fifth canon it is decreed, that, when an appeal has been made to the Bishop of Rome, he may appoint the provincial bishops to try the case, or send legates himself. 8 The whole wording of the canons shows that all this was new. Moreover, the council was not general. But the effect of its decrees was very evil. Pope Zosimus afterwards quoted them as decrees of the Council of Nice, in the case of Apiarius mentioned above ; and the African bishops were obliged to investigate the question, as to whether they did really issue from that great synod ; and finding that they did not, they utterly rejected their authority. 4 Yet these canons laid the foundation of appeal to Rome, and so of Roman supremacy. And Dr. Barrow calls them " the most unhappy ever made in the Church." 6 From this time, the power of the see of Rome rapidly gained ground. It would be long to trace its progress, and the oppo- sition which was raised to it by wise and far-seeing men, as it advanced towards its zenith. 6 Such a survey of history would indeed be instructive, as showing how different were the pretensions of Gregory VII. and Innocent III. from those of such prelates as even Victor or Stephen ; though the latter were amongst the most imperious of the early " successors of the fisherman." Suffice it to have given some proof, that St. Peter had no proper supremacy ; that he was never Bishop of Rome ; and that the Roman Patri- archs had not jure divino, nor from the earliest ages, a jurisdiction over the universal Church. 1 Bevereg. Synodic. Tom. I. p. 485. Oriijinea Dritan. ch. in., near the end ; 2 Ibid. p. 487. Palmer, On the Churvh. II. pp. 620, 648. 8 Ibid. p. 488. 6 The progress is well traced by Pro- * See Hussev's Rise of the Papacy, pp. feasor Hussey in the small volume •!• 44-47. ready referred to. 6 See Barrow, p. 260; Stillingflcet'a Sic. II.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 829 IV. There is one other ground, besides that of universal Pri- macy, on which the Pope claims jurisdiction in England ; namely, that England was in the Patriarchate of Rome. When patriarchates first arose is uncertain. The name is first used by Socrates (about a. d. 440 *). But the office was evidently more ancient. It probably arose from the gradually apparent use- fulness of such an order in the government of the Church. Their authority was confirmed, as we have seen, to the great patriarchs, by the Council of Constantinople, and afterwards by those of Ephe- sus and Chalcedon. 2 All bishops indeed were esteemed equal, as bishops, by the primitive fathers ; i. e. they were of equal authority, jure divino ; 3 but, for the sake of a more orderly Church-gov- ernment, metropolitans were placed over provinces, and patriarchs over those still larger divisions which were then called dioceses, corresponding with the civil divisions of the Empire. 4 As to the limits of the Roman Patriarchate, much depends on what is meant by the term Suburbicary Churches. Rufinus, in his translation of the Nicene Canons, gives us the sixth of these in the words : " The custom of Alexandria and of Rome shall still be observed, that the one shall have the care of the Egyptian, the other of the suburbicarian Churches." 5 The very word suburbica- rian clearly points to churches not far distant from Rome ; and it has been proved, that the suburbicarian Churches meant those within the district, which belonged to the Vtearius Urbis ; i. e. the 1 Socr. H. E. v. 8. Cone. Chalced. Rome, containing the suburbicarian 2 Bing. E. A. ii. xvii. 1, 9. provinces, under the Patriarch of Rome. * " Episcopatus unus est, cujus a sin- 2. Italy, under Milan. 3. Africa, under gulis in solidum pars tenetur." — Cyp- Carthage. 4. Illyria, which afterwards rian. De Unitale, p. 108. fell under Constantinople. 5. Gaul, un- " Ubicunque estepiscopus, sive Komae, der Treves, — afterwards under Aries, sive Eugubii, ejusdem est meriti, ejus- 6. Spain, under Seville, — afterwards un- dem sacenlotii ; potentia divitiarum et .der Toledo. 7. Britain, under York. In paupertatis humilitas sublimiorem vel the fourteen dioceses of the empire there inferiorem episcopum non facit." — Hi- were 118 provinces ; and there was the eronym. Ad Evagrium, Epist. 85. like number in the Church. But, as in * A bishop's jurisdiction was over a the civil government there were three wapoiKia, a metropolitan's over an EKapxin, chief cities, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, a patriarch's over a SLoUrjaiq, correspond- so the bishops of these were called Pa- ing with the civil jurisdiction of imperial triarchs by preeminence (as was after- officers. In the Empire there were seven wards the Bishop of Constantinople); dioceses in the East, and six in the West', the bishops of the other great dioceses besides the Prefecture of Rome. Hence, being called Primates, though with patri- in the Church there were fourteen dio- archal powers, — Primates of dioceses, not ceses or patriarchates. In the East, 1. merely metropolitans of provinces. See Egypt, under the Patriarch of Alexan- Crackanthorp, Defensio Eccles. Anglican. dria. 2. The East, under the Patriarch cap. xxn. §§ 64, 65. of Antioch. 3. Asia, under the Patriarch 6 " Ut apud Alexandriam, et in urbe of Ephesus first, — afterwards under Roma, vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut Constantinople. 4. Pontus, under Caesa- vel ille iEgypti, vel hie suburbicarium rea. 5. Thrace, under Thessalonica, — ecclesiarum sollicitudinera gerat." — afterwards under Constantinople. 6. Ma- Rutin. Hist. Lib. i. c. 6. cedonia. 7. Dacia. In the West, 1. 830 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Abt. XXXVII. greater part of middle Italy, all lower Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. 1 It has been shown that the Bishop of Rome did not in early ages exercise authority in Spain, or Gaul, or Africa, nor even over the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia. 2 Far less could he have had patriarchal rights in the more distant isles of Britain. And, though the Synod of Aries, a. d. 314, speaks of the Bishop of Rome as " holding the larger dioceses," 8 which Roman divines have construed to mean all the great divisions of the Western Empire, yet there is good proof, that the word diocese had before this time been assigned to the ordinary provinces of the empire, and that it was even used of single episcopal Churches ; so that it must by no means be inferred that the Synod of Aries meant to speak of the Roman patriarchate as including all the West. 4 Again, it has been proved, beyond a question, that the British Church was of very early origin : founded as early as, perhaps ear- lier than, the Church of Rome. 5 It clearly acknowledged no obe- dience to the Pope ; for, when Augustine met the British bishops, and pleaded with them for subjection to Rome, they replied, " that they owed no obedience to the Bishop of Rome, but were under the government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who was their overseer under God." 6 They refused too to alter their time for keeping Easter, to suit the Roman custom ; 7 and show no intention whatever of submitting to papal authority. Indeed, the only reasonable claim which the Roman Pontiff can put in, to a superiority over our English bishops, is derived from the mission of Augustine, a. d. 599. But it is to be observed that, as there was already a Church and several bishops in Britain, so there were Christians, before his arrival, even among the Saxons ; that he converted only a small portion of England, namely, Kent, and a few adjacent counties ; other parts being converted by Irish and Scots missionaries, not sent from Rome ; 8 that he did not receive his appointment to the see of Canterbury from Gregory the Pope, but from Ethelbert the King. 9 Besides all this, the benefit conferred, 1 Bevereg. Synodicon. Annotut. in Can. the Introduction to Soames's Anglo-Saxon Condi. Nic. Prim. ; Stillingfleet, as above ; Church, where in two pages a summary Bingham, ix. i. 9, 10. of the evidence for Britain's early con- 8 Stillingfleet, Origines Britan. ch. III. ; version is given. Bingham, ix. i. 11 ; Dr. Allix (Churches 8 Spelman, Concil. Britan. An. 601, of Piedmont, ch. xm.) shows, that the dio- Tom. I. p. 108; Bingham, ix. i. 11 ; Still- cese of Milan was independent of Home ingfleet, eh. v., near the end ; Bramhall to the middle of the 11th century. I, p. 160. * "Qui majores diocceses tenes." — "• Beile. /fist. Lib. n. c. 2, 19 ; in. 26 ; "Jonc. Arelatens. i. ; Epixt. St/nod. Coned, v. 16, 23; Bingham, Ibid. Tom. i. p. 1426. ■ See Bramhall, Works, i. 266, 267 * Bingham, ix. i. 12 ; Palmer, On the ii. 94. 188, 800. Church, ii. p. 648. • Ibid. i. 182 ; Bed. H. E. I. 26. * Stillingfleet, Orig. Britann. ch. i. Soe Sec. HI.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 83 i of converting a nation, does not necessarily involve a supreme jurisdiction over it. Such a jurisdiction was not conceded by the earlier Saxon kings ; and if it had been so, a power, which did not 'originate till the seventh century, whereas there had been a Church in Great Britain in the first century, cannot be a power of that inviolable character, that to throw it off is to separate from Christ, and from the communion of Christ's holy Church. We maintain, that Britain and British Churches were not within the patriarchal rule of Rome in the earliest ages, nor at the times of the four great general Councils. And we deny that, by right of conquest, the Bishop of Rome could obtain authority over them, since it was to Christ, and not to Gregory, that Augustine was sent to conquer the Saxons. We assert therefore that, by claiming patriarchal jurisdiction in England, the Roman Patriarch violates the eighth Canon of the third general Council, which forbids a bishop to intrude into any province which was not under his au- thority from the very beginning (avw^cv koI i£ apx^O* If the Pope had been contented to exercise jurisdiction within his own patriarchate, and to take precedence of rank over all the other bishops of Christendom, without attempting to exercise an unwarranted control over bishops and Churches not within the lim- its of his own lawful government ; it is probable that his privileges would never have been objected against, nor his precedence denied him. But when he wishes to be sole Vicar of Christ on earth, the head of the whole Church, and to be above all earthly power and dominion, we believe that he arrogates to himself a title which be- longs not to any human being, and claims a power which is only Christ's. 1 I Section III. T will be necessary to give but a small space to the concluding paragraphs of this Article. The first is, — 1 Dr. Barrow, On the Supremacy of the see Usher, De Piimord. Red. Britan. ; Pope, is a complete storehouse of infor- Stillingfleet, Origines Britannicw ; Bram- mation and argument on this subject. hall and Bingham, as referred to above ; Crackanthorp, Defensio Eccl. Anglic. Beveridge, Note on vi. Can. of the Ni- ch. xxn. contains an excellent summary cene Synod, Tom. n. Annotut. pp. 51-60 ; of arguments. Palmer, On the Church, Hales, Origin and Purity of the British Part vn. has also much information in a Church ; Burgess's Tracts ; Williams's small compass. For the antiquity and Antiquities of the Cymry, &c. independence of the British Churches OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Art. XXXVIT. I. " The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences." The chief arguments against capital punishments in a Christian state, must be drawn from general considerations of benevolence, and from the evil of taking away from the sinner the time for re- pentance. To these may be added our Lord's cautions against revenging ourselves, and His injunctions that we should not resist evil (Matt. v. 38, 45, &c). On the other side, it is truly said, that punishments inflicted by public authority are not for revenge, but for the suppression of evil. More benevolence is shown in punishing violence, and so repressing it, than in suffering it to prevail. We may not indeed altogether reason from Jewish precedent; because the character of the Jewish commonwealth was peculiar : and some crimes were then visited with capital punishment, which in any other common- wealth must be left almost without public condemnation. But, before the Law, God gave to Noah a command, which seems appli- cable to the whole human race : " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; for in the image of God made He man " (Gen. ix. 6). And under the Gospel, St. Paul maintains the authority of the civil sword. He speaks of the higher powers as ordinances of God, forbids Christians to resist them, and, speak- ing of the magistrate, says : " He beareth not the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of God ; a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil " (Rom. xiii. 1-4). So then in the patriarchal ages, and under the Gospel, we have authority for capital punishments. Whether such sentence should be pronounced on any but murderers, or virtual murderers, is an- other question. But for murder, at least, there seems full Scrip- ture authority, that nations should inflict the punishment of death. II. The last paragraph in the Article is : " It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to wear weapons and serve in the wars." Tertullian, in his treatise, De Corona Militis, argues against the lawfulness of a Christian's engaging in the military profession. 1 But in his Apology^ he says, that Christians were in the habit of enlisting both in the Roman armies and the Roman navies. 2 The well-known story of " The Thundering Legion " proves, that, in the year 174, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, there were many » De Corond, c. 11. • Apol. c. 42. See Bp. Knye'i Tertullian, p. 864. Sec. m.] OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. 833 Christians among the imperial troops, even if we hesitate to believe that there was a whole Christian legion, or that their prayers brought down thunder and rain. 1 When we come to Scripture, we find one or two passages in the new Testament which seem to some -persons decisive against the lawfulness of war altogether, and therefore against the lawfulness of serving in war. They are especially, Matt. v. 38-41, where our Lord forbids us to " resist evil," bidding us turn the left cheek to one who smites us on the right ; and Matt. xxvi. 52, " All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." What applies to individuals may be thought equally applicable to societies of indi- viduals, and therefore to whole nations. Indeed we may justly apply the argument, so far as to say that no Christian nation or governor is justified in making war upon a principle of revenge. Revenge is an unchristian feeling, and therefore forbidden to nations as well as to individuals. Therefore, not only are wars for mere glory xinquestionably wholesale murder, but wars for any end save necessary preservation, and protection of life, liberties, and inde- pendence, are clearly against the will of God, and the spirit of the Gospel of Christ. Yet we may press doctrines and passages of Scripture so far as to overturn the whole fabric of society. If Christian nations may never resist aggression, or defend the weak, civilization and religion would be hourly exposed to destruction from the invasion of barbarians and unbelievers. In such a case, the Gospel would have established the supremacy of the violent and the ungodly. But He, who in the old Testament repeatedly calls Himself " the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel," can hardly have altogether forbidden just war. John the Baptist, when the soldiers inquired of him what thev should do to prepare for the kingdom of Christ, did not bid them give up serving in the arcaies, but required them to do no violence, and to be content with their wages (Luke iii. 14). Nowhere in the new Testament is there any injunction against the military profession, although our blessed Lord and His Apostles are frequently brought into contact with soldiers, and are led to speak of war. Thus the centurion, whose servant our Lord healed, received high commendation for his faith, 1 Concerning the Thundering Legion, opposed capital punishments and the law- see Mosheira, De Rebus ante. Constant, fulness of war ; as the Waldenses (see Mag. sec. n. § 17; Lardner, vu. p. Mosheim, Cent xu. part n. sect. v. 12) 438. and the Anabaptists. Mosh. Cent. xvi. Many later sects, whose doctrines and sect. HI. pt. n. ch. III. 16. practices were very rigid, seem to have 105 884 OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. [Abt. XXXVD. but no rebuke for his vocation (Matt. viii. 5-13). Cornelius, an- other centurion, has visions and miracles vouchsafed to him, and an Apostle is sent to instruct and baptize him ; but no hint is given, that he ought to give up serving in the Roman armies after his baptism and adoption of the faith (Acts x.). Our Lord and St Paul both refer to the customs of war, as illustrations of the Chris- tian's warfare, and commend the prudence and wisdom of the worldly warrior to the imitation of the soldier of the Cross, without any reservation or intimation that this world's warrior is to be con- demned for following his calling. (See Luke xiv. 31, 32. 