t.,.'.,.: .:.,," 'W.7,.,'l . "l l.'.= ."'''.' ... .,," ,= ,," I :.;.,... : ., ... . . . .. . ..... :.." .... ....... ':"'0: ... ." '. .. · · · : :_:9:.:"":,, .. .. . ,,; ,-.;.." ..' ':.y .. .. ".' . "Þ' . . = ...:' : :.: .....;.. ....:. .-:. :.: :-:.,: ',; ..:.: :'. . . . ..:' .,: ......... /. .. ':.' .... ...... ,",.".f ......... fl. _,f. ."" -.,.., ,..,. ....'.. ... ''-;'''''' I ff ..... .....,:::.:;.'!p,...,..:'lJl:',,::..,.., .:. ..:'''.i': :." '.., , .. ( t" if- ....t... ,r:,.., .... p"'''''' .".." " , ÌI'. .. '.. . .... .,..... ( ( .J. (" "." ' r. .......:.. '.. -:,.. "., ..:..... '., '" . ;. , ( :.. p" f'jþo:".,:,.: .,.': .':.' to..,... .l 'l,,',"" # .,.." .. .., .',. ......'. . I .r f f .., .,.,.J' .. .'ø'l,.,., "..,.,":.." :' ,,'. '".,'., ...:.. .:--. ,. -P.,. .." ...... ('" -( .f · .I."'."',. .l.l,l,'t'" , I. · ,,'... --" .. ..,......" I ,l .J../ l ....,:..;... ;.. ,.:..,,.:.:,l:......'...l.. ".:.,,,.,,;"':....: :'. ':':"',: :.:.. ..,'. . : . ... l'< t ( l.- .' ......., Ntl""',,:N , ' " " I .,. .I . J ( .I. ø .(Ó,, :.f{ l c<( ( ((l: · .,. . , ' '. .'.....'.'........."I,.Þ. .......1.'......., .'. ..........rl.,.. -.' · .., ,.... ,".' ...., · ..'" · · 6 l m ,çf <;V'..t( I (./l((('.<<.t.lll. · ,. 1- ." .., .. ".",.,... ,. · Þ ..,. · ......,:,:if: :t. ..... , . . .. ., , / "'''J .l-jf.(;( ;( ct.. ( c,.(" (" · .' ...,.ll.... , ,."I.....';IH..............'. ., ....."I.....) , .'.,. ., ::;.: ' .-:.1...... / .."i... ....).. .:". ,l.n I 'I ... ;l l'. ( (*} è t'.(l.( f. N.lN,(8 .' Þ"l,.., :.:.:...:I.':':':':':"':':'+,,: . :':'i:" :.: .1,'. ..:,:.:...,..' ..... '.. .:.' . :'. :".., /:I...ll. . 1 ' II f':". (l:< ( rf'. : ( m " æ lå(( (h: 'l..t'Jll.. "...,......... ......; ""I..'. .'..,.,' · ....... X; ....,.................. . ...., ì....ll.... /I..I.:.....,r,;: :? .U .1.... , Ô 1 I,; l & .N-.l.vl.... Il."/.....' ., ...:... ., .. .. .:,., ..., ..,'"oJ .. ... .... ... ".r.' " I ? . ,.....l".!. ; .. ... f:l:.n, ..."/,. / (J( ( ( )( (Ct'.. ((:. (( c ".,,,.,,:, ''''.' ....'.......... ../;..."l.,....',..."; , ,"'...' . ............ .... ."/"...."....., ..... ."//.......... .: ,.I..........I.'I...". æ: ,..r.ttJ:..!. ,,( 4;4.r.l:.lh' ';. (c(l-.I:.< .ZI./. . . ,.....,. Þ.... ',' "I..-, ....tf"l., .....t....,.......'I...... . . .'.'.."., I.: .' .,..'....../...i:. .,..1.. .' .......,.. .,............/,,' æ: (......"'1"........' · _ :l'-( (l.l".c ,,("((l 4(4;4(l4(. t / .. "."'i '''' rt.' '.'''' ....'.s.....,......"1. . ..... . .. /.1:........./..............,þ..........'............../..9..,............. !".. ....I:I,r.. .... ,.. " 4 l ( ( l. 1i'.....ll'.l44i. .'. · · · , .. :';þ. .'. '/' . 7l ' '/' .;.; · 1:.. Þ':', . ....1. . u.... .. 'I.:t'." ". " 'I.:''' .. ...,." . i:.. "I.: .' 1.1;!; :C(" (('( (1 n <.I .Þ..i , ,, :':':'n. :Þ;':'" /.:.:'l ....ð :.. .':. ......../.:.: .:.,.:Þ'N:../../:I..I"..:.:t..:.:....". l.: ,:...,'1.." II- lt! . Þ?/ ' ( g Yi:..( ;:l (('...cc ( :f:(l( (: . ;:. · '.' :þ ' '.'1."'. .'.1., . ,.'.I. ...í.:. l:.ll.:,...:7 .... ...... 6 -:."I....i:.. æ: . ",l... 91I.m .:..i:....., tí UI. . "I'I. ilJ Y..1 (2 l -: (ll(( f (f.(c .4c> . l :?... I..).' . ... I . :-.: ( èí (lllf& c:e <.:4 CZ ( : << .-. f'. .. 1:.. .:.. ..., Þ'.: -:".... u .1.',] , . .. ....... .If.". .:.. "'I:.. rl".:. ;:' i .1.'1., '''' i:.. r. r. Þ':. ....N"A' 1I l-7..l: ('.I fl 4 (( ,1j1<( 4 (( (( . · "l' ......'...".............'j...."..í!,./ ...,r,......Þ .../l.......... .......... · f.". ' ",.. ......,.. . :! ! ..fl... "" i t!"l" '(j I. i'.lc l ( <'1 {'I-.((. fil..(((4l((((( ll ;t '1." ....:.:.:.:'W .:':.:?I. :;: . . :...:. ..:.:.þ .....:...:.: :. :.?..I.:.. :?.:.:../.:. r 91l .....'."..O ?'.ð l ;: 7 JC} h ( .((W (l:U . .. ..... NNl.'+Þ,.,.,.,.U.'" .' ' ' . ;:..:?. :ll.l"l..;:.....,...... ./.... , 'n... .. i"l .? I .: :/. Þ!".. ly .' tl . (('1 }lc:l:.tlll'll4 (,, ( .(41.( l;: · ::::::::::: :: ;.: :.:: : ..:::. :: {.:%:. ll.. ;:::: :::. ::::::: : : ?Jk. :: '.:. . ., g :Wi.: ::: . I.þ( . {' 4 : f :: : 4: :: : :. '.', " , ... . ...'...,' """',, ,.,"e. ...1...6t"t".;':1.... ... ..ð ' .I.:...... ....r:. :;:; . ... ......."I."-...I.-.r.':.., ........... .(.. ; ........(i.....("Ï.""... i .....ð 4 & i!((( bV(<... l( fV Þ...............'................,. .........................;':...., :?, . í! .... ../..'........... ......,... .....Þ'I.-..:.r...' ì; ..' IJ: . r.". Þ':................., ".. ít.. ." ( I E I<' i( 4('.. (l ll.4((l(..( . .co,...co.."....:-..... . . . . .:,.. . , . :::; ,.. , .:. . . . .. ...... .:.... . . .:.... . ...... . . ...f:'.' . r.. t::. '"ß ,'.4 ':.0 If If ø "" If ( 4:.0 0 .........l...........l.'.....'.........!. ..,............... .... ...... ......,...';)"J.... ..........,...... .'1.. .."JI..... . .'I.: ñ :.............,..,......."1. r: (J ( c'! <'.<( ( * V',lC<('/(C l,." ..'.Þ.,-...,..... ..þ.,"...... ...................,......d ..,.Þ':...f."þ-......,...... ................. ..........iþ, ... . . ,..... Þ':.:::..... ............ '.f."..' )C 4 (;<( "l ( (( (41.(4 (44 .l..... ......,..'......,...'..,1,'.'.....'...' .....,..;: ..............I,. æ ..................,.. .. ........S..I..... .1....,:; l". ..... . ... ... ...,' C c ; 1 4 i 4 i "<...(o9 t;.(.(( ( ..(l( . . Þ': .......,..... r.. . . .It . .',] , . . ' . . . . . ...... If.. ........ ......... þ . , r. . . ". ....... . .... ...... . . .' . . . Þ':. t'.l'1i 'l-}' ; ,ì< U :.o (C 4 C ( ( C , : ..:.:.:Þ:.:. .:+:.:':.: .:.:.:. :"/:.:.:.:...:. .. .:. .:"i.':':': ..:.:.).:;:... ...:"/..........,". :'.. ...:."la....;:.:I....:.. ?; . .... t '.4 l :(f l-l4i 1.1:. (: t;. ('4 . (:(:.: :4:(::(.: ....;t.Þ'. .".,............... .........þ." .f'.....:. ...........þ .............. . .....2: ...,r,/. æ '.'...,.... .......!.Þ :... ....!. << ..:{I.. ..::-l ( Jl t.l:. :c: t(:N(. l(ca( b .........l........,..........-Z.{.I..,. .... /, . ..."l..iI. . l..... . 'ð....".... .. .. ..1........... r& ..........l'I. ...... ..... rJ .:!I. ."Jl W c l ( } T ((I.l:. t'.11u .(((.( l(.. ........It.,..,,...........,... . ..t../..... .'. ..........."...:,'..... ....-,,:..... .........".l"l. æ . õ ;I . ....... . .......... /...... I r!"' 1; . 1.< ('4 1..t.. (;4 C ("'"A' t'.4 (.,.((..c<( .(. ..,.,."........,þ........91................/.t"../.....j'.t'..,".....I.."I.. ...........'l..ít...............ri. :, .'.'" lít,...Þ!... ..... , . l"1. " ' I ' [." ( / c,. l Ç4, l,ì<.< C(..C( (.( llll tjþ, .....'.'-ì..l....,...,."/....'.....,........,.......... ...., ..þ....,.I.. . ,.......,... I..'J! ..... " .".;.....' .'. .al:. ..l"I.'...I". I . 'í:" .. Y.. ' 4)<. ('...c.( lC< l:b.l:l:( i'A4((l( l;.(4.( 4(i i.e.............. ,ml.9l.'I........,",.....,."I... ".f"I.."l..Þ':. .....................". .. .'/."'1.. .. l....l....I..l/.. ../:1..'-:' ." I. <'...c 6.( ( lll .4 4(Cl ((4,, . ( .. ... :':':. ,t....,...:.:...:."I..:.:.:.:.:;:...: :'...:. :.'I..:'t.' ....:.:....:.:.:9.....: .....:. . ..l . ' I ' .:. .!:.' l.þ...... t: B ' ( <'.. X (lå: ..(:. á: (:.l:( .. '..tÞt.... '.........'...... . ........-.:..'.'.........' ...<<;:..Þ.. ....,."J'. ..... /I, . :,t f." :l W"l.:lIÆ' :;:; .l .. . rll 4( . 4(.4 c'4 (. (4(l'.)(l.c(c(l clAc,. · f'i"..... · , . · · ... ... ...,.,..,."..". .. .. · · · · "'r.! Oil 1:. to) ....íO; "' 11 '" t! ,...it "...... · · ... Y. I '" ( ( æ ( · · ( I ( (; (: ; :':', '}:.:tl:.:.:.:.:.,.:.:.: . .:.:':.'I..:.:...: .:...:.:.. .:.}:...:.:."... /.>.. . .lt ' l .:/.f':"*'I. "'I., "'I.:Z ,.... 4 4 Z : 4 (! (,j(.å)<:t å:4: . . ..l....... þ........................',.,'...... .,.... .,... .......l....... ..2 ..!.....I,Þ:. I .. :;:; . .... :?u .. I; Þ! :;:; . I I. I Þ':...... ( l :4 6 (( 9le è.:c,.( ( 4<(44((. : /. ...,'........ þ ........,.. I.,J,.................å..b.........Þ':,...... .....! .Þ!þ. ' J f':"..;J..,....., ..-:. .?7.. .' :.. .......;" .' r" .. './"" wt ri.: l: . ( II (( l-.l4f.<..4.. A.('.< C )< ( 4( 4l('. J'.....'...;.. ..,'... .. ...'..........þ'..... ................. n."......"I!. '1."1.. ... .......... ... /i l & ":-' II f.""" I "" Ot9. ( 1 ( W. l èC1..!"l' "//."..... .. ".I.:I..... .l..... ... ...,( .! ".J.. ø . æ:;:; ........ð!" ;:., , l((( <1':.:?.:.:.... .:. . .;.:.: 9. :.:.,.:.:. :.:.......:.:/. ...<<..... ..lJC 4 1 6 ít'" 4 .('!6 . :C( .: ?lc:( :.:c:c : :(:" /..... . ).+.: ..þ.... ... . . .Þ. . ...... . ....t........... ....... ...lll. .'lI'UV' c (0 ..... Þ':. Óð?l. l4 h( ;c:(.. ce 4N4c 4 :Þ:.: :.:...:..,. :.:.:.. .:..... :. -.:.: ...:.:þ:.:.: þt.:.:,.:':':.:':':':':':' :"': I :'.'" ;<' . J... ,ytl :?l . :. 'I." . I l. el(l: 4 <.: rI6(: : : :.:4: 4 :4:..:4 : n u:.. .:. "I:. ' '. u:., . .!...... ........... .:."..".... j, " :. I...... t!"/:".. Þ:. . ....1;';.""" . (c ( (:.4 4:< 4 C 4 . (4'.4 (;C ( . J'...'. "'. . ." . ....,l.....................t.-I. .!,....,..................... . . '.''', ð!' 'Þ "'; :;:; ;:. :,, .9..... . . ,þ!,'.Þ':' : ;:'''' ...... .((c,. c;,Áel4 (<( c( ).., . . . . . ...::. . . . . . r.Þ . .r..' r.. . .:.. .:. . . . . . .. . .:. .' :.:< ( :( :4 .. . e 4:4 t'.( .. e ( :'.4 . . .-;:....' 'l':' · · · · ,'r-. . Þ':Þ':"". Þ':,. ....{,'.'''"I. ,..'.',.,'''.'...'.....'l. ...,'' . .'"/ . ..... . . ....'/..".. ... .íl"J.. ......Þ!........ /...'1." e i ?-.( 1:.?:(4l4. 4(4(<('A... 4. ((44 ...'(4'1IC .Þ:f..þ. ... .....r....,-t'.r:.....Þ.. .9.-l..,.............. "I.... ....,....... . þ....... Þ':.yf".Þ!'"i. :? ., ..,!.....t!. . .. "1....... " l....j,.... ../ i:.. . . <..4 c,.... el.l:. (( ( """ ('9 ((l4.e .((. .,'-tÞÞ':'... .... ...., 'Þ ......,.-.Þ....... ...,......'.. · ...."..,.................. ..q...... ....Y... ........,..'....... ... Þ ....l".r.!"I.. I. · ".. m ( u .. (<:C 4l: 64 ..f'..lf.4(4l.lf.4/ùe( (. (. .... ... .. l....... -t....'. "f..tI...S. ............ .....' Þ.'.'...........'.. ....... !......... . .......;: .-I..,.....,...... "/.,..:.r...g. ;:..;,.. l. r,J ( I I..<.c };. ... Z4( I. (4(lt(&( ( (c,.(.(. .: .:Þ':.;Þ!Þ'......... .......\...... .'.'.' .'.......tj.....,..'. .Þ.........."."." ...........'Y...:?.. ... ....... .,:?.... .. ..!"t...þÞ...>.'l..... i.. þ ....!:Þ ( æ C(el. l ( }(c .(c( ((C (c . (c lc(t(((. . :..z.. .:... : :.: .:....r;..:.:.. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. . :.:.:..{'.':. ..:.:.:.:. I.Þ'... .Þ'llÞ:. ..:. ':' '.:?"' ":"'I.. .Þ'.: ,, : . ( ( ( c:(: ( . 4. ( :e 4:4:4 :C (& (( : 4(:(: ...t.......)....,.,..... .".'. ......... ........ ....l..... .. ... . ... ....................... ...;:.I.......ti.Þ:.......... , Þ. ....... ........ .. e 4('A :t ( . ( c: ( (( 4 Ç .4,(. 4.. ( 4(eZ 4 .', ........,.,ti.....,......,..............S....Þ................,....,.Þ... ............'Þ.....,.... ........... ..',,'"l.'.".Þ "''''.Þ':Ó .'...... ' .' ... . ('C)\4 ( :((()< t (. 4 4)(.> . ...... .....".........,...Þ! ..t':.. ......... .. .. .. ....Þ........s,....;; ... <(4C l'..c Z ç ( e el..4 4 (l:4((4ll..44( (4 1 C .'.........'.. ............."l.... '.'.;:' '." . . '.' .:1:... ...;}. . .1'.:. n.,,,. u.. ,..;:þ .:..;:. Y." .... t:..' ' .... t'.4 m j( e 4 4 e:< 4'.4 4 ;(!( 4 .. 4 4 4 , · · ,. .. .,:.. . ;. · .: ,.. · ..... .'... .........'t,........!Þ...,.. ..../......."I.......".... . .....' ........ .'.,.I....., _ .. ' ' 'n . t-:''', iI ] 4 4; ("C.. ee( 4è..( 4.( e 4.4(444 e( ( ó.((4((c ... J....................':t. t.. r.... . . . . . '.' . . . . . Y.' . . t::t . t::t . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . " . 1.. . . . "I. . Þ':, r.. . þ:' I ' it ( (C ( 4 4 4)( 4 C C .l. . .: .:.:.:,........nN.':...:.....:. :.:. :..Þ:.:.:. .:..:.:.:.:.:.:':.: .:.:.:. . :.:.:.:.:.:.:. :...:.: .: ..:.:.:.:. ...: . :1.'. ít . 4 ( 4:c:e:lit:c;( :4;(:4:(: 4.(:(:. · ..' .,t ,. .'t....... .... ........................... . .....Þ.. ,.............................. ."I......',,'.ÞJ.......Þ .Þ..:"I,) . · ( !t O \ ( ( ( 4 (4(C4 (44 (: C 44( (( 4lN . .t:...:.:.: :'., .:.:...:.:...:.:.:.:. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. .:.:.:.,.:Þ:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.>..:.þ.:.:.: ..j,Þ:Þ:Þ! :.:.:..m d Þ:t ð.'... !( ? !(( : :((C: : :4 4:4:4: .: (: ...}... . .....l...... .. ... .......,... ........... .'...:..,........ ..........,".. ....."... !.. t!. .. t;. .. . Þþ. '. ' 4 4 e ". :?N.""" '-:' .. 4C . 4 4.l4 ( .444).......'."...... l...!i. . . >>'. .. .:!: .S . '. .I- l l;f:è';.c.( .l' '.<. .. (l' ( C((C4c444. .4. ::' :.: ...:.).:.. k:.:...:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.: :. ...:.:.:. .:.:.:. : . I..:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:... :.'. ':. ."1.:" >>( !( Ú./-Ò...... . <,( e <<(: : :(: : :C: : :4 C :4:4:4 4:4 ... · .. ... ...J .:t. ...........l.. .................'. ...... ....tj.....,..'..Þ!...........".J..'.. . 7I:...n ...... " I.. cC;C (e C .Þ l,r,. t:. <,( (e l 4. c 1.l. ..( .. (..e 4<.. Ö. C.(44. CC. ...'............ ..t'... . ..Þ........tl....'..a........................... ............ I.......... .,. ........ "06'.' S....Il. . Þ':. .. ' ".Ý' '.M'I.. ... e è ..Cl ...C.... ..e 4. ( .. (.... (t'.Cc444.e(c4 4( . .:...:.: .:.Þ.Þ ..'.tj..J.......'........ ..',........ ..... ... .. ... ....Þ... ...... .......ít.' ...ít. .... ...l 4. ". ... , ..... N ":( (( (..( l..4......4 [(Z..c((C.4. C (.... S .:.:.:.: :..:.:: ::k: ::.:',:...:: :9.:.:.>:.:.I:... :. :.:.:.:.:.:.. .: . :I. ..Þ. . Þþ.:... N. ... .>...: 3' :'" :.: c. V t4.(<{Ç 4 :.. C\t;. rl:4:4.((:(l : C.:(:( . , · , · . · . ., .'. . , · '.-t...'.1......... · ... ".:!:.......-.:'... ...............-.:..'. ..:?t.!...-.:.... ... ..:t .....t:þ::;..!Þ.. .. . .....Þ:.....b ... · h c ( eè è <( .(c44 tC C ((C 4..(. :::: :.:...:.:s.::.:.:..l: .:.:. :.:.:.:.:':.:.:...:.:... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.W:.:...:.:.:.:.:..t:...:.:.: .:.:.:.:...:.:{ : :..., ,':': '* " ':<<': m .l N.: ( ( : (: .:(:4:<: : ',f.':.":.'...'" .............. . ,Þ..........'..,......,........ . ...... .. . .................. ........j, ..... . ."... .;; .'O....... .'{.. ..... .,..' 'Ç(( << l ((4 <(( <ç (..((4 Q4.C((.CC4...C .(... . . '. ' '..' ,'.......tj... ...s................... ..... .................'..... .... ....... ,............ . .. .!...... .. ".. "'::' 1 ' -.!"I:.. ...... . ...tf,S' . 4 cn · : c.;<<((( <4 4 (((6.CC 4(ê:.C(e..( (.. 4(. .....( u .',.. .....'.."..........;J--.....t:,........H........I... t.. . , . · . . ..' . , . . . o: . . . . .:..: . . tI:"' . na . . u.. . .:. e ( ê'.. AA (. . !( :4;( ( 4 4 4 .. (< . ( . ......., ..'.. . · . · t' '.. . . ". . .'. , , , . t:'.' ........,...... ..........,.......l............ .."I... , ; .S..þ.....Þ':.':O:Þ.."" .!t! .. 1.ì4;ec'( ( <..c......C(C ..(.4 ( (C ((4((4(( C C ::::::::::: :: ::: ::::.::$ : :::::*k: ::: :;:: :: : ::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :: : * :>I.. ... J : .:. : ::: : * t : : zl' f{ 4 : :::i: : :::: :*: ::: ::::::::. Þ!t.:.:. ....:..:ð': .:.-:.:.:.}: .:...:. :.:. .:.:.:. : ...:.:.:.:.::;.:.:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. . .:.: ..:þ! <<þ.t;.:", * '( . << ( : b (:. !(14: : N( : (:.:4:(: : ( .: .:.:.:.:::::::: ..>'.:' :.:þ:::.:':.:.:r:.:.:. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.....:i:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:t..:.:.:.:.: .:. :..I.. .:.:. :.:. :!::.: .: :;:... .... -". : . W&l ... g<: ( ( :<:.: < :( . :.:.:... .:. :.:.::.: :.: .:.:':.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.):.:.:. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:t:.: .:.:.:.: .:.:...:.:. . ...: :".:..':.: l......: . (( 4 Ç4: N4:(: C:(N ( ( ':4.(.4. (<(: : :4' ( ....,.:. ..... ...., · ..' ' .................'....,..........'...:................. ...............J......... ......'l...! "-I... .. . . C(4 &((.. <( < (.... ( < ((.(.. .44C C <((44. . .. . .y... ,.....................,.....,.. .. ..' . · .... · · , .. · · , · · . . · . þ:. . . . . . þtf..-.! y. . ' >" ,(Ç" :( & n.. u ( (.. < Co( 4 . ? :::::: : :::::::: :: !::::::: ::: :::: :::::: ::: ::::::::: ::: ::: :;::::::: ::: k;i:;:;!::. Þ ..l :' .f ( I( ( ( 4! i : i ! :: : :1$:: : :. . :.: .:.:.:.$.:.:...:.: : ::)k:.:':.:.:.:.:':.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. :.:. :.:.:.:.:.::: . I 'I.. I :?. " &4 ( e44: !( < 4 $ . ( (:( .4: . .:.:4:. :.:. :.: : :.:...:.:...:. . >-: . :,.::.::::: i::. ".:.:. :.:.:.:':I..:-':.:.:. .: ':.:'k : .. . ....:. '.l ( .( 4 t ( ( .. ..: : :C ((:4:... .: V :: : :: ::::;:::::$:*:::*:*:*:::: ::::::$: *:*:::: :*:::::::: .: :::::: : . :'.. l;;':;.. :. ' c .I- "" ;4" t$í* A *:: : : : * ** * ..:* : (( : · · · · , · . .. . . . .,"'. . .:. ,. · . ..". .. . . ........... ...........,... Þ':. . .... .. . , >> .. . !'é' I ( ( x'( 4 u .. I( 'I. ( .. ((. .. .:: :$*:: : ::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.:.:::: :::.:. ::;.:.:. :.:.:.:.:::.:.:...:. :.:,. :. ..: N .,:>.:: , &( e( <>..:.. ?:. :.:. , .. (.... . , e :c.. ;4 ... .(4 (N .4 :4 ( ( ( . 4.:(Ú. l...........,...t.... ...t. ....... ... . þ". þ .. . . . . -". . . ,.... ...tt . .. ......... ..... . .' . 4 (Ç(>>"(( < ( ( ""(......(,(jÇ(( (( " ((" .C"'( (&(('<((4 <(""'''\'' ......"...........,. 'i," a ..:. ... ..'. I.. ... ..........'.t......,......a............,. ..'.. .."1" ...,...... Þþ ( "'4I' . . .'< . . \(' .... .....t (...<...(C.<' (.'c< ' . "."c' · , . ) \I M ') å 66å & * * .. EX LIBRIS } > * + ..:: Board of Women' s W or k .J + . :P London Diocese t .' u. --}' 33 Bedford Square ; L WCt r.r "? 0 · . -) .--..........-.-......... r ÿ yy yyVyýÿ++ýY yY TV May 1941. Presented from the library of The Rev. Prebendary Austin Thompson, Chairman of the Board for 14 years. .. '[HE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAXD .. THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OJ.<' THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND EXPLAINED WITH AN INTRODUC'TION By EDGAR C. S. GIBSON, D.D. \'ICAR OF LEEDS AND PREBENDARY OF WELLS SOMETIME PRINCIPAL OF WELLS THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. II ARTICLES IX-XXXIX METHUEN & CO. 3 6 ESSEX STREET, W.C. LONDON 18 97 PREF .A.CE --+- FOR some Yea th r has been a widel - pre d lin_ amon'" tho _ who e work called them to lecture on th o XXXIX. _lrticles, that here:;: room or anoth_r a i on the subject. A.rchdeacon Hardwick'.: inyaluable work i pur ly b. toricalJ and att mp no interpretation or . 'riptur-al proo 0 the .Årticle them eh. - ,'. B: ,h,)p F orb&' Exp Ïb excellen as a theolOfTical treati e, but, in -pite of it title it is arc y an 4C explanation" ot be _-uticle. Dr. Boulbe' T o . f ref 0 1 t h clear and busin ,.:-like, bu :t b written from a party point of vi -We 01 Bkhop Harold Browne's .-n: ll-illoWll F --i. it Î.5 'tlIÍIcient to say tha the tìrs edition "as published in 1850, and hat a .;ood deal of frtsh light ha been thrown upon ht" ..lrricle durin.; the 1- ,t IJrty-ill years. Bn jnce h Bishop wa-:: content .0 Ìß.5ue edition after edition withou makin o any chanòe in i, or '1lbjectin.- i to a mnch- needed re\--i5ion, he book, which ba5 in the pdSt bëèn of O much rrice to the Church, ha... become in many par '. ( .g. in all tha concern the hi )ry of tbe Creed antiquated and ou of da è. ince the prè ènI work "-";;' ,-en'" to the pre:::,. two other yolume.5 on the same subject have appeared namely an I t l _r_r&fl..L _-1. . ) bf Dr. lacledr and Ir. "-illi. and Th Thir - i 1 A . 1 '1 _1' R lir v VI PREFACE tion, by the ltev. E. Tyrrell Green,-a fact which affords striking evidence of the feeling alluded to above, that the text-books at present in use are not altogether adequate. l\fr. Green's ,york contains much illustrative matter from contemporary docunlents, and that by Dr. Maclear and Mr. Williams is excellent as a short text- book. My own work is on a some,vhat larger scale, and rnay perhaps appear to be lllore ambitious, in ain1Ïng at c0l11pleteness as a comnlentary upon the Articles; and 1 trust that it may be found that there is room for it as well as for these others. My object throughout has. been to lllake the work correspond as closely as possible to the title. It is not in any way intended to be n complete system of theology. The subjects discussed are strictly linâted to those \vhich are fairly suggested by the text of the Articles. Nor is it a history of doctrine. I have simply endeavoured to explain the teaching of the Articles, assuming a general knowledge of ecclesiastical history on the part of the reader, and only tracing out the history of doctrine where it seemeù to be absolutely necessary in order to enable him to understand the meaning of the text of the Articles and the expressions used in it. My aim has always been to discover and elucidate the "plain, literal, and gram- n1atical sense n of the document on ,vhich I have undertaken to comment. I can honestly say that I have striven to be perfectly fair, and to avoid the temptation to cc read in" to the Articles meanings which I aln not convinced t'J be really there. Ho\\ far I have succeeded nlY readers must judge for themsel ves. One possible criticislll I should like to meet before- hand. It may perhaps be said that there is a lack of proportion in the treatInent of the Articles, since far lllore space has been devoted to the first eight than to PREFACE vii the remaInIng thirty-one. l\iy reply must be that the fault, if it be a fault, has been deliberately committed,- and for this reason. The first eight Articles practically re-state, in an enlarged form, the rule of faith as con- tained in the Church's Creed, and therefore stand on a different footing from the others. In some works on the Articles this seems to be regarded as a reason for devoting but little space to them, it being presumably taken for granted that the student will have previously mastered Pearson's great \vork, or some other treatise on the Creed. I t has seemed to me wiser to adopt the opposite course, and to nlake the commentary upon them fuller than that on the remaining Articles, in order to emphasize their inlportance, and to give them their proper position. I trust, ho\vever, that the lack of proportion is not really so great as n1Ïght at first sight appear. :\Iany of the later Articles admit of very slight treatment, and I hope that it will be found that adequate attention has been paid to the really important ones among them, especially to those on the Church, the Sacraments, and the Ministry. It only remains for me to express my thanks to those \vho have assisted IDe in the work, especially to the Rev. A. Robertson, D.D., Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham, who has kindly looked through the proof sheets, and helped me by Inaking many valuable .suggestions. E. C. S. G. THE V ICARAG E, LEEDS, December 10, 1896. ... SY OPSIS OF CONrrENTS --+- PAGE ARTICLE IX.-OF ORIGIKAL on BiRTH SIX 357 Original Sin 359 The Effect of Baptism in the removal of Original Sin 373 The Character of Concupiscence 375 ARTICLE X. -OF FREEWILL 378 Freewill. 379 The Need of Grace . 380 ARTICLE XL-OF THE JL TIFICATION OF IAX . 388 Justification: Its Meaning and Relation to Sanctificatioll 389 The Meritorious Cause of Justification 397 The Instrument or Formal Cause of J ustificatiou 398 The" Homily of Justific tion ') 407 ARTICLE XII.-OF GOOD WORKS 410 ARTICLE XIII.-OF WORKS BEFORE JU TIFICATIOX 415 The Title as compared with the Article itself . 4]5 The Scholastic Theory of Congruous :Merit 418 The Teaching of the Article upon the Subject . 420 ARTICLE XIV.-OF 'VORKS OF SUPEREROGATIO 424 The Name " 'Yorks of Supererogation" . 425 The History of the Growth of the System of Inrlulgences . 426 The Theological Defence offered for them 433 AllTICLE XV.-OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIX 439 Christ's Sinlessness 441 ARTICLE XVI.-OF SIN AFTER BAPTI::;M 444 The fact that deadly Sin is not Unpardonable. 446 The possibility of falling from Grace 455 ix x CONTENTS PAOr. ARTICLE XVII.-OF PREDESTINATION AN'D ELECTION 45!} The Description of Predestination 465 The Steps which accolllpany it 48] The Practical Effect of the Doctrine 181 Two Considerations calculated to guard the Doctrine from Abuses 485 ARTICLE XYIII.-OF OBTAINING ETERXAL SALV ATION O LY BY THE N A)[E OF CHRIST 488 ARTICLE XIX.-OF THE CnURcH 493 The Description of the Visible Church 496 The Rtatement that the Church of Rome hath erred in :Matters of Faith . 506 ARTICLE XX.-Ol<' THE AUTHORITY OF THE CRunCH . Gll The L gisla'ive Power of the Church with regard to Rites or Ceremonies 514 The J'ltdicial Authority of the Church with regard to Doctrine. 520 The Office of the Church with regard to Holy Scripture. 526 AltTICLE XXI.-Ol<' THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS !:í2t They may not be gathered together without the Consent of Princes 5:3 They are liable to Err 534- As a Matter of History they actually have Erred 535 ÅRTICLE XXII.-OF PURGATORY 537 Purgatory 542 Pardons . 554 Adoration of Images and Reliques . 557 Invocation of Saints 564 ARTICLE XXIII.-Ol<' l\lrXU;'l'EIUNG IN THE CONGREGATIOX 573 The Need of an External Call aJ.lJ :Mission 575 The Description of those through whom the Call comes. 578 AltTICLE XXIV.-OF S]'EAKIKG IN THE COKGREGATION IN SUCH A TONGUE A THE PEOPLE UKDElt. TANDETH . 581 The Evidence of Scripture on this Subject 582 The Custom of the Primitive Church 583 CONTENTS Xl PAOK ARTICLE XXV.-OF THE SACRAMENTS 585 The Description of Sacraments ordained of Christ 588 The Number of such Sacraments 593 The Five Rites" commonly called Sacraments" 602 The Use of Sacraments 610 ARTICLE XXVI.-OF THE UNWORTHINESS OJ!" THE l\IIN"ISTERS, WHICH HINDERS OT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRA m Ts 615 ARTiCLE XXVII.-OF BAPTISM . 620 The Description of Baptism and its Effects 621 Infant Baptism 634 ARTICLE XXVIII.-OF THE LORD'S SUPI'Elt 641 The Description of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 647 The Doctrine of Transubstantiation. 649 The Nature of the Presence, and the " Iean whereby it is received" 660 Certain Practices in connection with the Eucharist . 664 ARTICLE XXIX.-OF THE WrICKED WHICH DO XOT EAT THE BODY OF CHRIST IN THE USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 668 ARTICLE XXX. -OF BOTH Kn Ds 676 The History of the Practice conùemned in it . 676 The Arguments by which it has been justified. 683 ARTICLE XXXI.-OF THE ONE OBLATIOY OF CHRIST FlXISHED urox THE CROSS 687 The Sufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Cro 688 The Condemnation of the" Sacrifices of Iasses ,. 691 ARTICLE XXXII.-OF THE :MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS 695 There is no Prohibition of the 1\Iarriage of the Clergy in Scripture , 696 It is lawful for the Clergy to :Marry if ther think it advisable. 69ï ARTICLE XXXIII.-OF EXCOltIMUNICATE PERSONS: Ho\\ THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED 705 ARTICLE XXXIY.-OF THE TRADITIONg OF THE CHrRCH . 716 ARTICLE XXXV.-OF HOMILIES . 722 The History of the Homilies . 723 The Nature of the Assent demanded to them . 726 xu CONTENTS PAGE _\.RTICLE XXX VI.-OF CO SECRATION OF BISHOPS ND MINISTERS 729 The Objections of the Puritans 731 The Objections of the Romanists 748 " AJ TICLE XXXYII.-OF THE CI V IT, MAGTf.;TRATE The Royal Supremacy The Papal Claims The Lawfulness of Capital Punishment The Lawfulness of "Tar . 759 761 772 780 781 _\.r.TICLE XXXYIII.-OF CHRISTL\X MEN'S GOODS WHICH ARE XOT CO)HW, . 783 The Community of Goods 784 The Duty of Almsgiving 786 ARTICLE XXXIX.-OF A CHRISTIA IAN's OATH 788 I DEX . 793 ARTICLE IX Dc Pcccato Originali. Peccatum origin is non est (ut fabulalltur Pelagiani) in imita- tione Aùami situm, sed est vitium et depravatio naturæ cujus1ibet hominis ex Adamo naturaliter pro- pagati, qua fit ut ab originali justitia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua natura propendeat, et caro semper adversus spiritum con- cupiscat. Un de in unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damna- tionem meretur. Ianet etiam in renatis hæc naturæ depravatio, qua fit ut atfectus carnis, Græce fþpóvT}p.a uapKóç (quod alii sapien- tiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, alii studium carnis interpretantur) legi Dei non subjiciatur. Et quanquam renatis et credentibus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concupiscentiam fatetur Apostolus. Of Origi1tal or Birth Si'n. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is en- gendereù 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 eVf>ry person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damna- tion. Anù this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated, wllereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek rþpóvTJl..l.a uapK6ç, which some ùo expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some tho affection, some the desire of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin. THE original object of this .I-lrticle is sho\vn very definitely by the ,vords \vhich in the Article of 15 [) 3 follo\ved the reference to the Pelagians: ",vhich also the Anabaptists do nowadays renew" (et hodie Anabaptistæ repetunt). These \vords, omitted at the revision of 1563 (possibly because the danger ,vas less pressing), prove 24 358 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES that it ,vas designed at least primarily to meet the revival of the Pelagian error on the subject of original sin by the Anabaptists.! A further object ,vas probably to state the vie,v of the Church of England on the effect of baptism in the removal of original sin, more particu- larly with regard to "concupiscence," which all parties admitted to remain in the regenerate, but concerning the character and precise nature of which widely differing views were advanced. Except for the omission of the words just noticed, the .l\..rticle has stood without substantial change since it was first dra,vn up in 1553. 2 It has been sometimes thought that its language is based on that used in the Confession of Augsburg; but the resemblance is very slight. 3 Nor is it much Closer to the corresponding Article in the Thirteen drawn up in 1538 by a joint committee of .A.nglicans and Lutherans, which does little more than 1 The same error on the part of the Anabaptists is noticed in Hermann's Consultation: "Fyrste they denie originally synne, and they wyll not acknowledg howe greate filthynes, how greate impietie and even pestilent corruption was broughte upon us all thorowe the fall of Adame. "-English translation of 1548, fo!' cxlii. 2 Two slight changes in the English should be noticed. Where our present Article uses the phrase "original righteousness," the Edwardian Article had "his former righteousness, which he had at his creation" ; and instead of "inclined to evil" it had" given to evil." The alterations made at the revision of 1571 brought the English into closer conformity with the Latin. 3 "Item docent quod post lapsuIll Adæ omnes homines secunùum naturam propagati, nascantur cum peccato, hoc est sine metu Dei, sine fiducia erga Deum, et cum concupis entia, quodque hie morbus, seu vitium originis vere sit peccatum, rlamnans et afferens nunc quoque æternam mortem his, qui non renascuntur per Laptismum et Spiritum Sanctum. Damnant Pelagianos et alios qui vitium origin is negant esse peccatum, et ut extenuent gloriam meriti et beneficiorum Christi dis- putant hominem propriis viribus ration is coram Deo justificari posse."- Con!. A'ltgust. art. II. It will be noticed that the Anglican Article is far more guarded and cautious in its statements than this. See below, p. 376. ARTICLE IX 359 repeat the Lutheran formulary ,vith the addition of a. reference to the los::; of original righteousness. 1 But though the language of our Article cannot be traced to any earlier source, the following passage from the Reformatio Legll./ln illustrates its teaching, and points even more distinctly to the revival of the Pelagian heresy by a section of the Anabaptists:- "In labe peccati ex ortu nostro contracta, quam vitium originis appellamus, primum quidem Pelagianorum, deinde etiam Anabaptistarum nobis vitandus et submovendus est error, quorum in eo consensus contra veritatem sacrarun1 Scripturarum est, quod peccatum originis in Adamo solo hæserit, et non ad posteros transierit, nec ullam afferat naturæ llostræ perversitatem, nisi quod ex Adami delicto propositum sit peccandi noxium exemplum, quod homines ad eandem pravitatem invitat imitandam et usurpandam. Et similiter nobis contra illos progrediendum est, qui tantum in libero arbitrio roboris et nervorum ponunt, ut eo solo sine alia speciali Christi gratia recte ab hominibus vivi posse constituant." 2 The principal subjects to be considered in connection ,vith this Article are the following :- 1. Original sin. 2. The effect of baptisn1 in the removal of original sill. 3. The character of concupiscence. I. Original Sin. D nder this head there are varIOUS point& which require elucidation- (a) The phrasf' " original sin." (b) The Pelagian heresy, as showing ,,,hat original sin is not. 1 See Hardwick, Histm'Y of the A'ì-t-ides, p. 261. 2 Rrformofto L('fJ1''in Ecclesiasticarum, De Hæres, c. ï. 360 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (c) Original righteou::;lless, as that frolll which Ulan 18 u f " very ar gone. (d) The effect of the Fall. (a) Tlte ph1'ase " original sin" (Peccatulll originale or pcccatuni originis).l This does not occur any\vhere in }Ioly Scripture, but is due to S. Augustine, who 111akes use of it in one of his earlier works; 2 and frOln his day forward it is of frequent occurrence, being DULde current coin through the Pelagian controversy. The phrase was perhaps suggested to Augustine by the similar expression "originis injuriam" which had been used by S. AUlbrose; 3 while still earlier S. Cyprian had said of a new-born infant," sccundunl Adalll carnaliter natus contagiuIll Illortis antiqtup prinl nativitate contraxit." 4 (b) Tlte I clagian hetrcsy, as showing what o1.iginal sin is not. This heresy originated early in the fifth century. Its founder, Pelagius, was a monk of British extraction who had settled at Rome. There he took offence at the well- kno\vn saying of Augustine, "Give what Thou command est, and command what Thou wilt," which seemed to him to exalt the Divine at the expense of the human in the \vork of salvation. 5 Subsequently he and his friend and convert, Cælestius, elaborated the system which has since borne his nanle. His character Inay be seen frOITI the charges \vhich \vere brought against Oælestius at a Council held in 412 at Carthage, whither the two friends 1 The two expressions are evidently rcgarded as cOllvertible terms. Thc latter is us cd in the text úî the Article the former in the , titlc. 2 Ad Ri1Jl]Jliriml/lt1n, I. c. i. 10. :.: Apol. P/'Oph. 1 Jct1'id. i. fiG. Ufo Aug. Contl.a dnas Epist. IV. 29. 4 Ep. lxiv. Cf. Bright's Anti - Pelagian 1 J'eatises of s. A'll.y'llstill(" p. ix. ð " Da. quod jubes, et jubc quod vis," Conf. X. c. xxix. Cf. Dc dono pCi'scv. c. xx., where Augustine himself refers to this fact. ARTICLE IX 361 had passed from Rome. The charges (to \vhich Ccplestiup returned evasive ans\vers) \vere these:- 1. That Adalll \vas created n1ortal, and \vould have died even if he had not sinned. 2. That his sin injured hirnself alone, and not the \vhole hUlllan race. 3. That infants at their birth are in the same condi- tion in which Adam was before the Fall. 4. That unbaptized infants as \vell as others would obtain eternal life. 5. That mankind neither died through Adam's death or transgression, nor would rise again through Christ's resurrectioll. 6. That the law had the same effect as the gospel in leading men to the kingdoln of heaven. 7. That even before Christ came there had been sinless men. l Of these tenets the second and third are the most in1portant, as being most intimately connected with the \vhole system that was subsequently kl1o\vn as Pelagianism. They arnount to (a) a denial that the fall of Adam had affected his descendants; and (b) closely connected with this" a denial of the necessity of supernatural and directly assisting grace in order to any true service of God on the part of man."2 This latter seems to have been in the order of time prior to the first mentioned, 'which, ho\vever, is its ground and basis. Admit in any true sense the Fall, and Divine grace becomes a necessity. Deny the Fall, and grace may perhaps be dispensed with and human nature \vithout supernatural assista,nce be found equal to the conflict with sin. 1 See on the whole subject Bright's Anti-Pelagian Treatises, I11t1'o(1. p. xvi. seq., and Schaff's Histm'y of the CJl'Jl7'ch, "Nicene anù Post-Niccnc Ch1'istianity " vol. ii. p. 790 scq. 2 Bright, p. ix. G2 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES There was, ho\vever, the fact of universal depravity to be explaineù. vVhat account could be given of the fact that sin is found every\vhere? Pelagius could only explain it by aying that it resulted fronl the universal followinfJ of Ada'lJt's cxrunplc. Adcun's fall, according to hilll had no eflect on the nature of his descendants. But , by sinning he set an eXalll pIe which all, or almost all (for Pelagius adnlitted exceptions), had followed. This is the vie\v of original sin which was revived by the Anabaptists in the sixt enth century, and \vhich is cOlldelnned in the opening \vords of our Article. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk. The meaning of the English phrase is made clear by a reference to the Latin, Peccat "1n origini13 non est in imitatione Adal1ti situ1n. "Standeth not JJ is equivalent to" does not consist;" 1 "the following of Adam" is the in1Ítation of him, or sinning after his example. In support of the assertion of the Article, and the position taken up by the Church on this subject, it appears to be sufficient to appeal to the teaching of S. Paul in TIOlll. v. 12-15: "As through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned: for until the la\v sin was in the world: but sin is not inlputed when there is no la\v. Nevertheless death reigned fronl Adam until Moses, eren 0 'e1' them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adant's transgression, \vho is a figure of Him that ,vas to come." Universal depravity is recugnised as a fact throughout the Old Testanlent, but no explanation of it is offered. There appear to be only two possible ones. Either, as the l")elagians asserted, it results from the fact that all 1 Compare the sintilar use of " taJ1deth" in tIle Second Co]lc('t at Mattins: "in knowledge of whom Jslandeth onr etcrllallife." ARTICLE IX 363 men follow Adalll's example, and sin (C after the likeness of his transgression," or there is a "fault" in the inherited nature which makes sinning easy and natural. Jewish writings outside the Canon sho\v us that though there was no consistent doctrine among the Jews on the subject, yet some among them were feeling their way to\vards the position laid down by S. Paul, and were inclined to hold that universal sin \vas due to the fact that the fall of Adan1 had permanently affected his descendants. 1 And on this point the teaching of the New Testament is quite clear. The passage cited above is decisive as to the apostle's view, and conclusive against the Pelagian theory, \vhile the whole line of argument in the early chapters of the Epistle to the Romans tends to establish the fact that Adam's sin had a far-reaching effect upon mankind, that through it sin gained an entrance into the world and that all his descendants inherited a tendency to sin. 2 1 See 'Visd. ii. 23 seq. ; Ecclus. xxv. 24 (33]; 4 Ezra iii. 7, 21 Sfq. ; Apoc. Baruch xvii. 3, xxiii. 4; and cf. Edersheim, Jesus the .1llessiah, vol. i. I). 165 seq., and Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 136 seq. 2 The question may be raised how far is the Church's doctrine on this suhject, and S. Paul's teaching in particular, affected by" critical" views of the Old Testament, and the belief that in Gen. i.-iii. we have a symbolical representation of spiritual truths rather than a literal history. On this subject a valuable letter will be found in the Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, vol. ii. p. 329, and reference may also be made to Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 146, where it is pointed out that the narrative in Genesis is "the typical and summary representation of a series of facts which no discO\'ery of flint implements and half calcined bones can ever reproduce for us. In some way or other, as far back as history goes, and we may believe much further, there has been implanted in the human race this mysterious seed of sin, which, like other character- istics of the human race, is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin is present in every man who is born into trÏe world. But the tendency does not become actual sin until it takes effect in defiance of an express command, in deliberate disregard of a known distinction between right and wrong. How men came to be possessed of such a command, by what process tlwy arrived at the conscious distinction of right and wrong, we can 64 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES It lllay be added, that the conclusion which has forced itself upon the minds of theologians as an inference from the statements of Holy Scripture, that there is a taint in the nature of every nlan that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, is in remarkable accordance ,vith the teaching of secular philosophers and poets,! and is but the theological expression of the doctrine which has been not discovered, but formulated by modern sciencp under the naBle of heredity. (c) Original 1'ig7äeousness. - Having set aside the Pelagian heresy, the Article proceeds with its account of original sin, and lays down that it is "the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whe.'eby man is very far gone from but vaguely speculate. 'Vhatever it was, we may be sure that it could not have been presented to t]1e imagination of primitive peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative assumes in the Book of Genesis. The really essential truths all come out in that narrative-the recognition of the Divine will, the act of disobedience to the will so recognised, the perpetuation of the tendency to such disobedienC'e, and we may add, perhaps, though here we get into a region of surmises, the connexion between moral evil and pllysical decay, for the surest pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part ill us, the soul, through righteousness to God. These salient principles, which may have been due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods, are naturally and inevitably summed up as a 6'roup of single incidents. Their essential character is not altered, and in the interpretation of primitive beliefs we may safcly remember that" a thousand years in the sight of God are hut as one òa y. Jt . . . It would be absurd to expect the language of modern science in the prophet who first incorporated the traùitions of his race in the sacred books of the Reorews. He uses the only kind of language available to his own intelligCJ ce and that of his contemporaries. But if the language which he does use is from that point of view abund- antly justified, then the application which S. Paul makes of it is equally justified. He, too, expresses truth through symbûh; and in the days when men can dispense with s)'mbols his teaching may be obsolete, but not before. 1 Ree the intercsting lecture on this suhject in Mozley's Lectures and other Theological PaJJer8, p. 148 sc'l. ARTICLE IX 3G5 original righteousness." 'Vhat, then, \vas this iC original righteousness" fronl which III étl 1 is "very far gone" ? :Follo\ving out the indications on the subject that nlay be gathered fronl Scripture, ancient \vl'iters have generally described it as being partly natural, partly supernatural,-uatural in that it proceeded from free \vill and the po\ver of choice, supernatural in that certain special gifts and graces in addition to free \vill were required for its exercise. l Adam could not ha ve had concupiscence or lust, i.e. the direct inclination to evil \vhich is now the incentive to sin in our nature, for he was lllade "in the inlage of God," and \vas "very good." On the other hand, as he was in a state of trial, there must have been something in him which sin could take hold of-a starting-point for temptation. To pro- tect him from yielding, it is thought that he must haye {( had by his created disposition a pleasure in goodness, and that pleasure naturally preserved him in obedience \vithout the need of express effort." 2 This natural pleasure in goodness, \vhich is practically equivalent to an Í1nplanted vi'rtuous character, is \vhat has been called I See the quotations in Bishop Bull's famous discourse "On the State of fan he fore the Fall" (1Vorks, ii. p. 52 seq.). Bull concludes that "the meaning of the question [whether the original righteousness of the first man was supernatural], if it signify anything to any considerable purpose, is clearly this, wllether Adam in the state of integrity needed a supernatural principle or power in order to the pel'fOrmÏ11g of such a righteousness as through the gracious acceptance of God sllOuld have been available to an eternal and celestial life and happiness. And the ques- tion being thus stated, ought to be held in the affirmative, if the conscntient determination of the Church of God may be allowed its due weight in the balance of our judgments." "There is a sense, indeed," he aùds, "wherein \ve may safely acknowledge tl1 original righteousness or the first man to have been natural, and it is this, that he received the principle of that righteousness a nati'ùitate S1la, from llis nativity, in his very creation, and together with his nature" (Op. cit. p. 131). Reference should also be made to S. Thomas, S'l(/nl/nw Theologiæ, 1 ma , Q. xciv. seq. 2 Iozley, The A'ltg'ltsti1l1'an Theory of Predestination, p. 91. 36ô THE THIRTY.NINE ARTICLES by divines the donu'Jn supernaturale. I t may be best understood by regarding it as a supernatural bias to,vards good, so that the natural tendency of man was to do what ,vas right in consequence of this Divinely ordered inclination of his will in that direction. cc This implanted rectitude," it may be added," or good habit it \vas which made the first sin of man 80 heinous, and caused that distinction between it and all the other sins \vhich have been committed in the world. For the first sin was the only sin \vhich ,vas con1n1Ïtted against and in spite of a settled bias of nature towards good; aU the other sins which have been con1mitted since have been conlmitted in accordance with a natural bias towards evil. There was therefore a perversity in the first sin altog"ther peculiar to it, and such as made it a sin sui gene1'ÍS." 1 In view of modern theories of development, it n1ay be added that there is nothing whatever in Holy Scrip- ture to n1ake us think that D1an was in his unfallen condition perfect. Innocent he is distinctly represented as bring. His state is one of primitive sin1plicity. But this is all. Nor is there anything in the Biblical account to lead us to imagine that he was in a high state of civilisation or of intellectual greatness. Scripture gives no countenance to the view that" an .A.ristotle ,vas but the rubbi::3h of an Adam"; and more than one of the early Fathers denies that Adam was created "perfect" (7ÉÀELor; ).2 1 Mozley, The Augustinian ThJ!OTy of Predestination, p. 91. 2 Thus Theophilus of Antioch (180) says that God placed Adam in Paradise ÒLÒOÙ!) atirC;; dcþOpP.1]V 7rpOKo7r"íj!) l)7rW!) av áJlwv Kal Tl fLO!) 'YEv6P.EVO!), K.T."'., Ad Autolyc. ii. 24; while Clement of A]exandria directly raises tbe question whether Adam was formed perfect 01' iucoml)lete (T''''fLO!) 1} àTf"'*), and aDSWûr that he "was not maùe perfect in respect to llis constitution, but in a fit condition to receive virtue" (Stromata, YI. xii. 9G), "where," as nishol) Bull :says, "he plainly enough teacheth t11at ARTICLE IX ?67 (d) TILe effect of the Fall.-If the condition of man in his priInitive condition before he had actually sinned was as it has been described above, \vhat, it will be asked, was the effect of the :Fall? Concerning this there have been various vie\vs held, differing in regard to the extent of the depravity actually inherited by all men. (i.) The Greek Fathers generally, and the earlier Latin ones as well, laid no great stress on the Fall, and the n10st that can be said is that-so far as they have any definite teaching on the subject at all-they hold that it involved the loss of the supernatural bias of the \vill to\vards good, but nothing more. l\fan ,vas left with a fundamentally sound nature, with no direct bias in one direction or the other. Thus on this view "original sin " is nothing more than a loss of higher goodness; a state of defect rather than of positive sin; a privatio rather than a depravatio naturæ. (ii.) Augustine and his follo\vers in the controversy \vith the Pelagians dealt fully with the subject, and drew out more thoroughly than had yet been done the teaching of Scripture, sho\ving therefrom that the Fall involved something more than only the withdrawal of the supernatural gifts, and left man with a corrupt nature, a direct bias tou'a1'ds evil. "The \viII," says 1'Iozley, H according to the earlier school was not substan- tially affected by the Fall. . . . But in Augustine's scheme the will itself was disabled at the Fall; and not only certain impulses to it withdra\vn, its power of Aùam was from the beginning not indeed made perfect, but yet endowed with the capacity wherehy he might arrive to perfect virtue." See the whole passage (TV arks, ii. p. 72), and cf. Lux },[undi, p. 535: "All that we are led to believe is that the historical development of man has not been the development simply as God meant it. It has been tainted throughout its whole fabric by an element of moral disorder, of human wilfulness. " G8 TIlE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES choice \vas gone, and man \vas unable not only to rIse auoye a defective goodncss, hut to avoid positive :;iu. He \vas thenceforth, prior to the operation of grace, in a state of necessity on the side of evil, a slave to the devil and to his O'Vl1 inordinate lusts." 1 (iii.) In later days, nla.ny of the schoohnen, and after them the Roman divines of the sixteenth century, were content to regard original sin in a somewhat Inilder light than this, and to view it rather as a "privatio" than as a state of positive defect. Aquinas, ho\vever, after speaking of it as "quædam privatio," "cal'entia originalis justitiæ," terms it " inordinata dispositio, langnor naturæ," and freely admits that it is more than a mere " privatio." 2 But the Council of Trent, following Scotus, regards it maInly as " the loss of holiness and righteous- ness"; 3 and Bellarmine distinctly teaches that it is only the result of the \vithdra\val of the supernatural gift. 4 (iv.) On the other hand, both Lutherans and Calvinists have generally maintained an entire depravation of hunlan nature, so that man is only inclined to evil; and they have sOllletimes used such strong and exaggerated language on the corruption of man's nature, as to sug- gest that since the Fall the image of God is wholly lOp. cit. p. 125. For Augustine's teaching reference may be nlade to the Encltiridion, 10; De ]{at'llra et gratia, c. iii.; and the treatise De Gratia Christi et de Peccato m.iginali. 2 "Habet privation em originnlis justitia et cum hoc inordinatam dis- positionem partium animæ, unde non cst privatio pura sed et quædam habitus corruptus," SU711/nta, 1 ma 2 æ Q. lxxxi. S Decree concerning original sin, Sf>ssion V. (June 17, 1546). 4 "Corruptio naturæ non ex alicujus doni carentia, neque ex aIicujus malæ qualitatis accessu, sed ex sola doni supernaturalis ob Adæ peccatum amissione profluxit," De gratia primi lwminis, c. v.; cf. c. i.; and Amiss. gratiæ, iii. 1. Iodern Roman teaching is on just the same lines. See [oehlcr's SymboUsm, p. 4S seq. ; and Perrone, Pnrlectiones, vol. iii. p. 122 . t'fJ. ARTICLE IX 369 oblitel'ateJ., anJ. the nature of luan no better than that of the evil spirits. Thus the" "r estnlinster Confession" says of our first parents: "By this sin they feU from their original righteousness and comnlunion with God, and so becanle deaQ. in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature con- veyed to all their posterity descending from then1 by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, \vhereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." 1 To which of these views thus briefly enunlerated, it nlay be fairly asked, does the Anglican Article incline? I t clearly takes a darker view than that of the Greek Fathers, and of the Ronlan Church as represented by the Council of Trent. Original sin is nlore than a " privatio." It is a "depravatio naturæ." It" deserves God's wrath and damnation." Such language can only he used of something positive, not sinlplyof a \vithdra\val of supernatural grace. But, on the other hand, strong as the language of the Article is, it falls very far short of that of the" 'Vestulinster Confession," and of Calvinists in general. "Quaul longissinle " in the Latin Article, if pressed, might perhaps be taken to indicate agreenlent with the Calvinist notion of a total loss of original 1 \Vest. Conf. c. vi. So the Forntula COllcordiæ (1577) says that original sin "is so deep a corruption of human na.ture, that nothing healthy or incorrupt in a man's soul or body, in inner or outward powers," is lcft. Similar but even stronger language is used in the C07lfessio JIelrctica II. c. 8: "Peccatum autem- intelligimus esse nativam ill am hominis corruptionelU ex prim is illis nostris parentibus in nos omnes derivatam vel propagatam, qua concul'iscentiis pravis immersi et a bono aversi, ad omne vero malum propensi, plcni omni nequitia, diffi- dentia, contemtu et odio Dci, nihil boni ex nobis ipsis facere, imo ne cogitare quidem possumus." 370 THE TIIIRTY-NINE ARTICLES righteousness; but if so, the English "vc'ry far gonc" ,vould appear strangely inadequate. Moreover, there it; a ::-;ignificant silence about any imputation of Adaln's sin (a prominent feature in later Calvinistic teaching); and that the Article is seriously defectiye from a Calvinistic point of vie,v, is conclusively sho\yn by the suggested elnendations of the Assenlbly of Divines in 1643. They ,vere not satisfied ,yith it as it stood, but \vished to insert a reference to the inlputation of Adaln's sin, and to materially strengthen the language of the Article, substi- tuting "wholly deprived of" for" very far gone from," and insisting that man "is of his o\vn nature only inclined to evil." 1 This being so, \ve need have no hesitation in inter- preting the Latin by the English, and may rest content \vith the statement that man is "vcry jar gone j'J'o1n original righteousness." So much is clearly taught in Holy Scripture. Not to lay too much stress on the language of the Psalmist, "Behold I was sha pen in iniquity, and in sin did Iny mother conceive me" (Ps. Ii. 5), or on the question of Job, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" (Job xiv. 4), \ve notice that all through Scripture man is regarded as by nature corrupt. "The imagination of man's heart is evil fronl his youth" (Gen. viii. 21); "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually" (vi. 5); "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jer. xvii. 9). So also in the New Testament: "I know that in me, that i , in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing" (Ronl. vii. 18). cc The nlind of the flesh js pnnlity against God; for it is not subject to the la \v of Goù, neither indeed can it be; and they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. viii. 7). But, on the I See Neal's IIistor1J of the P'ltrÏlans, vol. iii. p. 559, where the Article is given as amended by the Divines. ARTICLE IX 371 other hand, there are passages which 110 less clearly indicate that, in spite of this universal depravity, the "Ï111age of God," in which man was originally created, still remains since the Fall, and therefore it cannot be true to say that he is "wholly deprived of" his original righteousness. Thus in Gen. ix. 6 the law, "Whoso sheddeth n1an's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," is based on the fact that" in the image of God made He nlan." In 1 Cor. xi. 7, S. Paul speaks of man as " the image and glory of God," while S. James says that men are " made after the likeness of God" (iii. 9). It may then be fairly concluded that on this subject the Church of England is in the main content to follow the teaching of Augustine: only, however, in the main, for there are statements which Augustine was led to make in the course of the controversy with the Pelagians to which we are most certainly not called upon to sub- scribe. To mention one point only. Augustine asserted that as a fact infants and others dying unbaptized meet with the punishment of hell. 1 Article IX. is careful only to state that original sin "dese1 ves God's wrath and damnation,"-a statement which follo\vs naturally from the view taken of it as something positive, involving a real taint and disorder of the nature, but which falls short of expressing any opinion on the further question whether it actually meets with that which it deserves. 2 1 De peuatorum rneritis et rentissione, I. xxi., II. c. iv.; cf. Bright's Anti-Pelagian Treatises, p. xiv, note 4. See on this point a striking letter of the late Dean Church, Life a1ul Letters, p. 24.8. " The fact of what is meant by original sin is as mysteri- ous and inexplicable as the origin of evil, but it is obyiously as much a fact. There is a fault and vice in the race, wl ich, given time, as surely develops into actual sin as our physical constitution, given at birth, does into sickness and physical death. It is of this inherited sin in our nature, looked upon in the abstract and without reference to concrete cases, that I suppose the Article speaks. How can we suppose that such a nature looks in God's eyes according to the standard of perfect right. 372 TIlE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES ....\.8 an illu!:5tratioll of Lhi!:5, reference may be made to the careful reticence of the note at the end of the Baptismal Service in the Book of Comn1on Prayer. "It is certain by God's \vord that children \vhich are baptized, dying before they conlmit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." Nothing whatever is said of what happens in the case of those who die unbaptized, and the reticence is evidently designed; for the note in question was copied almost verbatim from the "Institution of a Christian l\lan" (1537), \vhich proceeded to say "and else not." 1 The cousness which we also suppose to ùe God's standard and law. Does it satisfy that standard 1 Can He look with neutrality on its divergence from His perfect standard 1 'Yhat is His moral judgment of it as a snhjcct f01' moral judgment 1 "That He may do to cure it, to pardon it, to make allowanc r .3 for it in known or unknown ways, is another matter, about which His known attributes of mercy alone may reassure us; but the (plestion is, How does He look upon this fact of our nature Í1 itself, that without exception it has this strong efficacious germ of evil within it, of which He sees all the possibilities and all the consequences 1 Can He look on it, even in germ, with complacency or indifference 1 Iust He not judge it and condemn it as in itself, because evil, deserving con- fiemnation 1 I cannot see what other answer can be given but one, and this is what the Article says. But all this settles nothing about the actual case of unùaptized infants, any more than the general necessity of believing the gospel settles anything as to the actual case of heathens who llave never hpard of the gospel. If, without fear, we leave them to the merciful dispensations, unrevealed to us, of Him who is their Father, though they do not know Him, much more may we leave infants who have never exercised will or reason. But in both cases we are obliged by facts and Scripture to acknowledge sinfulness and sin. In Christians, and those w}w may know of the gospel, this is cured, relieved, taken away, by known means which He has given us, In those who, by no fault of their own, are out of His family and Church, we cannot doubt, both from what we know of Him and from what He has told us, that He will provide wha... is necessary. But still the'l'lJ is the sinfulness and the sin; amI as sin, q'ltâ sin, we can only snppose that He looks on it with ùispleasure, and condemns it. I don't see that the Article, which is only treating of sin and sinfulness, and not of its remeùy or God's love, does more tha.n express what must be God's judg- ment on all sin, even in germ. flow He deals with it is a separate ma. tter. " 1 Formularies of Faith, p. D3. ARTICLE IX 373 omISSIon of these three words is highly significant; and it may be added that, though the work possesses no authority, yet the Refor1natío Legurn Ecclesiasticarum may be appealed to as an historical witness that by the time of the reign of Edward VI. leading Anglican divines had come to see that \vhile salvation must be denied to those who despise or reject baptism, yet in the case of children (at least of Christian parents) dying unbaptized through no fault of their own, there is roonl for good hope.! II. The effect of Baptism in the removal of Original Sin. In considering the effect of holy baptism in the removal of original sin, it must be remembered that there are two evils attaching to all sin, viz. the guilt, which needs pardon and forgiveness, and the power, which needs overcoming and driving out. On the view taken by the English Church, that what we call" original sin" is something more than a loss of higher goodness, being a germ of real evil, this is true of it as of all other sin. It has its guilt, which nlakes us "children of \vrath " ; 2 1 De Hæresib'lls, c. 18: "Illorum etiam impia videri debet scrupulosa superstitio, qui Dei gratiam et Spiritum Sanctum tantopere cum sacra- mentorum elementis coHigant, ut plane affirment nullum Christianorulli infantem æternam salutem esse consecuturum, qui prius a morte fuerit occupatus, quam ad baptismum adduci potuerit: quod longe secus habere judicamus. Salus enim illis solum adimitur, qui sacrum bunc baptismi fontem cOlltenlllunt, aut superbia quadam ab eo, vel contumacia resiliunt; quæ importunitas cum in puerorum ætatem non cadat, nihil contra salutem illorum authoritate Scripturarum decerni potest, immo contra cum illos communis promissio pueros in se comprehendat, optima nobis spes de illorum salute concipienda est." See also Hooker, Eed. Polity, Bk. V. c. Ix. 6. 2 Compare the description in the Church Catechism of the" inward and spiritual grace" in baptism. "A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin, and the children of'llJratlt, we are hereby made the children of grace." The expression c, children of wrath" is Biblical, and comes from Eph. ii. 3, rlKJla òP'ì'fj . 25 374 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES and it has its po\ver, \vhich, in the form of concupiscence, dra\vs us in the direction of evil. In baptism the guilt is pardoned. There is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized (" Renatis et creden- tibus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio "),1 a state- ment for which ample support may be found in IIoly Scripture (see Acts ii. 38, xxü. 16, etc.), and which \vill be further illustrated under Article XXVII.2 But the powe'l' of sin, that appetite for corrupt pleasure which is the incentive to sin in us still remains. 3 This infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerate (etiam in renatis), whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek cþpóv1JJ.La uap"ór;, which some do eX--Jound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the law of God. This is un- happily a truth of universal experience, for which scrip- tural proof is scarcely needed. All history and the facts of each man's own experience combine in testifying to the existence of the old nature even after baptism and the reception of Divine grace. The phrase cþpóv'1JI-La uap"óf\, and the account given in the Article of this" lust of the flesh," is based on Rom. viii. 6, 7: "For the D1ind of the flesh 4 (TÒ cþpóv'1Jl-'a 7"iJr; uap"ór;) is death; 1 It should he noticed (1) that '1'enatis in the Latin of the Article corre- sponds to "are baptized" in the English, thus marking the close connec- tion between regeneration anù baptism; and (2) that there is nothing in the English corresponding to propter {yhristum in the Latin. 2 The statement of the Article ma:r be further illustrated from the Bap- tismal Offices in the Book of Common Prayer, in which remission of sins is throughout regarded as one of the blessings granted in baptism to infants as well as to those of riper years. 3 Compare Augustine, De peccatoru,m meritis et remissione, Lib. I J. c. i v. : H Concupiscentia . . . cum parvulis nascitur, ill þarvulis baptizatis a reati solvitur, ad agonem l'eliIllJ.uitur." 4 The Vulgate translates this phrase by prudentia in vcr. 6, and sapientia ca1'nis in Ycr. 7. The Geneva Yersion ba"i "wisdom of the ARTICLE IX 75 but the mind of the spirit is life and peace: because the ?nind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subj('ct to the la'w of God, neither indeed can it be." III. The Charactcr of Concupiscence. There remains the question, 'Vhat is the character of this concupiscence \vhich, as all agree, ren1ains even in the regenerate? Is it, before it positively breaks out into definite acts of sin, to be regarded as itself" true and proper sin," or is it merely to be reckoned as "an incentive to sin, arising from sin and inclining to it"? The question \vas keenly debated in the sixteenth century, the Church of Rome and the follo\vers of Calvin return- ing dianletrically opposite answers to it. The Ronlan vie\v of concupiscence is given in the decrees of the Council of Trent, at the fifth session of \vhich the subject \vas discussed, A.D. 1546, some years, therefore, before the Anglican Article \vas drawn up. The Tridentine divines in this decree maintain the follo\ving posi- tions :- (i.) In baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted, and" all that has the true and proper nature of sin" is taken a\vay (totum id quod veram et pro priam peccati rationem habet). (ii.) There remains concupiscence, or an incentive to sin, \vhich is left for us to strive against, but cannot injure those \vho consent not. (iii.) "This concupiscence, \vhich the Apostle SOlne- tiInes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to bt. called sin, as being truly and properly sin in the regenerate, but because it flesh"; but in the Bishops' Bible there is the following note: "øPOVOÛCTt and øp6v?J!J.a, Greek words, do not so much signify wi dom and prudence, a<; affection, cal'cfulness, and minding of anything. II H7G TIlE TI-IIRTY-NINE ARTICLES is of sin and inclines to sin " (quia ex peccato est et ad peccatum inclinat).l This position is quite clear and definite. Concu- piscence, though it often leads to sin, is not" true and proper sin." Equally definite is the statement of Cal- vinists on the other side. According to them, con- piscence is "true and proper sin." So the Gallican Confession of 1561-6 asserts: "We affirm that this fault is truly sin even after baptisul "; 2 and in accordance with this, \vhen, in 1543, the" Assembly of Divines" attempted to revise the Thirty-nine Articles in the interests of Calvinisln, they proposed to substitute "is truly and properly sin"3 for the milder statement of our o\vn Article, \vhic}, it must be confessed, is somewhat am- biguous, and wanting in the precision of both the ROlnall and the Calvinistic statements. The apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin (ration em peccati). It is hard to say exactly \vhat this means. The Tridentine phrase "ratio peccati" is used, but there is nothing about "true and proper nature"; and the Article leaves us uncertain ,vhether it is intended that we should regard concupiscence as truly sin or not. The ambiguity is in all probability designed; 4 nor need \ve regret that we are not called upon to give a more precise account of concupiscence. It is sufficient for us that it is very closely connected \vith sin, and that, if unchecked, it issues in sin. This is the practical n1atter, 1 Canons of the Council of Trent, Session V. Decree on Original Sin. 2 Niemayer, Oollectio Oonfes.. i()n/llm, p. 332; cf. 'Viner, CmifessioTls oJ Ohristendom, p. 109. :3 Neal, History of tlte P'llrilan.r;, vol. iii. p. 560. 4 The Thirteen Articles drawn up in 1538 had, like the Confession of Augsburg, asserted that concupiscence is "vere peccatum." This makes he form of eXI)r('ssion employed in our own Article stil more oticeable, ARTICLE IX 377 and there, with wise Dloderation, those who drew up this Article \vere content to leave it. One other question remains, to \vhich it is not alto- gether easy to return a clear answer. The Article refers to " the Apostle" as saying that concupiscence" hath of itself the nature of sin." To \vhat passage or passages is allusion here nlade ? S. Paul, \vho is evidently meant by "the Apostle," nowhere directly ternlS concupiscence sin (although the Council of Trent maintains that he docs), nor does any phrase corresponding to "ratio pec- cati" occur anywhere in Holy Scripture. On the whole, it appears probable that the passages in the mind of those who penned the Article were such as these, Rom. vi. 12, vii. 8; Gal. v. 16-24, in all of which lust or concupiscence is spoken of as closely connected vv-ith sin. Reference may also be made to the teaching of S. James on the same subject: "Each man is tempted, \vhen he is drawn away of his o\vn lust, and enticed. Then the lust, \vhen it hath conceived, beareth sin; and sin, \vhen it is full gro\vn, bringeth forth death" (i. 14, 15). AltTICLE X Dc LiúC1'O A Tbitrio. Ea cst hominis post lapsum Adæ conditio, ut sese naturalibus suis viribus et bonis operibus ad fidcm ct invocationenl Dci COllvertere ac præparare non possit: Quare absque gratia Dei, quæ per Chris- tum est, nos præveniente, ut velimus, et CO-opf'\:antc dum volu- mus, ad pietatis opera facienùa, quæ Deo grata sint et accepta, nihil valemus. Of Freewill. The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cau- not turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: 'Vherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will. TIlE original .A.rticle of 1553 consisted only of the latter part of our present Article, beginning ,vith the words, "e ,V c have no power," etc.! Its language was evidently suggested by a passage in Augustine's ,york, On Grace and }"rccwill, in which he says that cc \ve have no power to do good works without God working that \ve may have a good ,viII, and co-operating \vhen we have that good ,viII." 2 The clause which now stands first in the .A-\rticle ,vas pl'etìxed in 15ü by Archbishop Parker, being taken by hinl fronl the Confession of "r Ürteluberg. 3 The object of 1 "\V ol"killg 'Leith u It was suLstitnted for" working in us" a a traus- lation of "co-opcrant(>" in I!:J71. De f/ratia ct Libcro AibilTio, xvii.: ,: Sine illo vcl opCralltl ut vclimus vel co-ol'erante cum volumus, ad bonæ l)ietatis opera nihil valern us. n 3 "Quod autcm nonnnlli affirmant homini post lapsum tan tam animi illtcgritatclU l'clictam, ut possit srse natnralibus suis viribus et bonis 378 ARTICLE X 379 the Article of 1553 is to disavow all sympathy with the Anabaptist denial of the absolute need of grace. This is indicated by a passage in the Reforrnatio Le[Jum Þ}cclesiasticaru'ln, in ,vhich, after a condemnation of the revival of the Pelagian heresy of these fanatics, we read: "Et similiter nobis contra illos progrediendum est, qui tan turn in libero arbitrio roboris et nervorum ponunt, ut eo solo sine alia speciali Christi gratia recte ab hominibus vivi posse constituant." 1 But the clause added by Parker from the Confession of Würtemberg seems also designed to condemn the theory of "congruous merit," which will be considered under Article XIII. There are two subjects which call for some consideration in con- nection with this Article- 1. Freewill. 2. The need of Grace. I . F1 ee'll)ill. It \viti be noticed that, although the title is Of Free- will, yet it is scarcely warranted by the substance of the Article that follows, in which freewill in the abstract is neither asserted nor denied. The title, then, of this Article, as of sonle others, is not quite accurate, and a lllore exact one \vould be "of the need of grace." 2 "\Vhat is denied in the Article is the pO'lI)e1 and ability to turn to God and do good works without the assistance of God Himself: \vhat is asserted is the absolute need of grace preventing and co-operating: but of "Freewill" in itself nothing \vhatever is directly said. The statement of the first part of the Article follo,vs operibl1S, ad fidem et iuvocationem Dei convertere ac præparare, haud obscure pugnat cum apostolica doctrina et cum vero ecclesiæ Catholicæ consensu."-Dc Pcccato. See Hardwick, p. 125. 1 De Hæres. c. vii. 2 cr. Forbes On the A1-ticles, p. 152. 380 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES naturally and directly from the view of "original sin" maintained in Article IX. It was there shown that the Church of England regards original sin as no mere " privatio" or loss of higher goodness only; but rather as a "depravatio naturæ," a real corruption of our nature, "whereby luan is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his o,vn nature inclined to evil." If this is true, it follo\vs as a necessary consequence that 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. The position, then, taken up in the Article is that, though the wjll may be left free by God, yet there is in unaided man a lack of power. This is the teaching of the " Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian }'1:an" (1543), with \vhich the Article is in substantial agreement. " Though there remain a certain freedom of the ,vill in those things that do pertain to the desires and works of this present life, yet to perform spiritual and heavenly things, freewill is of itself insufficient; and therefore the power of man's freewill, being thus ,vounded and decayed, hath need of a physician to heal it, and an help to repair it." 1 II. The need of G/race. 'Vhile the Article thus neither affirms nor denies the freedom of the \vill in the abstract, its teaching on the absolute necessity of Divine grace for the perforn1ance of works that are "grata Deo" is clear and decisive. 1 See Forl1utluries of Faith, p. 360. cr. also the Triùentine statement on the subject (Sess. VI. c. i.): "Freewill, attenuated and bent down as it was in its powers, was by no means extinguished." ARTICLE X 381 We have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will. It is especially needful to remember, in studying this Article and those which immediately follow (Xl-XIII.), that they are concerned ,vith God's method of dealing ,vith those who are brought into covenant with Him through Christianity, and that what is said in them has little or no bearing on the case of those who live and die ,vithout ever having heard the gospel of Christ. Their case is not contemplated. Such terms as "faith and calling upon God," "good ,yorks, pleasant and acceptable to God," "grace of God by Christ preventing us . . . and working with us," etc., are expressions which properly refer to Christians; and therefore nothing that is said in these Articles need necessarily raise questions as to the" good ,vorks" of the heathen, and the light in ,vhich they are regarded by God. All that need be said is that they are not ,vhat the Articles call" good ,vorks, pleasant and acceptable to God" (Deo grata et accepta). This phrase, \vhich we meet with here for the first time, is almost a technical one, used for the \vorks of Chris- tians done in a Christian spirit and from Christian motives. Thus it is used in Article XII. of those good works \vhich cc are the fruits of faith, and follo\v after justification." These are said to be "grata Deo et accepta in Christo"; whereas, according to Article XII!., cc works done before the grace of Christ and inspiration of His Spirit" are" minime Deo grata." More ,viII be said on this subject \vhen these Articles are reached. But so much it seemed necessary to say at the outset in connection with the first occurrence of the phrase. To return now to the teaching of the Article before us: It 382 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES sta.tes that twofold grace is needed-( 1) preventing g'race (gratia præveniens), inclining the will to choose the good; 1 and (2) co-operating g'race (gratia co-operans), assisting Ulan to act, when the will has already been inclined to choose the good. The technical phrase "gratia præ- veniens" is apparently due to Augustine, who makes use of it several times,2 and it seems to have been suggested to him by the Latin of Ps. lix. (lviii.) 10: "Deus meus misericordia ejus præveniet me," a text which he quotes freq uently. The term" gratia co-operans " is also his,3 and, like" preventing grace," is based on Scripture. See Phil. ii. 13: "For it is God that worketh (qui operatur) in 'Us both to \vill and to do of His good pleasure"; and compare [So l\Iark] xvi. 20: "The Lord also working with them" (Domino co-operante). On the necessity of both kinds of grace, the teaching of Scripture, which is faith- fully reflected in the Book of Common Prayer,4 as well as the Articles, is clear and definite. The beginning, the middle, and end of man's salvation is influenced by God. } or the need of preventing grace, besides the passage just cited from Phil. ii. 13, it is sufficient to refer to our Lord's own words in S. John vi. 44: " No man can come to l\fe, except the Father which sent 1\1e, draw him," 1 For scholastic teaehing on grace and the divisions into gratia operans and co-operans, as well as into gratia præveniens and subscquens, see Aquinas, S7.tmma Ima 2 æ Q. cxi. 2 Serm. 176, 5; De Nat. et Gratia, 35; Canti'a duas Bpist. II. 21. cr. Bright's Anti-Pelagian Treatises, p. xix. =: De Gratia et L-ibcro Arbitrio, c. xvii. "See the Collect for Easter Day: "Almighty Uod . . . we humbly heseech Thee, that, as by Thy special yrace preventing 'ltS Thou dost put into our minùs good deshes, so by Thy contin'ual help we may bring the same to good efrect." The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity: "Lon}, we pray Thee that Thy gracf' may always prelJe71t and follaw It.' , and make us continually to be given to all good works" ; and the fourth Collect at the end of the Order of Holy Communion: "Prcvent 'us, o Lorù, in all our doings with Thy ?nost grClciO'lts favour and f7.trther 7.lS witli, Thy continuallLclp. It ARTICLE X 383 and to such a phrase as that used in Acts xvi. 14, where the Lord is said to have" opened the heart" of Lydia, "to give heed unto the things \vhich \vere spoken by God." ""'{hile for co-operating grace reference may be Blade to S. Paul's attribution of all that he did, not to himself, but to " the grace of God which was with" hinl (1 Cor. xv. 10; cf. Gal. ii. 20); and to our Lord's teaching in S. John xv. 4, 5: "Abide in :1\1e, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in 1\le. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in :1\1e, and I in hin1, the same beareth much fruit; for apart from :1\1e ye can do nothing." But while we thus, on the one hand, in dependence on the teaching of Scripture, assert the absolute need of grace, and trace everything good in man to the action of Him from whom alone cometh U every good gift, and every perfect boon" (S. James i. 1 7); yet, on the other hand, it is equally necessary to insist, still in fullest harnlony with the teaching of Scripture,-which every- where assumes man's responsibility and power of responding to God's cla.im,-upon the freewill of man; for so only can any sense of human responsibility be developed.! We cannot, indeed, reconcile and harmonise the two counter-truths of freewill and the need of grace; but we can hold them both,2 and place thenl side by side, as S. Paul himself does in the passage already quoted. " "\Yark out your O\\'U salyation \vith fear and 1 ;, There can be no question that S. Paul fully recognises the freedom of the human will. The large part which exhortation plays in his letters is conclusive proof of this."-Sauday and Headlam On the Romans, 1-'. 21G. 2 cr. Augustine, De peccatorfll'J/ Mcritis et rcmissio'JLc, J]. c. xviii.: "[Nature] forbids us so to maintain God's grace as to seem to take away freewill; and, on the other hand, so to assert its liberty as to lay our- selves open to the censure of being ungrateful to the grace of God in the arrogance of our impiety. n 384 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES trembling" (there is man's freedom, for it is idle to tell hinl to " \vork" unless he is free to work or not to work), "for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (there is the need of grace, both preventing and co-operating). The teaching of S. Paul in Rom. vii. shows lllore clearly perhaps than any other passage, the state of the case as regards the freedom of the will, and makes it apparent that, though left free by God, the will of luan has since the Fall been warped in the direction of evil, and thus man finds himself, as it were, under two different and incompatible la\vs. On the one hand, he approves of the law of God, and acknowledges hiInself bound to obey it. On the other, he feels that he is under the dúminion of another law \vhich continually leads him to sin. "To \vill (TÒ OÉ'AEtV) 1 is present with me; but ho\v to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would (& OÉ'A(J)) I do not: but the evil \vhich I would not, that I do. Now, if I do that which I \vould not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good (Trp OÉÀOVTt ÈJ.Lo! 7rotEîv Tb Ka'Aóv), evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another la\v in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members" (vel's. 18-23). This double state or condition in \vhich man finds himself is recognised by heathen poets ètnd moralists. 2 It has in its favour the testimony of facts, 1 It must be noticed that S. Paul does not use the word ßoúXop.aL, whiC'h "lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose and deliberation," but only fJlXfLV, the more emotional word. See Sanùay and Headlam in inc. The lines of Ovid are well knowll- "Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor." So cneca asks: "'Vhat is it which, while we are going one way, drag ARTICLE X 38fi and our natural instincts which lead us while recognising our freedom and moral responsibility to refer everything that is good in us to God. But Scripture alone throws any light on its origin. l\lan's greatness is fallen great- ness. This is the only explanation of the perpetual contrast between man's aspirations and man's achieve- ments, the greatness and nobility of the one, and the lamentable failure of the other. The doctrine of the Fall is the key to the riddle of human nature.! It only remains to point out how this Tenth Article avoids opposite errors in connection with the difficult subject of Grace and Freewill. (a) By its guarded reference to Freewill, which it neither asserts nor denies, it escapes the error into which Luther fell, of using such extreme language on the slavery of the will as practically to amount to a denial of human responsibility. 2 (b) By its direct assertion of the absolute need of grace preventing and co-operating, it avoids the Pelagian heresy revived by the Anabaptists, which denied the necessity of grace and supernatural assistance. (c) The terms in which the need of grace is spoken of are so worded as to avoid altogether the unscriptural views of the Anabaptists, and the exaggerations of the Calvinists, who maintained a theory of "irresistible us another, and impels us thither, from whence we are longing to recede? ""hat is it that struggles with our soul and never permits us to do any- thing Y We vacillate between two opinions: \Ve will nothing freely, nothing perfectly, nothing always."-Ep. Iii. 1 cr. Pascal, Pensées, arts. xviii.-xxii. 2 See the language from his treatise De Se'l''Vo Arrbitrio, quoted in Bishop Browne On the Articles, p. 259: "In is actings towards God, in things pertaining to salvation 01' damnation, man has no freewill, but is the captive, the subject, and the servant, either of the will of God or of Satan. " "If we believe that God foreknows and predestinates everything . . . then it follows that there can be no such thing as freewill in man Of angel or any other Cl'eature." 38G 'fIlE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES grace." 1 Such views were still more effectually excluded by the Tenth Article of 1553, which was headed "Of Grace," and follo\vcd the one before us. Dc Gratirr. Gratia Christi, seu Spiritus Sanctus lJ. ui per cundcm datur, cor lapideum aufcrt, ct dat cor carneUlll. Atque Heet ex nolentibus quæ recta sunt volentes faciat, et ex volenti- bus prava, nolentes reddat, volun. tati nihilominus violelltiam nullaIh infert. Et nemo hac de causa cum peccavcrit, seipsum excusare potest, quasi nolens aut coactus peccavcrit, ut earn ob causam accusari non mereatur aut damnari. Of Gracc. 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 that have no will to good things, He maketh them to will, and those that would evil things, He maketh them not to will tho sa1ue: yet l1evertheless Ho cn- forceth not the will. And therefore no nlan when lIe sinneth cau excuse himself, as not worthy to be blamed or condemned, by alleging that ho sinned unwillingly or by compulsion. This ,vas certainly primarily aimed at some among the Anabaptists who" seem to have been pushing their belief in absolute predestination to such frightful lengths that human actions were esteemed involuntary, and the cvil choice of man ascribed to a necessitating fiat of his laker." 2 Its omission by Arch bishop Parker in the revision of 1563 is probably due to the less formidable character of the danger of Anabaptism at that time. But it is possible that Parker was influenced by the fact that the Article was likely to be displeasing to some of the 1farian exiles, who had returned to England with strong predilections in favour oi Calvinism, and whonl it 1 This is closely connected with Calvin's teaching on Predestination, which will be considered below under Article XVII. 2 Hardwick, p. 99. Cf. the letter of Bishop Hooper (quoted in vol. i. p. 22), where it is said of the Anabaptists that" they maintain a fatal necessity, and that beyond and beside tllat will of His, which He has r('vcaled to us in the Scriptures, God hath another will, hy whi('h He altogether acts undcr some kind of necessity." ARTICLE X 387 was desired to retain in the Church. The excision of the Article \vould remove a stumbling-block from their path, as there is nothing in our present Article to which they could take exception, though froll1 their point of vie,v they might consider that its statements required su pplemen ting. ARTICLE XI De Hominis Justíficatíone. Tantum propter meritulll Domini ac servatoris nostri J esu Christi, per fidem, non propter opera et merita llostra, justi coram Deo reputamur: quare sola fiùe nos jl1stificari, doctrina est saluberrima, ac consolationis plenissima: ut in Homilia de justificatione hominis fusius explicatur. Of the J'ltsUficaUon qf lrI an. 