2 Tim. ii. 4.) The rebuke to St. Peter, " They that take the sword shall perish with the sword," was evidently directed against an individ- ual's voluntarily taking on himself to fight ; and also against using carnal weapons in a spiritual cause. It is not therefore applicable to serving as a soldier, in defence of our country, and at the com- mand of the magistrate, who, by God's own ordinance " beareth the sword," and " is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil " (Rom. xiii. 4). ARTICLE XXXVHI. Of Christian men's Goods, which are not De illicita bonorum commtmicatioite. common. The Riches and Goods of Christians Facultates et bona Christianorum are not common, as touching the right, non sunt communia, quoad jus et posses- title, and possession of the same, as eer- sionem (at quidani Anabaptistae falso tain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Not- jactant) debet tamen quisque de his withstanding, every man ought, of such quae possidet, pro facultatum ratione, things as he possesseth, liberally to give pauperibus eleemosynas benigne distri- alms to the poor, according to his ability, buere. Section L— HISTORY. SPHERE is no doubt, that the early Christians practised alms- giving and sacrifice of their own wealth for the Church and the poor, to an extent unknown in our days, There are indeed passages in the Apologies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, which appear at first sight as if there were in the early ages a complete community of goods. The former speaks of Christians as having formerly placed their greatest pleasure in acquiring wealth and possessions, u but now bringing all that they have into a common stock, and imparting to every one in need." * The latter says, " We, who are united in mind and soul, hesitate not to have our possessions in common. With us all things are in common but our wives." 2 But, that they did not mean a real community of goods, appears from an earlier passage in the same chapter : " Even if there be with us a sort of treasury, no sum is therein collected discreditable to religion, as though she were bought. Every man places there a small gift on one day of the month, or whenever he wills, so he be but willing and able ; for no man is constrained, but contributes willingly." 8 It is plain that, where there were collections, according as n en were able and willing, there could be no true community of goods. Clement of Alexandria wrote his tract, Quis Dives Salvetur, to prove, that it was not the design of the Gospel that all men should reject the possessions with which Providence had blessed them. It was one of the errors attributed * Justin M. Apol. i. p. 61, b. 2 Tertull. Aj>ol. 39. 8 Ibid- 8P6 OF CHRISTIAN MEN'S GOODS, [Art. XXXVIEL to the Pelagians, " that a rich man must sell all that he has, or he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." * But, that this was not a precept of universal obligation, St. Augustine argues against them at great length. 2 Several early sects are mentioned, as hav- ing forbidden possessions, and denied salvation to those who had wealth, — as the Apostolici ; 8 and the Eustathians, who for this and other errors were condemned by the Council of Gangra. 4 Persons, who adopted such opinions, were called by the fathers Apotactitte.* The fact, that they were esteemed heretics, shows that the Church repudiated and condemned their peculiarities. Some very zealous Christians in all* ages have felt personally bound to relinquish their wealth, and devote themselves to a volun- tary poverty ; and with them may be classed the mendicant orders, and indeed all those religious communities which have required vows of poverty from their numbers. This, however, is a different view of things from that condemned in the Article. The Article refers to the belief that all property is unlawful, and that goods in a Christian society must be common. This is a tenet which has only been adopted, whether in primitive or later ages, by certain fanatical sects ; and it is here especially spoken of as an error of the Anabaptists. With them the doctrine was a source, not so much of personal self-denial, as of efforts to subvert civil govern- ment and the whole framework of society ; and it was not therefore to be treated as an innocent enthusiasm, but to be denounced as a dangerous error. 6 Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. A GREAT many passages from the new Testament might be -**- brought to prove the danger of riches ; and some few of our Lord's own sayings seem even to enjoin on His followers a re- nunciation of worldly wealth. Such are Matt. v. 42 ; vi. 19 ; Luke xvi. 19-25 ; 1 Tim. vi. 9, 10 ; James v. 1. The two most remarkable, however, are Matt. xix. 21, where the young man is bidden to sell all that he has, and give to the poor ; and Luke xii. 88, where our Saviour, addressing His disciples generally, says, 1 Augustin. Ep. 166, Tom. II. p. 542. « Bevereg. Synod. Tom. i. p. 416. * Ep. 167, Tom. n. pp. 668-659. See 6 See Bingham, xvi. xii. 1. alio Wall, On Infant Baptism, pt. i. ch. 6 See an account of their doctrines xix. Vol. i. p. 896. Oxf. 1886. and proceedings, Mosheim, E. If. Cent •August, fleer. 40; Epiphan. Hccr. xvi. sect. m. pt. n. ch. in. 5, Ac. lxi. Apottol. Sec. H.] WHICH ARE NOT COMMON. 837 ** Sell that ye have, and give alms ; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not," &c. The former passage (Matt. xix. 21) has been considered at some length under Art. XIV. 1 The other (Luke xii. 33) appears to me the strongest argument from Scripture in favour of their opinion who think that every sincere follower of Jesus Christ should divest himself of all his personal possessions, and embrace a voluntary and strict poverty. We must take heed how we weaken and dilute injunctions of our Saviour, especially when they cross our natural propensities. Yet we must not explain one passage of Scripture so as to make it contrary to other passages of Scripture. Our Lord tells us in another place, that, if a man " hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and his own life also, he cannot be His disciple " (Luke xiv. 26). Such a declaration, pressed to its utmost limits, would make us " without natural affection," (a mark of heathen reprobation, Rom. i. 31,) and would even lead us to break the fifth commandment. And so of the passage in question ; though in its most literal and general appli- cation it would not lead to consequences so serious as this, yet it would, so interpreted, make it impossible for us to provide for those of our own house, which St. Paul tells us would be a proof that we had denied the faith and had become worse than infidels (1 Tim. v. 8). It is probable therefore, that we must consider our blessed Saviour's exhortation as rather addressed to. His immediate followers, who could only follow Him in His wanderings, and preach His Gospel in the world, by utter abandonment of houses and possessions, than as applicable to all His disciples through all ages of the Church. And, even if we pressed His words to their utmost length, they would merely be an injunction to individuals to renounce their wealth, not a rule binding on society, that private wealth should be confiscated, and only a public fund permitted to exist. In favour of that view, the only tenable argument is drawn from the early chapters of the Acts ; where we read that the first believers " had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men as every man had need " (Acts ii. 44, 45) ; that the multitudes of them that believed were of one heart and one soul, neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own ; but they had all things common (Acts iv. 32; compare 34-37). This self-devotion of the primitive Christians affords indeed a most instructive example fof 1 See above, p. 344. 838 OF CHRISTIAN MEN'S GOODS, [Art. XXXVIII. all succeeding generations. It sprang from an intense feeling of love and gratitude to the Saviour ; and whilst it was fervent and enthusiastic, it was reasonable and necessary. Had there not been self-sacrifice among the rich, what would have become of the poor of the flock, whose name was, for Christ's sake, cast out as evil ? But even at this very time we find the right of the owners to their property fully recognized in the Scriptures and by the Apostles, so as abundantly to show that no absolute community of goods had been exacted. The very fact that it is written, "No man said that ought of the things which he possessed was his own," shows that the possessions were acknowledged to be theirs by others, though voluntarily renounced by themselves ; and that therefore it was a voluntary renunciation, and not made according to an obli- gation imposed on them by the Church. Also, St. Peter said to Ananias : " Whilst it remained, was it not thine own ? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power ? " (Acts v. 4). So that, before the property was sold, the Apostle acknowledged that it was of right the property of Ananias ; and even after it was sold, there was no necessity upon him to give it up to the Apostles. His sin was, not in the retaining of his goods, but in pretending to give •all, and yet keeping back a part. There are numerous injunctions to provide for our families (Acts xx. 35. 2 Cor. xii. 14. 1 Tim. v. 8), — to give alms (Matt, vi. 1 ; x. 42), -7— to make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness (Luke xvi. 9), — to lay by in store as God prospers us, and then to give (1 Cor. xvi. 2), — to feed the hungry and clothe the naked (Matt. xxv. 35, &c), — to call the maimed, the lame, and the blind to our feasts (Luke xiv. 13), — to do good as we have opportunity (Gal. vi. 10), — to distribute to the necessity of the saints (Rom. xii. 13), — to give with a willing mind (2 Cor. viii. 12), not grudgingly or of necessity, as knowing that God loveth a cheerful giver (2 Cor. ix. 7), — to be given to hospitality (Rom. xii. 13) — to use hospitality one to another without grudging (1 Pet. iv. 9). All these precepts, whilst they impose the strongest obligations to abundant and most liberal almsgiving, yet presuppose the existence of distinct possessions, and of different ability to give in the ditl'er- ent members of the Church. If all things were common, the grace and duty of giving from our own private means would thereby have become impossible. So again, the recognized distinction between master and servant, the one being enjoined to be just and liberal, the other honest and obedient, proves the difference of condition and the possession of property (Eph. vi. 5-9. Col. iv. 1. Philem. 10-20). Sec H.] WHICH ARE NOT COMMON. 839 Especially, where the Apostles address the rich, and bid them to be rich in good works and bountiful to others, they clearly show, that there may be rich men in the Christian community, and that such may fulfil their Christian obligations, and lay up a good foun- dation for the future by giving liberally, though they do not sell all that they have. For example : " Charge them that are rich in thin world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches . . . that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate ; laying up in store for them- selves a good foundation against the time to come " (1 Tim. vi. 17-19). " Whoso hath this world's goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?" (1 John iii. 17). "To do good and to communicate forget not : for with such sacrifices God is well pleased " (Heb. xiii. 16). Thus then Scripture plainly confirms the teaching of the Church, that " the goods of Christian men are not common as touching the right, title, and possession of the same : " but yet that every man, as a follower of Christ, has the most cogent and inevitable obliga- tion, " liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability." ARTICLE XXXIX. Of a Christian man's Oath. As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Re- ligion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requir- eth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet's teach- ing, in justice, judgment, and truth. De Jurejurando. Quemadmodum j uramentum vanu et temerarium a Domino nostro Jesu Christo, et Apostolo ejus Jacobo, Chris* tianis hominibus interdictum esse, fate- mur : ita Christianorum religionem min- ime prohibere censemus, quin jubento magistratu in causa fidei et charitatis ju- rare liceat, modo id fiat juxta Prophets doctrinam, in justitia, in judicio et veri- tate. Section I. — HISTORY. Y^7HEN the early Christians were called on to swear before " " heathen magistrates, they were mostly required to use idol- atrous oaths. These were naturally abhorred by them, and per- haps inclined them to a dread of swearing altogether, even more than Scripture would inculcate. Thus Tertullian says, u I say nothing of perjury, since it is unlawful even to swear." * Yet from a passage in his Apology we find that Christians did not refuse to take lawful oaths ; though idolatrous oaths they, of neces- sity, rejected. Christians, he says, would not swear by the Emper- or's genii ; for the genii were daemons ; but by the safety of the Emperor they were willing to swear. 2 The same swearing by the safety of the Emperor (v7T€p tt;s (T(irrrjpia<i tou cuo-cySeordTov Au-you- orov KdHwamow) is mentioned by Athanasius. 8 Vegetius, who lived about a. d. 390, says, the Christian soldiers " swore by God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the majesty of the Emperor." 4 Nay ! Athanasius required of Constantius that his accusers should be put upon their oath. 5 And much more has been alleged, in 1 " Taceo de perjurio. quando ne ju- rare quidem liceat." — Ik Idol. c. 11. a " Sed et juramus, sicut non per ge- nlos Ctesarum, ita per salutom corinn, qiue est augustior omnibus geniis. Nescitis genios daemonas did ? &c." — A/xJ. c. 82. See other examples of the like objec- tion, ap. Bingham, xvi. vii. 7. 8 Epist. ad Monach. Tom. i. p. 866. Colon. * " Jurant autem per Deum, et per Christum, et per Spiritum Sanctum, et per m.ijestatem imperntoris." — Veget. imtitwlia Rti Militant, Set' Lardner, tiii. p. 479 ; Cave, Prim. Christ, pt. m. ch. I. p. 214. 6 Athanas. Apol. ad Constantium, Tom. i. p. 678. Sec. IL] OF A CHRISTIAN MAN'S OATH. 841 proof that the early Christians did not refuse legitimate oaths in Vgal inquiries. There was, however, doubtless, much scruple on the subject of swearing among the ancients generally. Clement of Alexandria says, the enlightened Christian will never perjure himself. And so he considers it an indignity for a Christian to be put upon oath, as disparaging his fidelity ; and that he will avoid swearing, saying only Yea and Nay. 1 And Lactantius says, that a Christian will never perjure himself, lest he mock God ; nor indeed will he swear at all, lest he fall by accident, or carelessly, into perjury. 2 Against idle swearing, swearing by the creatures, and perjury, the primitive Church was very severe. 3 And it does indeed ap- pear, that some of the fathers, led by the strong language of Matt. v. 34, and James v. 12, doubted even the lawfulness of oaths at all ; thinking that they may have been permitted to Jews, but forbidden to Christians. 4 The Pelagians took up, as one of their positions, that a man must not swear at all. 5 But Augustine replied, in an epistle cited in the last Article. There he enjoins to avoid swear- ing as much as possible ; but shows that, in cases of necessity, there was Scriptural ground for it. 6 • In later ages, the Wal'denses, 7 the Anabaptists, 8 the Quakers, and some other sects, have held all oaths unlawful. It is against the Anabaptists probably, that this Article, as well as the last, is specially directed. Section II. — SCRIPTURAL PROOF. TT is probably an admitted fact that oaths were lawful under the ■*■ old Testament. This Article refers to a passage in the Prophet Jeremiah (iv. 2) : " Thou shalt swear, The -Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness." The only prohibition was against false swearing, or swearing by false gods. 9 It seems likely 1 Stromal, vu. 8, p. 861. Potter. 5 Augustin. Opp. Tom. n. p. 542. 2 " Hie non pejerabit, ne Deum ludib- 6 Epist. 157, Tom. II. p. 559. The rio habeat; sed ne jurabit quidem ; ne opinions of the primitive Christians on quando, vel necessitate, vel consuetudine, swearing are fully discussed by Cave, in perjurium cadat." — Lactant. Epitome, Prim. Christianity,^. III. ch. i. p. 212; c. 6. and Bingham, xvi. vii. See also Suicer, 8 Bingham, xvi. vii. 5-8. as above. 4 So Chrysostom, Homil. xv. in Gene- 7 Mosheim, Cent. xn. pt. II, ch. v. 12. sin: Homil. nil. in Ace; Theodoret. In 8 Ibid. Cent. xvi. sect. III. pt. n. ch. cap. iv. Jeremim ; Theophyl. In cap. v. in. 16. Matth., &c. See Suicer, s. v. bpaoc, Tom. 9 The Third Commandment is prob- ii. p. 510. ably a prohibition of perjury. " Thou 106 842 OF A CHRISTIAN MAN'S OATH. [Art. XXXIX. that the Jews somewhat abused this permission, and were rather free in their use of oaths, and of the name of the Almighty on trivial occasions. Accordingly some strict and ascetic sects among them were led to the opposite extent of refusing to take an oath under any circumstances. 