'Ve are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or de- servings: 'Vherefore, that we arc justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is ex- pressed in the Homily of Justi- fica tion. I its present forD1 this Article dates from the Eliza- bethan revision in 1563. The Edwardian Article on the same subject was much less explicit: "Justification by 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 finally drawn up by Parker, is indebted for some of its phrases to the Confessions of Augsburg and Würtemberg. In the latter of these documents 'we find these words: "Homo enim fit Deo acceptus, et 'repzdatur coram eo Justus propter solum Filium Dei, lJo1nin'll'ln nost'}'U/ln Jesum Christu'ìn, per fidern"; 1 \vhile in the former \ve read as follows: "Item docent quod homines non possunt j ustificari co'ra1n fleo prrop'riis viribus, mcritis aut ope1'ibus, sed gratis justificentur propter Ghrist1l.m, per fide'ln, cum credunt se in gratiam recipi, et peccata remitti propter Christum, qui sua morte pro nostris peccatis satisfecit. Hanc fidem imputat Deus 1 De Justificationc. Sf'C Hardwick, p. 125. 3S ARTICLE XI 389 pro justitia coram ipso, ROln. iii. et iv." 1 And again: " Ut hanc fidem consequamur, institutum est ministerium docendi Evangelii et porrigendi sacramenta. N am per verbum et sacramenta, tanquam per instrumenta, donatur Spiritus Sanctus, qui fidem efficit, ubi et quando visum est Deo, in iis qui audiunt evangelium, scilicet, quod Deus non propter nostra 'lnerita, sed propter Christurn jù.stificet hos, qui credunt se propter Christum in gratiam recipi." 2 The expressions placed in italics in these extracts \viU show how far the Article is indebted to Lutheran sources. But \vhile it is undeniable that Parker did to some extent borrow from these documents, yet it is significant that he stopped short, and did not transfer to the Anglican formulary what has been aptly termed "the peculiar symbol of Lutheranism," 3 viz. the statement that a man is justified ,vhen he believes himself to be justified,-an expression which occurs in these or almost identical words no fewer than seven times in the Confession of Augs burg. The object of the Article is to state the mind of the Church of England on the subject of man's justification, which was regarded in some quarters as the "articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ," and which had unhappilr given occasion for some of the worst excesses and extravagances of teaching \vhich marked the course of the Reformation. The subjects \vhich call for consideration in order to a right understanding of the Article are these- 1. Justification, its meaning and relation to Sancti- fication. 1 Conf. A ugustana, art. i v. Syllogc Confessio 1 'tum, p. 124. 2 lb. art. v. :I Forbes On the Articles, p. 182. \Vhat makes the omission the more remarkable is the fact that the expression is actually contained in the fourth Article "De J ustificatione" agreeù upon by the Conference of Anglicans anù Lutherans in 1538. See Hardwick, p. 26:3. 26 390 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES 2. The nleritorious cause of Justification. 3. The instrument or formal cause of Justification. 4. The" Ilomily of Justification." T. Jl1stification, its 1neaning and rrelation to Sanctification. The Article treats as convertible terms the expressions " to be accounted righteous" (justus reputari) and "to be justified" (justificari). We are accounted righteous . . . by faith. . . . Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine. Both phrases are founded 011 the language of Holy Scripture. The former is based on Gen. xv. 6: "Abrahanl believed God, and it ,vas accounted unto him for righteousness" (LXX. È7ríaTEvG"E ... e A ,,"\. ' 8 ,... 't' , VI TfP EfP Kail E/\'oryLa 7] aVTfP ELS otKatoaVV7]v ; U g. Credidit Deo et reputatll1n est illi ad justitiam). FrOln this passage the phrase is adopted by S. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, c. iv., and throughout this chapter the Greek ÀoryuJ"01jvat Elç ðtKatOaVVl}v is always rendered by the Vulgate" ad justitiam reputari" (see vel'. 3, 5, 9, 11, 22, 23; and cf. Gal. iü. 6; S. James ü. 23). Justificari, " to be justified," is also the invariable Latin equivalent for ðtKatOûCTOat,-a verb which (in the active or passive) occurs nearly thirty times in S. Paul's Epistles, although used but rarely elsewhere in the New Testament. To discover the meaning of justification it is therefore necessary to examine and determine the sense in which ðtKatOvv and DtKatOûaBat are used in Scripture. (a) In the Old Testament the active voice is used by the LXX. as the translation of the Hebrew i''1':1 in a judicial or (( forensic" sense: to" do right to a person," i.e. to do justice to his cause, and so to acquit (see Ex. xxiü. 7; Deut. xxv. 1: 2 Sam. xv. 4; 1 Kings viii. 32; 2 Chr. vi. 3; Ps. lxxxii. (lxxxi.) 3; Is. ARTICLE XI 391 v. 23, 1. 8, liii. 11; Jer. iii. 11; Ezek. xvi. 51,52); in other worùs, its meaning is not to "make a person righteous," but to "nlake hin1 out righteouf3," or to "treat hiln as righteous." 1 But in itself the \vol'd indicates nothing as to \vhether he is or is not righteous. So in the passive, a person is said to be "justified" when he is regarded as righteous, held "not guilty," or acquitted (see Gen. xliv. 16; Job xxxiii. 32; Ps. Ii. (I.) 5, cxliii. (cxlii.) 2; Is. xliii. 9, 26, xlv. 25). (b) In the ew Testament outside the Epistles of S. Paul the word is not of frequent occurrence, but \vherever it is found (eleven tinles in all 2) its meaning is just the saIne. "Wisdom is Justified by her \vorks" (S. l\fatt. xi. 19; cf. S. Luke vii. 35), i.e. not "made righteous," but 'rincliÆated, pro'Ved to be righteous. In S. l\fatt. xii. 37 it is opposed to" condemned," and thus is equivalent to "acquitted." " By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy \vords thou shalt be condemned." The la\vyer, willing to justify himself, says: "And who is IHY neighbour?" \vhere the meaning evidently is to vindicate himself, or make himself out to be righteous (S. Luke x. 29; cf. xvi. 15). The publican" went do\vn to his house justified rather than" the Pharisee (S. Luke xviii. 14). These are representative instances, and 1 This is quite in accordance with the classical use of the word, and with what might be expected from the formation of the word. " How can OLKaLOÛV possibly signify to make 'righteous 1 Verbs, indeed, of this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use, e.g. TV4>ÀOÛV, " to make blind." But when such words are derived from adjectives of ?lwral meaning, as å LOÛV, Ó'TLOÛV, oLKaLOûv, they do by usage, and must from the nature of things signify to dce'ilt, to aceo'unt, to pJ'OVC, or to t,.cat as worthy, holy, righteous." The Speaker s Commentary on 1 Cor. vi. 11, quoted in SalJday and Headlam Ún tile Romans, p. 30. 2 S. :Matt. xi. 19, xii. 37; S. Luke yii. 29, 35, x. 29, xvi. 15, xviii. ]4; Acts xiii. 39; S. James ii. 21, 24, 25. In Rev. xxii. 11, which is sometimes cited for the meaning of infusing righteousness, the reading is really oLKaLOUÚv1]v 7roL1]uáTW. 392 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES establish the meaning of the word outside S. l}aul's \vritil1gs. But as the phrase" to be justified by faith" is due to him, it becornes necessary to examine further into his usage of the word. It is employed in his Epistles altogether t\venty-five times; 1 and while in some cases it is unanlbiguous and 1nust mean treat as rrighteous, and so (in the case of the guilty) pardon and acquit, in no single instance can the meaning of "'Jnake righteous" be established for it. This staternent is one that can easily be verified, and therefore only a fe\v exarnples need be citpd here. " To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to hinl that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justijieth the ungodly, his f,tith is reckoned for righteousness" (RODI. iv. 4, 5). " All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God: being justified freely by His grace, through the redelnption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. iii. 23, 24). " With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment; yea, I judge not mine own self. For I kno\v nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but He that judgeth me is the Lord" (1 Cor. iv. 3, 4). In 1 Tim. iii. 16 the ,vord is used of Christ, \vho was" manifested in the flesh, iustified in the spirit." Fl'Oln these examples the meaning of the \vord may be ascertained without difficulty. It is regularly employed of the sentence or verdict pronounced on a man by God, and does not in itself tell us whether the person over whom the sentence is pronounced is really l ighteous or not. When a man is justified he is "accounted righteous," or regarded as righteous. This leaùs to the inquiry, wILen is a man" justified" ? 1 Rom. ii. 13, iii. 4, 20, 23, 24, 2G, 28, 30, iv. 2, 5, v. 1, 9, vi. 7, viii. 30, 33; 1 Cor. iv. 4, vi. 11; Gat ii. IG, 17, iii. 8, 11, 24, v. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Titw; iii. 7. ARTICLE XI 39H .A.uel thiH raise the whole question of the relation of justification to sanctification. Sanctifieo and sanctificatio are in the Vulgate the regular equivalent of áry(,á E('V and åryVt'EtV, and of ú",íauJ.'or; and úry(,(j)UVV7J, ,vords which are all directly connected with the idea of 'inaking holy. Thus sancti- fication is a gradual work, the being really made holy in ourselves by the working of God's Holy Spirit in us. To " grow in grace" is to be sanctified. The question, then, to be decided is not whether obedience and good works are necessary for salvation, not whether sanctifica- tion is required, but at what point in the Christian life is the act of justification to be placed? in other words, the question is whether a nlan is first Inade righteous (sanctified) by God, and then declared to be 80 (justified) ; or whether God as it were antwipates what the man will become, and on his repentance accepts him, and for Christ's sake pronounces him" not guilty," the Divine verdict of acquittal running (as it has been said) in advance of the actual practice of righteousness. In the early Church the question was not raised, as the subject of man's justification never came into con- troversy. But after the rise of Pelagianism it acquired a fresh importance, and assumed a new prominence, owing to the Pelagian assertion of human merit apart from grace; and in the writings of Augustine, \vhile against Pelagianism the absolute need of grace, and the freeness of God's gift of salvation, is fully vindicated, the notion that justifico means to make righteous, and that justifica- tion is therefore an infusion of grace, can clearly be traced. 1 This thought was further developed by the 1 In De Spirit'it et Litera, 45, Augustine admits that justifico may mean "reckon just," but practically his whole theory is that of an infusion of the grace of faith by which men are made just." Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 150, wllere these quotations are given; De 394 THE TIIIRTY'-NINE ARTICLES r schoohnen in the l\Iiddle Ages, and justification was defined as not only forgiveness of sins, but also an infusion of grace; and thus it \vas practically made to include sanctification,l- a vic\v \vhich 'was final]y endorsed by the Council of Trent. The subject ,vas considered at the sixth session of the Couucil held in January 1547, and justification \vas decreed to be "not merely the relnission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby man from unjust becomes just, from an enemy a friend, that so he lllay be an heir according to the hope of eternal life." It \vas also stated that (1) the final cause of justification is the glory of God and of Christ and eternal life; (2) the efficient cause is the Il.Jrciful God; (3) the 'Jnc1'itorious cause is the Lord Jesus Christ, Who merited justification for us by His Passion; ( 4) the inst1.'llmental cause is the sacramen t of ba ptism, "w hich is the sacramen t of faith, \vithout which justification never befell any nlan": ([)) the f01 1nal cause is the righteousness (justitia) of God \vith \vhich we are endo\ved by Him. 2 Further, the Spirit'it et Litera, 18: "Hæc est justitia Dei quæ in Testamento Yetcri ,. elata , in Novo revelatur: quæ ideo justitia Dei dicitur quod impcrtiendo cam j'llStos facit." Enarratio, 6: "Credenti inquit in eum qui justificat impium, deputatur fides ejus ad justitiam si justificatur impius eæ 'irnpio fit just'llS." 1 Sce the S1.lmma of Aquinas, 1 ma 2 æ Q. cxiii. 2. "Justificatio . . . non est sola peccatorum l'emissio, sed et sanctificatio ct renovatio intel'ioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiæ et dOllorum. Unde homo ex injusto fit jlHtus, et ex inimico amicus, ut sit hæres secundum spem vitæ æternæ. Hujus justificationis causæ sunt, tìnalis quidem, glol'ia Dei et Christi, ac vita æterna: efficiens vero misericorda Deus, . . . meritoria autem dilectissimus unigenitus suus, Dominus nostel" Jesus Christus, qui cum essemus inimici proper nimiam charitatem, qua diIcxit nos, sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis justificationcm meruit, et pro nobis Deo satisfecit: instrumcnta.lis itcm, S:lcramentum ßa.ptiRmi, quod est sacramcntum fidei, sine qua ulli nunquam cOlltigit justificatio: ùemum uui('a formalis causa est justitia ARTICLE XI 395 eleventh Canon passed at the sanle session anathematizes " any \vho shall say that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and is inherent in then1." 1 Thus according to the ROl1lan vie\v justification il1cludes sanctification. On the other hand, as is well kno\vn, Luther and the Reformers generally insisted very strongly and even vehemently on the distinction between justification and sanctification, and on the forensic mean- ing to be given to the former. According to them, justification is the initial blessing, \vhen God receives the repentant sinner, pardons, and accepts him. And on this point an examination of S. Paul's usage of the word makes it clear that they \vere right. The A postle certainly does distinguish between justification and sanctification, and uses the former word, not for final salvation, nor for infused holiness, but, as the Reformers insisted, for the initial blessing, when God accepts a man and, pardoning hÏ1l1, or "not inlputing his sins to him," at the outset, treats him as "not guilty." "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ronl. iii. 23, 24; cf. iv. 5, \vhere God is said to justify TÒV àUEßf]). To be justified, according to him, is to be pardoned and accepted; to be taken in to Dei, non qua Ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati, renovamur Spiritu mentis nostræ, et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur, et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes." -Cone. Trid., Sess. Y1. c. vii. 1 "Si quis dixcrit homines justificari, vel sola imputatione justitiæ Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et charitate, quæ in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur, atque iBis inhæreat; aut etiam gratiam qua justificamur esse tantum favorem Dei; anathema sit."-lb. canon xi. 396 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES God'8 favour all sinful and unworthy as ".e are: and justification, according to this view, contains these two ideas, (1) pardon for sin, and (2) a right and title to eternal life founded upon promise; but the idea of an infused righteousness is not contained in the term. "Being made free from sin "-there is justification- " ye have your fruit unto holiness "-there is sanctifica- tion, distinct from justification, but not independent of it. On the whole, then, it may be safely said that if \ve are to follo\v the teaching and language of S. Paul we must at least in thought distinguish between these two blessings, the one (justification) the work of the Son of God for us, the other (sanctification) the work of the Holy Spirit w tJhin us; and so distinguishing them, must hold that in the order of the Christian life justification J?1.ecedes sanctification. In the words of S. Chrysostom, God" crowns us at the outset, making the contest light to us." 1 And if it be said that this introduces into God's dealings with us an element of unreality, man being regarded as righteous when he is not really so, and Christ's merits being "imputed" to him by a sort of legal fiction, it may be replied that there is no more unreality or fiction necessarily involved than is implied in all pardon, since the forgiveness of any wrong implies the treating of the doer of it as "not guilty." 2 But 1 110m. in Rom. xiii. 2 "There is something sufficiently startling in this. The Christian life is made to have its beginning in a fiction. No wonder that the fact is questioned, and that another sense is given to the words - that ðLKaLOÛlT8aL is taken to imply, not the attribution of righteousness in idea, but an imparting of actual righteousuess. The facts of language, how- ever, are inexorable: we have seen that ðLKaLoûv, ðLKaLOÛlT8aL have the first sense and not the second; that they are rightly said to be "forensic" ; that they have reference to a judicial verdict, and to nothing beyond. To this conclusion we feel bound to adhere, even though it should foHow that tl1P state descrihed iq (if we are prrssed) a fiction, that God is ARTICLE XI 97 \Vhell so much has beeu said, and the two blessings have been thus distinguished in thought and assigned definite theological names, it must never be forgotten that in actual life they are inseparable. In thp order of thought justification precedes sanctification. But together the blessings stand or fall. If a man is justified we may be sure that he is being sanctified, ho\vever imperfect his condition may be. If he is not being sanctified, he has fallen from his state of grace, and can no longer be regarded as " justified." II. The 1neritorious Cause of Justification. On this point the teaching of the Article is clear and distinct. The meritorious cause of our justification is the atoning work of Christ. Weare accounted right- eous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (propter meriturll Domini, etc.), . . . and not for our own works or deservings (non propter opera et merita nostra). It will be observed that the same preposition, "for" (propter), is used in both clauses, whereas \vhen faith is Inentioned in connection with justification an entirely different preposition, cc by" (per), is employed. It is regarded as dealing with men rather by the iJeal standard of what tbey may be than by the actual standard of wbat they are. \Vhat this means is, that when a man makes a great change, such as that which the first Christians made when they embraced Christianity, he is allowed to start on his career with a clean record; his sin-stained past is not reckoned against him. The change is the great thing; it is that at which God looks. As with the prodigal son in the parable, the breakdown of his pride and rebellion in the one cry, "Father, I llave sinned," is enough. The father does not wait to be gracious. Hc does not put him upon a long term of probation, but reinstates 11im at once in the full privilege of sonship. The justifying verdict is nothing more than tbe "Lest 1'01)(' ,. and the "ring" and the "fatted calf" of Ule paraùIe {Luke xv. 22 f.)." -Sanday and H eadIam On the Romans, p. 3C. 39R TI-IE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES inlportant to d\vell on this, because it sho\vs that the real antithesis in the Article (as in Scripture) is not bet\veen faith and works, but between the merit and \vork of our Saviour and human merit and \vork, i.e. between receiving salvation as God's free gift, and ea'i'ning it by our o\vn efforts. That the meritorious cause of justification is the merit and atoning work of our Saviour, is recognised as fully and frankly by the Church of Rome as it is by the Church of England; and indeed it is hard to see how it can be questioned theoretically by any except those who would deny altogether the need of the atonement. And yet there can be no doubt that p'ractically the medieval system did tend to make men rely on their ('wn merits as the cause of their justifi- cation,! and lell to the notion that they could eaTn it by what they did; \vhile in the opposite quarter there are traces of the same error among some of the Anabaptists. 2 This error, it is to be hoped, has entirely passed away at the present day; and we may there- fore proceed at once to the next subject that demands considera tion. lIT. The Inst'rll'fllent or formal Cause of ,Iustification. This the Article asserts to be faith. We are 1 So in the Article " Of Rites and Ceremonies," in the Ten Articles of 1536 after an enumeration of a number of" laudable customs, rites, and ceremonies not to be condemned anù cast away, but to be used and continued," it was felt to be necessary to add the reminder, that" none of these ceremonies have power to remiL sin, but only to stir and lift up our minds unto God, by whom only our sins are forgiven." -Form'ltla"1'its (if Fltith, p. 16. 2 "They [the Anabaptists] boste themselues to be ryghtuous and to I-lease God, not purely and absolutely for Christes sake, but for theyI' ownc mortification of themselues, for theyr owne good workes aud persecucion, if they suffle any."-Hermanll's Consultation, fo1. cx1ii. (English translation of 1548), quoterl in Hardwick, p. 99. ARTICLE XI 399 accounted righteous . . . by 1 faith (per tidern). . . . Wherefore that we are justified by faith only (sola fide) is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort. There are several Inatters here which require elucida- tion- (et) The meaning of " faith." (b) The meaning of the expression" \ve are justified by faith only." (c) The reason \vhy faith is the instrument of justifi- cation. (a) The meetning of "fetith." - There is no Hebrew \vord exactly answering to our ternl" faith." The verb signifying to believe, to trust, is ;" , which the LXX. habitually render by 7rUITEíJ(;tV, from the important passage, Gen. xv. 6, onwards: "Abraham believed God, and it \vas counted to hinl for righteousness" (LXX. Ka È7rlUTEVUEV ' AßpaàfL Tlp BErfj Kaì ÈÀoryluO'1] aÙTcp Eic; ÔtKatOUVv'1]v). This is one of the t\VO great passages on \vhich S. Paul bases his doctrine of justifica- tion by faith. But there is in Hebrew no substantive meaning faith as an active principle, i.e. trustfulness, or the frame of mind \vhich relies upon another. The nearest approach is found in i1 , firmness or con- stancy, which is variously rendered by the LXX. àÀ OELa, , b d .., 0 ' "1: ' 7rtUTtC;, or y an a Jectlve, uÀ'1J tVOC;, 7rtUTOC;, ast07rI,UTOC;. The \vord, ho\vever, is rather passive than active, signi- fying tTustworthiness, or the frame of mind that can be relied on; although in Hab. ii. 4 (S. Paul's other great text) it seems to ha ve a double or "transitional" 1 " By" in old English is ordinarily equivalent to "through. II Cf. Lightfoot On Revisioll, p. 119: "Where in common language we now say 'by' and 'through' (i.e. by means of) respectively, our translators, following the diction of their age, generally use' of' and' by' respectively; 'of' denoting the agent (Ú1rÓ), amI' by' the instrument or means (oed)." 400 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES sense. " The just shall live by faith" (LXX. ó öÈ öí"atór;; /-LOU È/l ",.luTEwr;; (}"ETat). Here it is hard to say ,vhether i1: and 7ríuTtr;; represent "trustfulness" (active) or " trustworthiness " (passive): in fact, the t\VO ideas seem to be blended together. But when we pass from the Old Testament to the New, we find WlCTTIS definitely stamped with the active sense, and as a Christian virtue it has the meaning of trust or be lief. ! Still it is employed \vith considerable variations of meaning, from the bare sense of "belief" or intellectual assent, as when S. James says that "the devils believe (WtCTTEVOVCTt) and tremble" (S. James ii. 19), rising to that" faith which worketh by love" (wítJ"Ttr;; ðt' àrya7rÎJr;; ÈVEpryOVj.tÉv1J, Gal. v. 6), to which all the chievements of the Old Testament saints are attributed in Heb. xi. This last is the sense in \vhich it is ordinarily used by S. Paul; and since he is the apostle who speaks of man being" justified by faith," it is evident that this is the sense in \vhich the word is to be understood in the Article. Faith, then, is a prin- ciple of trust and reliance on God and His promises, which leads to practical action and issues in good \vorks. 2 (b) The meaning of the expression "we are justified by faith only."-This faith the Article asserts to be the instrument of our justification. 1 See Bishop Lightfoot On Galatians, p. 152 seq., "Excursus on the 'Vords denoting Faith," from which the above is mainly taken; and cr. Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p 31 seq. 2 "The centre and mainspring of this higher form of faith is defined more exactly as 'faith in Jesus Christ,' Rom. iii. 22, 26. This is the crowning and characteristic sense with S. })aul; and it is really this which he has in view wherever he ascribes to faith the decisive signifi- cance which he does ascribe to it, even though the object is not expressed (as in i. 17, iii. 27 if., v. 1, 2). We have seen that it is not -....erely assent or adhesion, but enthusiastir adhesion, perRonal adlwsion: the laighest and most effective motive power of which human chal'acteI' is capable. "-Sauday and Headlam, 'Ubi supra. ARTICLE XI 401 Weare accounted righteous by faith (per fidem). The expression is strictly J3iblical, and is dra,vll from TIom. iii. 28-30: "We reckon that a l1lan is justified by faith (-rríUTft, Vulg. per fidem) apart from the works of the law. . . . He shall justify the circulncision by faith (f" -rríUTfWf)) and the uncircumcision through faith" (ôut 7ijf) -rríU7fWf), Vulg. per fide1n); cf. Gal. ii. 16. Thus the Article keeps close to the actual language of the Apostle, and assigns to faith no other position than that of an instrument. Luther unhappily ,vas not ahvays so careful, and actually used language which would imply that faith was the meritorious cause of justification; asserting-what Holy Scripture never says-that we are justified on account of (propter) faith.! In such language, it is perhaps needless to say, the Church of England has never followed him. But the Article is not content ,vith assigning to faith the position of an instrument; it speaks of it as if it \vere the sole instrument. " Weare justified by faith only" (sola fide). This expression, it must be admitted, is not contained directly in Scripture. But that faith is (in some sense) the sole instrument may be fairly inferred from the passage quoted above from Rom. iü. 28, where S. Paul speaks of men being C( justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Compare also Rom. iv. 2-5, ix. 30; Gal. ii. 16, iii. 5 seq. In these passages the Apostle does not merely speak of faith as instrumental in justification, but expressly excludes ",vorks." On the other hand, S. James in his Epistle expressly includes "works," and denies that man is justified by "faith only" (fK -rr{UTfW\) jLÓVOV, V ulg. ex fide tantunl), c. ii. 14-26: "What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not ,yorks? can 1 See his Comment. 011 Gal. ii. 16, iii. 6. 402 THE TIIIRTY-NINE ARTICLES that faith save him? If a brother or a sister be naked, and ill lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye \varmed and filled; and yet ye give thenl not the things needful to the body, what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a nlan will say, Thou hast faith, aud I have \vorks; show me thy faith apart froDl thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the devils also believe and shudder. But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not AbrahaDl our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by \vorks ,vas his faith made perfect; and the 8criptlLre ,vas fulfilled ,vhich saith, And AbrahaIll believed God, and it ,vas reckoned unto hiDl for righteous- ness: and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Anrl in like manner, ,vas not l{ahab the harlot justified by \vorks, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the body apart fronl the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from \vorks is dead." This passage, as far as words are concerned, is certainly contrary to the teaching of S. Paul in the passages referred to above, especially Rom. iv., where the case of ..Abraham is considered, and his justification ascribed to faith and not works; and compare Heb. xi. 17, 31, where the faith of Rahab as well as of Abraham is praised. But though the words are lifferent, yet the teaching of the t,vo Apostles is identical. Their reconciliation 11lay be established by pointing out- 1. The di.fJerent senses which they give to 7T{u'Tls.-Ill S. James it is merely intellectual assent, an affair of the It-ead, not of the heart. The devils" believe" (7T'UT'Tf.VOVUt). In S. Paul, on the contrary, it is 7T'íU'Ttç; Ôt' årya7T'T]c; ARTICLE XI 403 ÈVEpryOVj.LÉV'1}, a "faith that worketh by love" (Gal. v. 6); and according to him, "with the Aeart n1an believeth (7rLUTEúETaL) unto righ teousness" (Rom. x. 10). 2. The different senses which they give to Ëprya.- In S. Paul's writings this word, standing \vithout any quali- fying adjective, is always used in a dep1 eciatory sense. When he would speak of works which are intrinsicaHy good, he adds the qualifying adjective KaÀá or àryaÐá (see llom. ii. 7, xiii. 3; 2 Cor. ix. 8; Eph. ii. 10, etc.). It is, ho\vever, of such good 'works that S. J ames is speaking,-\vorks which are really included in that faith which is defined as one \vhich" vJorketh by love." 3. TILe different er1'm's before the Apostlcs.