1 If the Jews were thus profane and careless in swearing, we can readily see the object of our Saviour's denunciation of rash oaths. There are obvious and very great dan- gers in a habit of this kind. If, on every trivial occasion, we have recourse to an oath for attestation, it will almost necessarily follow, that we shall lightly regard an ordinary assertion, and that the sanctity of an oath itself will be less revered. Hence such swear- ing must foster a spirit of untruthfulness. And again, the readily bringing into common conversation the most sacred name of God, must necessarily lead to irreverence and impiety. What can be more alien from the. spirit of the Gospel, than these two habits of falsehood and irreverence ? Now it seems very apparent, that it is this evil habit which our Lord condemns. The Jews appear to have satisfied themselves, that they might swear as much as they chose, if they did not for- swear themselves. But our Lord, enforcing the spirit, not merely the letter, of the commandment, tells them not to swear at all ; and enjoins that, in their common discourse, they should only say yea and nay ; as more than this can come only from the evil One ; "Ecrra> 8k 6 A.dyos ifJ.wv val vat, oi) ov' to 8k irtpxrabv tovtwv Ik tov Troinrjpov eo-riv (Matt. v. 37). The very words used, and the whole tenor of the passage, show that it is to common conversation that the precept applies. St. James's words (James v. 12) are so nearly a repetition of our Lord's, that the former must be inter- preted by the latter. So far then we see the great evil of profane swearing, and of solemn asseverations on unimportant occasions. All such are strictly forbidden by, and thoroughly opposed to, the Gospel of Christ. But, on solemn and important occasions, and especially in courts of justice, we have new Testament authority for believing that oaths are lawful to Christians as well as to Jews. Our Lord Himself was adjured by the High Priest, and, instead of refusing to plead ■halt not lift up the name of the Lord thy a falsehood." Some interpret it as the God to falsehood," i. «. Thou shalt not LXX., tirl futraiif), for a light and ixj/a ■wear falsely by Him. " To take or lift „ . . . *.„.i„ ...„ i «r up the name of God "is unquestionably P ur P Me - But **>T is constantly used of i. tti m L j i- falsehood. See Exod. xxiii. 1. Deut t. to .wear by Hi. name. The word SV;> n . l>. n | m xii. $. &c. "to vanity," most probably means "for ' Joseph. De B. J. Lib. n. c. 12. Sec. H.] OF A CHRISTIAN MAN'S OATH. 843 to such an adjuration, He answered immediately.' This one ar- gument seems a host in itself. Our Lord consented to be put upon His oath. Oaths therefore before a civil tribunal cannot be forbid- den to His disciples. St Paul frequently, in very weighty matters, calls God to witness, which is essentially taking an oath. See Rom. ix. 1. 1 Cor. xv. 31. 2 Cor. i. 18, 23 ; xi. 10, 31 ; xii. 19. Gal. i. 20. Phil. i. 8. This is St. Augustine's argument against the Pelagians ; though he says truly, that we must not swear care- lessly, because St. Paul swore when there was good reason for swearing. Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (iii. 11 ; vi. 16, 17), the Almighty is represented as swearing ; and, in the latter passage, the Apostle compares God's swearing with the swearing common among men, saying, " Men verily swear by the greater ; and an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife " (Heb. vi. 16). With this we ought to compare Matt, xxiii. 16-22. See also Rev. x. 6. Weighing then, all that has been said above, very strong as our Lord's and St. James's language against oaths may be, it yet seems impossible to doubt, that it is directed against vain, trivial, and thoughtless swearing, but not against that legal confirming of the truth by a solemn attestation in the sight of God, which was commanded in the Law of Moses, which our blessed Saviour Him- self submitted to before Caiaphas, and which the example of the Apostles, and their general language on the subject, seem not only to permit, but to sanction also, if not to enjoin. In short, profane swearing is altogether forbidden to Christians ; but religious attes- tation upon oath seems to be acquiesced in as necessary, and admit- ted as lawful. 1 The high-priest (Matt. xxvi. 63, 64) on his oath, in the most solemn possible said £S-opid£u) as Kara tov Qeov rov tjtivrog : manner, a form equivalent to putting a witness CATALOGUE FEW PRINCIPAL FATHERS, COUNCILS, ETC. WITH THEIR PROBABLE DATES. A. D. Clemens Romanus 70 al. 96 Ignatius 107 Polycarp ........... 108 Papias 116 Justin Martyr .......... 147 Irenaeus 180 Clemens Alexandrinus . . . . . . . . .194 Tertullian 200 Origen 230 Cyprian ........... 250 Lactantius ........... 306 Eusebius of Caesarea 315 Council of Nice. 1 325 Athanasius .......... 350 Cyril of Jerusalem 350 Hilary of Poictiers ......... 350 Basil of Caesarea 370 Gregory Nazianzen ......... 370 Gregory Nyssen . 370 Epiphanius 370 Ambrose ........... 374 First Council of Constantinople. II 381 Jerome ........... 390 John Chrysostom 398 Augustine 398 Cyril of Alexandria 412 Isidore of Pelusium . . . . . . . . .412 Theodoret . ^ 423 Hilary of Aries 424 Council of Ephesus. Ill 431 Vincentius Lirinensis ......... 434 84r. CATALOGUE OF FATHERS, ETC. Prosper of Aquitaine 440 Socrates 440 Sozomen • 440 Leo I. Pope 440 Council of Chalcedon. IV 451 Gelasius. Pope . . .492 Second Council of Constantinople. V 553 Gregory the Great. Pope . 590 Third Council of Constantinople. VI. 681 Venerable Bede 701 Joannes Damascenus . 736 Paschasius Radbert 840 Ratramn or Bertram 840 JElfric, Archbishop of Canterbury 980 Berengarius . . . . . . . . . . 1050 Theophylact . . 1077 Bernard of Clairvaux 1115 Peter Lombard . . 1141 Thomas Aquinas . . 1255 Council of Constance . 1414 to 1418 Council of Basil . 1431 to 1443 Council of Florence 1439 Martin Luther 1517 Council of Trent 1545 to 1563 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. Absolution, see Sacraments, 592, &c. . . . Excommunication, 770, &c. . . . Consecra- tion of Bishops, 790 and note. Anthropomorphites, heresy of the, 19 Scripturally refuted, 35. Apocrypha, see Scriptures Holy, 188, &c. Articles, see Reformation, 12-17 . . . and under individual Artt. passim. Ascension of Christ, predicted, related, and importance of typically declared, in Scripture, 108, 109. See also Resur- rection. Baptism, Art. xxvu. 619-682. Difference of opinion as to whether regeneration is the grace of baptism, never separated from it unless in case of impenitent recipients ... a difference not wholly owing to different views of predestina- tion, 619, 620. Baptism an embracing the service of God ; natural expecta- tion therefore that He would furnish us with strength for it — Covenant of grace made by God, in Christ, with man — terms given us — baptism for- mal act of admission into covenant . . . and the engrafting also into the Church : 620, 621. Baptism guaran- tees a spiritual change, but a moral change must be the result of the soul's profiting by the spiritual change — Hooker, Waterland, Bethell, (note) — Term " Baptismal Regeneration " war- ranted — yet baptized persons may be practically unregenerate — Absence of practical results accounted for : 622- 624 (and 626). Relative holiness of baptized persons, even when not per- sonally sanctified, 624, 625. Different cases of adult (625) and infant recip- ients, 625-627. Scriptural evidence for truth of doc- trine, as here defined, of Baptism, 628- 648. Light on the subject from old Testament, and Jewish rites and lan- guage — Circumcision — Baptism of proselytes — types of baptism : 628- 630. Baptism considered as admitting us to a covenant — difference between Mosaic covenant of works and Chris- tian covenant of grace — Questions and answers at baptism — Promises made therein by God : 630-635. Bap- tism considered as admitting to the Church, which is the Body of Christ, the Family of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Temple of the Holy Ghost, 635-638. Regeneration, the special grace of Baptism . . . identified with conversion or renovation among the Zuinglians and Calvinists, still more among the Arminians . . . consequent- ly denied by them to exist except in such as have attained to a state of true sanctification ... A figurative term . . . has been variously applied in various languages. . . glowing language of the lathers might make it easy to suppose regeneration certainly involved sancti- fication of heart — Schoolmen followed their language to its consequences — Original signification of " regenera- tion " thus became augmented — Re- generation, twofold signification of, as used either of the time of bestowal of new-creating grace, or of the time of hearty reception of it — Scripture pas- sages seeming to differ thus reconciled : 638-642. Objections considered (and answered) drawn from hypothesis of regeneration being equivalent to moral change . . . from high Calvinistic views of irresistibility and indefectibility of grace . . . from alleged undue substi- tution of baptism for faith . . . from supposed inconsistency of any grace before baptism with gift of regenera- tion in baptism . . . from disparage- ment of outward ordinances — Diffi- culty from difference of result of gift of God's Spirit in Baptism, best ac- knowledged insoluble by us; not solved in Scripture : 642-648. General view of Baptismal Regenera- tion held by the Fathers : that conver- sion of heart did not accompany bap- tism when unworthily received or not duly profited by, but that remission of sins and the grace of the Spirit were promised to accompany baptism, and that that grace, if yielded to and cul- tivated, would regenerate the soul ; hence they assigned the name of regen- eration to that Sacrament, and some- times spoke as if regeneration were tied to it, yet when explaining them selves accurately showed that they did not hold that the Sacrament worked ex opere operato : Quotations, &c. in proof, from Apostolic fathers down to Augustine — difference between him 848 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. and Calvin : 648-660. Council of Trent — Luther; Zuingle ; Calvin — Eng- lish Reformers — Cranmer and Kid- ley — Formularies and views of the Church of England — Anglican Bap- tismal Services formed on the Luther- an model: 661-677. Infant Baptism (subject partly antic- ipated) arguments for, from Scripture Mid from Jewish analogies, 674-680. Evidence from fathers, giving every reason to believe it practised from the very first, 680-682. See Sacraments, Sin Original, &c. Both Kinds, Art. xxx. p. 738. No pa- tristic authority for withdrawing the cup from the laity ; this acknowledged by the more candid Koman Catholics — express patristic testimony, and lan- guage of ancient liturgies, show that in the early ages both elements were administered alike to clergy and laity, and ministered separately, not by dip- ping the bread in the cup, a custom introduced by superstition, and still continuing in the Eastern Churches — Withholding of the cup connected with transubstantiation . . . greatly com- plained of by early Reformers ... es- tablished by Council of Constance, and Council of Trent . . . rejected by all Reformed Churches: 738-740. Script- ural proof of the doctrine of this Art. — Serious question as to the validity of the mutilated Sacrament ; though receivers in faith and ignorance may receive the full blessing : 740-743. Calvinism, the five points of, see Predesti- nation, 403, n. Canon of Scripture, see Scriptures Holt/, 153, &c. Canonization, Romish, see Purgatory, 644. Capital Punishments, see Civil Magis- trates, 832. Church, the, distinct definition of, espe- cially called for at the Reformation, 453, (459, 460.) Church, how described and spoken of by the Fathers, 453- 467 . . . their statements mostly not logically definitive, but practical and devotional, 457. Church not exactly defined, though distinguished by titles, in the Creeds, 457, 458 . . . cnlled Cath- oli- in all the Creeds, and through- out the writings of the Fathers — prob- able origin and subsequent usage of the term : 468. Catholicity perilled by schism between Eastern and Western Churches, and yet more by gradual corruption in YVestern Church, 468, 469. Difficulties attendant on upon tion of foreign Reformers from Church of Rome ; the part of our own Reform- ers less difficult, 459. Church, defini- tions of, by foreign and English He- formers— Our Art. xix. confined to consideration of the visible Church — no special allusion in our formularies tn distinction of visible and invisible Church : 460-463. Church of Rome in grievous error, yet still a (corrupt indeed) branch of theUniversal Church of Christ — Views of Reformers on this subject : 463-467. Scriptural meaning of Church investigated, 467-469. Script- ural proof of statements of Art. xix., that the Church Is a visible body of be- lievers (tliis not inconsistent with belief of existence of the invisible Church) . . . that in it the pure word of God is held and preached . . . and the Sacra- ments duly ministered accordiug to Christ's ordinance : 469-474. A min- istry included in the definition of this Art. (see Art. xxxm.) 474-476. What defectiveness in ordination, &c. is de- structive of Church-existence in other communions, not decided by the Eng- lish Church, 476. Errors of Church of Rome ; novelties and heterodoxies in Creed of Pope Pius IV., or of the Council of Trent, 476, 477. Church, authority of the, Art. xx. 478. Disputes concerning first clause of this Art. — one portion however of it ex- pressed, Art. xxxiv., the other vir- tually contained in latter part of this : 478, 479, (482.) Church- Authority, views of the Fathers respecting ... of the Reformers in general ... of the English Reformers : 479-482. Script- ural proof that the Church is a wit- ness and keeper of Holy Writ, 482 . . . has power to decree rites and cere- monies, 484, 485 . . . has authority in controversies of faith. 485-487. Such authority, however, judicial, not legis- lative — Limitations assigned to it in the Art. : 487-489. Private Jwhment, rightly understood, not interfered with by this Art. 489, n. Civil Magistrates, Art. xxxvii. 792 Supremacy of the Crown, 793-808. The proper relation between the civil and ecclesiastical powers in a Christian commonwealth, a most difficult ques- tion — Direct antagonism for the first three hundred years between the Church and the world — Christians from the first obedient subjects in things compatible with religion, but kept aloof, as far as possible, from heathenism : 793. Revolution pro- duced by accession and conversion of Constantine, and his removal of seat of empire to Byzantium — Constan- tine, though unable to assume a sacer- dotal function in the Christian Church (as heathen KinjH'rors hud done in heathen Rome), yet claims a peculiar supremacy in it — Henceforward the Church, though never endowed by the INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 849 State, yet receives protection for its revenues — Christian princes ever con- sidered themselves its protectors, and in some sense its governors — Cler- ical rights — Imperial exercise of power in Ecclesiastical matters, and influence in the Church . . . greater in the East, because there was the seat 'I government ; consequent degener- acy (there is little doubt) of Eastern Church : 794, 795. Different state of things in the West, especially from absence of seat of government — Power of the clergy from their posi- tion, rights, &c. — Churchmen of the fourth century opposed the only avail- able barrier to imperial tyranny — The Church subsequently the one great antagonist of feudal oppression : 795-797. Bishop of Rome, from the earliest times the most important prel- ate in the West . . . derived additional importance from many causes . . . the most important person in the city in the absence of the Emperor — By de- grees primacy became supremacy — Borne the civil centre of Europe, the ecclesiastical centre of Christian Eu- rope — Power of the Pope a happy counterpoise to that of sovereigns ; the Church as an united body disposed to look to one visible head — Evil conse- quences of this, yet not all evil — Pa- pal authority, not merely spiritual, but political ; becomes an intolerable tyr- anny — grievances felt by bishops, and still more by kings : 797-799. The Reformation a reaction from this 6tate of things, as well as a throw- ing off corruptions of faith . . . viewed by different persons according to their respective feelings and interests. — Proceedings of, and under, Henry VIII. — " Head of the Church " ascribed to him as a title — Opposition to such ascription — contests and different opin- ions as to meaning of the term — Cranmer's exposition of it — The title offensive to many . . . after abolition by Mary not restored by Elizabeth — "Government" thenceforward substi- tuted for " Headship " — Authorized formularies (especially this Art.) of Elizabeth's reign explanatory of the meanings attached to this authority : 799-802. Convocation in reign of James I. agree on Canons of 1603. — Principle therein enunciated, present charter of union between Church and State, this : that the sovereign is en- titled to the ancient privileges of de- vout princes in Scripture, of Christian Emperors in primitive times, and of ancient sovereigns of England before the times of Papal domination. This claim should seem both scriptural and 107 catholic — Objections urged, from dis- similarity of the Jewish National to the Christian Catholic Church ; from sacredness attached to Jewish Kings, distinctively, as God's special vicege- rents ; from the evil consequences to the Church of the influence of the Christian Emperors, and of the con- nection of religion with the State . . . and answered : 802-805. Supremacy of the sovereign almost necessarily fol- lows from recognition of the propriety of a connection between Church and State, and simultaneous denial of Pa- pal supremacy — The sovereign un- dertakes nothing belonging to the of- fice of the ministers of Christ, but in matters of external polity claims the right of legislation ; willingly allowed by us — Supremacy of the Crown not arbitrary ; everything in England lim- ited by law — No small difficulty of late arising and increasing from the suprem- acy becoming virtually a supremacy of Parliament, which unhappily is not a supremacy of the laity of the Church of England — Speculations on the fu- ture vain ; true hope, and real dangers, of the Church: 806-808. Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, 809-831. Most extensive and important subject, 809. Alleged grounds on which the claim of supreme authority rests : I. That supremacy over the universal Church was given to St. Peter — Answered ; a certain priority among the Apostles readily admitted . . . but not as involv- ing primacy of power, or preeminence of jurisdiction ; Scriptural proofs and patristic statements in opposition to claim of supremacy ; passages of Scrip- ture alleged in favour of the claim shown not to warrant the Romanist con- clusion ; patristic testimonies against correctness of the Romanist interpreta- tion ; nothing more fairly to be made of the case than that St. Peter was primus inter pares : 809-818. II. That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome — An- swered ; an early tradition indeed that he was so, but this on historical inves- tigation found to have very slender foundation — The question decided in the negative on examination of Scrip- ture passages and patristic statements — No good reason to doubt that St. Peter was at Rome, but no reason to believe that he was ever in any prop- er sense Bishop of Rome : 818-823. III. That St. Peter's supremacy is in- herited by his successors, the Bishops of Rome — Answered ; the two preced- ing positions being disproved, this must fall with them ; but farther, whatever priority St. Peter had among the Apostles was personal, not official 850 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. — Supremacy of Rome not admitted at first ; its rise and progress traceable, and easily accounted for ; historical confirmation of this view of the case : 828-828. Special ground on* which the Pope claims jurisdiction in Eng- land ; t. e. that England was in the Patriarchate of liome — Questions as to rise of Patriarchates, and extent of the Roman Partriarchate — Good proof that in early ages it did not comprise Britain — British Church moreover of very early origin, and acknowledging no obedience to the Pope — A Church in Britain, and Christians also among the Saxons, before the mission of Au- gustine, from which only the Pope can put in any reasonable claim to supe- riority over English Bishops — More- over, even conversion of a nation would not necessarily involve supreme jurisdiction over it — Claim to such a jurisdiction over Britain on the part of the Bishop of Rome unfounded and uncanonical, and rejection of it not .schismatic . 829-831. Capital Punishments, not universally unlawful ; lawfulness of, Scriptural au- thority for : 882. War», Mtrhig in, at the commandment of the Magis- trate, lawfulness of, allowed by early Christians, and proved from Scripture, and condemnation of all war shown to be unfounded, 832-834. Commemoration, bare, in the Eucharist ; the view of Zuingle, see Lord's Supper, 684. Confirmation, see Sacraments, 690. Consecration of Bishops and Ministers, Art. xxxvi. 785. Ordinal, the, vari- ous particulars respecting, from Ed- ward VI. to Charles II. 786, 787. Object of the Art. to meet objections — Objection of Romanists, that the Ordinal lacks certain essential cere- monies — Answered ; neither Scripture gives authority for the forms thus urged as essential, nor do we find authority for them in customs of the primitive Church — Objection that Bishops con- secrated according to the Ordinal of Edward VI. and Elizabeth wer,e not rightly consecrated, because the words of consecration did not necessarily ap- ply to a Bishop . . . shown to be fu- tile: 787-789. Objection of Puri- tans, and many well-meaning Chris- tians since them, to our use of Christ's words, " Receive the Holy Ghost. . . Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven," &c. — Argument of object- ors that the power of remitting and re- taining sins was miraculous, and con- fined to the Apostles — Answered ; iucIi power, of that higher kind, never given to mere man — the only author- ity conveyed by our Lord to His first ministers was the power of the keys, to admit men into the Church or king- dom, exclude them from it, restore them to it — This power committed to the Church as a body, and more par- ticularly to her Bishops and Presbyters — and reception of this power only meant by the words of our Ordination Service — Argument, that man cannot bestow God's Spirit, and that the claim to do so is profane — Answered; the gift of the Holy Spirit recorded John xx. not His personally sanctifying in- fluence, not the miraculous baptism of the Spirit, but evidently the ordaining grace of God ; this believed by the Church to flow down direct from the ordaining Spirit (wheresoever ordina- tion, appointed by Christ as the means of receiving it, is rightly ministered), to constitute the ordained person truly a minister of Christ — Difference be- tween ordination by Christ Himself and by Bishops ; and duly recognized by us: 789-791. Consub8tantiation, see Lord's Supper, 684. Conversion, see Bajtism, 638, &c. Councils, General, authority of, Art. xxi. • 490. Judgment of the Catholic Church of great value and importance — How to be given ? 490, 491. Jewish San- hedrim — First General Christian Coun- cil, so called by some, at Jerusalem — Provincial Synods — First four gen- eral Councils : of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon — Two subsequent general Councils of Constantinople — These six only (the first four more universally esteemed) acknowledged as general by the universal Church, though some others by the Creek Church, many by the Ea'tiii : 4'.fJ. 498. General Councils, why not held in the first three eenturies . . . the result of peculiar exigencies . . . could only (in fact) be summoned by a power which could command genual obedience, i. c. the Emperor ; therefore could not be assembled by the Pope — Universality of attendance, how, only, now con- ceivably to be insured : 498-496. No assurance of infallibility to Councils — Universal Church, only assured that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it . . . never yet, |>orhaps never possibly, represented perfectly by any Synod — Suggested possibility of ma- jor part of the Church being for a time in error — Faults of Synods : 496-497. Synods, use of . . . really general and of universal authority only by recog- nition and approval by the Catholic Church : 49S, I'.t'.i. Errors of general (i. r. fussing for general) Councils, 499, 600. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 851 Creeds, probable origin of, in Baptismal confession of faith . . . originally brief ... in no fixed form . . . gradually en- larged to meet heresies, 218. Many confessions of faith preserved in writ- ings of the earliest fathers — Preva- lence of some authoritative standard, though with diversity of expression, apparent from language of early Chris- tian writers — Meaning of " Symbo- lum," the commonest name of the Creed, obscure : 220. Creed, Apostles', the ; traditional ac- counts of its having been drawn up by the Apostles, fabulous or improbable — Apostolic, however, as containing the doctrine taught by the Apostles, and in substance used by the Church even from their times — Form mainly the same probably used by them — Not committed to writing — Apostles' Creed probably so called as being, mainly, that of the Church of Rome, the only Western Church undeniably founded by an Apostle : 221-223. Creed, Nicene, the ; original form as recited to the Council of Nice by Euse- bius . . . enlarged by the Council to counteract Arianism . . . received by the whole Church . . . various repre- sentations of it, how to be accounted for: 223-226. Enlargement of Nicene Creed by Council of Constantinople, nearly agreeing with Nicene Creed as given by Epiphanius — Constantino- politan Creed confirmed by Council of Ephesus . . . introduced into Litur- gies of Eastern, then of Western Churches (addition of " Filioque," see Procession, 121) : 226, 227. Creed, St. Athanasius's . . . original obscure . . . formerly by many errone- ously believed to have been composed by Athanasius — Critical inquiries into authorship of it — Waterland's strong arguments to prove Hilary, Bishop of Aries, a. d. 429, the writer — External proofs — Internal evidences — proba- bly called Athanasius's because clearly expressing the doctrines defended by him : 227-232. Value of the Creed as opposed to heretical views of the Trin- ity and Incarnation — Defence of, or apology for, the damnatory clauses — Notice of various errors opposed by the principal clauses of this Creed : 232- 236. The Three Creeds of Art. viii. in their original languages, 235-238. Descent into Hell, Art. ill. 84. Hell here, as in the Apostles' Creed, cor- responds to Hades, (not to Gehenna,) 84, 85. Use of the word Hades among the Greeks, 85 . . . among the Jews, 86 . . . among the Christians, 87, 88. What to be learned from the Scripture of the state of the departed, 88-91 . . . of the meaning of the word Hades, 91, 92. Descent of Christ into Hell, not an ancient Art. in theCreeds, 92. Accepted however, as an article of faith by all the earlier fathers ; some of their testi- monies quoted ; asserted by them in refutation of Arian and Apollinarian denial of existence of a human Soul in Christ : 93, 94. Scriptural proof of, 94, 95. Object of, 95-103. Belief that the Spirit, or Soul, of Christ preached the gospel to the souls of the dead, almost universal among the earlier Christians, 96. Different opinions on the purpose of Christ's preaching ; in ancient, and in more modern, times : 97-99. Scriptural consideration of the end of Christ's Descent into Hell — Bishop Horslev's Sermon, on 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19 : 100-103. Election, see Predestination, 426, &c. Excommunication, Art. xxxni. 768. Cutting off from the people, an Old Testament punishment . . . appears in general to have meant death ; but un- derstood by later Jews of excommuni- cation, of which they had three kinds, Niddui, Cherem, Shammata — Excom- munication, power of, exercised by the Christian Church from the very ear- liest times ; quotations in proof . . . and in frequent use through the fol- lowing centuries — Distinction between lesser and greater Excommunication — Confession (see Sacraments, 592, &c.) — Excommunications become more formidable in the Middle Ages, in cases of heresy, or of royal and national op- position to Church authority — Huss ; Wickliffe ; Luther ; Henry IV. of Ger- many ; John of England : 768-770. Penance, public, in addition to pub- lic confession, imposed by the early Church on excommunicated penitents ; of whom there were four classes — Ex- communication, and therefore penance, only inflicted for heavy offences — Penance, duration of term of, accord- ing to circumstances : 770,771. Res- toration to communion, and giving of absolution, power of, (as of excommu- nication,) ordinarily in the Bishop, sometimes committed to presbyters, in extreme necessity even to deacons, 771, 772. Declaration of Council of Tren.t concerning Excommunication — Power of Excommunication gener- ally insisted on by the Reformers — Calvinist communions in general very strict observers of discipline — Church of England clear enough in its prin- ciples, (see, beside this Art., Rubric be- fore Communion, Introduction to Com- mination, Canons of 1663,) though restrained in its practice, owing to pe- culiar nature of connection between 852 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. Church and State, and prevalence of Erastian opinions : 772, 773. Scriptural proof that the Church is divinely authorized to excommunicate offenders, and to restore them on re- pentance to communion, 773-776 . . . that certain persons in the Church have received from Christ authority to ex- communicate and to restore — The chief officers of the Church the princi- pal executors of its authority, yet that authority vested by Divine wisdom not in them alone, but. with them, in the whole body of the faithful : (Eccle- siastical Courts, 778, n.) 775-778. Extreme Unction, see Sacraments, 596, &c. Faith, see Justification, 807, &c. Final Perseverance, see Sin after Bap- tiim, 372, &c, 393, &c., and Predestina- tion. Free Will, Art. x. 261 — sentiments of Apostolical Fathers on, not distinctly expressed — Justin Martyr — Heretics — Origen — Augustine : 261-265 : Gote- schale— Peter Lombard — Schoolmen ; Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, heads of opposing parties : 265, 266, (416.) Luther; Melancthon — Council of Trent — Calvin and his followers — Arminius — Synod of Dort : (417-419,) 267-269. Controversies in the Church of Rome on the subject after the Coun- cil of Trent ; Jansenists ; Jesuits : 269. Socinians, 270. Statements of, and controversies on, doctrine of Free Will in the Church of England — Carefully guarded language of the Art. : 270-273. Scriptural proof of inability of man since the fall to turn himself to faith and godliness, or to do good works ac- ceptable to God — Pelagian arguments refuted : 273-276. Scripture proof of necessity for grace of God, 276-281 . . . for preventing grace, 278 — lor codperat- inq grace, (language of Art. vindicat- ed,) 279-281. God, Nature and essential attributes of, 19. Scripturally shown to be Spirit- ual ; A Personal Being of infinite ex- cellence ; One : 84, 86. Good Works, present Art., xn., on, add- ed in 1562 . . . supplementary to Art. xi. lest that .-In i u hi be supposed to teach Si iliiiilianism . . . opposed to An- tinomian errors ... to doctrine of schoolmen of good works meriting grace de congruo, and dr. condigno: 824, 825. Scriptural proofs that the good works of justified men cannot put away sin and endure God's judgment . . • yet that they are pleasing to God in Christ . . . that they necessarily spring out of a true and living faith : 826-880. Goods of Christians not common, Art xxxviii. 836. Almsgiving and sacri- fice of wealth for the Church and poor practised by the early Christians to an extent now unknown — Language of Justin Martyr and Tertullian which might seem at first sight to affirm com- munity of goods, shown not really and strictly to mean it — Clement of Alex- andria and Augustine argue against necessity of resignation of all property — Erroneous views on this subject condemned by the Church — Volun- tary poverty not condemned in the Art, but only the fanatical belief that all property is unlawful: 835, 836. The right of owners to their property recognized by the New Testament — passages which might seem inconsist- ent with this view explained — Most cogent obligation on every follower of Christ liberally to give alms according to his ability : 836-839. Heresies and Sects, sundry, notice's of: — Anabaptists; 195, 369, 377, 555, 613, 646, 664, 836, 841. — Antinomians ; 194, 196, 297. — Apollinariamsm ; 67, 94, 96, 230, 234, 235. — Anamm s 30-32, 47, 60, 63, 66-68, 93, 119, 223-227, 232- 234, 368.— Donatists; 371, 611-614.— Eutychianism ; 69, 105, 230, 232, 234. — Gnosticism ; 20, 28, 46, 60, 61, 67, 70, 105, 107, 119, 177. 194 v 234, 241, 262, 364,600, 651, 692, 759. — Macedonian- ism ; 32, 60, 120, 226. — Manichaanism ; 20, 81, 67, 105, 107, 177, 194, 241, 264, 367, 871, 600. — Marcionitism : 105, 107, 194, 241, 262. — Mouotheiites ; 70. — Montanism ; 26, 121, 365, 613, 769. — Nestorianism ; 68, 74, 230, 232, 236. — Novations; 26, 366, 388. — Ptlaqian- ism: 242, 243, 252, 264. 274, 332, 338, 854, 415, 444. 