-S. Paul, in contending against a self-righteous Pharisaism, \vhich boasted of its "works," vehemently denies that such " works" can aid in nIan's justification. S. J ames, on the contrary, has before him the case of those \vho thought that a barren orthodoxy was sufficient, and looked for justification from the correctness of their creed. To them he therefore says that such a faith, apart from works, is dead. There is, then, no real contradiction between the teaching of the two Apostles; and it is providential that both sides of the truth are thus stated in Scripture. The Epistle of S. James forms a valuable safeguard against the errors of the "Solifidians," who, resting on faith only (sola fides), denied altogether the need of good works; \vhile the teaching of S. Paul breaks down, once for all, all human claim to a reward.! Returning now to the subject of faith as the instru- Illent of justification, the question has to be asked: 111 1 See, further, Lightfoot O'lll the Galatians, p.162; Sandayand Headlam On the Romans, p. 102 seq. ; and :Mayor On S. Janus, p. lxxxvii seq., and 204. 404 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES \vhat sense is it the sole instrument of justification? i.e. ùoes it exclude good works, or the sacraments of the gospel? With regard to the latter, if the description of justifi- cation given above is correct, and it includes (1) pardon of sin, and (2) a right and title to eternal life grounded on promise, then beyond all question it is granted in baptism: accordingly divines have frequently spoken of " first justification" as granted in it. It would perhaps be better to say tbat the exclusive term "alone," when \ve say that we are justified by faith alone, is only meant to exclude any other instrument on man's part for receiving, and is not intended to exclude God's instru- ments for bestowing justification. Thus faith is as it \vere the hand, and the only hand, which man can stretch forth to receive the blessing; while the sacraments of the gospel may be regarded as tbe channels through which God conveys the blessing to the faithful soul that is able to receive it. 'Vïth regard to good works the statement of the Article, that we are justified by faith only, is not meant in any way to exclude the necessity of good works, but only to shut theln out from the office of justifying. That this is all that is intended is made perfectly clear by the statements of the HOlnily, to which the Article expressly refers us, as may be seen from the extracts quoted below in the next section. Repentance and obedience are necessary conditions or qualifications, but they are not the instruments for obtainin 6 justification. Similarly, for a beneficial reception of the Holy Eucharist, charity is a necessary qualification; but" the means whereby the ] ody of Christ is receiveù is faith." (c) The reason 'why fwíth is the instruflunt of iustifi- cation.-It may be said without irreverence that the reason \vhy, in God's lllethod of salvation, faith is selected ARTICLE XI 405 for this office is not because there is any special virtue in it, or because it is the greatest of all Christian graces, for charity is greater (1 Cor. xiii. 2, 13), but because faith is peculiarly fit for this particular office, since there is in it that element of self-surrender, of trust, confidence, and reliance on another, which necessarily excludes all reliance on self and our own merits. Had we been justified by something else, as love, there would have been the possibility of reliance on self, and the notion of earning salvation would not have been in the same ,yay shut out. Further, it is faith which enables us to realise the unseen. I t is "the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen" (Heb. xi. 1); and thus it makes things distant become near, and admits them to close elnbraces. Before passing on to the next section, it may be well to call attention to the fact that the Article maintains a wise silence on more than one subject connected ,vith the doctrine of justification by faith, which was keenly disputed between the Romans and Lutherans in the sixteenth century. It has already been mentioned that the Article, seemingly of set purpose, ignores the Lutheran statement (condemned by the Council of Trent 1) that a man is justified if he believes hin1self to be justified; but besides this there are two important lnatters on ,vhich the Article is markedly silent, (1) the question of the presence or absence of charity in justifying faith, and (2) the theory of an "imputed" righteousness. The first of these subjects \vas keenly debated at the tinle of the Reformation. The school- 1 "If anyone shall say that a man is absolveù from his sins and justified because he assuredly believes himself to be absolved and justified; or that no one is truly justified save 118 who believes himself to be justified; and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are perfected: let llim be anathema." -8ess. VI. canon xiv. 27 406 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Jllen in their teaching on justification had drawn a distinction between H fides inforlnis," a bare faith, and (( fides formata," a faith informed by charity,1 and had maintained that the latter alone is instrumental in justifying. In this they are naturally followed by the Tridentine divines. 2 Luther, on the other hand, while accepting the distinction thus drawn, insisted that it is (( fides inform is 11 which justifies, and argues that to say the contrary is to maintain justification by works. 3 The whole question is wisely ignored in the Article, though the Homily says pointedly that love is not excluded, but is U joined with faith in every man that is justified." The second subject mentioned above, the theory of an " imputed" righteousness, is developed by Luther in his commen tary on the Epistle to the Galatians. According to it, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and our sins are imputed to Him. It is in connection with this that the notion of a H legal fiction" comes into most prominence, and it is difficult to free the theory as it is maintained by Protestant divines from the charge of unreality. But as (like the points just noticed) there is not a ,vord concerning it in our o\vn Article, there is no need to consider the subject further here. 1 See Aquinas, Sum'111ß, III. Q. xlix. art. 1: "Fides autem, per quam a peccato mundatur, non est fides informis, quæ potest esse etiam cum peccato, sed est fides formata per charitatem, ut sic passis Christi nobis applicatur, non solum quantum ad intelleëtum, sed etiam quantum ad effectum. Et per hunc etiam modum peccata. dimittulltur et virtute passionis Christi." Cf. 1 ma 2 æ Q. cxiii. art. 4; and see Neander, Ohurch HistQT1J, vol. viii. pp. 220, 221, and :hloehler, Syrnbolis'1IL, p. 118. 2 Sess. VI. canon xi. :I Comnwntary on Galatia/1l,s, ii. 17. ARTICLE XI 407 IV. The Hontily of JlIstification. It only reillains to say a word or t\VO on the Homily of J ustiflcation, to \vhich the Article refers us for fuller treatJnent of the subject. On turning to the Books of the Homilies, however, \ve find that there exists no homily with this title! That which is evidently referred to is the" Homily of Salvation," contained in the first book; together with which should be read the two following 011es "Of the True and lively Faith" and "Of Good 'V orks." In reading these the student is especially recommended to notice the emphatic way in \vhich the writer insists (1) that faith alone has the office of justifying, (2) that good works are necessary, and (3) that faith has no merit any more than any other graces or good works. A fe\v quotations shall be added by way of specimens. "Faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every luan that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not all together. N or that faith also doth not shut out the justice of our good \vorks, necessarily to be done afterward of duty to\vards God (for we are most bounded to serve God in doing good deeds commanded by him in his holy Scripture all the days of our life); but it excludeth them so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made good by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do be imperfect, and there- fore not able to deserve our justification; but our justification doth come freely, by the mere mercy of God; and of so great and free mercy that, whereas all the world was not able of theirselves to pay any part to\vards their ransonl, it l)lcased our heavenly Father, of 408 THE TI-fIRTY-NINE ARTICLES his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ's body and blood, \vhereby our ranS0111 might be fully paid, the la\v fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied." Again: cc This sentence, that \ve be justified by faith only, is not so 111ea,nt of thelIl [nalnely, the ancient \vriters, Greek and Latin] that the said justifying faith is alone in D1an, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and fear of God, at any time or season. Nor \vhen they say that \ve be justified freely, they mean not that \ve should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be req uired on our parts after\vard: neither they Inean not so to be justified \vithout our good \vorks J-hat \ve should do no good works at all, like as shall be more expressed at large hereafter. But this saying, that \ve be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all Inerit of our \vorks, as being unable to deserve our justification at God's hands; and thereby most plainly to express the \veakness of Inan and the goodness of God, the imperfectness of our o\vn works, and the nlost aLundant grace of our Saviour Christ; and thereby \vholly for to ascribe the 111erit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only and his most precious bloodshedding. " ....t\.nd once more: "The true understanding of this doctrine-We be justified freely by faith \vithout \vorks, or that \ve be justified by faith in Christ only-is not that this our o\vn act, to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ, which is \vithin us, doth justify us and deserve our justification unto us; for that \vere to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue that is within ourselves. 13ut the true understanding and lueaning thereof is, that, although \ve hear God's ,yoI'd and believe it, although \VO have faith, hope, ARTICLE XI 409 charity, repentance, dread, and fear of God \vithin us, and do never ::;0 Dlany good works thereunto, yet ,ve must renounce the merit of all our said virtues of faith, hope, charity, and all our other virtues and good deeds, ,vhich we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too ,veak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve remission of our sins and our justification; and therefore we must trust only in God's mercy, and in that sacrifice ,vhich our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God's grace, and relnission, as \vell of our original sin in baptism as of all actual Sill committed by us after our baptism if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again. So that, as S. John Baptist, although he \vere never so virtuous and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgiving of sin he did put the people from him, and appointed then1 unto Christ, saying thus unto them, Behold, yonder is the Lamb of God VJhich taketh away the sins of the 'world ; even so, as great and as godly a virtue the lively faith is, yet it putteth us fronl itself, and remitteth 01' appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by hinl remission of our sins or justification. So that our faith in Christ, as it ,vere, saith unto us thus: It is noL I that take a\vay your sins, but it is Christ only; and to him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, ,vords, thoughts, and ,vorks, and only putting your trust in Christ." ARTICLE XII D Banis Operib1.ls. Bona opera quæ sunt fructus fidei etjustificatos sequuntur, quanquam peccata nostra expiare et divini judicii severitatem ferrenon possunt, Deo tamen grata sunt et accepta in Christo, atque ex vera et viva fide necessario profluunt, ut plane ex illis, æq ue fides vi va cognosci possit, atque P Lbor ex fructu indicari. Of Good IV m-ks. Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and foHow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessari1y of a true and lively faith, in so much that by them a lively faith Inay be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. THERE is nothing corresponding to this Article in the series of 1553. It is one of the four new Articles added by Parker at the revision in the early years of Elizabeth, a portion of the first clause being taken by him (like others of his addition) froln the Confession of WÜrtemberg,1 while the phrase" follow after justification" Uustifi- catos sequuntur) is due to S. Augustine, who uses it in his treatise, De fide et ope'ribus, c. xiv. The object of the Article is obviously to state the mind of the Church of England on the position of "good works," with reference, perhaps, to the Roman teaching on the one hand, and the exag[jcrations of Luther and of SOIne \vho professeù to Le his follo\yers on the other. 1 " Non est autpm sentiendum quol! iis bOlli operibus, quæ per nos faeimus, in judicio Dei ubi agitur de expiatione peccatorum et placatione ùivinæ iræ ac mel'ito ternæ salutis cOllfitenduIll cst_ Omnia ellim bona opera quæ nos facimus sunt impcrfecta, nee puS;,;tllit ,;t'edl(llc/ll tliL'ini Judiciifel're."-De bonis operib'lts. See Hardwick, p. 125. 41u ARTICLE XII 411 (a) The Tridentine statements occur in the de- crees and canons of the sixth session (held in January 1547). They follow naturally from the vie\v of justifica- tion held by the Roman Church, and are very emphatic in their assertion of the" Dlerit " of good works; e.g. " We must needs believe that to the justified nothing further is wanting, but that they may be accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the Divine law according to the state of this life, and truly to have merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its due time if they shall have departed in grace." 1 Again: (( If anyone shall say that the good works of a man that is justified are in such wise the gift of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified, or that the said justified, by the good works which are performed by him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, if so be, however, that he depart in grace, and, moreover, an increase of glory : let him be anathema." 2 (b) On the other hand, Luther used strong expressions on the sinful character of all man's efforts. " Even the best work is a venial sin "; and yet more strongly, (C Omne opus justi damnabile est et peccatunl mortale, si judicio 1 It Nihil ipsisjustificatis amplius deesse credendum est, quo minus plene illis quidem operibus quæ in Deo sunt facta, divinæ legi pro hujus vitæ statu satisfecisse, et vitam æternam suo etiam tempore, si tamen in gratia decesserint, consequendam, vere promeruisse censeantur." -Cone. Trident. Sessio Sexta, c. xvi. 2 "Si quis dixerit hominis justificati bona opera ita esse dona Deo ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justificati merits.; aut ipsum justificatum bonis operibus quæ ab eo per Dei gratiam ec Jesu Christi meritum, cujus vivum membrum est, fiunt, non vere mereri angmentnm gratiæ, vita.m æternam, et ipsius vitæ æterllæ, si tamen in gratia decesserit, consecu- tionem, atqu ctiam gloriæ augmentulll: a.nathema sit." -Ib. canon xxxii. 412 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Dei judicetur."l No \vonder, then, that among his followers a depreciation of the need of good works of any kind was prevalent, and that Antinomianism and Solifidianism \vere widely spread. It is probable that it was even more in order to protect the Church against these errors than to protest against the Roman teaching that the Article was inserted,2 though it is so worded as to guard against false views on either side. The main statelllents of the Article may be sUlnmed up as follo\vs :- 1. Good \vorks are the fruits and result of faith, and the evidence of it. 2. They U follow after justification." :3. They have no merit in thernselves, and cannot endure the se' ßrity of God's judgment. 4. Yet they àre acceptable to God in Christ. The Roman and Lutheran divines looked at good works from opposite sides, and were consequently led into exaggerated statements in different directions. The Anglican Article by its balanced statements endeavours to do justice to both sides of the whole truth on the subject of which it treats, and seems to recognise that in every U good work" there are two factors, a human and a Divine. In so far as the doer of the work is following the lea dings of grace, it is good; in so far as he is not, there is an element of sinfulness in the work. The lllain points laid down in the Article seem to follow so natur- 1 Assert. omn. art. Opera, tom. ii. fo1. 325b, quoted in foehler's Symbolism, p. 158. The Council of Tent met these assertions by the twenty-fifth canon of the Sixth Ses, \vithont doubt, vvas the grace of God at \vork. The grace of CO'ìnpltJlctio/ ,vas granted; but the reply of S. Peter sho\vs equally clearly that even so those ,vho had thus received grace \vere not yet justified. " llepent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the nalne of Jesus Christ 'unto the remission of YOU?' 1 II armoJt!J of J ustificalion, 1'. 162. ARTICLE XIII 417 sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (b) Again, it will scarcely be doubted that S. Paul received grace at the moment of his conversion. "Be- hold, he prayeth," was the message which came to Ananias (Acts ix. 11), and that prayer can only have been offered up and rendered acceptable by the action of the Holy Spirit upon his heart. But, strictly speaking, he was not ;"ustified for three days after his" conversion "; for when Ananias canle to hinl his words were these, "And now, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and 'wash alway thy sins" (Acts xxii. 16). There is, then, a real discrepancy between the title of this Thirteenth Article and the substance of it, and so much was practically confessed by the 'Vestminster Assembly of Divines, \vho suggested as an emendation that the Article itself should run as follows: "W orks done befo'Joe justification by Christ and regeneration by His Spirit, are not pleasing unto God," etc.! This emenda- tion, of course, brings the Article into conformity with the title, but at the expense of truth; and, as things actually are, there can be no question that the title must be interpreted by the Article, ,vhich speaks not of all, but only of so?ne "works before justification," viz. those \vhich precede the action of God's grace in the heart of man. The origin of the discrepancy which thus exists has been traced by Archdeacon Hardwick to an earlier draft of the Article. As \vas mentioned in the Introduction,2 there still exists in the Record Office a fS. copy of the Articles, signed by the six royal chaplains, to whom they ,vere subn1itted before their final revision and publication, and 1 See Neal's History of tile Puritans, vol. iii. p. 561. The Assembly also suggested a change in the closing word of the Article, substituting "they are sinful" for the far milder phrase, "We dOl\bt not that they have the nature of sin." 2 See vol. i. p. 13. 418 TIlE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES in this \ve find that in the Article itself \ve have the expression: U Opera quæ fiunt ante justificatiollem cum ex fide ,J esn Christi non prodeant," etc. l It is evident that Cranmer and those \vorking with him afterwards felt that this was inaccurate, and therefore modified the wording of the Article before publication, introducing the phrase which we now read in it, "'Vorks before the grace of Christ," etc., although the old title ,vas still allowed to remain, inexact though it was. II. The Scholastw Theory of Oongruous },[erit. The object of the Article, as has been already stated, is to repudiate the erroneous teaching of some of the school-auth rs 2 on the subject of grace. The school- authors, or schoolmen here referred to, are the divines of the centuries immediately preceding the Reformation: S. Bernard (1115) being generally reckoned as the U last of the Fathers," and S. Anselm ( 1109) or Peter Lombard, the " faster of the Sentences" (1164), the first of the schoolmen. 3 'Ve are here concerned, ho,v- J See Hardwick, p. 281. 2 The Latin of the Article has merely cc ut multi vocant." The regular name for the schoolmen in Latin is "scholastici" (cf. Art. XXIII. of 1553, doctrina Scholasticorum), a name which tells us nothing about the men themselves, except that they belonged to the cc schools," either as tea('hers or learners. 3 The change of name is significant. The Fathers, "Patres, ,. as Arch- bishop Trench points out, were productive, bringing out of their treasure things new and old. The schoolmen, on the contrary, were cont.ent simply to vindicate lLnd establish the old. "The more illustrious teachers of earlier periods of the Church had found each his own special and peculiar work to perform, his own position to make good. Occupied with this, they had Dot found the inclination or the leisure for a deliberate cversight of the whole field of theology; they had not mapped it out as it demanded to ùe mapped out. It was to this that the scho01mcn addressed themselves-to the organising after a tnle scientific method the rude undigested mass which lay before ARTICLE XIII 419 ever, not with the men, nor with the scholastic system as a \vhole, but simply \vith one particular portion of it, namely, its teaching on grace. In reasoning on this subject, some among the schoolmen had come to teach a doctrine ,vhich is, to say the least, seriously tainted \vith senlÍ-Pelagianism; for they maintained that man might be entitled to receive initial grace as the re\vard of actions done in his o\vn strength without the aid of God's Holy Spirit. Starting froln the view that the Fall only involved the loss of the donum supernaturale, and left man \vith moral and religious faculties belonging to him by nature, they taught that the exercise of these faculties was the natural transition to grace, and that a good use of them was the medium of grace, or, in their phraseology, merited it of congruity (de congruo). God, they said, was not bound to reward such actions, but it was congruous or fitting that He should. But after grace ,vas received, the work done in dependence on the aid of the Holy Spirit was really good, and this God \vas bound to reward, crowning His own gifts in man. Such actions deserved grace de condigno, and for them God was a debtor. The stock instance to \vhich they made their appeal was the case of Cornelius (Acts x.), whose cc prayers and alms came up for a memorial before God," and drew down God's grace upon him. The true explana- tion of such a case as this will be given in the next section. For the present, it is sufficient to notice that the theory, as popularly represented, opens the door to Pelagianism, and makes (at least in some cases) the beginning of man's them." Thus their work was to adjust the relations of the various parts of theological learning, and to draw up in cc Sums of Theology" the com- plete doctrine of the Church to which they professed implicit obedience. And further, they set themselves to "justify to the reason that wldeh had first been received by faith, It explaining the" how" and tIle cc why" of the Church's teaching, and vindicating the rational character of supernatural truth. See Trench's .J.1/edieval Clt'urdl History, Leet. xiv. 420 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES salvation his own act. Moreover, it brought back into the Church the conception of earning a reward, against \vhich S. Paul's whole teaching on grace \vas directed. l The scholastic opinions and distinctions, however, on this subject have never been formally adopted by the Church of Rome. The idea of congruous merit ,vas rightly con- demned as bordering on Pelagianism by some of the Tridentine divines, and the decrees of the Council avoided altogether the phrases ?neritunt de cong'tuo and de condigno; and while, on the one hand, they guarded against Pelagianism by anathematising anyone \vho should say" that without the preventing inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and His help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent, as he ought, so that the grace of justification H'.l.Y be conferred upon him," 2 on the other hand they condemned the assertion that U all works done before justification, in what manner soever they lJe done, are truly sins, or deserve the hatred of God." 3 III. The TeaÆhing of the A1 4 ticle upon the Subject. In considering what the teaching of the Article really is, it is important to remember the exact phrase to \vhich attention has been previously drawn, U Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of Ilis Spirit," and also to bear in mind the fact alreaùy I The illustratioll commonly gi\Ten to explain the scholastic distinction brings this out very clell.rly. A servant, it is said, deserves his wages de condigno: he may deserve support in sickness or old age de cong1"llO. 2 "Si quis ùixerit, sine præveniente Spiritus Sancti inspiratione, atquc ejus adjutorio, hominem credere, sperare, diligere, aut pænitere posse, sicut oportet, ut ei justificationis gratia conferatur : anathema sit. "-Conc. Tr'id. Sess. VI. canon iii. 3 "Si quis dixerit opera omnia quæ ante justificationem fiunt, qua- cum que ratione facta sint, vere esse peccata, vel odium Dei mereri, aut quanto vehementius quis uititnr Sè disponere ad gratiam, tanto eum gl'avius peccal'e: anathema sit." -Canon vii. ARTICLE XIII 421 established, that grace may be and sometimes is given before justification. When due weight is given to these two considerations, it will be seen that there is really nothing in the Article which in any \vay depreciates the good works of those \vho, born in an inferior system, make such use of the opportunities granted to them as to draw down further blessings upon them. Article X. has asserted that" the condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his o\vn natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God." The Article before us supplements this by maintaining 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 in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or . . . deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin. What it is intended to deny in each case is the semi- Pelagian notion, revived by some of the schoolmen, that in certain cases the initiative in the \vork of salvation rests \vith man. But we are not called upon by sub- scribing these Articles either to deny that God looks with favour upon the good deeds of men who are outside His covenant, or to maintain that the virtues of the heathen are really sins. All we deny is that they "deserve grace of congruity"; for if grace be a supernatural gift freely bestowed by God on men in order that they may attain eternal life, then certainly grace is found working outside the Christian covenant, f)nd influencing men before they are (in theological language) "justified." 1 Wherever, then, a work that is really good can be found 1 "They who acknowledge no grace of God, save that one only which is infused in justification, or who contend that at least that one goes before 28 422 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES done by n1en trained in any system, it is to be ascribed to the action of God's grace, and not to the man's own unaided efforts.! Thus in the case of Cornelius, to \vhicb the upholders of tbe doctrine of congruous merit made their appeal, Vie Inay fearlessly assert that his" prayers and alms" \vere "pleasant and acceptable to God" (grata Dco), for so much is involved in the statement that they" came up for a. memorial before God" (Acts x. 4). But \ve deny that they were due to "his own natural strength." 'Ve deny also that they" deserved aU others, greatly err ; inee they cannot deny that faith at least precedes justification in nature, which faith we certainly have not from ourselves, but from the preventing grace of Christ. Iore rightly, therefore, do other Protestants, who arc more sound and moderate, wil1ingly concc(lc that various dispo ing a.nd preparing acts, produced in us through the Holy Ghost assisting, and not by the sole powers of our freewill, are require(] before justification, though most of them deny to these acts any power of justifying."-Bp. 'V. :Forbes, Considcrationcs },[odestæ, vol. i. p. 25. 1 Hard wick (Articles, p. 402) quotes in illustration of this the following from Bishop 'V oolton's Christian, jJ[an1wl, 1). 