645, 841. — Quakers ; 655, 841. — Sabellianism ; 29, 80, 64-62, 119, 232, 233, 371. — Socinianism ; 83, 66, 67, 70, 80, 121, 247, 270. — Svoeden- borgians ; 70, 107. Holy Ghost, the, Divinity of; early her- etics who denied it generally disbe- lievers of His Personality — Gnostics ; Sabellians : 119 His Divinity, though not Personality, denied by Arians and Macedonians, 119, 120. Unsound doctrines concerning the Holy (ilmst imputed to Origen (prob- ably without sufficient reason), and to Lactantius, 120. Strange heresy attrib- uted to Montanus, 121. Personality of the Holy Ghost generally denied by the Socinians, 121. Procession of the Holy Ghost, see Procession. Holy Ghost, Sin against the, see Sin ajler Baptism. Holy Ghost, the other particulars concerning, see Trinity. Homilies, the, Art xxxv. Great need INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 853 of simple and sound instruction for the people at the time of the Reformation — First Book of Homilies attributed to Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and others — Second in great part to Jewel — Homilies, the, assent to, required by the Art. general, not specific ... of much value, though not likely to be again much read in Churches — Objections taken to reading of anything uninspired in Churches (as to Apocrypha, see Sa-iptures Holy, 188, &c.) . . . answered : 782-784. Host, elevation of the, see Sacraments, 606, and Lord's Supper, 731, n. Image Worship, see Purgatory, 513, &c, 636, &c. Incarnation of the Son of God, 67. Er- rors concerning — Gnostics and Mani- chees — Arians — Apollinarians — Nes- torian controversy, and progress of Nestorianism — Eutychian controversy, and spread of Eutychian or Monophy- site doctrine — Docetae : 67-70. In- carnation treated of and scripturally proved, 73-78. Union of two, i. e. the Divine and human, natures in the still-continuing-one Person of Christ from the moment of the conception of His human nature, 73, 74. Unity of Person, in which Person are both na- tures, in Christ, the reason why ac- tions proper to Christ's manhood are at times attributed to God, and actions proper to God attributed to the Man Jesus, 75. Perfection and Distinctness of both natures, 75, 76 . . . Inseparably united in one Person forever, 77, 78. Sufferings and Death of Christ ; in His human nature only : 78, 79. Death of Christ consisted in the separation of His human Soul from His human Body, not of His Divinity from either, 79, 80. Object of our Saviour's suffer- ings, 80-83. Socinians deny necessity of a propitiatory sacrifice, or that God had need to be reconciled to man . . . refuted by consideration of the Divine attributes, and by arguments from Scripture : 80-82. Christ's death a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but for actual sins, 82, 83. Indulgences, see Purgatory, 511, &c. Infant Baptism, see Baptism, 677, &c. Intention, Roman doctrine of, see Un- worthiness of Ministers, 614, 615. Invocation of Saints, see Purqatoru, 520, &c., 541, &c. Judgment, return of Christ to, false no- tions concerning — Early heretics — Swedenborg : 107, 108. Scripture proofs and descriptions of the Agent of the future Judgment ... of the ob- ject of it ... of the Judgment itself: 114, 115. Judgment according to works not opposed to justification by faith, 115, 116. Time of Christ's com- ing to judgment . . . not known even to Christ as man: 116, 117. See Art. Resurrection. Justification, (Art. xi. 282) . . . sought according to natural religion by obe- dience or atonement — Jews censured by the prophets for formal observance of ceremonial rites without sufficient reference to the spirit of them — mere formal observance censured by our Lord and St. Paul — Rabbinical errors on Justification — Notion of some Jews (and probably of Mohammed?) that a man might be saved without holiness by acknowledging the Divine Unity and the Resurrection : 282, 283. Sen- timents of the Fathers on justification, matter of much discussion . . . not ac- curately defined, no contests having then required such definition — Clem- ent of Home (the most, express) — Other fathers — Their general view accordant with our Art. xi. — Diffi- culty of deciding whether they always understood justification in a forensic sense, or as including sanctification also — Chrysostom — Augustine — Wa- terland : 283-288. Views of the School- men — Justification generally under- stood by them as forgiveness of sins, not infusion of righteousness — Faults charged on their system : merit de con- gruo and de condiyno ; attrition ; satis- faction ; sacramental grace ex opere ope- rate — Luther's opposition to them (see also 333) — Much of their teach- ing possibly admitting a more inno- cent sense than we usually put on it, yet popularly mischievous — Luther's grand doctrine of justification by faith only — His vehemence leads to some unguarded statements — F'ides infor- mis : fides formula ; distinctions of Schoolmen: 288-292. Council of Trent much occupied with Luther's doctrine of Justification — decrees (and anath- emas) drawn up ; one of the most important, that justification is not only remission of sins, but sanctification also — sense of decrees debated even afterwards — Roman Catholic writers since the Reformation generally against forensic sense of the word "justify : " 293-295. Language of Luther softened and explained by Melancthon and oth- ers . . . ruled to imply, not opposition of faith to charity or holiness, but of Christ's merits to man's, of God's mer- cy to a sinner's claims — Question still, in what sense was faith the instrument of justification f — Luther — Melanc- thon and moderate Lutherans — Bucer — errors of Osiander — Agricola, es- teemed founder of Antinomians — Cal- vinistic reformers, generally symboliz- 854 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ing with Luther ii. statement on justi- fication, 296-298. Doctrine of Luther (modified) em- braced by English Reformers — Judg- ment of Cranmer and his companions expressed by Homily of Justification (or Salvation) and xith Art. of 1552 — Language of present Art. very similar to that of Melancthon and the Augs- burg Confession — Doctrine of Hom- ily of Salvation, and Liturgy, &c — Differences among later English Di- vines rather logical than practical — Hooker — Bp. Bull — Barrow — Wa- tcrland, &c. — Certain practical truths of importance allowed by all parties, Romanist and Protestant : 298-303. "Justification," Scriptural meaning of, investigated, 304-307. "Faith," investigation of usages of the term in Scripture, especially in St. Paul's writings, 307-312. Faith in general, 308-310. Justifying Faith, 810-312. Justification, general Script- ural view of doctrine of, 313, 314. Justification by faith, investigation of peculiar signification attached by St. Paul to this his favourite formula, 314— 818. Justification, certain questions on — An act or a state ? — Faith'? or Faith and good works 1 or Faith and holiness ? to be called the condition or conditions of justification? — Justifica- tion by faith, how consistent with judg- ment according to works? (see 115) — Baptism and Faitli being the or- dinary instruments of justification, whether necessary for it without ex- ception ? — Whether the language of St. James is opposed to the doctrine of St. Paul? 318-323. Lambeth Articles, see Sin after Baptism, 879, 380, and Predestination, 426, n. Lord's Supper, the, Art. xxviu. 683. Presence of Christ in that Sacrament, four principal opinions on : Transub- stantiation, doctrine of Church of Rome ; Consubstantiation, of Luther ; Real Spiritual Presence, of Church of England and of Calvin ; no presence, mere commemoration of Christ's death, doctrine of Zuingle : 688, 684. Doc- trine of the early ages eoncluded, on weighing all considerations, and not- withstanding some remarkable phrases, (the language of the fathers is often rhetorical, and not so guarded as ours has necessarily become, 686,) to be not in favour of a miraculous change in the consecrated elements, nor of. a car- nal presence of the natural Inxly of Christ, but in favour of a real, effect- ual, life-giving presence of Christ's spiritual Body, communicated to the faithful, and feeding the souls of His disciples, (701.) (Perhaps possible al- ternative of consubstantiation being contemplated by some of the fathers, 701, 702.) Subject discussed; and quotations adduced, from Ignatius to Theodoret : 684-701. Controversies of the Middle Ages— Growth of trans ub- stantiation — the doctrine nearly, if not quite, expressed in language of Radbert, about a. d 830 — the tt-rin said to have been invented about a. d. 1100 — the doctrine declared an article of faith by Council of Lateran, a. i> 1216 — and decreed by Council ol Trent, and professed in creed of Pius IV. — Established doctrine of the Roman Church — differences of state- ment and of thought, however, still ad- mitted on the subject : 702-707. Doc- trines of the Reformation — Luther ; Zuingle ; Calvin — English Reform- ers — Cranmer and Ridley — Formu- laries and Views of the Church of England : 707-715 (and 683, 684). Scriptural proof of the true doctrine of the Lord's Supper . . . from The Words of Institution, 715-723 . . . from Our fjords Discourse at Cmternawn, John vi. 723-727 . . . from The State- ments of St. Paul. 727-731. Elevation, &c. of the Host founded on belief in Transubstantiation, consequently re- jected with that doctrine, 731, n. See Sacnunents. Marriage of Priests, Art. xxxn. 758. Marriage of clergy evidently allowed in the earliest ages of the Church — Second marriages considered in very early times as disqualifying for ordi- nation, though not universally so held ; St. Paul's words on monogamy of a Bishop being interpreted by many eminent fathers of divorce ajid sub- sequent marriage : 758, 759. Early creeping in, however, of exaggerated esteem for celibacy — Ascetic views of Essenes, Montanists, Gnostics, and others — Language of our Lord and of St. Paul, speaking of a single life as more favourable to piety, because freer from worldly distractions, pressed to its utmost consequences — Some clergy began to separate from their wives, and laymen to refuse the ministration of a married priest — these errors at first opposed by Councils and Canons — Proposal made at the Council of Nice that the clergy should be obliged to abstain from the society of their wives married before ordination, but opposed by Paphnutius, who urges that it should sutlkv that the clergy should not marry after ordination ; the whole council assent to his words — Notices of other Councils — Grad- ual progress of principle of clerical celibacy in the West— Clerical celibacy INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 855 finally decreed in England in begin- ning of the twelfth century — Opinions on, and effects of. clerical celibacy in the Middle Ages alluded to : 759-762. The Reformers all opposed to vows of continence — Much debate as to propriety of marriage of those who had formerly made profession (espe- cially monastic vows) of celibacy — Luther — Cranmer — Ridley — Coun- cil of Trent condemns marriage of the clergy — Reformed Churches all allow it — Eastern Church allows marriage of presbyters, but not of bishops : 762, 763. Celibacy of the clergy, strong arguments in favour of, alleged from Scripture ; motives of Church policy also 4 763-765. These arguments, however, though not to be underrated, must not weigh against Scriptural proofs, adduced, that marriage of the clergy as well as of the laity is Divine- ly sanctioned and blessed — Arguments from expediency might be brought on both sides : 765-767. Matrimony, see Saa-a inputs, 591. Ministering in the Congregation, Art. xxm. — wording and derivation of Art. : 549, 550, (565.) Clergy and Laity, distinction between, unquestion- ably existing very early in the Church — Clemens Romanus and Ignatius — Clement of Alexandria; Tertullian ; Irenaeus ; Origen — Cyprianic age ; distinction then, undoubtedly, strongly marked : 550-554. Opinions of Chris- tians of all ages and almost all sects in favour of necessity of a distinct ministry — Luther : Confession of Augs- burg; Zuinglian Confession — Church of England : 554, 555. Ministers law- fully called,^ who, 555. Ordination anciently conferred by highest order of the ministry — Testimonies from Clem- ens Romanus downwards — Question raised as to original identity of order of Bishops and order of Presbyters ; the titles being allowed to have been convertibly used in the New Testa- ment — The three orders certainly ex- isting in the third century ; and no Church thenceforward to be found where Bishops did not preside and or- dain ; burden of proof that it ever was otherwise lies on objectors : 555-557. Chain of evidence from Clemens Ro- manus, downwards, the effect of which is to show the existence of three orders of clergy even from the Apostles . . . the superiority of Bishops, especially in sole power of ordination, to pres- byters . . . that privileges of presby- ters are declared, even by Chrysos- tom and Jerome, speaking most highly of their dignity, not to include power of ordination : 557-563. Primitive tes- timony proves that in the earliest ages, while all churches had their regular presbyters and deacons, there was one chief presbyter (whether to be "esteemed of a different, or, as maintainers of the validity of presbyterian orders would allege, of the same order) presiding over the clergy of that city, and hav- ing solely authority to ordain, author- ity believed to have been derived to Bishops from the Apostles, 563. Coun- cil of Trent, and later writers of the Church of Rome, though generally classing bishops and presbyters togeth- er as " sacerdotes," yet hold bishops superior to presbyters, and solely quali- fied to confirm and ordain, 564. Lu- therans constrained against their wishes to act without bishops, from whom they met with nothing but opposition — Calvinists, though rejecting their bishops, as binding them to Rome, yet willing to submit to a lawful hierarchy — The primitive rule of episcopal ordi- nation and apostolical descent never infringed in the Church of England — This Art. the only formulary seeming at all ambiguous, yet not really so ; circumstances attending the framing of it — Progress of Cranmer 's opinions on Ordination — The Ordinal (see also 785, &c.) : 564-567. Scriptural proof of a regular ministry appointed, by regular ministers of ordination, in the Christian Church, 567-572. Example of Old Testament clearly to the point, (notwithstanding objections,) 568, 569. Existence of a lawfully appointed min- istry clearly proved from the New Testament, 569-572. Proofs from New Testament that in the Church of Christ there ever existed (in some form, 575) three orders of ministers . . . and that ordinations (in all these cases) were performed by the first order only — Arguments alleged from Scrip- ture in opposition answeVed : 572-576. Oath of a Christian, Art. xxxix. 840. Testimonials that the early Christians refused to take idolatrous oaths, but not legitimate oaths in legal inquiries — yet doubtless much scruple on the subject of swearing among the ancients generally — The primitive Church very severe against idle swearing, swearing by the creature, and perjury — Some fathers, led by the strong language of our Lord and St. James, appear to have doubted the lawful- ness of any oaths to Christians — The Pelagians denied it ; replied to by Augustine — all oaths held unlawful by the Waldenses, the Anabaptists, (against whom this Art. is probably directed.) and the Quakers : 840, 841. Oaths admitted to be lawful under the 856 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. Old Testament — Probable abuse of oaths among the Jews — Great danger of profane and careless swearing — This is the evil habit condemned, it seems very apparent, by our Lord, when enforcing the spirit, not merely the letter, of the third commandment — This language shown to apply to common conversation — St. James's words to be interpreted accordingly — Oaths on solemn and important occa- sions, especially in courts of justice, lawful to Christians as well as Jews, on New Testament authority : 841- 843. Old Testament, the, especially its con- sistency with the New, Art. vn. — Art. compounded of two of the Artt. of 1552, 193. Old Testament held to be contrary to the New by some early heretics .. . Gnostics ; Manichees ; prob- ably followed by some mediaeval here- tics — Fanatics of the period of the Reformation set inward illumination above Scripture — Antinomians ; Ana- baptists : 104, 195. Transitory prom- ises, only, looked for \>y the fathers, an opinion held by some, mainly, or- thodox Christians — (Warburton jmssim 8. h. Art.) 195. Retention of ceremo- nial part of Mosaic Law desired by Judaizers — Jewish Polity a model to some Anabaptists — Puritan reference to Old Testament language in civil affairs — Fathers under the Old Testa- ment, how saved ? 196. Law of Moses, character of, as a Theocracy ; enforced therefore by tem- poral sanctions : 197-200 . . . character of, as a dispensation professedly pre- paratory to the Christian economy ; salvation therefore not offered by the letter of the law: 200, 201. Some knowledge of the Mediator derived from the Patriarchs, 201. Patriarchal belief in, ami knowledge among the Jews of, an Sternal life. Scriptural ar- guments for, from books of Moses . . . from Job . . . Psalms . . . Proverbs and Kcclesiastes . . . Prophets : 202-210. Jewish belief in the time of our Sav- iour, 210, 211. Heavenly promises looked for by the ancient fathers, Heb. xi. 211, 212. Old Testament, au- thority of, recognized in the New, 212. Ceremonial of the Jewish Law abol- ished ; yet instruction still to be de- rived from it : 212-214. Moral portion of the Law perpetually binding ; taught by our Lord to be binding In ■ stricter and more spiritual sense than it was generally understood to be by the Jews: 215,210. Moral commandments still binding, though some of their sanctions were peculiar to the Jewish Theocracy, 210, 217. One Oblation of Christ on the Cross, Art xxxi. 744. Eucharist spoken of by the fathers from the very first as an ofTering or sacrifice — Sundry quota- tions from Clement of Rome to Ter- tullian . . . from Clement of Alexan- dria and Origen ... no certain ref- erence yet found to any offering in the Eucharist, except that of the elements, and with them a sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving — View of the Kucharist as a rommemoratire sacrifice held, it need not to be ques- tioned, by the early fathers, but not expressly appearing to be so before the time of Cyprian : 744-747. Language, then, and, commonly, afterwards, used by the fathers concerning the Eucha- rist as a sacrifice, with special reference to the Body and Blood of Christ com- memorated as spiritually present in that sacrament . . . this urged by the Roman Catholics as proving that a true sacrifice anew of Christ in the Eucharist was believed in the earliest time, whereas Protestants have as- serted that there is allusion only to a sacrifice wherein the whole Church as Christ's Body is offered to God : 747, 748. Arguments showing that the Romanist view is incorrect, but that the fathers beside the notion of the Kucharist as an offering of alms and oblations, of prayer and praise, and of ourselves, esteemed it a memorial of Christ's sacrifice, and a recalling and a pleading of its efficacy, 748-751. Doc- trine of the fathers eas.ly perverted into the Roman Catholic doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, on the invention, &c. of transubstantia- tion — Romanist doctrine of the mass, established by Council of Trent — Custom naturally following that the priest should oiler the sacrifice, but the people not communicate: 751. Romish sacrifice of the mass strong- ly protested against by continental and Anglican Reformers — Unwillingness in Reformed Churches to speak at all of an Kueharistic sacrifice, through dread of the Mass — Propriety of speaking of " the Christian sacrifice " in accordance with the language of the primitive Church advocated neverthe- less by" many learned and pious di- vines of the Knglish Church : 761-764. Scriptural refutation of the Romish doctrine of the mass, 764, 765. Script- ural explanation (agreeable to the be- lief of the early Church) of the true nature of Kueharistic sacrifices, 766- 767. Question as to calling the Lord a Table an Altar considered, 766, n. Orders, see Sucrttmeiits, 691. Pantheism . . . Esoteric doctrine of Pa INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 857 ganistn ... to be found in Egyptian Theology, Greek and Roman Polythe- ism, Brahminism and Buddhism, and Jewish Cabala . . . probably intro- duced into corruptions of Christianity from Eastern philosophy ... an in- gredient in creeds of Gnostics, Mani- chees, and possibly some later heretics . . . called Spinozism from Spinoza, a Jew who taught it in the 17th century . . . lately revived by some German divines - . 19-21. Scripturally refuted, 35, 36. Penance, see Puryatory, 512, &c, Sacra- ments, 592, &c, Excommunication, 770, &c. Predestination and Election, treated of in Art. xvii., almost the same as the Art. of 1552, 401. Predestination, questions concerning not confined to Christian religion — Essenes, Stoics, Mahom- etans, all Predestinarians — Election universally allowed in the Christian Church to be taught in Scripture — meaning of it, variety of sentiments on : Calvinism ; Arminianism ; Nation- alism ; Ecclesiastical Election ; Elec- tion first of some to grace, then of some of these to glory ; Baxterianism : 402, 403. Language on this subject of earlier fathers mostly general, there- fore difficult to fix to a particular meaning— e.g. of the Apostolic fathers (especially), Clement of Rome, Igna- tius, Hermas : 403-405 ... of the post- Apostolic (in whose time philosophy had affected the language of theology), as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clem- ent of Alexandria, Origen. 405-411. Augustine ; his views, statements, oc- casional retractations, appeals to pre- ceding fathers : 411-415. Augustine's predestinarianism car- ried farther by some of his followers, 415-417. Semi-Pelagianism condemned, but Ecclesiastical (not Augustinian) Election asserted in the second Coun- cil of Orange, a. d. 529, 416. Luther and Melancthon ; Zuinglius : 417, 418. Council of Trent, 418, 419. Calvin, advancing far beyond Augustine — Arminius : 419, 420. Doctrine of our own Reformers, and meaning of Art. xvii., much debated — Language of Cranmer and Ridley, and other contemporaneous divines . . . and of formularies of our Church — Ecclesiastical Election more probably than Calvinism or Arminianism con- tained in an Art. drawn up by Cran- mer: 420-423. Will the wording of the Art. bear this meaning 1 It may (and it has been forcibly contended must, exclusively) : 423-425. Art., however, probably drawn up design- edly in guarded and general terms, 108 425. Election, Scriptural doctrine of investigated, 426-442. Importance of keeping close to Scripture, and clear of philosophy — Views of Calvinists and Arminians : 426, 427 (see also 431, 442). Investigation of subject of Elec- tion from Old Testament, 428-431 . . . from New Testament, considered ne- cessarily, in connection with the Old, 432-442. Old and New Testaments, and the earliest Christian fathers after them, seem in perfect harmony to speak of God's election of individuals to His Church . . . cannot be affirmed by us to have spoken of any further election : 442. Procession of the Holy Ghost, contro- versy concerning, 121-124. " Pro- ceeding from the Father," inserted in Nicene Creed by Council of Constan- tinople — Council of Ephesus decree that no addition should thenceforth be made in that Creed — Uniform decla- ration accordingly by the Greek fathers of belief in the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father : 121, 122. The Latin fathers according to inference from Scripture speak of the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the Son — many of the earlier Greek writ- ers thought to have held the same doc- trine, though unwilling to depart from language of the creed : 121, 122. The question brought forward by Theodo- ret, objecting to expressions used by Cyril — Controversy not then pursued in the East — Discussions afterwards in the Western Church — Clause "Fi- lioque " introduced by Churches of France and Spain — Contest carried on by the Eastern and Western Churches on the subject: 122-124. Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son asserted, Art. v., 124 . . . from the Father scriptural- ly proved, 125 ... from the Son con- cluded from, though not verbally de- clared in, Scripture, 125, 126. Early Christians observant of the Scriptural distinction between the Son as begotten of, and the Holy Ghost as proceeding from, the Father, 124, 125. Purgatory, &c. Art. xxn. almost the same with Art. xxm. of Edward VI. 501. Intermediate state believed in by Jews and early Christians (see De- scent into Hell) — their language, at least that of the earliest fathers, in- consistent with belief of Purgatory : 501, 502. Prayers (and thanksgivings) for the Dead, an early practice among Christians . . . unconnected with, and in many cases inconsistent with, doc- trine of Purgatory : 502-505. Prayera for the dead in process of time, in Rom- ish Church, converted into prayers for 858 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. souls in Purgatory — Such prayers how dealt with by English Reformers : 605, 606. Gradual rise of doctrine of Purgatory traced — Tcrtullian ; Origen (neither agreeing with Romanist view) — Augustine doubtfully suggests pur- gatorial view of 1 Cor. iii. 11-15. as not improbable ; doctrine evidently a novelty in his days ; 606-610. Purga- tory distinctly asserted by Pope Greg- ory I. — Belief of it rapidly gains ground in the Western Church — Dis- cussed by Schoolmen — not received by Greek Church — Synod of Basle, and of Florence — vain attempts to procure consent of the Eastern Church to this doctrine: 510, 511. Council of Trent decrees that there is a Purga- tory ; Homanist divines more minute than the Council on the subject; Bel- larmine : 511. 1 ndu/i/enres or Pardons — Relaxations of Penances in the primitive Church . . . wholly different from modern doctrine of Church of Rome concerning Indulgences — That doctrine stated — Indulgences probably not introduced before end of twelfth century — Use of them (though not unopposed) becomes more and more prevalent and corrupt — Sale of them in pontificate of Leo X. rouses the in- dignation of Luther — Decrees, &c. respecting them in Council of Trent : 611-513. Worship of images (and relics), strong testimony against, from the earliest times . . . strongly opposed by the Church on appearance of first tendency towards it in the fourth century — Pictures, then Statues, introduced into Churches : 613-517. Iconoclastic Con- troversy, 517, 518. Council of Trent, 619. Worship of relics — Respect paid in early ages of the Church to relics of saints, but nothing like religious worship of them permitted — Undue esteem of them grows with progress of image worship and of invocation of saints: 519, 520. Invocation of Saints, no authority for, but strongest testimony against, in early Christian Church — Mariolatry especially condemned by Epiphanius — Oratorical (merely) address of Greg- ory Nazianzen to the spirits of the dead — Interest felt \>y early Chris- tians for souls of departed brethren — Incautious language of some of the fathers — (Jradual rise of saint wor- ship : 520-6'_'<>. fipsstsA doctrine of In- vocation of Saints ; set forth in doflUM of Council of Trent — Practice of Rom- ish Church exceeds statement of the decrees — IjUria, <lulm, JtMMrdbjti*} — Purgatory, image-worship, saint-wor- ship, belief in, condemned by all Re- formed Communions — Calvinists mor€ rigid than Lutherans and the Church of England as to outward symbolism : 52(5, 527. Scriptural refutation of Romish doc- trines contained in this Art. 528-648. Scripture, arguments alleged by Hu- manists from (and from Apocrypha), in favour of purgatory ; and refuted (1 Cor. iii. 12-15 especially considered): 628-584. Scripture texts directly op- posed to Purgatory, 534. Doctrine of Indulgences, founded on doctrines of Purgatory anil supererogation, un- scriptural, 534, 535. Arguments al- leged most unfoundedly from Scrip- ture in favour of image-worship, 536- 539. Decisive Scriptural condemna- tion of it, 610. Worship of relics, ar- guments in favour of, vainly alleged from Scripture . . . Contrary to first principles of Scripture truth : 680, 540. Invocation of Saints ; vain attempt of Romanists to defend this practice fttNQ Scripture : 641-547. Canoniza- tion in Church of Rome, what, 544. Scriptural condemnation of saint- (and angel-) worship, f>47, ~>i>. Reformation, the, foundation of, in quali- ties of human nature — gradual prog- ress — Wickliffe, Huss, .Jerome — Re- vival of letters — Art of printing — Erasmus : 7. Henry VIII. — Cran- mer : 8, 9. Important steps in tt lg O of Henry VIII.; Church declared in- dependent of Rome ; Bible and part of Liturgy translated into English, &c. : 10. Edward VI. ami progress in his reign. — First Book of Homilies ; First Service Book ; (rantner's Catechism ; Second Service Book ; Forty-two Ar- ticles : 10-13. Cranmer ami Ridley. 13. Reformation gained life from Ma- rian persecution, L8. Elizabeth ; prog- ress in her reign — Parker — Second Service Book of Edward VI. re- stored with alterations (subsequently revised in BcigB of James I. and Charles II.) — Alterations in Articles ; reduced to thirty-nine : 14-16. Au- thority and interpretation of, and sub- scription to, Articles, 16, 17. [This paragraph a summary of the Introduc- tion.! Regeneration, see Baptism, 638, &c. Relies, see Pvnpifery, 519, 521), 5:56, 687. Resurrection of Christ, the. followed by AtOHUJOU, StMMMj and ./mlt/incut, (tboM three subjects noted separately in in- dex,) as in Art. iv., a part of all an- cient Creeds, 104. False and corrupt notions concerning Resurrection in general, and the Resurrection of Christ — Sadducees and Essenes — Early her etics — Eutyche8: 104, 105. Almost Eutychian language concerning tin INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 859 glorified Body of our Lord introduced by Eucharistical controversy . . . op- posed by this Art. : 105 . . . and by rubric at end of Communion Service, note at 106. Statement of Art. that our Lord took into heaven flesh, bones, &c. though objected to, corresponds with language of early fathers, who, notwithstanding, held that His Body after His Resurrection became a glo- rified Body, 106, 107. Identity of Christ's risen Body, wherewith He ascended into heaven, with that in which He was buried . . . Yet that risen Body a spiritual Body ; Script- urally proved : 111-113. Spiritual Body, what exactly, a mystery, 113. "Natural Body" of Christ, in what sense used in rubric at end of Com- munion Service, 113, 114, n. Resur- rection of Christ indisputably taught as a fact by Scripture — Historical and doctrinal importance of it Scripturally proved : 108, 109. Sacraments, the, Art. xxv., origin of, and alterations in, 583, 584. Sacrament, an Ecclesiastical rather than Scriptural term — Original meanings of the word — Earliest application of the term to anything Christian, in - letter of Pliny the younger to Trajan — Tertullian — " Sacrament," by the fathers used both — 1, in a more extended sense, signify- ing little more than a religious ordi- nance or sacred sign in general, and 2, also in a more restricted sense, accord- ing to which the two great Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper were markedly separated from, and prefer- red before, all other ordinances ; Quo- tations in proof of these points : 584- 588. Seven Sacraments said to be at first devised by Peter Lombard in the twelfth century — Adopted generally by schoolmen, established by Council of Trent, and made part of the Creed of Pius IV. : 588. Confessions of all the Reformed Churches acknowledge but two Sacraments — Some differences in regard to recognized number in be- ginning of the English Reformation ; but final judgment of the English Church asserted in this Art., in the Catechism, and in the second Book of Homilies (where the distinction between a Sac- rament in the general and in the strict sense is laid down) : 588-590. Four of the five Romish Sacraments men- tioned in the Art., admitted by the Church of England, at least in a modi- fied form — these not excluded by our definition from being m some sense Sac- raments, but excluded from being "such Sacraments as Baptism and the Com- munion " (see Horn.), 590. Confirma- tion, 590. Ordination — Matrimony : 591, 592. Penance, 592-596. (Auricular Con- fession, views on, of Lutherans, Calvin. Church of England, 594-596.) Extreme Unction — no early authority before fifth century (and then vainly alleged) for this usage as a Sacrament — Derivation of it from the custom of anointing the sick, which at first had reference to bodily diseases ; inef- fectual attempt of Romanists to derive authority for Unction as a Sacrament from its application as mentioned in Scripture in miraculous healing — Unc- tion practised, but not esteemed a Sac- rament, by the Greek Church : 596- 598. Sacraments, efficacy of, to be dis- cussed more fully under Artt. xxvn. xxvm. Doctrine of fathers from the first clear and strong, that great spirit- ual blessings are to be obtained by all faithful recipients both in Baptism and in the Lord's Supper : 598-600. Sacra- ments, grace and necessity of, denied by some early heretics, 600. Sacra- mental efficacy, subject of violent con- tests at the Reformation — Doctrine of Home, as fixed by the Council of Trent — Views of early Reformers : — Zuin- gle ; Luther; Calvin — x\nglican Re- formers — More modern times re- ferred to : — Quakers and some other sects . . . Foreign Protestants . . . Differences of opinion still subsisting in the Church of England : 600-606. Sacraments, proper use of; language of Art. opposed to the elevation and procession of the host in the Church of Rome : 606. Sacraments, worthy reception of, views of the fathers, 606, 607. Opus operatum, theory of, originat- ing from scholastic disputes concern- ing the grace of the Sacraments . . . adopted by Church of Rome . . . strong- ly opposed by all Reformers : 608, 609. Salvation to be had only through Christ, and in His Church, doctrine of, unani- mously held by the early fathers — Different opinions among the fathers, as to salvability and future state of the heathens and the unbaptized : 443-446. Pope Innocent III. and some schoolmen— Period of the Reformation — Council of Trent anathematizes all who deny that baptism is necessary to salvation — Views of foreign and of our own Reformers on salvation through Christ alone, and salvability of the heathen and the unbaptized : 446-448. Art. xviii. condemns latitudinarian- ism ; but pronounces not on the salva- bility of the heathen ; they, if saved, saved through Christ though unknown to them : 448, 451. Scriptural proof that salvation is set forth only by the name of Christ, 449 . . . therefore of- fered only in the Church, 449, 450 . . . 