43 (Ed. l>arker Society): " Albeit the works of heathen men are not to be comparl'd with the good works of faithful mell engraffed in the Church of Christ; yet for many causes, and principally for that without all controversy, all good gifts and endowments even in the paynims, are God's good gifts, they have the title and name of good works in some respects given unto them." Cf. The Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, vol. ii. p. 337 : "The l)rinciple underlying Article XIII. seems to me to be this, that there are not two totally different modes of access to God for meu, faith for Christians, meritorious performance for non-Christians. There is but one mode of access, faith; and but one perfect, and, as it were, normal faith, t!lat which rests on the revelation in the person of Jesus Christ. But faith itself, not being an intellectual assent to propositions, but an attitude of heart and mind, is present in a more or less rudimentary state in every upward effort and aspiration of men. Doubtless the faith of non- Christians (and much of the faith of Christia.ns (or that matter) is 110t in the strict sense U faith in Jesus Christ"; a.nd therefore I wÌl:sh tho Article were otherwise worded. But such faith, when ripened, grows into the faith of Jesus Christ; as also it finds its rational justification in the revelation made through Him. Practical1y tIle principle ûf the Article teaches us to regard all the good there is in the world as what one may can Ùnperfecl Christianity, not as something essentially different, requir- ing, so to speak, to be dealt with by God in a wholly different manner." ARTICLE XIII 42 grace of congruity," for \ve maintain that they \vere actually done by the aid of Divine grace, and that thus, dlthough they were done" before justification," they can- not truly be described as "\vorks done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit"; for, as ..A.ugustinc says, "\Vhateycr of gooù ,yorks Cornelius performed as ,veIl before he believed in Christ as \vhen he believed, and after he had believed, are all to blJ rrsr'J"'l'bed to God."] 1 De Pì'.rrle.",t. SanrlonOll, e. vii. ARTICLE XIV De Ope)'ibllS S1Lptl'erogatio?tÚ . Opera quæ supererogation is aj)' pellant, nOll possunt sine arrogantia et impietate prædicari. Nam il1is dff'brant homines non tantum se Deo reddere quæ tenentur, sed plus in ejns gratianl facere quan1 de- herent: cum aperh Christus dicat: Cum feceritis omnia quæcuuque pr ecepta sunt vobis, dicite: Servi inutiles sumus. Of 'Yorks of S'i1pere;'ogalion. Voluntary works besides, ovpr and above God's commandments, which they call wOl'ks of superero- gation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as Dutch as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, 'Vhen ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, 'Ve be unprofitable sel'- van ts. THIS Article dates frolll 1553, the only change made in it in Elizabeth's reign being the substitution of " impiety" for" iniquity," as more accurately represent- ing the Latin" impietate." 1 Its object is, of course, to condelnn the ROlnish teach- ing on "works of supererogation." The same teaching is also condemned in the Rejof1natio Legllrn Ecclesiasti- carll'Jn, in a passage \vhich dmirably illustrates the article: "Turn et illorum arrogantia comprimenda est, et authoritate legum dornanda, qui supererogation is opera quædam importaverunt, quibus existimant non solum cumulate Dei legibus, et explete satisfieri, sed aliquid etiam in ill is anlplius superesse quanl Dei mandata 1 In 1553 and 1563 the title was "Opera Sllprrerogationis." The c11ange to its present form was nlade in 1571. 424 ARTICLE XIV 425 postulent, unde et sibi D1ereri et aliis Inerita applicari possin t." 1 The subjects ,vhich require consideration in explana- tion of the Article are these- 1. The nalne " ,yorks of supererogation." 2. The history of the growth of the systenl of illd ulgen ces. 3. The theological defence offered for them, involving ,yorks of supererogation, and the teaching of Scripture on the subject. I. The Nante" TV01'ks of Supc1'er;'ogation." 'The ,vord supererogation COllies directly froIll the Latin. Starting with the simple verb "rogare," \ve note that in classical ,vriters it is used, sometin1es with " legen1 " or " populum " after it, sOlnetimes absolutely, ill a technical sense, meaning" to ask the people about a la\v," and so simply to " propose a bill," or "introduce a la\v." Hence the conlpound verb "erogare" ,vas used in connection with a money bill, and can1e to Inean " to payout money frolll the public treasury, after asking the consent of the people," and so more generally, beyond the sphere of public la, v, to "expend" or " dis- burse nloney." 2 Fron1 this the double compound" super- erogare" \vas fOrlued ,vith the Dleaning, to "pay over and above," equivalent to the Greek 'IT'pouôa'lT'avâv. As such its earliest occurrence is in the Latin versions of the Ne\y Testament, ,vhere it appears in S. Luke x. 35 in the parable of the Good Samaritan, ""\Yhatsoever thou spendest more": QllOd 1/.,nqilC supcTeroga1:cris. This rendering ,vas curren t before the da)"8 of S. T erome, 1 De Hæres. c. 8: "De pelfectione justificatonlm, et de operibus super- erogationis. " Thus in the Latin of Codex Bezæ c: erogasset " tallds tor ôa7ro.JI'Y}(jó.JlTO in S. Luke xv. 1.1. 426 THE THIRTY-NINE .'\RTICLES being found in the writings of . Ambrose,1 as ,veIl as in some l\fSS. of the " Old Latin" ; 2 but it \vas its adop- tion in the Vulgate that made it the common property of Western Christendom. 3 From it in later times the substantive "supererogatio" \vas forIned, and the phrase "opera supererogationis" \vas adopted by ecclesiastical ,vriters as the technical name for the "excess of Inerit" attributed to the saints, and for what the Article calls voluntary works besides, over and above God's commandments. In this sense it ,vas used not infrequently by \vriters of the thirteenth century, such as Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas; but until this period it is doubtful \vhether the phrase is ever found, or whether the verb OCCUL'S except in direct connection ,vith S. Luke x. 35. II. Tlte IIistory of tlte Grou;t1 of the Syste'l1L of I nd ulgences. It was the open sale of indulgences, ,vhich ,vas closely connected \vith the doctrine of .works of supererogation, that first roused the indignation of Luther, and led to the revolt from the Papacy. But the doctrine and the practice only gre\v up very gradually, step by step, with no perception on the part of anyone of \vhat the ulti- rnate outcome of it all would be. The starting-point, ill tracing out its history, may be founel in very early days, 1 S. Ambrose, lImn. 'Vii. i/ LucalJl. 2 Sahatier gives it 38 founù in Godtl. ....c1'On. anù Brix. Cod. Verccllellsis has "amplius cl'ogaveris," whi('h iR the rendering fonm1 ill Angustinf', J JlarJ" -ill, Ps. cxxv. 1 G, although in QllU'8t. Ecanyel. II. xix. he has S'lljJf''/'. cl'ogare. 3 The "Rhemish Kew Testament" (1st ed. 1582) attempted to Anglicise the 'Verb, and rendereù S. Luke x. 35: "Whatsoever thou dost superero- gate"; but it was found impossible to natnra1ise the clumsy Latinil)Ill, and it was withdrawn in the Douay version (1609), whieh is content wit11 the natural rendering, "spend over anù above." ARTICLE XIV 427 ill the regard for (1) nlartyrdonl, and (2) virginity, felt by the primitive Church. 1. It was only natural that the memory of those \vho had laid down their lives for the faith of Christ should be held in the greatest honour, and that their intercessions should be regarded as especially efficacious, and should be eagerly sought after. And as there wel'e Inany " Confessors" who had suffered mutilation or ban- ishment for the same cause, without being called upon to seal their testimony with their lives, it was equally natural that the same feelings of regard and admiration should be extended to them also. From this sprang, during the persecution of Decius, \vhat \ve can only call the first form of indulgences. During this persecution, which raged so fiercely at Carthage in the middle of the third century, \vhile there were manr noble instances of lllen confessing their faith bravely, and enduring whatever was inflicted upon them rather than deny their Master, yet there \vere also III any cases of grievous apostasy. SOlne Christians under the stress of persecution went so far as to deny Christ altogether, and to sacrifice to the gods of the heathen (sacrificati); others offered incense (th1.lrificati); others obtained tickets (libelli), declaring that they had thus cleared themselves fronl the crÍ1ne of Christianity (libellatici). 'Vith these different cases the Church \vas called upon to deal; and under the ,vise guidance of S. Cyprian she deternlined that the peace of the Church lnight be granted to those \vho through \Veaklless had lapsed, but that a time of peni- tential discipline nlust first be passed by them to test and prove their sorro\v. Some, however, of the lapsed \Vf\re ÎInpatient, and could ill brook the delay of com- w union. They therefore persuaded the Confessors to in tercede for them, and ask for their readmission to the sacrarnents of the Church. It \vill easily be seen that it ,vas difficult for the authorities to refuse the request 428 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of these men who had suffered so much for the Church, and unfortunately some of the Confessors were not proof against the moral dangers to which these appeals to their kindness exposed them. Not content \vith inter- ceding for the lapsed, they claimed the right to restore them to the peace of the Church, and to grant some- times to a lapsed person and his friends (cum suis) libelli pacis,1 or tickets to admit them to communion with- out having undergone the penitential discipline imposed upon them. Here, then, we meet with a form of "indul- gence," i.e. a shortening or remission of canonical penance. But clearly there \vas in itself nothing beyond the po\ver of the Church in granting this. The claim of the Con- fessors to grant it in their o\vn right was steadily resisted by Cyþrian ; but the Church, \vhich had imposed the penance, and to \vhich the po\ver of "binding and loosing" had been granted by Christ Himself,2 was within her rights in shortening the time, and readmit- ting to cornmunion those of \vhose true repentance she \vas assured. The whole episode, however, required to be noticed here, because historically the "libelli pacis" form a sort of precedent for the indulgences of the medieval Church, though, as will presently be sho\vl1, these claimed to be far wider reaching than anything \vhich had ever entered the minds of the Confessors \vho granted the original" libelli." 2. The special reverence \vith \vhich the early Church regarded virginity is well kno\vn. It is based on the teaching of S. Paul in 1 Cor. vii., in \vhich, though he permits marriage, he certainly expresses a preference- under the then existing conditions-for the unmarried state. " Concerning virgins" he has "no commandment 1 S. Cyprian, Ep. XY. See on the whole subject Archbishop Benson's article "Libelli" in the Dicticmary of Ohristian Antiq'ltities, vol. ii. p. 981. 2 s. Iatt. xviii. 18. ARTICLE XIV 429 (præcept'll1n) of the Lord," but he gives his" judgnlent " (consilÙl1n ),1 and advises that such remain single. From these words gre,v the distinction subsequently drJ1wn between" precepts," \vhich all were bound to obey, and " counsels," ,vhich it was not necessary for a person to follow. From this it \vas only a step to teach that by following the "counsels" it was possible for a Chris- tian to do more than ,vas req uired of him by God, and hence the notion of a special "merit" attaching to the state of virginity and to other special states or condi- tions. This idea was greatly encouraged by the devotion to the monastic life which is so marked in the latter part of the fourth century; and from this time onward it is generally recognised that there are two kinds of life \vithin the Church, the one for ordinary Christians mix- ing in the \vorld, in \vhich men are permitted to marry, and to engage in the ordinary business of life, though strictly bound to keep the "comnlandmen ts" of God; the other, \vhich is above the ordinary life of men, in ,vhich the" counsels of perfection" are carried out, those ,vho are thus aiming at being" perfect" selling all their possessions (cf. S. ß1att. xix. 21), abstaining froln mar- riage, and devoting themselves entirely to the service of God. 2 These facts require to be borne in nlind, although their full significance and the use that might be made of thelll did not appear for several centuries. The systenl of a. commutation of penance for money, \vhich ,vas introduced about the seventh century through the "Penitentials," cannot have failed to be seriously injurious to the InoraI sense of Christendom, ho\vever innocent may haye been 1 Cf. also 2 Cor. viii. 8 and 10, where consilÍ'Zlm occurs again. The distinction is recognised by S. Augustine, and is used by him to illus- trate S. Luke x. 35; Quæst. Evangel. II. xix., and Enarr. in Ps. cxxv. 15. 2 Cf. Cheetham\; Cltu1"ch HÙ;{o1'!J, 1'. 349. 430 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES its original intention.! But the systeul of " Indulgences" proper is scarcely found before the eleventh century and the tÏ1ne of the Crusades. 2 It is confessed on all sides that this great movement marks an epoch in the history of indulgences, and that practically a ne\v departure \vas taken at the Council of Clerlnont (1095), \v}1en Urban II. declared that to those who \yould take up arms against the Infidel, he ren1Ïtted the penance due to their sins, and promised to those \vho should die in the combat the pardon of their sins and life eternal; 3 and when the Council formulated their decision in these \vords- "Whosoever shall go to J erusalenl to liberate the Uhurch of God out of pure devotion, and not for the purpose of obtaining honour or nloney, let the journey Le counted in hin... of all penance." 4 From this time Inay be said to date the lnedieval system, ,vhereby an "Indulgence" or remission of penance, and of some or all of the temporal penalties attached to sin, ,vas granted in return for certain acts of devotion whereby the Church profited. Such indulgences \vere granted, not only to those who" took the Cross," but to those \vho took part in the building of churches and cathedrals, and in many other pious acts, so that practically the expenditure of a certain sum of money could always secure them, and the line between this and the actual sale of an indulgence for Inoney was a very 1 On the Penitential System anù tIlC Commutation of l)cnallce See Strong's Bampton Lectures, pp. 314 and 342, where the gooù and evil of the system are both frankly reeognised. 2 There are, however, indications of something like it in the ninth century, when John VIII. (882) said that those who had been killed in war against tIle heathen, fighting for the Church, receive.llifc eternal; and that he gare them absolution, as 'TJl'IlClt as he had púu.'el' todo. See L{.l'i. ier, History of Indulgenæs, p. 189. S Synodalis Concio Urbani II., IaIlsi, xx. p. 821. 4 "Quicunque pro sola devotione, non pro honoris vel pecunia: adep- tiOllC aù liberandum Ecclesiam Dei .Jerusalem profectns fherit, iter illnd pro OInlli pccllitentia repntetur." -lú. p. 816. ARTICLE XIV 431 thin one, and not easy to discern. OrigillalJy the idea nlay have been only of the ren1Íssion of canonical penance; but it very soon came to mean a great deal lnore than this. The canonical penance did not exhaust the tcrnporal, as distinct fronl the etc1J'nal, penalties of sin; 1 and since" purgatory" \vas a part of the temporal penalty, the indulgence ,vas supposed to avail for a remission of a part or all of the pains to be there under- gone. 1.foreover, the indulgence could be used for others than the person ,vho performed the meritorious act, and could thus be transferred to the account of the departed, and used for the benefit of the souls in purgatory; 2 and ince it ,vas called indiscrinlinately " remissio," " relaxa- tio," and" venia peccatorum," and was said to be granted a culpa ct a t'cnia,3 the door ,vas opened to the notion that I I t is necessary to remcmber carefully this distinction. According to the theory which underlies the granting of indulgences, even after thc sin is forgiven and its guilt (culpa) pardoned, there always remains a certain amount of temporal penalty (pæna) still to be paid either here or in purgatory. The beginning of this is seen in Albertus !tlagnus: "De let gratia fillalis peccatum veniale in ipsa dissolutione corporis et animæ, etc.: Hoc ab antiquis dictum est; scd nunc communiter tenetur, quod peecatum venialc cum hinc deferatur t1, multis, etiam quantum ad culpam, ill pnrgatoria purgatur." -In C01npc71d. Thcol. Veril. iii. 13, quoted in Usher, All.slI'er to a Jesnif, V. 165. Still more definite is the statement of the Council of Trent: "Si quis post acceptam justificationis gratiam cuilibet pecca.tori pcenitenti ita culpam remitti et reatum æternæ pænæ delcri dixerit, ut nullus remaneat reatus pænæ temporalis exsolvendæ vel in hoc sæculo yel in futuro in Imrgatorio, 3.ntequam ad regna cælorllm aditus patcre possit: anathema sit. "-Cone. TrÙl., Sessio vi. canon 30. 2 According to the formal theory of the Church of Rome, as laid down IIY Sixtus IV. ill a Constitution of 1477, indulgences for the departed only avail per moonlit s'ltj/i'agii, i.c. "the Church has no direct power over the ::;ouls of the departed. She can but humbly entl'<,at God to accept tlu- merits of Christ, and, having respect to thplH, mercifully to fl'mit the whole or a portion of tIle pains due to the souls suffering in pur atory" (Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary, p. 485). If this iR al1, it i impossible for the person who procures the indulgence to know whether it ha bpen of any avail at all. 3 There was no doubt that this form was anciently used; but the Council of Constance (1418) decreed that all indulgences granted with this formula 432 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES it involved a promise of eternal forgiveness; and thus the grossest errors and superstitions were admitted and, it cannot be doubted, were encouraged by the authorities in order to fill the coffers of the Church. Thus an enormous stimulus was given to the system by the institution of the " Jubilee" in the year 1300 , when Boniface VIII. offered " the fullest forgiveness of sins" to all those \vho for fifteen days should devoutly visit the churches of S. Peter and S. Paul in Rome. 1 This naturally drew a vast cro,vd of pilgrims to the city, and greatly enriched the Church; consequently, instead of being held at the expiration of every hundred years, as \vas originally intended, the period was shortened, first to fifty years by Clement VI. by his famous Bull" Unigenitus," in which he boldly expuunded the doctrine of the " treasury of the Church" committed to the successors of S. Peter; 2 then by Urban VI. to thirty-three years (1389); and finally by Paul II. to twenty-five (1470). Naturally, protests \vere raised froln time to time,3 but in spite of them the systenl \vhich evoked the scorn of devout Churchmen like Dante,4 were revoked and annuUecl; and Benedict XIV. (De By'lL. Direc. xiii. 18. 7) holds that all such are spurious; while modern writers say that if the phrase remission of sins occurs in the grant of an indulgence, it means the remission of punishment. See Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary, p. 482. 1 The worels of the Bun are these: "Non solum plellam ct largiorem, imo plenissimam suorum concedimus veuiam peccatorum." On the J ubilec tiCC Robertson, Ohurch History, vol. vi. p. 326 seq. Cf. Neander, Cl urc7t History, vol. ix. p. 59 (Eng. t1'.). 3 See an account of some of the errJier and less known protests in Neander, Church Histo'f'1J, '''01. vii. p. 48Î. The bter denunciations of the whole system by 'Viclif, and Huss, and Jerome of Pragne are well known. See Creighton's History of tlte Papacy, vol. i. I', 325. 4 See Paradiso, Canto xxix. 1. 123-115- " Ora si va con motti, e con iscede, A predicare, e pur che ben si rida, Gonfia i1 cappuccio, e più non si richiede, Ia tale nccel nel becchetto s' annida, Che se '1 vulgo i1 vedesse, vederebbe La perJOllanza, ùi che si confida, ARTICLE XIV 433 aR well as of Chaucer 1 and Langland ,2 grew into the scandal of the open sale of indulgences by Tetzel and the "quæstores." At the beginning of the sixteenth century, in the \vords of the Roman Catholic his- torian, Lingard, the preachers," not content with their sermons from the pulpit, offered indulgences in the streets and markets, in taverns and in private houses; they even taught, if \ve may credit the interested declamation of their adversary, that every contributor, if he paid on his o\vn account, infallibly opened to himself the gates of heaven; if on account of the dead, instantly liberated a soul from the prison of purgatory." 3 III. TILe TIMological Defence oiJerred for Indulgences, in- volving TVarks of Supererogat'ion, and the Teaching of Scripture on tlte Subject. It has been necessary to give this brief sketch of the gro'\vth of the practical systeln of indulgences, because it Per cui tanta stoltezza in terra. crebbe, Che sanza pruova d' alcun testimonio Ad ogne promession si converrebbe. Kow is our preaching done with jestings slight And mockings, and if men but laugh agape, The cowl puffs out, nor ask men if 'tis right; Yet such a bird doth nestle in their cape, That if the crowd beheld it, they would know 'Vhat pardons they rely on for escape. And thus such madness there on earth doth grow, That without proof of any evidence, To each Indulgence eager crowùs ,-rill flow." -Plumptre's Translation. 1 See the description of the "P.udonere," " That streit was cornen from the court of Rome," in the prologue to the Canterbury Tales- " His wallet lay beforne him in his lappe, Bret-ful of pardon come from Rome al hote." 2 Piers tlu Plowman, Passus 1. 1. 66 seq. Pass. X. 1. 316 uq. 3 Lingard, History of England, vol. iv. c. vii. Cf. for the state of things in England at a somewhat earlier period, Gascoyne's Libel' Veritot1'./i/1, p. 123. 434 THE TIIIRTY-NINE ARTICLES is only in connection ,vith them that the notion of "\vorks of supererogation" came into prominence. !\" othing is more certain frOlfi history than the fact of the gradual growth of the system, bit by bit, ,vithout any clear conception being formed by anyone of what it really lneant, or very much serious thought being bestowed upon it. 13ut ,vhell the custom of granting indulgences had nlade its \vay and \vas adopted into the regular system of the Church, it ,vas impossible to avoid [t\vkward questions being raised. Explanations of its meaning ,vere asked for, and a theological defence of it ,vas required. This was supplied by the schoolmen, and in it " works of supererogation" play an iD1portallt part. The original system, \vhereby cauonical penance Î1nposed by the Church \vas removed by the same authority, \vas naturally and properly defended as the exercising of the po,vcr of "binding and loosing" \vhich the Church possessed by Christ's own gift. But \vhen the indulgence ,vas something more than this, \vhen it could be transferred to the benefit of others, and availed for the dead and lnitigated the pains of purgatory, something nlore ,vas needed. Even the doctrine of the union of the faithful in the one Body, together \vith the po\ver of intercessory prayer, was totally inadeq uate to bear the superstructure of the popular system. .A.ccordingly the schoolmen of the thirteenth century took up a phrase tha.t had been used some tinle earlier, and elaborated the doctrine of the "thesaurus ecclesire." A ,ailing themselves of the old distinction bet\veen " couùsels " and "precepts," they taught that the 'Voluntary works over and above God's commandments, ,vhich had been performed by the saints, and which were not needed to " merit" their own salvation, ,vere not lost or ,vasted, but went into the treasury of the Church; and that, together \vith the infinite merits of Christ, these works of ARTICLE XIV 4:1!J supererogation fornled a deposit of superabundant good works, which the Pope, as holding the keys of the kingdom of heaven, could unlock and dispense for thE' benefit of the faithful, so as to pay the debt of the temporal punishment of their sinA, which they might still o,ve to God. This ,vas the theological defence of the system, ,vhich assumed consistency in the hands of the great schoolmen of the thirteenth century, Alexander of Hales (1245), .A.lbertus Magnus (1280), Bonaventura (1274), and S. Thonlas Aquinas (1270).1 The lan- guage of the last, if the Supplmnent 11lay be quoted as his, is especially instructive. It betrays it certain an10unt of uneasiness, and it is clear that Aquinas felt that his task ,vas a difficult one; erroneous opinions on the subject ,vere COlnmon, but the Church had approved of indulgences, and therefore they had to be defended. 2 1 Alexander of Hales is very strong in insisting that the indulgence avails" ad forum Dei " as well as "ad forum Ecclesiæ," and that it is more than a mere relaxation of canonical penance (Su'Jnma, pars iv. 9. 23, art. 1, anò see art. 2). "Inòulgentiæ et relaxationes fiunt de mrritis superel'ogationis rnembrorulU Christi, quæ SUIlt spiritalis thesaurus ccclesiæ. Rune au tern tllesaurum non est omnium dis!)ensare, sed tautum eorum, qui præcipue vicem Christi gerunt." " Præexistente pæna debitæ et sufficientis contritionis, potest SU'JJW1/ltS púnt'Íf x tota'm :pænam debitam peccxtori pO'nitcnti d'imitterc." "Probabiliter et veris- sime præsumitur, quoò illis qui sunt in purgatorio potest pontifex facere indulgentias. Nota tamen, quod 11lura requiruntur ad hoc, quod debito modo fiat indulgentia: scil. potestas cla.viurn ex parte conferentis ; ex parte ejus, cui confertur, charitas, credulitas, devotio; inter utrum causa et modus-Potest ergo dici, quod illis qui sunt in purgatorio possunt fieri relaxatiolles secundum conditiones prædictas per lllodum suffragii sive impetration is, non per modulll judiciariæ absolution is sive commutationis." These and other quotations are given in Gieseler's Church History, vul. iii. p. 3ï3, where see also the teaching of Albertus Ia.gnus, In Se'l.t., Lib. IY. dist. 20, arts.16 and 17; and for the teaching of Aquinas see the Sum/Ita Suppl., Pars iii. Q. 25-27. Cf. Creighton's History of tILe Papacy, vol. v. p. 60: "The starting- point of both these theologians [Bonaventura and Aquinas] was prevailing 4S6 TIlE TI-IIRTY-NINE ARTICLES But although a defence \vas thus elaborated for the system, it can hardly be seriously maintained that it can be proved from Scripture. The theory of a super- abundant "thesaurus ecclesiæ," and of good works that can thus be arbitrarily transferred frOlll one to another, rests on a 'v holly false notion of our relation to God. The idea of a quantitative satisfaction for all things wrongly done, that has to be made either in this life or in the next, but which "is capable of being commuted for the ceremonial utterance of a prayer or the visit to a shrine, each good for a given number of days, or years, or centuries," 1 can claim no support whatever fronl Scripture; the notion that Dlen can not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they may actually do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required, is directly contrary to the words of our Lord, quoted in the Article: When ye have done all that are commanded you, say, We be unprofitable servants (S. Luke xvii. 10). Yet, as a certain scriptural foundation has been alleged for the doctrine, it is necessary to consider the passages on \vhich the maintainers of it have relied. They are lnainly t,vo- (1) the incident of the rich young ruler, (2) the practice. Indulgences eÀistcd, and therefore were right. It was their business to give a rational explanation of what the Church had thougllt fit to do." See Bonaventura, I1li IV. Sent., dist. 20: "Universalis ecclesia has relaxationes acceptat; sed constat quod ipsa non errat, ergo vere fiunt." 1 Plumptrc's Spí,.its in Prison, p. 307. If it be said, as it is sometimes, it is a very difficult thing to obtain a rcal and valid indulgence, for that it is of no avail unless you havc "made so good a confession (a very diffi- cult thing to do) as to be free from all sin, even venial"; and unless you are "on your guard against every occasion of sin afterwards" (Cor Cordi loquítu'r, p. 233), it can only be replied, that in this case the popular system, whereby indulgences are publicly offered to those who visit certain churches, or perform certain devotions, is seriously misleading, and that the necessity for fulfilling these conditions ought to be publicly stated in every case in which an indulgence is offered. ARTICLE XIV 437 teaching of our Lord and S. Paul on marriage and virginity. 1. The rich young ruler. The incident referred to is that related in S. l\Iatt. xix. 16-22. It is argued by Bellarmine, ,vho adduces it, that as the young n1an had "kept the comn1andments," he had done all that ,vas necessary to obtain eternal life, and that therefore the ,vords, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven," contain not a" precept," but a "counsel"; and thus, if the direction had been followed, a " \\ ork of supererogation" would have been performed. To this it has been fairly replied that since the charge ,vas given in ans\ver to the question, " What lack I yet?" it is obvious that something \vas still \vanting, and that there is no room for the notion of \vorks of supererogation here. It is clear from the young man's previous answer that be had formed a very inadequate conception of his duty to God, and of the real range of the claÏ1n which God had upon him. It ,vas in order to help him to realise this that the further direction ,vas given, and the conclusion of the narrative sho'\ys that there was indeed something " lacking" to hitn, for ",vhen the young Ulan heard that saying, he went a\vay sorrowful, for he had great . " possessIons. 2. The teaching of S. Paul on virginity in 1 Cor. vii. has been already referred to, with its implied distinc- tion bet\veen "precepts" and "counsels." Our Lord's ,vords, in which He speaks of some \vho have" made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (S. Matt. xix. 12), are also referred to in this connec- tion; and it is inferred that those ,vho follow the " counsel" lay up a superabundant store of good \vorks \vhich can" satisfy" for others, as they are not needed 29 438 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES for those \vho perform then1. Now it lllay be freely admitted that a distinction may be rightly dra\vn between "precepts" and "counsels." There are some things \vhich are duties for all alike, which are com- Inanded to all men generally, and can therefore be put in the form of universal "precepts." There are other things to \vhich all men are clearly not called. It is obvious on the face of it that there can be no " precept" to abstain from marriage, or the obedience of men would bring the world to an end. And yet there are those to whom the \vords of Holy Scripture on the virgin state, or the command to "sell all thou hast," come \vith an imperative voice; and they feel constrained to obey. To them the counsel has become a precept. By obeying th. y perform no " \vorks of supererogation," but are simply following the Divine voice, which tells their conscience that the charge is for them. By rejecting it, they may imperil their salvation, for our Lord Himself says, when speaking on this very subject: "He that is able to receive it, let him 'receive it" (S. l\fatt. xix. 12).1 If, then, the admission of a distinction between precepts and counsels does not involve the theory of \vorks of supererogation, the \vhole scriptural foundation for them breaks down, and \ve may reasonably conclude that they cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety, and that they are opposed to our Lord's words already referred to: "When ye shall have done all the things that are comrn'1nded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; \ve bavE; done that which it \vas our duty to do." 1 "It is a further question whether a person's salvation may not be very seriously involved in his obeying a call from God, even although that to which he is called may not be in itself necessary to salvation." -Pusey, The Tl'Uth of the Office of the Englisllt OkU/l'ch, p. 2] 5. AItTICLE XV J..Yemo pr(l'Ler Cll1'Ú5t'lltn cst sille pcccato. Christus in nostræ naturæ veri- tate per omnia similis factus est nobis, excepto peccato, a quo l'rorsus erat immunis, turn in carne turn in spiritu. Venit, ut .\gnus ahsque macula esset, qui mundi peccata per immolationem sui semel factam tolleret: et peecatum (ut inquit Johannes) in eo non erat. Sed nos rcliqui, etiam baptizati, et in Christo regenerati, in multis tamen offend i- mus omnes: et si dixerimus quia })eccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis nOll est. Of Chdst alone Wit/W1 f t Siu. 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 WitllOUt spot, 'Vho, by the sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world: and sin (as S. 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 trut11 is not in us. THIS Article dates frolll 1553, since which tinle it has undergone no alteration. Its language has not been traced to any earlier source. Three principal subjects are treated of in it, viz.- 1. Christ's perfect humanity and sinlessness. . His a tonemen t. 3. Our sinfulness. Since all these subjects have been preyiously con- sidered in the Articl s (1 and 2 in Article 11., and :3 in Articles IX. and X.), it is not altogether easy to sep the exact object with \vhich the one before us \vas added to the series. Hard\vick 1 and Bishop Harold 1 Pp. 100, 402. 439 440 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Browne 1 both appear to hold that it was aimed against the belief in the inlmaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. This does not, however, appear probable for the follo,ving reasons - 1. The TIlessed Virgin is not mentioned in the Article. As a rule the Articles are perfectly direct and plain spoken in their condemnation of erroneous vie\vs, and if their cOlnpilers had had this doctrine in view it is most unlikely that they would have contented themselves with so indirect a conden atioll of it. 2. Much of the Article is on this hypothesis uu- necessary. Why ,vas it needful to say so nIuch about Christ's perfect hUlnanity and atonenlent in order to condemn the doctrine of the lmlnaculate Conception? 3. The expl .3ssion in the Article is, "all \ve the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ," etc., and it \vonld be perfectly open to a Ronlanist to hold that the Blessed Virgin \vas never baptized, and that, thcrcfoTc, her case is not considered in the Article at all ! 2 4. At the time when the \rticles \vere dnt\vn U]! there was no lleed to condelllll the doctrine, as it \vas not held de fidc in the ROlnan Church. 3 A far lllore probable vie\v is that this Article (like the follo\ving one) ,vas aimed against the errors of SOllIe 1 1.1"licle8, p. 347. 2 This is actually the vicw takcn ùy Francis a Sancta. Clara (Davcn}'ort), a .Franciscan, who wrote a Commentary on the .Articlcs in 163;3, endeavour- ing to reconcile them with the Tridcntine decrees. See his Paraplwa.stica E,11JOsitio, p. 20. 3 The doctrine was fir:-jt d('fi/ itel!J discussed by the scJlOolmen, the Franciscans upholding it, the Dominicans (including Aquinas) rlenying it (see lIagenha('II, lIist07'!I of Do trÙl,cs, vo1. ii. p. 260). Thc Council or TI'C'ut manage(l to }'emain Jlf'utral and to 3.\'lJid a condemna.tion of C'itlwr I' lI'ty, nlPrely stating that it was not intended to include the Blessc(l Virgin in tbe ùccree 011 original sin ( essioTJ V.). It was lPSel'Veù for Pope Pius IX. to declare the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to IIt an articlc of faith by his Rull of Del'cmhcr 9, 185-1. ARTICLE XV 441 alllong the Anabaptists. On this hypothesis every ,vord in it tells, for among these fanatics \vere some ,vho revived docetic notions of our Lord's hUluanity, sonle \vho denied His atonement and asserted His sinfulness, and others \vho had the hardihooù to maintain that the regenerate could not sin. No\vhere do \ve find a clearer statenlent of their errors, or a better commentary on this and the follo\ving Article, than in the letter of Bishop Hooper, which has been already quoted in the first volume of this work.! Similarly, in the Rcformat'io Leg1.f,mt Ecclesiastícarun we Ineet with a condemnation of the very saIne errors. 2 And in the ligh t of these passages \ve may safely conclude that the real object of the Article \vas to condemn in plain and direct terms the heresies of those \vho denied our Lord's true humanity, sinless ness, and atonement, \vhile nlaintaining their o\vn en tire freedom frolll sin. Since the doctrines of our Lord's hunlan nature and of His atonenlent were considered under Article II., and that of human depravity canle before us in connection 1 See vol. i. r. 22. 2 De Hæres. cap. 5. "De duahus naturis Chri ti. . .. Alii cum sic Deum judicant ut hominem non agnoscant, et de corpore nugantur de cælo divinitus assumpto, et in virginis uterum larso, quod tan quam in transitu per .Mariam quasi per Canalem aut fistulam præterfiuxerit. u Cap. 8. De perfectione justificatorum, et de operibus superprogationis. Illorum etiam superbia legibus nostris est frangenda, qui tantam vitæ perfectioncm hominibus justificatis attribuul1t, quantam nec imbecillitas uostræ naturæ fert, nce quisquam sibi præter Christum sum ere potest ; nimirum ut omnis })cccati sint expertes, si mentem ad recte pieque vivenùum instituerillt. Et hanc volullt absolutam morum perfectioncm iu hanc præsentcm vitam caùere, cum deLilis ipsa sit, et fragilis, et ad omnes virtutis et officii ruinas præceps, etc. "Cap. 9. De casu justifieatorum et pæcato ill Spiritum Sanctum. Etiam illi de justificatis perverse sentiullt, qui credunt iUos, postquam ju ti semel facti sunt, in peccatum non posse incidere, aut si forte qnic- quam eorum faciunt, quæ Dei legibus prohibentnr, ea Ðt'um pro pecratis non accipere." 442 TI-IE TI-IIRTV-NINE ARTICLES \vith .l\rticle IX., and \vill require to be noticed under .A.rticle XVI., it is unnecessary to say Inore npOll them here. The only point touched on in this Article on \vhich nothing has ðO far been said direc.tly, is that of uur Lord's sinlesslless. On this lua.tter the evidence of Scripture is clear and precise. (a ) Not only is there no hint or indication of sin in any \vord or action attributed to Him, but His challenge to the J e\vs, "'Vhich of you convinceth Me of Sill?" (s. John viii. 46), and Hi declaration on the eve of His Passion," the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in l\fe" (s. John xiv. 30), are clearly the utterances of one who \vas absolutely free from all taint of sin.! (b) Reference should also be Inade to the definite statelnents of the apostles. S. J)eter, S. Paul, S. John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews all agree in rlirectly assert- ing His sinlessness. "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His Inouth," 1 Pet. ii. 22. "Him who kne\v no sin, He nlade to be sin on our behalf," 2 Cor. v. 21. 2 "He was manifested to take away sins, and in Hinl is no sin," 1 John iii. 5. "One that hath been in all points telnpted like as we are, yet without sin," Heb. iv. 15. " Such an high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His o\vn sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this He did once for all, \vhen He offered up Himself," Heb. vii. 26, 27. Such passages as these are tlnply sufficient to justify 1 Cf. I...iddoll's Bampton Lcctu'i'cs, 1'. 23. 2 Cf. Rom. viii. 3: Ell O}.l,otW}.l,CLn (TCLpKðs á}.l,apTlCL . "The flesh of Christ is (like' ours inasmuch as it is flesh: (like,' and only (like,' because it is not sinful: Ost 1tdit nos quidem habere carne In peccati, Fi! illm 'Vcro Dei similitw.linem lwbllÍsse caTllis p cC(rli, non carncm pecrati (Orig. -lat.)." -SamlaYaIHI Hri.ldlalll in luc. ARTICLE XV 443 the statement of the Article that Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly 1 void, both in His flesh and in His spirit. . . and sin (as S. John saith) was not in Him. 2 1 Lat.prorsus. Clearly=thoroughly, completely, unreservedly. It is so used in Piers the Plowman, "Thei shul be cIensed clereliche and wasshen of her sinnes in my prisoun purgatorie" (B. xviii. 389), and later in Fitzherbert's C Surveyinge '(A.D. 15 5): c, Lette a man make a castell, towre, or any maner of ncwe buildings and finysshe it clerely." Other instances of a similar use of the word are given in Murray's New English Dictionary, s.v. On the subject of our Lord's absolute sinlessness (the cc non posse pE'ccare" as well as "posse nen peccare "), and its compatibility with liability to real temptation, see an article on cc Our Lord's Human Example" in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xvi. p. 282; Gore's Barnpton Lect'ztres, p. 165 ; Liddon's Bampton Lectures, Appendix; Mill's Sermons on the Ternptation, p. 24; and R. L. Ottley's Doctrine of the I'lcarnatiO? vol. ii. p. 293. ARTICLE XVI Dc pccl'ato post Baptismum,. Non omne peccatum mortale post baptismum voluntarie pcr- IJetratum, est peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum et irremissibile. Proindc larsis a baptismo in pcccata locus pænitentiæ non cst negandus. Post acceptum Spiritum Sanctum possumus a gratia data recedere atque peccare, denUf .:tue per gratiam Dei resurgere ae resipiscere. Ideoque illi damllandi sunt qui se quamdiu hic viva.nt, am!)lius non posse peccare affirmant, aut vere resipis- cpntibus venire locum denegant. Of Sill (lIter Baptisul. Not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost; and Ull- })arùollable. "\Vherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by thc grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent. THE title of this Article in the first edition of 1553 was De peccato in Spiritnm Sanctum (" Of Sin against the Holy Ghost "). This was altered in 1563 into De lapsis post Baptismum (" Of Sin after Baptism"); and at the final revision of 1571 the Latin was made to correspond more closely with the English by the sub- stitution of the present phrase, "De peccato post TIaptismum." In two other expressions in the body of the Article slight changes have also been made. 'e Locus pænitentiæ" ,vas in 1553 translated in the English version by "place for penitentes," and "place for penitence" in 1563;" grant of repentance" being inserted in 1571; at ,vhich time" locus veniæ" in the last sentence ,vas substituted for "locus pænitentiæ." 444 ARTICLE XVI 445 (In 1553 this had been rendered, as at its first occurrence in the Article, " place for penitentes," for ,vhich " place of forgiveness JJ had been inserted in 1563.) There is a general resemblance between this Article and the t,velfth of the Confession of .Augsburg, but the verbal similarity is not sufficiently close to justify us in saying that the last-nlentioned document was the source of our o,vn Article. 1 The t\VO are aÏ1ned against the saUle errors, \vhich consisted in a revival of the vie,vs of sonle in early days concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, the impossibility of falling from grace, and the refusal of pardon to those who fall into deadly sin after baptism. These errors are also noticed in the letter of Bishop Hooper, referred to in the last Article. ".A. nlan, they say, who is thus regenerate cannot sin. They add that all hope of pardon is taken a,vay from those ,vho, after having received the Holy Ghost, fall into sin JJ ; and further evidence of their existence at the tinle ,vhen the Article ,vas dra\vn up nlay be found in the Rcf01'matio Legu'ln Eccles.iastúaru?n,3 as ,veIl as in the following passage frolH Calvin's Inst-itutes. 1 "De pænitentia. De pænitentia docent quod lapsis po t baptismum continge1'e possit reruissio peccatorum, quocunque tempore cum conver- tuntur. Et quod ecclesia. tali bus redeuntibus ad pænitentiam absolution em impertiri debeat. Constat autem pællitentia. proprie llis duabus partibus: altera est contritio seu te1'rores incussi cOllscientiæ agllito peccato. Altera est fides, quæ concipitur ex evangeIio scu absolutione, et credit propter Christum remitti peccata, ('t consolatur cOllscicDtiam ct ex terro1'ibus liberate Deinde sequi debent bOlla opera, (!uæ sunt fructus p(cnitcntiæ. Damllant Anabaptistas qui negant semel justificatos posse amittere Spil'itum Sanctum. Item, qui cOlltendunt 'luibusdam tantam perfectioneru in hac vita contiDgere ut peccare non possint. Damnantur et Kovatiani qui noleballt absolvcre 1apsos post haptismum l'edeuntes ad pællitelltiam. .ttejiciulltu1' et isti (!ui non docent remission em peccatorum per fidem contillgere, sed jubent nOR mercri gratiam per satisfactiones nostra . " 2 See vol. i. p. 22. S &f. Leg. ECt'I., De H(frl'l . cap. 9 : "Etiam illi de justificatis perverse 446 TilE TlIIRTV-NINE ARTICLES " Our age also has SOlne of the Anabaptists not very unlike the N ovatians. For they pretend that the people of God are regenerated in baptisnl into a pure and angelical life. . . . But if any ll1an fail after baptislll, they leave nothing to hiIu but the inexorable judgment of God." 1 T,vo Inain subjects appear to require consideration in this Article. 1. The fact that deadly sin is not unpardonable. 2. The possibility of falling from grace. I. The fact that deadly Sin is not Unpardonable. (a) Not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. The view of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is here rejected, appears to have been first propounded by Origen in the third century,2 and was revived in the sixteenth by some among the Anabaptists. A brief examination of the passages of the New Testament which speak of the sin which "hath never forgiveness" will sentiuut, qui credunt illos postquam justi semel facti suut, in pecca. hun non posse incidere, aut si forte quicquam eorum faciunt, qme Dei legibus prohibentur, ea Deum pro peccatis non accipere. Quibus opinione contrarii, sed impietate pares sunt, (jui quodcunque peccatum mortale, quod post baptismum a nobis susceptum voluntate nostra committitur, illud omnc contra Spi.ritum Sanctum affirmant gestum esse et remitti non posse." 1 Institutes, IV. i. 23. 2 See Athanasius, Ep. ad. Se/rap. iv. 10, where this view (which he also attributes to Theognostus) is considered and rejected. The view of Athanasius himself appears to be that whereas "blasphemy against the Son of 1\Ian " was to blaspheme against Him before the full revelation of His Divinity was made, "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is to "ascribe the deeds of the ".. ord to the devil," i.e. to blaRpheme against Him after His eternal Godhearl has been manifested. Cf. O,.atiolles co/lira A/'janos, I. 50. ARTICLE X\TI 447 sho,v that ,vhatever may be the precise nature of the irremissible sin, there is certainly no ground for main- taining that all deadly sin \villingly committed after baptisnl should be regarded as unpardonable. The passages to be considered fall into t,vo groul' : (1 ) tho e in the Gospel in ,vhich our Lord speaks of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; (2) certain pas- sages in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of S. John. 1. In regard to the first class of passages (S. ì\Iatt. xii. 31-37; S. Mark iii. 28-30; S. Luke xii. 10), it must be noticed that our Lord never speaks in general terms of " sin against the Holy Ghost" as unpardonable. Of one sin, which He ternlS" the blasphemy against the Spirit," He says, "it shall not be forgiven," and that the man \vho conlmits it "is guilty of an eternal sin" (l.voxór;; ÈUTtv al(J)víov áJ.LapT f-taTOr;; ).1 Now the fact that this sin is thus spoken of as "blasphemy" at once marks it out as a sin of a particular class, belonging to sins of the tongue, involving outward expression; while the occasion on which our Lord warned His hearers against it (" because they said He had an unclean spirit") throws light on its character. Whether the Pharisees had been actually guilty of it our Lord does not say, but they were clearly in danger of committing it ; and \vhat they \vere doing ,vas to ascribe manifestly Divine works to Satanic agency. To do this was in a very real sense to" blasphenle against the Holy Spirit," by whose agency the ,yorks were done. And it is quite clear that, whatever be the precise nature of the irre- 1 That this is the true reading in . :Mar iii. 30 is undoubted. The te.,.lus 'ìoeceptus has Kpl(jfwS for åp.apTÝ}}MLToS. The amended reading has an important bearing on the question of the justice of eternal punish- mont. If the punishment is "eternal," is it not because the sin is " eternal" ? 448 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES lllissible Sill of \vhich our Lord speaks,l no support \vhateyer can be drawn frol11 His ,vords for the general proposition that deadly Ein \villingly committed after Laptisn1 is unpardonable. It Jllay he noted in passing that the Edwardian Articles did not content themselves, as our own do, with simply denying an erroneous view of the nature of blaspheluy against the Holy Ghost, but proceeded in an additional Article (XVI.) to define itH naturc 11lore precisely. The Article ran as follo\vs:- Elasphe'lny Cl[Jà'i'llst the Holy Ghost. " Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is, when a man, of lualice and stubbornness of Inind, doth rail upon the truth of God's ,vord manifestly perceived, and being ellemy thereunto persccuteth the same. And because such be guilty of God's curse, they entangle thenlselves ,vith a most grievous and heinous crime, ,vhereupoll this kind of sin is called and affirn1ed of the LOl'd un- pardonable." The Article \vas on1itted by Parker in the revision of 1563, probably from an unwillingness to define the nature of this Sill, and a desire not to bind the consciences of the clergy to a particular interpretation of a difficult set of passages. And as our present Articles are contented \vith a purely , egati .e position, denying all erroneous view, but stating nothing positively concerning the cha.racter of this" blasphen1Y," there is no need to enter further upon the subject here. Refercnce may, ho\vever, be made in passing to Waterland's able and cOllvincing sern10n upon S. Iatt. xii. 31, ;32, where 1 lJishop Ellicott (Lectw'es on tht.- Life of O'llT LOJ'd, p. 187, note 1) clcfines it as " an outward expression of an inward hatred of that which is recognised and felt to be Divine," and truly says that its irremissible nature depenrls, "not on tllC refusal of grace, hut on the now lost ahility of fulfilling the conditions required for forgivcness." ARTICLE XVI 449 the reader \\'ill find a full discussion of "the precise nature of the blasphelny against the Holy Ghost." 1 2. There relnain for consideration certain hard passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of S. J ohu, on \vhich Origen and TheognostuR based their vie\vs, and \vhich also played an important part in the controversies of the early Church concerning penitential discipline and the restoration of the lapsed to communion, since it \vas urged by the advocates of strictness that it \vas eOlltl'ary to the teaching of these Epistles for the Church to grant reconciliation and pardoll to those \vho had fallen into deadly sill after baptism. 2 The passages in thp Epistle to the IIebre\vs are three in lluluber: chs. vi. 4-6, x. 26-29, xii. 15-17. Ch. vi. 4-6: "For as touching those who were once enlightened (él:lra cþwTl,u8ÉvTac;) and tasted (ryEvua- J.tÉvovc;) of the heavenly gift, and \vere made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good \vord of God, and the po\vers of the age to come, and then fell a\vay (7rapa7rEUÓvTac;), it is impossible to relle\V theln again unto repentance: seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh (or, "the \vhile they crucify," etc., R.V. marge ùvauTavpoûvTac;), and put Hilll to an open shame (7rapaSEtryJ.taTí ovTa') )." With regard to this passage it is very ÍInportant to 1 ,r aterland, IVod s, vol. Y. Scrmon xxviii. ce also ::\[Ül1cr, The Uh1"islian Doct'J'Ínc of Si,l, Bk. Y. vol. ii. p. 475 (Eng. tr.). 2 It has not been thought :neces ary to give in the tcxt any account of these controversies, the principal of which were those with the l\folltanist::; and K ovatianists and (in later times) the Donatists. The ltlontal1ist:s taugh t the impossibility of a second rcpentance, and refused to restore to communion those who had been guilty of deadly il1. The X ovatiallist appNtr to have admitted the possibility of lÌnal pardon for SllC:h sillnprs (and possibly the !\Iontanists did not actually deny this), hut tlwy flpnÍèLl to the Church the power to grant peace and reconciliation to t}lt'In. }'Ol' some account of these cOlltroversie , :5ce dl:).ff's lIÙim.!1 of fhf' Clm",.h, "Alltc-Xicclle Christianity," pp. 196 and 42[,. 450 THE THIRTY-NINE ,ARTICLES notice the exact ,vords used by the apostolic writer. Those of whom he is speaking (whether or no cþ(ðTt(]"()ÉV'Ta be taken definitely of baptism 1) had been thoroughly Christianised, and had subsequently apostatised (" and then fell they"). They are regarded as still opposing thelllselves to Christianity, still" crucify- ing the Son of God afresh," and" putting Him to an open shame" (notice the present participles here); and while they are doing this it is impossible, says the writer, to renew them again to repentance. But nothing \vhatever is said of an "impossibility" should they cease their opposi- tion to the gospel. Hence, as Bishop 'Vestcott has pointed out, "the apostasy described is marked, not only by a decisive act, but also by a continuous present attitude, a ho::tile relation to Christ Himself and to belief in Christ; and thus there is no question of the abstract effi(1acy of the means of grace provided through the ordinances of the Church. The state of the men themselves is such as to preclude their application." 2 Ch. x. 26-29: "For if \ve sin \vilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man that hath set at nought 1\10ses' la\v dieth \vithout compassion on the \vord of two or three witnesses: of ho\v lunch surer punisl1n1ent, think ye, shall he be judged \vorthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, where\vith he as sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? " 1 "<<ÞwTi -fLV and lþ(oJTL(jj.J.óç were ommonly applied to haptism from the time of Justin (Apol. i. Gl, 65 ; d. Dial. ('. 122) downwarùs. And th Syrian versions give this sense 11el'e." - ,r estcott, Tlu Epistle /0 t"t lIe1J1.ew , p. 148. :! The Epistle to lite HcuJ'clI.:s, additional note on vi. 1-8, 1'. 1ß5. \RTICLE X\TJ 451 Here again it will be sufficient to note that the tense is present. "It must be observed that the sacrifice of Christ is finally rejected, and sin persisted in (áJ.LapTa- VÓVTfJJV). The \vriter does not set limits to the efficacy of Christ's \vork for the penitent." 1 Ch. xü. 15-17: "Looking carefully lest there be any lllan that falleth short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled; lest there be any fornica- tor, or profane person, as Esau, ,yho for one mess of lneat sold his own birthright. :For ye kno\v that even \vhen he after\vard desired to inherit the blessing, he \vas rejected (for he found no place of repentance), though he sought it diligently ,vith tears." It \vill be observed that the difficulty of this passage is far less \vhen rendered (as above) as it is in the Revised Version. Readers of the Authorised Version might naturally think that the ,vriter denied that Esau found repentance, or a place of repentance. A reference to the Greek makes it clear that what Esau sought ,vas not a "place of repentance" (TÓ7rOV jLeravolaç), for the pronoun "it" is feminine (avT v). Gralnmatically it may refer either to" repentance" (J1.ETavo{aç) or to " the blessing" (EvÀoryLav); but there can be little room for doubt that the Revisers are right in referring it to the latter (cf. Gen. xxvii. 38). If this is so there is DO ground for nlaintaining, on the strength of this passage, that a luan may seek diligently to find repentance and fail to obtain it. J\foreover, it must llot be forgotten that \vhen Esau "sought the blessing diligently ,vith tears," his probation, so far as his birthright was con- cerned, ,vas already over, for the áVvard had been luade, and the blessing actually given to another. His" repent- ance," therefore, is parallel to nothing on this side of the 1 'Ye:::;tcott, The Epistle to the IIe ì'el'.s, p. 327. 452 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES grave. Th us, \v hile all these passages are full of solemn warning on the terrible consequences of sin, and the danger of putting off repentance too late, it \vill be seen that ,vhen carefully considered they giye no countenance to the opinion \vhich is cOlldernned in the Article as to the irren1Ïssible character of deadly sin willingly conl- n1Ïtted after baptisnl. The same is true of the reluainillg passage in the First Epistle of S. John (1 fJ ohn v. 16, 17): "If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God \vill give hin1 lire for theln that sin not unto death. There is a. sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should lnake request. .All unrighteous- ness is Sill: there is a sin not unto death." On this pn.-isage is based the distinction ordinarily l1ra\Vll in the Church lJetl\'eell "deadly" and" venial" sins. It \vill be noticed, ho\vevel', that S. JolIn does not define" sin unto death," nor, indeed, does he absolutely forbid intercession for it. lIe is dealing, as Bishop \Vestcott points out, \vith the pl'ayer of Christians for Christians; and after pointing out the efficacy of their prayers for one another, he indiC<'1.tes that there is a sin, the natural issue of \vhich is death (7rpðç 8ávarrov). This excludes n1en from the Christian society, and he cannot enjoin prayer for it.! But there is no reason \vhatever for maintaining that the Apostle denies the possibility of forgiveness for Ruch deadly sin, if the sin is forsaken and repented of. (b) Wherefore the grant of repentance (loc1l." plI;/tite'ntiæ) is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism. The statement of the \rticle \vould seenl to follo\v naturally fronl the position just Inaintained. And it luay be supported Ly a l'ef r- ) '-'C llishop 'Vcsteott's "a(lditional Jlotp" in Tltr .f.'pis/lrs {if N. Julin, 1'. 19!Þ. ARTICLE XVI 453 ence to S. Paul's treatment of the incestuous mall at Corinth. Here ,vas a man who had been guilty of a most deadly sin, and who had been by the ...t\.postle's direction excluded from the fellowship of the faithful, and" delivered unto Satan" (1 Cor. v. 4, 5). But this (( deliverance unto Satan" did not necessarily involve his final condemnation. On the contrary, its object is described as " the destruction of the flesh, that the spÙ"it may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Moreover, if 2 Cor. ii. 5-11 refers (as is conlmonly thought) to the saIne case, then the Apostle distinctly contemplates the restoration of the offender upon his repentance to the communion of the Church, and charges the Cor- inthians to forgive hun and reinstate him. And if for such a sinner a "locus pænitentiæ" was allo\ved, it is difficult to think that in other cases the Church \vould be right in refusing it. Consequently the Church has always resisted the demands made by some in the interests of purity that those who have fallen into a grievous sin should be excluded from communion for the remainder of their lives, and has never shrunk from proclaiming God's forgiveness to all penitent sinners. In some of the early controversies in regard to penitential discipline a distinction was drawn be- t\veen these two things, namely, God's willingness finally to forgive those who have been guilty of deadly sin after baptism, and the power of the Church to grant " pardon" to such. It was sometimes urged, as by the N ovatianists,1 that though God might in His 1 That this was the position maintained by N ovatian seems to be shown by the words of S. Cyprian in Ep. Iv. 28 (al. Ii.), where he describes him as urging the lapsed to weep and mourn, anà do all that is necessary for peace, though "peace" was refused them. Eusebius speaks as if all hope of salvation was denied to them (H. E. VI. xliii.). In this, however, he was probably mistaken as regards N ovatian and his foI1owers, though the statement would perhaps be true of the Montanists. See Tertullian, De 3 0 454 THE THIRTY.NINE ARTICLES infinite mercy forgive such at the last, yet the Church had no commission from Hun to declare His forgive- ness, and therefore could hold out no "locus pæni- tentiæ" to the lapsed, although she might urge them to pray that they might finally receive pardon, and find a " place of forgiveness" (locus veniæ). It \vould appear that this distinction was present to the Elizabethan revisers of the Articles (if not to their original compilers), for after saying that "the grant of repentance (locus pænitentiæ) is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism," the Article adds at the close the state- nlent that (c) They are to be condemned which . . . deny the place of forgiveness (locus veniæ) to such as truly repent.-That some distinction of meaning between the two phrases locus pænitentiæ and locus veniæ (and their English equivalents) is intended, is shown by the fact already noted, that originally the same phrase stood in both clauses of the Article. l The diversity of phraseology subsequently introduced must have had some definite intention, and it was in all probability that which has just been indicated. Thus the Article as a \vhole implies, not only that God is willing to forgive penitent sinners, but, further, that the Church has a commission to declare His pardon, and to grant recon- ciliation where there is true repentance. The phrase" locus pænitentiæ" is almost a technical P1ulicitia, c. xix., where. he says that there are some sins which admit of no pardon, namely, murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy, adultery, and fornication. It For these Christ win no longer plead" (Horum ultra t'xorator non erit Chrißtus). He says, however, in the same cha.pter, of a grievous sinner: It Let her indeed repent, but in order to put an end to her adultery, not, however, in prospect of restora.tion to communion. For this will be a repentance (pænitentia) which we too acknowledge to he due much more than )'OU do; but concerning pardon (venia), we resprve it to God." 1 Se above, p. 444. ARTICLE XVI 455 o11e for an opportunity of changing a forIner decision, so that the conseq ueuces no longer follo\v. I t occurs in Latin \vriters, e.g. -1 Esdr. ix. 12, as ,veIl as the Jurists 1 and others, being used in Pliny's famous letter to Trajan 011 the Christians, \vhere he expresses a hope of their improvement if a " locus pænitentiæ" is granted to them. 2 Thr Greek equivalent, 7Ó7rOC; J.1Æ7avoíac;, is also found in 'Visd. xii. 10, as well as in early Christian writers? by whom it ,vas probably taken from Heb. xii. 17, where thfl Vulgate renders it by "locus pænitentiæ." " Locus venire" does not seen1 to be of such freq uen t occurrence. I t is used, however, by Tertullian in ])c Plldicitia, c. xviii. II. The Possibility of }'allin!J fro'1n G'1"(fÆe. On this subject the teaching of the A.rticle is clear and decided. After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned which say they can no more sin as long as they live here. These statements are primarily aimed against the teach- ing of the Anabaptists, who maintained that a luan \vho is regenerate cannot sin. Such teaching is contrary to the \vhole tenor of Scripture. The Lord's Prayer, which was surely D1eant to be a prayer to be used by all men, recognises the need of forgiveness for all; and the language of the Apostles addressed to believers through- out the Epistles assumes that all have sinned and con1e 1 Bishop "\restcott (on Heb. xii. Ii) quote Ulpian, ape Corp. J. C., Dig. XL. tit. vii. 3, 13. Pliny, Epp. x. 97. :I E.g. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. I. vii.; Tatian, c. Gnt-c. xv.; Cons!. Apost. II. xxx\'iii., V. xix. 456 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES short of the glory of God. There are, however, some words in the First Epistle of S. John to \vhich the Anabaptists and others who maintained a theory of per- fection could point in support of the statement that the regenerate cannot sin, namely, 1 John iii. 6, 9: ""Vho- soever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither kno\veth IIim. . . . Whoso- ever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because His seed . abideth in hÜn: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God" ( cf. also c. v. 18: "vVhosoever is begotten of God sinueth not "). Strong as these \vords are, it must be remembered that the writer who uses then1 has already in an earlier passage of the same Epistle said emphatically: "If we say that \ve have no sin, \ve deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if \ve confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive ns our sins, and to cleanse us fronl all un- righteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, \ve make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." These words are perfectly general, and seem quite incompatible \vith the notion that S. John teaches that any man can claim total immunity fron1 sin and the possibility of sinning here on earth. How, then, is the later passage, previously cited, to be understood? It must certainly be qualified by what has already been said by the writer, and therefore we need feel no hesitation in pressing the tt 'f' f , , ,., presen enses, aUK ap.,apTavEt, a#apTtaV av '!rotEl, au ôvvaTat áJ.LapTávEtv, and saying that they refer to a habit and practice rather than to isolated acts. It is true that the believer often falls in to in, yet sin is not the ruling principle of his life, and in so far as he is really born of God and abides in Him, "he sinneth not." If it be urged that thus to interpret the words is to explain away the language of Scripture, it may fairly be replied that" the only possible escape from such modification is ARTICLE XVI 457 by asserting the possibility of sinlessness, which cont1.a- dicts i. 8, or else by asserting that none of us have seen God, and none of us are children of God, which cont1.adicts the whole Epistle"; 1 and as there are no other passages of Scripture which give any countenance to the theory of sinless perfection in this life, the Article is perfectly justified in its assertions, that "after we have received the Holy Ghost ,ve may depart from grace given and fall into sin," and that" they are to be condemned which say they can no more sin so long as they live here." It ,vill be noticed that after laying down that we nlay depart from grace, the Article says further, "We may arise again and amend our lives." It is important to notice that the ,vord is may, not must, for herein lies a marked difference bet,veen the teaching of the Church of England and the Calvinistic tenet of "indefectible grace" ; for Calvin and his follo\Vel'S, while rejecting the Ana- baptist notion that the" regenerate" cannot sin, never- theless taught that those who \vere once made Christ's o,vn, though they might fall away for a time, could not permanently and finally lose His grace. 2 Thus the state- ment of our Article has ahvays been a stumbling-block to thenl. So early as 1572 the authors of the Second 1 Fa.rrar, Early Dlt.llS if Christianity, vol. ii. p. 434. See also " est. cott, Epistles of S. John, p. 101. " Sinneth 'not. The t'ommentary on this phrase is found in ch. i. 6. It describes a. character, 'a prevailing habit,' and not primarily an act. Each separate sinful act does as such interrupt the fellowship; and yet so far as it is foreign to the character of the man, and removed from him (ii. 1), it leaves his character unchanged." Reference may also be made to Dr. Plummer's note in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, p. 124. 2 See the fifth and sixth of the "Lambeth Articles." " .A true, living, and justifying faith-the Spirit of God sanctifying-is not extinguished, does not fall away, does not vanish in the elect either totally or finally." " A truly faithful man, that is, one endowed with justifying faith, is cer- tain by the full a SUl'ance of faith, of the remission of his sins, and hi eternal salyation through Christ." 458 THE THIRTY...NINE ARTICLES Admonition to Parliament were forced to admit that "the book of the articles of Christian religion speaketh very dangerously of falling fronl grace, ,vhich is to be reformed because it savoureth too much of error." And at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 a suggestion was Inade that after the statement that we "may depart froln grace given," there should be added the qualifying words, "yet neither totally 1101' finally."1 Happily no notice \vas taken of these criticisms, and the sober state- ment of the Article renlained unqualified. The whole tenor of Scripture implies the possibility of falling fronl grace; and if S. Paul had reason to fear lest, ,vhen he haù preached to others, he himself" should be rejected" or "beconle reprobate" (àÔÓKt#Of;), 1 Cor. ix. 27, it is hard to underf 1jand ho\v III ell can be found to deny the same possibility in the case of others. The subject is closely connected ,vith the whole doctrine of Predestina- tion, and ,vill therefore come before us again in connec... tion with the Seventeenth Article, where sOlnething will be said on the Cal vinistic systenl in general. I t is therefore unnecessary to consider the matter more fully here. 1 See vol. i. p. 53 scq. ARTICLE XVII Dc Prædestinaaon ct Electione. Of Predestination and Election. Prædestinatio ad vitam, est æter- Predestination to life is the ever- num Dei propositum, quo ante lasting purpose of God, whereby jacta mundi fundamenta, suo con- (before the foundations of the world silio, nobis quidem occuIto, con- were laid) He hath constantly stanter decrevit, eos quos in Christo decreed by His counsel secret to us, elegit ex hominum genere, a male- to deliver from curse and damna- dicto et exitio liberare, atque ut tion those whom He hath chosen vasa in honorem efficta, per Chris- in Christ out of mankind, aud to tum ad æternam salutem adducere : bring them by Christ to everlasting Unde qni tam præclaro Dei bene- salvation, as vessels made to honour. ficio sunt donati, illi spiritu ejus 'Vherefore they which be endued opportuno tempore operante, secun- with so excellent a benefit of God dum propositum ejus vocantur: be called according to God's pur- vocationi per gratiam parent: jus- pose by His Spirit working in due tificantur gratis: adoptantur in season: they through grace obey filios: unigeniti J esn Christi iroa- the calling: they be justified freely: gini efficiuntur conformes: in bonis they be made sons of God by adop- operibus sancte ambulant: et de- tion: they be made like the image mum ex Dei misericordia pertingunt of His only. begotten Son Jesus ad sernpiternam felicitatem. Christ: they walk religiously in Quemadmodum Prædestinationis good works, and at length, by God's et Electionis nostræ in Christo pia mercy, they attain to everlasting consideratio, dulcis suavis et inef- felicity. fabilis consolationis plena est vere As the godly consideration of piis et his qui sentiunt in se vim Predestination, and our election ill Spiritus Christi, facta carnis et Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, membra quæ adhuc sunt super and unspeakable comfort to godly terram mortiticantem, animumque persons, amI such as feel in them- ad cælestia et superna rapiclltem, selves the working of the Spirit of turn quia fidem nostram de æterna Chriat, mortifying the works of the salute cOl1sequenda per Christum flesh and their earthly members, plurimum stabilit atque confirmat, and drawing up their mind to high tum quia amorem nostrum in Deum and heavenly things, as well because vehcmellter uccenùit: ita homini- it doth greatly establish and con- .1:> 460 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES bus curios is, carnalibus, et Spiritu Christi destitutis, ob oculos per- petuo \Tersari Prædestinationis Dei sententiarn, perniciosissimum est præcipitium, unde illos Dianolus protnldit, vel in desperationem, vel in æque perniciosam impuris- simæ vitæ securitatem. Deinde promissiones divinas sic amplecti oportet, ut nobis in sacris literis generaliter propositæ sunt: et Dei voluntas in nostris actioni- hus ea sequenda est, quam in verbo Dei haLemus diserte revelatam. firm their faith of eternal salvation to be enj oyed tllfough Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have con- tinually before their eyes the sen- tence of God's Predestination, is a most dangprous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretch. lessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God. THE changes which this Article has undergone since 1553 are very slight; the words "in Christ" were added in the first paragraph in 1563, and at the same time "although the decrees of Predestination are unkno\vn to us JJ \vere omitted at the commencement of paragraph the third. The object of the Article was evidently to allay the angry strifes on the subject of predestination, and while speaking in cautious terms on what ,vas felt to be a deep nlystery, to guard against the excesses and extravagances to which the doctrine had led. Thus, after describing \vhat predestination is in the first paragraph, the whole of the rest of the Article is dev0ted to the praÆtical conse- quences which follow from the doctrine, and to laying down rules which, when rightly understood, are distinctly aimed against that limitation of God's love and God's promises, which has been characteristic of so much pre- destinarian teaching. The need for such an Artic1e as this is pointedly shown in the language of the section ARTICLE XVII 461 "De Prædestinatione" in the Refor.mat-io Legun , \vhich begins by calling attention to the terrible consequences, sho'\vn in the lives of many, springing from what can only be called a reckless and monstrous fatalism. The section is one which deserves careful study, and will be seen to thro'\v not a little light on the meaning of the Article now under consideration. "Ad extremum in Ecclesia multi feris et dissolutis mo1'ibus vivunt, qui CUlll 1'e ipsa curio i sint, differti luxu, et a Christi spiritu prorsus alieni, semper præ- destination em et rejectionem, vel, ut usitate loquuntur, reprobationem in sermone jactant, ut cum æterno con-_ silio Deus vel de salute vel de interitu aliquid certi constituerit, inde latebram suis maleficiis et sceleribus, et omnis generis perversitati quærant. Et cum pastores dissipatam illorum et fiagitiosam vitam coarguunt, in voluntatenl Dei criminam suorum culpam conferunt, et hac defensione profiigatas admonitorum reprehensiones existimant: ac ita tandem, duce diabolo, vel in despera- tionis puteum abjiciuntur præcipites, vel ad solutam quandam et moIlenl vitæ securitatem, sine aut pæni- tentia aut scelerum conscientia dilabuntur. Quæ duo mala disparem naturam, sed finem videntur eundem habere. Nos vero sacris Scripturis eruditi, talem in hac re doctrinam ponimus, quod diligens et accurata cogitatio de prædestinatione llostra et electione suscepta (de quibus Dei voluntate deternlinatum fuit antequam lllundi funda- menta jacerentur); hæc ita que diligens et seria, qualll diximus, his de rebus cogitatio, piorum hominum animos Spiritu Christi affiatos, et carnis et membruruln subjec- tionem persentiscen tes, et ad cælestia sursum tendentes, dulcissima quadam et jucundissima consolatione per- mulcet, quoniam fidem nostram de perpetua salute per ChristuDl ad nos perventura confi1'mat, vehementissimas charita tis in Deum fiammas accendit, n1Ïrabiliter ad gratias 462 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES agendas exsuscitat, ad bona nos opera propinquissime adducit, et a peccatis longissime abducit, quoniam a Deo sumus electi, et filü ejus instituti. Quæ singularis et e'{imia conditio summam a nobis salubritatem morum, et excellentissimam virtutis perfectionen1 requirit: denique nobis arrogantiam minuit, ne viribus nostris geri cl'edamus, qum gratuita Dei beneficentia et infinita bonitate indul- gentur. Præterea neminem ex hoc loco purgationem censemus vitiorum suorun1 afferre posse; quia Deus nihil ulla in re injuste c nstituit, nec ad peccata volun- tates nostras unquam invitas trudit. Quapropter omnes nobis admonendi sunt, ut in actionibus suscipiendis ad decreta prædestinationis se non referant, sed universaln vitæ sum rationem ad Dei leges accomn1odent; cun1 et promissiones bonis et nlinas malis, in sacris Scripturis generaliter propositas contemplentur. Debemus enim ad Dei cultum viis iBis ingredi, et in illa Dei voluntate commorari, quam in sacris Scripturis patefactam es e videll1Us." 1 This section, it will be noticed, guards still 1110re strongly than does the Article against the abuses of the doctrine, and points out very precisely the dangers then existing. It is also valuable as indicating with certainty the true interpretation of the last clause of the Article, \vhich says that God's promises are to be received U in such \vise as they be gene/rally set forth to us in Holy Scripture,"-a subject on which sOlnething must be said later on. The sources of the Artic]e, and of the section just quoted from the Rifortnatío Legu1n, are thought to lie to SOlne extent in the writings of Luther, including both his letters and the Preface to the Epistle to the ROlnans : 2 1 Reformatio Legum Eccl., De Hæres. c. xxii. 2 See Bp. Short's History of tlte Church of England, c. x. App. 0, where this is {minted out; anù see below, p. 485. ARTICLE XVII 463 and the language of the last paragraph has been traced by Archbishop Laurence to Melancthon. 1 Still more important, however, is it to notice that the description of predestination given in the first paragraph is to a very great extent couched in the actual 'UJ01'cZS of Holy Script'ure. The chief passages on which it is based are Rom. viii. and L\:. and Eph. i., and the correspondence is even closer in the Latin than in the English. In writing to the Ephesians S. Paul blesses God, "who hath blessed us \vith every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: even as He chose us in HÍ1n before the foundation oj the 'world (sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem), that we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love: l aving foreordained us unto adoption as sons, through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleaswl'e qf His 'will ( qui prædestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Jesum Christum in ipsum secundum propositum voluntatis suæ), to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved . . . in \vhom also \ve \vere made a heritage, having been foreordained aÆco1'ding to the purpose of Him w/ o w01'ketk all things afte'}' tl e counsel of His 'will (prædestinati secundum propositum ejus, qui operatur omnia secundum consilium voluntatis suæ )," Eph. i. 3-11. Elsewhere he speaks of "vessels made to honour" (cf. " vasa in honorenl efficta" with "an non habet potestatenl figulus luti ex eadem massa face1'e aliud quid em vas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam?" l om. ix. 21), while in Rom. vüi. 28-30, he tells us that (( to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to His purpose. For \vholn He foreknew, He also fOTeordct'Íned to be conformed to the i'Tl age of His Son, that He might be the firstborn anlong many brethren: and wh01n He fore- 1 See Archùp. Laurence, Blt1Jlpfon Lectures, p. 179. 464 THE THIRTY'-NINE ARTICLES o'ì"da.ined, them.' He also called: and 'lvhorn He called, the1n He also }ustified: and 1.u!to1n He justified, them He also glorified" (Scimus autem quoniam diligentibus DeunI omnia co-operantur in bonum, iis qui secundum propositum vocati sunt sancti: N am quos præscivit, et prædestinavit conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Quos autem prædestinavit, hos et vocavit, et quos vocavit, hos et justificavit; quos autem justificavit, illos et glorificavit). If these passages are carefully compared witij the Article, it will easily be seen how closely it follows them: and hence it results that to one who has previously accepted Scripture as containing the word of God, the positive statements of the Article present no further difficulty.! They are evidently mea t to be simply a reflection of the language of Scripture, and therefore whatever interpretation we are justified in putting upon the language of Scripture, the same we shall be justified in putting upon the corresponding language of the ..A.rticle. This principle, when fully grasped, will be found to remove much of the difficulty ,vhich is sometimes felt in regard to sub- scription to this Seventeenth Article. It is only in the first and last paragraphs that any difficulty is found. The second paragra ph, dealing with the practical con- sequences of the doctrine, contains nothing to which exception can be taken. The third paragraph will be explained and justified later on; and if this first paragraph be taken, as it is surely meant to be taken, as a summary of Scripture 3tatements rather than a definite interpretation of them, no difficulty \vhatever need be felt as to its acceptance. Coming no,v to the substance of the Article, the subjects treated of in it are the following:- 1 Cf. the pas:sage from )Iozley's Lectures lWcl utile?' Theological p{f]1ers (p. 220), quoted in yol. i. p. 352. ARTICLE XVII 465 1. 'l'he description of predestination. 2. The steps \vhich accompany it. 3. The practical effect of the doctrine. 4. Two considerations calculated to guard the doctrine fronl abuses. I. 1'he Description of Predestination. Predestination to life is the everlasting pur- pose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. There have been from time to time various theories held with regard to predestination, and various schemes and systems have been formed by Christians. Of these, the most important are the following, which it will be convenient to consider in the order in which they are here enumerated, rather than in accordance with a more strictly chronological arrangement :- (a) Ecclesiastical predestination. (b) The Arminian theory. (c) The Calvinistic theory. (d) The Augustinian theory. (a) Ecclesiastical Predestination. - According to this, predestination is not necessarily to life, but to privilege, i.e. to the opportunity of 0 btaining eternal life in the \vay of God's covenant. On this view, the "elect" are to be identified with the "called," and include all baptized persons. As Bishop Harold Browne puts it: "Some have held that as the J e\\rs of old were God's chosen people, so now is the Christian Church; . that 466 THE THIRT\,'-NINE ARTICLES every baptized nlenlber of the Church is one of God's elect, and that this election is from God's irrespective and unsearchable decree. Here, therefore, election is to be baptis?nal privileges, not to final glory; the elect are identical \vith the baptized, and the election constitutes the Chu'rch." 1 That this doctrine is taught in Holy Scripture adnlits of no doubt whatever. Throughout the Old Testament God is said to have" chosen" the whole people of the ,J ews, and not a select fe\v out of their number. 2 The " children of Jacob" were His" chosen ol1es" or " elect" (l)s. cv. 6).3 And when we pass from the Old Testament to the New, we find that the Inembers of the Christian Church are regarded as having succeeded to the privileges of the Jews, and that the language used of the Israelites is applied b) the Apostles to them.4: So S. Paul, in writing to different Churches, addresses his readers indiscriminately as "called" (KÀ7J'TOt); 5 and S. Peter in a similar way writes to the "elect" (;'KÀEKTOt) \vho are "sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, 1 On Utt, Articles, 1). 393. 2 'EK).É1'ELV is used frequently of this" choice." See, e.g., Deut. iv. 37, vii. 7, x. 15; xiv. 2, Ps. cxxxiv. (cxxxv.) 4, etc. 2 'EK).EKTÓS- is used very widely in the LXX., and represents no fewer than twenty different Hebrew words. This is of itself significant, and should preveut us from attempting to fix too hard and fast a meaning upon it in the New Testament. It is used of the whole nation in Ps. civ. (cv.) Û, 43, ev. (evi.) 5, and elsewhere; but also of individuals, as Moses, Ps. ev. (cvi.) 23; Joshua; Num. xi. 28; and David, Ps. lxxxviii. (lxxxix.), 19. 4. 'Vith Ex. xix. 5, lO"EO"OÉ }.LO' ).aðs- 71 pLOÚO"LO (brð 7råVTWV TWV lOvwv. i}.L7} 1'tip iO"TL 1I'âO"a 7] 1'7}, ÍI}JÆLS- ð lO" O"()É }.tOL ßaO"l). LoV l pdTEVp.a Kal l()vo 11:"(LOV, ef. Tit. ii. 14 ().aðs- 1r pLO{rO"LOS) and 1 Pet. ii. 9: 1'É(TOS- lK).EKTÒV, ßaO"().ELoV lEpdíEv}.La, lOJlo 41'LOJl, ).aò d 1rEPL7rol7JO"l.v (this last I)hrase is the LXX rendering of the same phrase i1 )C in ral. iii. 17); and cf. also T ",: Eph. i. 14: d å7ro).Úïpw(TLV 7'17 7r pL7rOL-qO" WS-. G Rom. i. 6, Î ; 1 C01'. i. 2 ; cr. S. Jude, ver. 1. ARTICLE XVII 467 Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," 1 and elsewhere charges them to "lllake their calling and election sure" (2 Pet. i. 10). Such language can only be used of an election to privilege. Among the Apostles' converts were many \vho were in danger of falling away, and of committing grievous sins, and yet they are all alike regarded as " called" and "elect," or chosen. Clearly, then, the " called" and" elect" are identical; and the Apostles, in using this language, are writing to their converts as chosen and called by God to the high privilege of being His people. The saIne kind of language is found in the writings of many of the early Fathers,2 indicating that they also held that the Christian Church had stepped into the place of the Jews, and that therefore its lllembers could 1 1 Pet. i. 1. Cf. ii. 9 (iK}-..EKTÒ" -yÉJios), v. 13 (O"lIVEK}-..EKT-q), and Co!. iii. 12; and note that it was of an election to privilr[Je that our l.ord spoke when He said, "Have I not chosen (i !}-..E áp.?]v) you twelve, and one of you is a devil " S. John vi. 70. 2 See Clement of Rome, c. lxiv., where he speaks of God as having elected our Lord Jesus Christ, and us by Him, to els }-..aòv 7r F pLOVO"LOV. iK}-..EKT6s is a "favourite word tJ with Clement (Lightfoot). It occurs at least eight times in his Epistle (see cc. i. ii. vi. xlvi. xlix. lii. lix.), but there is nothing that is absolutely determinative of his use, though it is probable that he uses it of the Church generally, as he certainly does K}-..?]T6s. See the salutation: 'H iKK}-"?]O"la TOU SEOV 7} 7rapOLKovO"a 'PwP.?]V TV iKK}-"?]O"lq. TOU SEOU rV 7rapOLKOVO"TJ K6pLVOOV, K}-..'1JTO'iS, K. T.}-... But it is possible that iK}-..EKT6s sometimes slides into a further meaning, t.g. in ii.: Els TÒ O"W!EO"OaL P.ETà ÒfOliS Kal O"UJlELÒ-qO"EWS TÒV åpLOP.ÒV TWV iK}-..EKTWV a.ÙTOU; xlix.: iv T17 å:yá.1I"V ffE}-..ELWO?]O"av ",åVTES 0;' iK}-..EKTol TOÛ SEOÛ; lix. : IKEO"lav 7rOLOÍt- P.OOf. ð1l"ws TÒV åpLOP.ÒV TÒV KaT?]pLOp.71P.fVOV TWV iK}-..EKTWV aÙTOV . . . ÒLa- tþll}-..V V. Ignatius of Antioch certainly uses iK}-..EKT6s in the sense of eccle- siastical election. See the salutation to the Epistle to the Trallians : iKK}-"?]O"lq. ð:ylq. TV o"O"V iv Tpá}-..}-..EO"LV T-ryS 'AO"las, iK}-..EKTV Kal dtf.oOICfJ, K.T.}-... Cf. also the salutation to his Epistle to the Ephesians (iK