860 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. that therefore we have no right to say that every man shall be saved by the law which he professes, if observed by him, 460-452. Scriptures, Holy, sufficiency of, for Sal- vation . . . treated of in Art vi., the first controversial Art. of our Church, the fundamental doctrines of Catholic Christianity having been wisely first laid down — alterations in present from original Art. : 129. Doctrines of Church of Home concerning Scripture and Tra- dition . . . expressed by decrees of Council of Trent . . . stated by Roman Catholic divines . . . Scripture and Tra- dition (not merely hermeneutical) rep- resented as equal sources of doctrine, and one without the other insufficient for salvation : 130, 131. Doctrine of Church of England that Scripture con- tains all things necessary for salvation, 131, 132. Arguments alleged from Scripture as against its own sufficien- cy ; and refuted : 132-137. Arguments alleged from Scripture, some incon- clusive, some strongly presumptive, or conclusive, to establish its sufficiency, 137-189. Arguments alleged from rea- son for the Anglican in opposition to the Roman rule on this subject, 139- 142. Arguments alleged from reason in favour of the Romanists, and against the Anglican, view of the subject ; and refuted : 143-147. Testimonies of the primitive fathers in favour of the Angli- can rule, and not of the Roman, 147- 149. The Regula Jidei appealed to by some fathers, merely the Baptismal Creed, based therefore on Scripture, and widely different from the Doctrina tradita of the Church of Rome, 160, 161. Appeal to tradition in preterence to Scripture made by some fathers, merely against heretics who mutilated and per- verted Scripture, 151, 152. Canon of Scripture, 163-188. Jewish canon of Old Testament authorized by our Lord, 168, 154. Question between claims of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint to be the Jewish Scriptures — Proofs of the exclusive canonicity of the He- brew Bible from continuous Jewish tes- timony, and Targums, from some fa- thers, from Philo and Josephus, from classification used by our Lord : 154- 169. Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, to which the Apocryphal books, being Greek origi- nals, or Greek translations from Chal- dee, were afterwards appended, 169, 160. Septuagint, and consequently Apocry- f)ha, became current in the Church from gnorance of Hebrew among the fathers of the first three centuries, except Ori- En — Apocryphal books retained in .tin Vulgate, (translated from Sep- tuagint,) though known by many to be of inferior authority to the Hebrew Canon ; and ultimately adopted by the Council of Trent as canonical : 160, 161 (with anathema against rejecters, 165). Testimonies of fathers to the exclusive Canon of Hebrew Bible . . . conclusive on the whole, notwithstanding quota- tions made from Apocryphal books, even as if of authority — Augustine and Council of Carthage — their au- thority invalid to establish canonicity of the Apocryphal books ; their appro- bation of some of them probably to be taken with restrictions : 162-165. Can- on of the New Testament based on same authority as that of the Old — Same books admitted as Canonical in the New Testament by all branches of the Church of Christ: 166. Re- spects in which the Church of England differs from the Church of Rome, and from some Protestants, in mode of set- tling the Canon, 166, 167. Scripture proof of inspiration and infallibility of the Apostles, 167, 168. Mode of de- termining the genuineness of writings professing to be Apostolical — Witness, not merely sanction, of the Church ap- pealed to — Fitness of the primitive Church for giving the requisite testi- mony : 168-171. Evidence from MSS., 171, 172 .. . from versions, 172, 173 . . . from catalogues, 173, 174 . . from quotations, references, commentaries, 174-177. Same Scriptures as those used by the Church acknowledged al- so by (most) heretics, and sought out for destruction by persecutors, 177, 178. Esteemed works of some early writers, and some Apocryphal books profess- ing to be Apostolical, yet not received as canonical, 178. Internal marks of genuineness, 178, 179. Some books of the generally received Canon at first considered doubtful, 179-181. Tradition of doctrine necessary to salvation rejected by the Church of England — Traditions subservient to, and illustrative of, Scripture, used and respected by her — Ecclesiastical tra- dition ; useful for guidance with re- spect to discipline and ceremonial — Hermeneutical Tradition ; useful in the interpretation of Scripture, though not as adding to its authority ; so viewed by the Church of Kngland : 182-188. Apocrypha, proper use of, asserted in Art. vi. . . . practice of Church of Kng- land in reading it in churches vin- dicated : 188-192 . . . overvalued by Papists, undervalued by Protestants, 189. n. Session of Christ at the right hand of God — foretold and recor d ed in Scrip- ture — meaning of the phrase — Script- INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 861 ural declarations of the perfect domin- ion, &c. enjoyed by Christ on His final exaltation to be seated at the right hand of the Father, 110, 111. See Resurrection. Sin after Baptism ; Art. xvi. very near- ly same as Art. xv. of 1552, which was followed by an express Art. on Blas- phemy against the Holy Ghost, 364. Possibility of repentance and forgive- ness for sins committed after Baptism, some stir on, even in early ages of the Church — opinions of fathers ; heretics ; sects : 364-368. Views on the subject at the time of the Reformation — Ana- baptists — Council of Trent — Conti- nental and English Reformers : 369, 370. Holy Ghost, sin against the ; lan- guage of the Art. directed against opin- ion first broached by Origen, that blas- phemy against the Holy Ghost is when baptized Christians sin . . . opposed by Athanasius — Observations of Augus- tine — Origen's theory rejected by the Church at large, but adopted by the Novatians : 370-372. Sin against the Holy Ghost, nature of, investigated from Scripture — Statements of Atha- nasius and of Augustine: 391-393. Pos- sibility of falling from grace ; closely connected with Predestination — Mean- ing attached by early fathers to Scrip- ture language used by them respecting predestination to grace, not immediate- ly certain — Augustine; his doctrine of perseverance — Greater precision of terms induced by controversies on Pe- lagianism, and on the predestinarian doctrines of Augustine — Augustine's doctrine of perseverance : 372-376. Final Perseverance discussed at time of the Reformation — Council of Trent — Luther ; Zuingle ; Confession of Augs- burg; Calvinistic divines — English Reformers ; this Art., Homilies, Litur- gy, etc. : 376-378. Lambeth Articles ; Hampton Court Conference : 379, 380 (and 425). Scriptural proof that sins after bap- tism are not, generally, unpardonable, 380-383. Scripture passages which have led to belief that deadly sin after baptism is unpardonable, considered, and concluded, although so severe against wilful offenders against light and grace, (and strict as the discipline of the early Church was against all such offenders,) yet not to afford any proof that heinous sin after baptism cannot be pardoned on repentance ; strongest and severest texts seem to apply to apostates hardened in sin : 884-391. Final Perseverance, or Indefectibil- ity of Grace, doctrine of, rejected in Art. xvi. — Views of Zuinglians and high Calvinists — Augustine — Luther- ans—English Reformers: 393, 394. Arguments alleged from Scripture in favour of doctrine of Final Persever- ance ; shown to be invalid : 394-397. Scripture proof of possibility of falling from a state of grace — doctrine of In- defectibility of grace introduced (it is contended) by Calvin as seeming ne- cessary to the harmony and complete- ness of his predestinarian scheme; 397-400. Sin, Christ alone without ; Art. xv. (connected with some preceding Artt. and probably supplementary to pre- ceding Art. ) — Pelagianism — Sinful- ness of the Virgin Mary made a ques- tion . . . not decided in Council of Trent : 354, 355. Scriptural proof of sinlessness of our Saviour ; who took our perfect nature, which includes lia- bility to sin, though He took not sin, a fault of it : 356-358. Scriptural proof of sinfulness of all other men, even though baptized and born again — Blame/ess perfection attributed to per- sons in Scripture in a popular, not ab- solute sense : 359-361. The Blessed Virgin scripturally shown to be, though most singularly holy, not exempt from sin, 361-363. Sin, Original, Art. ix. 239. Origin of evil a very early subject of speculation among philosophers and divines — Original Sin ; doctrine of, appears to have been held by the Jews : 239 . . . Belief of, by the Christian fathers, 240 . . . Early heresies on, 241. Origen's theory, 241. Pelagianism; Semi-Pela- gians : 242, 243. Views of the mediaeval Schoolmen on Original Sin, 243, 244. Decrees of Council of Trent on this subject, 244 . . . differing from doctrine of Anglican Church in affirming the entire cancelling of original sin in bap- tism, 245. Lutheran views ; our ix. Art. derived from nd of Augsburg Confession : 245. Calvin — Difference among Calvinists on first introduction of original sin — Difference between Calvinists and Arminians on extent of vitiation of our nature by the fall : 246, 247. (See also 253-256.) Anabaptists — Socinians : 247. Guarded language of the Church of England — Homilies : 247, 248. Scriptural proof that Orig- inal Sin infects all men, 248-251 ... is not derived from imitation, but inher- ited by birth, 251-253. Scriptural views considered relating to the extent of this naturally inherited corruption, 253-256 ... of the doctrine that orig- inal sin deserves God's wrath and damnation, 256-258. Scripture proof that infection of original sin is not wholly removed by baptism, 258-260 862 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. . . . that concupiscence has the nature of sin, 260. Son of God, tlif, eternal generation of; held by the orthodox fathers : 66, 67 . . . treated of and seripturally proved, 71, 72. " Word," or " Logos," 71. " The Father greater than the Son " as re- gards priority of order, not infinity of nature, 73. Son of God, Incarnation of, see Inrainntion . . . other particulars concerning, see Trinity. Spiritual Presence, see Lord's Supper, 684. Supererogation, Works of, Art. xiv., 841 . . . Doctrine of, perhaps suggested by strong language of fathers on Mar- tyrdom and Virginity, 341-343 . . . Full-grown form of — Indulgences ap- proved, but works of Supererogation not especially mentioned, by Council of Trent : 343. Arguments alleged by Bellarmine from Scripture in support of the Homish doctrine of Superero- gation ; and refuted : 344-351. That doctrine scripturally disproved, 351- 353 . . . arises from false view of prin- ciples of Christian obedience, 353. Supremacy of the down, see Cicil Mag- istrates, 793, &C. Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, see Civil Magistrates, 809, &e. Tongue not understood by the people, not to be used in the congregation, Art. xxiv. 577. Testimony of the fathers not likely to be other than in- cidental, the practice being unknown in early ages — Early translations of Scripture, and vernacular liturgies, used by converted nations— Evidence of the fathers that among the primitive Christians the whole ' congregation joined in the responses, &c . . . (Bish- ops and presbyters were enjoined by Justinian to speak audibly in public prayers and sacraments) . . . and that Scriptures were read and prayers of- fered in a tongue intelligible to the assembly — Vulgar tongue, employ- ment of, in offering up prayers in the primitive Church, in order to the bet- ter instruction of the people, acknowl- edged by eminent Schoolmen and Roman divines: 577-579. Origin of use of a dead language for public wor- ihip, from imposition of the language of the Romans on their colonial sub- jects ; from progressively increasing connection of ecclesiastics with Home; from growing feeling of mystery as to Church ordinances ; from feeling in favour of one universal tongue to be used in the one, yet Universal, Church — Council of Trent — In mod- ern times some prayers otlered in ver- nacular tongues in Roman Churches, but the mass celebrated only in Latin, to avoid, as unreasonably alleged, prof- anation, &c. Clear Scriptural argu- ment against the use of an unknown tongue in Liturgies, (though not much likely to be said in Scripture on the subject ; no trace of such a practi c e among the Jews or the primitive Chris- tians) — 'Custom originating in ac- cident, perpetuated by design : 579- 582. Tradition, see SeH tiNr m Holy, 130, &c. 182, &c. Traditions of the Church ; Art. xxxiv. (in connection with which Preface to Book of Common Prayer should be read) like xvth of Confession of Augsburg — Right of particular or national Churches (vindicated at the Reformation against the Church of Rome) to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies of mere human authority ; a right agreeable to Scripture, and exercised in early times by the differ- ent Churches, which had great variety of discipline and ritual — Controversy concerning Raster . . . Concerning the rehaptizing of heretics — Diversity of practice in reference to the Jewish Sabbath — Different forms allowed of Liturgies and Creeds: 779-781. No right in private persons wantonly to hreak or neglect traditions of the Church to which they belong — Script- ural authority for obedience to civil and ecclesiastical authorities — Whole system of primitive discipline involves the principle that laws of the Church are binding on individual Christians — Decrees of Councils on the same prin- ciple : 781. Transubstantiation, see ford's Supper, 888. Trinity, Holy, the; probable (at least) . intimations of. In .Jewish writings, in ancient mythology, in Plato and other philosophers : 21-23. Received on its revelation in the Gospel as the funda- mental doctrine of the Christian faith, though not so technically asserted at first as was afterwards rendered neces- sary in opposition to heresy, 23, 24. Karly testimonies to this doctrine, 26- 27. False opinions on, 27-34. Juda- ism and Kastern philosophy, elements of corruption and division frequently alluded to by St. Paul and St. John, 27. The Gnostic philosophy — Simon Magus and the Nicolaitans — Cerinthus — Nazarenes and Hbionitcs : "JS. The- odotus and Artemon — Praxeas — Noetus ami Sabellius : 29. Bcryllus — Paul Of Samosata : 88, 84 Arius — Arinn heresy condemned by Coun- cil of Nice ; and opposed by Athana- sius : 31, 32. Semi-Arians, &c. — Ma- cedonia ; his heresy condemned, alsc INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 8G3 the Arian finally, by Council of Con- stantinople — Philoponus : 32. Nomi- nalists charged with Tritheism, 32, 33. Unitarians — Lselius and Faustus So- cinus — Whiston and Clarke — Priest- ley — Tendency of Presbyterians, with exception of Kirk of Scotland, to So- cinianism — Foreign Protestant Ra- tionalism favourable to Unitarian . views : 33. Trinity of distinct Persons in the Godhead Scripturally proved, 37-64. Doctrine not so expressly de- clared in Scripture as some others ; not therefore less true — Manner of Scripture teaching — Means for in- struction provided in the Church : 37. Scripture teaches Unity of God . . . Plurality in the Godhead . . . yet not plurality of Gods . . . Distinct person- ality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : 38. Intimations of Plurality in the Godhead in Old Testament, 39, 40. Distinct declarations of such Plu- rality, and of the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in New Testament, 41. Godhead of the Son taught in New Testament, by reason- able inference, 41-43 ... by direct State- ment, 44-49. Godhead of the Holy Ghost taught in Scripture, 49-51. Unity of Godhead in Trinity of Per- sons scripturally proved, 51-54. Dis- tinct Personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, scripturally proved, 54, 55 ... of the Son, 51-62. (Sabel- lian views of first chap, of St. John confuted, 59-62.) . . . of the Holy Ghost, 62, 63. The whole subject, though "above our understanding, yet not con- trary to our reason, 64. Language of the fathers in relation to three Persons in one God, 64, 65. Unworthiness of Ministers, Art. xxvi. 610. Heretical Baptism, question con- cerning, in the primitive Church . . . connected with, though quite different from,' the question treated of in this Art. — Necessity of personal holiness of ministers to validity of ministra- tions, held by Donatists ; by Anabap- tists ; (evil living of lower class of friars in Middle Ages a principal ground for crj' of reform, 613;) not held by the fathers ; not by Church of Borne ; not by foreign nor English He- formers : 610-614. " Intention " of ministers necessary to validity of ministration, Roman Cath- olic doctrine of, not originally aimed at, but in effect met, by this Art., 614, 616. Evil ministers, inquiry to be made concerning, and they when found guilty to be deposed, 616. Scriptural proof that " in the Visible Church the evil are ever mingled with the good "... and that the ministra- tion of evil ministers is valid . . . yet that obviously ministers ought to be holy, and ought, if proved to be un- godly, to be deposed : 616-618. War not necessarily unlawful, see Civil Magistrates, 832-834. Wicked, the, do not eat the Body of Christ in the Lord's Supper, Art xxix. (expunged for a time by Queen Elizabeth, probably as not agreeable to the members of the Church holding Lutheran views, 735), 732. The Body and Blood of Christ either not eaten at all, or eaten, but only to condem- nation, the two only alternatives, the former generally held, in latter times, by advocates of a spiritual feeding, the latter by believers in transubstantia- tion, and (it is supposed) though not necessarily, by most believers in con- substantiation — Teaching of the fa- thers obscure, yet some plain passages in them strongly in favour of the view taken in this Art. — Quotations — Prayer in ancient Liturgies for de- scent of the Holy Ghost on the ele- ments no proof of necessary belief that communicants, unworthy as well as worthy, must necessarily partake of Christ's Body and Blood if partaking of the elements after that descent — Similar invocation of the Spirit made in Baptism known to involve neither change of ihe water (nor admixture of the Holy Spirit with it) nor obtain- ing of sanctification by an unworthy recipient — Sanctification of the ele- ments, to a new relation, not to a new nature — Belief of reception of the very Body and Blood of Christ natu- rally hehl witli belief in the opus o/ter- atum, and in transubstantiation : 732- 735. Scriptural proof of the doctrine of this Art. 735-737. Works before justification, Art. xm. (title of Art. probably adopted because the question discussed in it went by that name at the time of the Reforma- tion, 335), 331. Nature of heathen virtue a question of great difficulty, touched on by the fathers before and after Palagian controversy — Augus tine's answer to Pelagian arguments — Doctrineof schoolmen concerning grace tie coni/ruo like that of Semi-Pelagians . . . opposed by Luther (see also 289) : 331-333. On subject of this Art. de- cision of Council of Trent . . . views of Lutherans . . . of our own Reform- ers : 333, 334. Arguments alleged from Scripture against the positions of this Art. that works before grace are not pleasing to God, but rather have the nature of sin . . . and refuted 864 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. — Revelation addressed to those whom not make men meet to receive grace it concerns ; tells us little of the state de congruo, 338, 339 . . . have the na- of heathens — Art. practically refers to ture of sin, though there may happen •persons within the sound of the Gos- to be in them a mixture of good with pel : 836-387. Scriptural proof that the bad motive of self-justification ; works done before grace are not pleas- this known to God alone — Language ing to God, 337, 388 .. . that they do of the Art. justifiable : 389, 340. INDEX OF TEXTS EXPLAINED, ILLUSTRATED, OR REFERRED TO. i.26, 27. iii. 22. y. 24.. vi. 6.. vi. 9.. GENESIS PAGE ... 39 39 202, 203 ... 264 ... 304 viii. 21 249, 254 &». ix. 6 255,832 xi. 7 39 xv. 6 311 xvii. 14 473, 628 xviii. 2 545, 546 xix. 1 545, 546 xxvii. 38,39 388 xxxii. 24, 30 39 xxxvii. 35 92 xlix: 18 203 EXODUS. iii. 6 211 iv. 24 628 xii. 6 717 n. xii. 15 473 xii. 19 467 xii. 48 628 xix. 6 569 *xx. 4, &c 536 it. xx. 7 -841n. xx. 12 216 xxv. 18 636 xxxi. 14, 15 768 xxxiv. 34 51 xxxv. 2 768 LEVITICUS. IV. V -. 81 iv. 15 467 viii. 3 455 x. 3 618 x. 11 568 XVI 81, 110 xvii. 4 768 NUMBERS. i. 16 673 xi. 16,17 673 xvi. 3 467, 569 &n. xvi. 30 92 109 PAGE xvi. 32, &c 569 xxi. 8, 9 536 xxii. 31 545 xxiii. 10 203 xxvii. 17 467 DEUTERONOMY. iv. 2 137 &n. vii. 6 429 VII. VIII 430 ix. 5,6 429 x. 15 429 xxv. 1 305 xxvi. 18, 19 429 xxx. 19.20 430 xxxii. 29 203 xxxiii. 10 568 xxxiv. 6 540 JOSHUA. v. 14, vi. 2 39,40 v. 14, 15 546 xxii. 18, 20 467 JUDGES. ii. 1 40 xiii. 20-23 40 xxi. 13,16 467 I. SAMUEL. xii. 22 429 xiii. 8-14 804 xv. 26 205 n. xxv. 24 546 xxviii. 11, 14 90, 97 ft. xx viii. 14 545 xxxi. 13 528 II. SAMUEL. vii. 23, 24 429 xv. 4 305 xxiii. 2, 3 50, 52 I. KINGS. vii. 23. &c 536 viii. 32 305 viii. 39 36,42 xii. 28 538 PAGE xiv. 10 768 xviii. 7 545 II. KINGS. ii. 15 545,546 vi. 29 536 xiii. 21 539 xviii. 4 537, 540 xxiii. 18 540 II. CHRONICLES. vi. 23 305 xix. 11 804 ESTHER, viii. 3 546 JOB. vii. 9 206 ix. 2 304 xiii. 15 207 xiv. 4 249,251 xiv. 12-14 206 xv. 14 251 xv. 16 254 xix. 23-27 204-206 PSALMS. ii. 7 71 v. 9 260 »/. vi. 5 209 n. ix. 17 452 m. xiv. 3 351 xv. 2 304 xvi. 8, &c 95,207 xix. 7 137 xix. 11 329 xxii. 22 467 w. xxiii. 4 208 xxx. 9 209 n. xxxiii. 12 429 xxxvii. 37, 38 208 xxxviii. 1 529 li. 5 249,251. Ii. 7 282 lxii. 12 329 lxvi. 12 529 lxviii. 18 109 866 INDEX OF TEXTS. PAOE Ixxiii. 21-24 209 Ixxiv. 2 467 Ixxxii. 3 305 Ixxxviii. 10-12.... 209 n. xoix. 5 637, 545 ex. 1 110 exxxii. 9 018 exxxv. 4 430 cxliii. 2 326, 359 PHOVERBS. VIII 59 x. 3 260 m. xi. 7 209 xi. 18 329 xiv.82 209 xx. 9 359 ECCLESIASTES. vii. 20 249 ix. 5 209 n. xii. 7 209 ISAIAH. ii. 2 470 iv. 4 529 vi. 5 42 vi. 9 51 vii. 14 40,44.74 viii. 20 138 ix. 6 40,44 ix. 18 529 xi. 10 539 xiv.9 92 xxxii. 1 469 xl. 3 41 xli. 8, 9 i 430 xliv. 1 430 xiiv. 8 36, 63 xliv. 24 43 xlv. 4 430 xlix. 16 205 n. liii. 6-8 82 liii. 6 82, 249 liii. 7 868 Ixv. 1 278 Ixvi. 21 669 JEREMIAH. iv. 2 841 xvii. 9 264 xvii. 10 42 xviii. 2-10 487 n. xviii. 7-10 805 xxiii. 5 469 xxiii. 6 40, 44 xxxi. 1, 8 429 xxxi. 18 278 xxxiii. 24 480 KZEKIEL. xviii. 24 397 ixxiii. 12-20 881 DANIEL. pao* ii. 44 78,469,470 ii. 46 546-548 vii. 14 78, 111, 469 xii. 1-8 210 HOSEA. x. 12 329 xii. 3, 4 80 xiii. 2 387 AMOS, iii. 1,2 429 MICAH. vii. 8, 9 529 HAGGAI. ii. 11 568 ZECHARIAH. ix. 9 409 ix. 11 529 xii. 4, 10 41 xiii. 7 40, 44 MALACHI. i. 2, 3 429,436 i. 7, 12 728,756 ,,. i. 11.... 744,745,763, 757 ii. 7 668 iii. 1 40 iii. 8 529 iii. 17 434 n. APOCRYPHA. TOBIT. iv. 17 528 II. MACCABEES, xii. 42-45 528 MATTHEW. i. 19 304 i. 20, 22,28 44. 74 iii. 2 469, 687 iii. 16, 17 66, 110 iv. 10 510. 548 iv. 16 44 v. 14 471 v. 19 216,687 v. 20 216, 304 v. 21, 22 216 v. 22, 25. 26 680 v. 28 766 m. v. 27-29 216, 260 v. M Mil v. 87 842 v. 88. &c 882,888 v. 42 886 ttm v. 48. . . . . 845 n., 863, 861 vi. 11 695 vi. 14 382 vii. 18. 396 vii. 21 327 viii. 5-13 884 ix. 2, 22 809 ix. 20-22 539 x. 1.., 569,673 x. 7; 12, 13; 14 570 x. 22 397 x. 28 90 x.37 847 >.. x 40 570 x. 41 304,328 xi. 19 306 xi. 27 62 xii. 24-32 391,392 xii. 28 60,469 xii. 31 60 xii. 32 530, 581 xii. 37 306 xii. 48-50 362 xiii. 3, &c 398 xiii. 24, &c. 47, &c... 470, 61*6 xiii. 38 469 xv. 3, 9 139 xvi. 17 310 xvi. 18 136,468,487, 812-816 xvi. 19 570,774,776, 815-817 xvi. 27 328 xviii. 15-18 471,772, 773 & »., 778 xviii. 18 ... 136,882,670, 815 xix. 11,12.. 348,759,768, 767 xix. 16-21... 345 & n., 836 xix. 17 249 xx. 1-1G 439 xx. 27 810,811 xxii. 1-14 489 xxii. 10, 11. 12... 470,616 xxii. 29 188,211 xxii. 37-39 358 xxiii. 2.3 617,781 xxiii. 16-22 848 xxiii. 23 808 xxiv. 24 894 & n. xxiv. 34, 36 117 xxiv. 46-61. ... 397,617 XXV 116 xxv. 11. 12 888 xxv. 14-30 828 xxvi. 26-80 474,476 xxvi. 26.... 696,699,717, 719. 720 xxvi. 27 717,740 xxvi. 28.... 696,719, 721 xxvi. 52 888 xxvi. 63, 64 848 ». xxvii. 19 804 INDEX OF TEXTS. 8G7 PAGE xxviii. 18 43, 111 xxviii. 19.. 54,55,62,472, 474, 475, 486, 570, 634, 678 xxviii. 20. . . . 42, 486, 570 MARK. i. 4 313, 633,679 i. 7,8 633 ii. 28 43 iv. 1-20 398 iv. 28 644 vi. 13 596 vii. 7-13 139 viii. 6, 7 719 ix. 34, 35 811 x. 14 321,679 x. 21 345 & n. x. 29, 30 328 xi. 26 328 xiii. 11 53, 167 xiii. 30, 32 117 xiv. 22 719 xiv. 23 740 xiv. 24 717, 720 xvi. 12 112 xvi. 16 232,258,313, 321, 449, 634 LUKE. i. 1-4 138 i. 6, 20 359, 360 i. 28 361 i. 33 78, 111 i. 35 74, 358 i. 42, 43; 48 361 ii. 49; 51 361,362 ii. 52 117 iii. 8 313 iii. 14 833 vi. 5 43 vii. 29 305 viii. 5-15 398 ix. 46 811 x. 1 569,573 x. 5, 6 570, 790 m. x. 9; 10, 11; 16 570 x. 29 305 x. 35 342 n. xi. 20 51 xi. 27, 28 362 xii. 33 836 xii. 42 486 xiii. 23 439 m. xiv. 26 347 m., 837 xiv. 31,32 834 xv. 11-32 382 xvi. 9 530, 838 xvi. 15 305 xvi. 19-25 836 xvi. 22, &e 86, 92 xvii. 10 326, 352 & n. xvii. 20, 21 470 &m xviii. 14 305 xix. 10 257 PA(JB xxii. 15 717 n. xxii. 17 719 xxii. 19 570, 719,722 xxii. 20 720, 721 if. xxii. 32 394 xxiii. 42 42, 530 xxiii.43 86, 89, 90, 534. 541 xxiii. 46 90 xxiv. 16, 31 112 xxiv. 36-40 Ill xxiv. 44 158 & m. JOHN. i. 1-14 44, 59,61 i. 12 637 i. 14 71, 74 i. 19, 25 629 i. 29 82, 358 ii. 4 362 &» ii. 24, 25 249 iii. 3 337, 469 iii. 3, 5 276, 644, 646 iii*. 3, 5, 6 249 iii. 5 474, 637, 679 iii. 13 42, 75,89 iii. 14, 15 312, 449 iii. 31 45 iii. 36 449 iv. 2 570 v. 17, &c 56,57 v. 18 71 n. v. 26 43, 72, 73 v. 39 137, 154, 212 VI 723-727 vi. 29, 44. 45 310 vi. 37, 39 55, 394, 439 m., 440, 441 vi. 40, 47 312 vi. 44,65 274 vi. 53 474, 689, 697 vi. 56-58 737 vi. 57 71 vi. 61-63 698 vi. 70 440. 617 vii. 17 338 «. vii. 29 73 viii. 17, 18 56 viii. 34-36 275, 278 viii. 54 41 viii. 56 201 viii. 58 42, 45 x. 27, 28 394, 440 x. 30 43, 52 xi 25 43, 109 xii. 37-41 52 xii. 48 451 xiv. 6 43, 449 xiv. 9 52 xiv. 25, 26 167 xiv. 28 73 xiv. 3:) 358 xv. 1-10. . . . 276, 319, 399, 450 xv. ST..... 55,62. 125, 126 xvi. 7 55, 63, 126, 392 xvi. 12 133 xvi. 13.... 55,62,63, 167, 472 xvi. 15 71 XVII 55, 58 xvii. 12 394, 440 xvii. 15 441 xvii. 17 472 xvii. 21, 22 52 xvii. 21, 23 690 xix. 25-27 361 xix. 37 42 xx. 19 112 xx. 21-23 570&;/., 573, 774 xx. 22 126 xx. 22,23... 776,789-791, 815 xx. 23 43, 382,475, 776 n. xx. 25-28 45, 111 xx. 31 138, 449 xxi. 15-17 570, 817 ACTS. i. 3 133, 469 i. 4-9 112 i. 7 117 i. 11 112 i. 14 361 i. 26 570 ii. 17 i 568 ii. 22 817 ii. 25-31 207 ii. 27 84, 95 ii. 37, 38.... 258,313,450, 474, 633, 634, 665 ii. 39 :... 680 ii. 42 472,474 ii. 44, 45 837 ii. 46 781 ii. 47 439,450,468, 471, 634 iii. 12, 16 617 iii. 14 358 iv. 12 449 iv. 32, &c 837 v. 4 838 v. 11 468,471 vi. 7 308 vii. 8 628 vii. 38 467 n. vii. 59.... 42, 90, 541, 542 viii. 1 468, 471 viii. 12, &c 450, 571 viii. 14 811 viii. 22, 23 382 & n. ix. 18 450 ix.31 468 X 322, 333, 335, 623, 634, 834 x. 26 42, 521,547 x. 28 62 x. 38 110 868 INDEX OF TEXTS. PAGE x. 43 312, 449 x. 47, 48 450,634 xi. 26 469,471 xiii. 1 468,471 xiii. 1-3 676 xiii. 8 308 xiii. 33 71 xiii. 48 440 xiv.9 309 xiv. 14, 15 647 xv 2 571 xv 2, 4, 23 574,811 xv 3, 22 471 xv. 8 42 xv. 9 309, 330 xv. 21 483 xv. 41 468 xvi. 14 278 xvi. 16,33 680 xvi. 31 312,449 xvii. 11 138,212 xvii. 27 337, 462 n. xix. 2, 6 634 xix..6 450,474 xx. 7 146 xx. 17 468,471,571, 673 xx. 20 475 xx. 28.... 48 &n., 63, 75, 76, 434 n., 471, 486, 571, 817 xx. 35 838 xxi. 20,26 781 xxii. 16.... 313,321,450, 633, 664 xxiii. 1 359 xxiii. 6 211 xxiv. 16 360 xxiv. 25 256 xxvi. 17.. 476,576 xxvi. 18 330 xxviii. 17 781 xxviii. 25 ... 62 ROMANS. I. II. Ill 307 i. 6 308 1.6,7 482 & «. i. 17 338 i. 31 837 ii. 11-16 452 n. ii. 18 287 ii. 14, 26,27 386 ii. 14, 15 256 iii 1,2 188, 154,483 Hi. 3 808 iii. 6 804 iii. '.• 859 Hi. 9, 28 250,451 iii. 10, 19 852 iii. 12-26 88 iii. 12 260 iii 20 116 iii. 23, 24 816,826 iii. 24-26 806 PAOI iii. 25,26 312 iii. 27 327 iv. 1-8 307 iv. 1, &c 315,316 iv. 1-20 201 n. iv. 5-7 306 iv. 7 286 iv. 7, 8 326 iv. 11 678 iv. 16 320 iv. 18-22 311 iv. 24, 25 317 V 257 v. 9, 10 306 v. 12 260, 263,256 258 n., 359 v. 12, &c 262 v. 16 287,315 v. 18 306 VI 322, 328 vi. 2, 12 116 vi. 3, 4 474,636, 640 & n. vi. 7 306 »vi 18-20 304 VII 250,275 vii. 12, 14 215 vii. 14 250 n. vii. 18 250 & »., 252, 255, 338 vii. 22. 23 256 VIIL 250, 279, 343 n. viii. 1 258 n., 327 viii. 2,4 116 viii. 2 278, 360 viii. 3 116,252 viii. 5 262 viii. 7 255, 396 viii. 7,8 252,338 viii 9 125 viii. 11 109 viii. 14 637,641 viii. 17 637 viii. 19-23 91 viii. 21 275. 278 viii. 26 55, 62 viii 29, 80 439 & «. viii. 33 286, 307 & n. viii. 38, 39 894 IX 486 ix. 1 843 ix. 6 45 ix. 18 429 ix. 31, 82.... 199,282.452 x. 15 672 x. 20 278 XI 438 xi. 2 488 xi. 29 884 xii. 1 32S, ;tf»3, 756 xiii. 1 781, 804 &«. xiii. 1-4 832 xiii. 4 834 xiii. 11 117 xiv.28 888 PAOI xv. 26 728 n. xvi. 1,4, 6 468 xvi. 1, 16, 23 471 xvi. 17 776,781 I. CORINTHIANS. i. 2 468 i. 8, 9 396 i. 12. 811 i. 16 680 ii. 8 75 ii. 10, 11 62, 167 ii. 14 276 ii. 15 252 iii. 3 781 iii. 6, 7 617 iii. 12-15 507, &c, 530, &c. iii. 16 60, 62 iii. 16, 17.... 280,384,638 iv. 14, 15 811 v. 1-5 382 v. 3-5 777 v. 5 774, 775 n. v. 9 775 v. 11 768 vi. 9-11 88 vi. 11 313,633 vi. 15 384,685 vi. 18 384.638 vi. 19 50, 62,384,638 VII.... 348,349,759,768, 764 vii. 7 767 vii. 14 321,679 vii. 17 468,471 vii. 25 842 vii. 31 350 n. vii. 85 350 n., 767 viii. 6 37,41,62 ix. 5 847,765 ix. 27 269,280.360 X 727-729. 741 x. 1-10, 12 398,630 x. 4 720 x. 12 280 x. 16 474,570. 728 x. 21 727, 766 ». xi. 2; 16 184 xi. 4, &o., 17, &o 484 xi.7 MS xi. 19-80.... 729, 730, 741 xi. 24 71'.' xi. 24, 25 670. 722 xi. 26 782 xi.27, 29 780. Ml 686 xii. 12-27 xii. 29 '-72 xiii. 2 gW.SU xiii. 8 ■'■■ xiii 13 809 xiv. 14, &c 680,581 xiv. 26,40 484, 780 xiv. 88 486 INDEX OF TEXTS. 869 PAOR xiv. 34 484 XV 112, 113 &n., 257 xv. 9 468 xv. 10 277, 279 xv. 22 252,256,257 xv. 24, 28 77 ». xv. 25 110 xv. 29 528 xv. 31 843 xv. 51, 52 115 xv. 58. 328 xvi. 2 146,838 xvi. 13 398 xvi. 16 781 xvi. 19 468 II. CORINTHIANS. i. 18 843 i. 21,22 395 ii. 5-11 775 ii. 10 ... 43,382,574,777 ii. 16 572 Hi. 5 277 iii. 6 201 iii. 7-9 568,572,617 iii. 16-18 51,226 iii. 17 278 iv. 7.-..., 617 iv. 14 109 v. 1,4 541,542, 543 v. 1-8 90,91 v. 2, 4, 6 502,542 v. 5 278 v. 6-9 534 v. 16 117 n. v 17 252 v. 19 81 v. 21 358 vi. 1 280 vi. 16 384,638 vii. 1 353 vii. 10 382 viii. 4, ix. 3 728 w. ix. 7 328,838 xi. 5 823 xi. 30, xiL 10 360 xiii. 1, 2, 10 777 xiii. 14 54 GALATIANS. i. 1 475,576,811 I. 8 168 1.9 472 i. 16, 17 811 i. 20 843 i. 23 308 n. 9, 11 811 ii. 16 292 n., 300, 452 iii. 6, &c, 14, &e. . . 201 n. iii. 19 199 iii. 21 200 n., 452 iii. 22.... 251, 292 n., 359 iii. 23, &c 308 iii. 24 200 PAGE iii. 26,27... 314,321,327, 636, 640, 641 iii. 27.... 258 «., 384, 460, 474 IV 336 iv. 6 55, 125 iv. 19 811 v. 6 291,309,310,330 t. 13 278 v. 17 252, 260 v. 20 472 vi. 1 259 vi. 9 328 vi. 10 308,636, 838 vi. 15 276, 310 EPHESIANS. I. II. Ill 432,433 i. 1. i. 7.. i. 13. i. 14. 432 .. 306 .. 395 433 n. i. 20-22 Ill ii. 1 275,386 ii. 1, 3 251 ii. 3 256 ii. 4-6 109 ii. 5 275 j ii. 8 315] ii. 10 278,328' ii. 19 636 J ii. 20 815! ii. 21, 22 486,638 iii. 4,5 168 iii. 5, 6 432 iii. 15 636 iii. 17 312,314 IV. V. VI 434,435 iv. 4 471 iv. 5 472 iv. 6 37,41, 46 iv. 8, 11, 12 570 iv. 8 109, 541, 542 iv. 9 84,94 iv. 15,16 635,636 iv. 22 250,253 iv. 24 278, 328 v. 23 450 v. 23-32 767 v. 26 313,450,664 vi. 1-3 217 vi. 5-9 838 vi. 16 309, 396 PHILIPPIANS. i. 1 475,571,573 i. 6 395 i. 8 843 i. 13 805 i. 19... 125 i. 23 90,541,542 i. 29 310 ii. 5-9 46,47 ii. 12 395, 435 ii. 13 277,278 PAGE iii. 10 109 iii. 12-16 435 iii. 21 48,113 iv. 1 395 iv. 8 353 iv. 22 805 COLOSSIANS. i. 1, &c 259 i. 15, 16 57,71 i. 16 36, 39, 42, 43, 52 i. 18 450 i. 21 82 i. 22, 23 319.397 i. 24 351 n., 535 i. 25, 26 432 ii. 6-8 398 ii. 9 46 ii. 10-12 636 ii. 11, 12 474, 628 ii. 12 640 &n. ii. 13 251, 275 ii. 16, 17 146 ii. 18 548 ii. 19..... 635,636 iii. 1 108, 640 n. iii. 5-17 435 iv. 1 838 iv. 17 475,571 I. THESSALONIANS. i. 4 435 ii. 16 386 ii. 19 533 iv. 15-17 115 v. 6, &c 435 v. 12,13 776,781 II. THESSALONIANS. ii. 1-3 117 ii. 15 135 iii. 6, 14 777 I. TIMOTHY. i. 3 571,574 i. 9 304 i. 18 574 i. 20 777 ii. 1, 2 674,804 ii. 5 36,449,545 iii. 1-13 571,574 iii. 2 759 iii. 2, 12; 4..- 766 iii. 11 766 &n. iii. 15 471,472,487 iii. 16 48 iv. 6, 16 574 iv. 14 571,576,791 v. 8 837, 838 v. 17 571, 574, 775 v. 19-21 574,618,777 v. 22 571,574,618 vi. 3,5 472 vi. 9, 10 836 870 INDEX OF TEXTS. MM vi. 18 674 Ti. 17-19 847,839 n. TIMOTHY. ' i. 6. . . . 671, 678, 574, 676, 791 i. 18 483, 674 i. 16, 18 528, 629 ii. 2 184,486,674 ii. 4 834 ii. 10 636 ii. 14 574 ii. 19 328,396 ii. 20. 617 iii. 15-17 137, 164,212 iv. 1 674 iv. 2 483 iv. 8 329,634 TITUS. i. 5.... 475,485,571,673, 674 i. 6 766 i. 9 486 i. 13 472,486,674 ii. 14 82 iii. 1 781 iii. 5 ■ 276,639 iii. 6, 7 314, 816,633 iii. 10 472,574, 777 PHILEMON. 6 812 10-20 838 HEBREWS. i. 1-8 68 i. 1h1 71 i. 2 89,62 i. 8 72 i. 6 71 i. 6, 8, 10 46 ii. 14, 16 74 Hi. 6 71,897 iii. 11 843 iii. 12 897 iii. 14 896 iv. 1 622 n. iv. 16 868 iv. 16, 16 645 V.— X 754,755 v. 4, 6 672 vi. 4-6 888, 889 & mi. vi. 4-8 899 vi. 11 896 vi. 16, 17 848 vi. 20 78 vii. 9, 10 267 vii. 21, 24; 28 78 vii. 26-28 868 viii. 10, 12 631 IX X 82 ix. 8 641,542 ix. 18 82,200 PAGE ix. 14 868 ix. 15-20 721 n. x. 4 630, 756 x. 12 78,766 x. 22 633,756 x. 26-29 387,397 x. 28, 29 881 x. 82 388 XI 211,309,311,830 xi. 4 746 n. xi. 5 203 xi. 6 338,449 xi. 8 312 xi. 19 310 xi. 40 91 xii. 11 304 xii. 16, 16 398, 622 n. xii. 17 887 xii. 23 90,541,642 xiii. 2 646 xiii. 4 767 xiii. 7 776 xiii. 8 42 xiii. 10 767 n. xiii. 15, 16 756 xiii. 16. . . 328, 728 v., 839 xiii. 17 776, 781 xiii. 18 644 JAMES. i. 6 309 i. 17 396 i. 18 276 i. 26 278 i. 27 . 328 ii. 14, &c..7. 291,' 309, 310, 330 ii. 14, 17 322 & n. ii. 14, 23 322 n. ii. 21-23 311 iii. 1 672 iii. 2... 259, 326,861,859 iii. 9 256 v. 1 836 v. 12 842, 848 v. 13-15 383 v. 14 471, 571 v. 14-16 695,597 v. 16 804, 644 I. PETER. i. 2 483. 435 i. 8, 4 687, 640 n. i. 4, 6 396 i. 7 633 ill 58, 126 i. 12 898 i. 15, 16 863, 861 i. 19 82.859 ii. 2, 11 259 ii. 6 638,766 ii. 0, 10 488 & n., 669 ii. 13, 17 781,804 ii. 17 668 ii. 22 868 ■Mi iu. 19.... 94, 96, 100 & »., &c. iii. 21... 43,314, 450,474, 630, 632 & n., 634 iv. 9 888 v. 1.... 475,571, 574,576, 811 v. 9 : 309 v. 18 433 n. II. PETER. i. 1 49 i. 6 809 i. 15 138 ii. 1 472 ii. 21,22 399 iii. 2 811 iii. 4 117 iii. 9 383 iii. 10 206 iii. 17 398 I. JOHN. i. 8 260, 326, 851,859 i. 9 829,383 ii. 1-6 386 ii. 1, 2 83, 383,386 ii. 8-6, 22 642 ii. 22 472 iii. 5 358 iii. 6 642 n. iii. 6, 8, 9 384 iii. 7,8 396 iii. 7-10 116,642 iii. 9.... 360, 896 & n., 641 iii. 10 637,642 iii. 17 839 iv. 2, v. 1, 2, 4 642 v. 1 310,642 v. 4 311,830,896 v. 16,17 886, 891 v. 20 49 v. 21 886 II. JOHN. 7, 9, 10 472 10, 11 776 III. JOHN. .... 617 471, 777 JUDE. 3 186,168,472 4 87,49 11 669 19 276 20,21,24 898 REVELATION. i. 4, 11 468 i. 6, i. 10. i. 20. 146 676 INDEX OF TEXTS. 871 PAGE II. Ill 468 ii. 19 310 ii. 20 383 Hi. 7 774 v. 6, 12 82 v. 10 569 vi. 9 89,90,91,525, 542 PAQK vi. 11, vii. 14, 15.. 541,542 x. 6 36,843 xi. 15 78 xiii. 8 82 xiii. 10 310 xiv. 4 525 xiv. 13 534 xvi. 15 398 PAQK xix. 10 648 xix. 13 44,61 xx. 11 206 xxi. 8 451 xxi.14 815 xxii. 9 548 xxii. 11 i 305 xxii. 18, 19 139 TUB JUTO. THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. ■ r cnv : 1 FEB 23 '67-2 PM LOAN DEPT. PDUENRLF DEC 2 01986 1- — LD 21A-60m-7,'66 (G44278l0)476B General Library University of California Berkeley 312626 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY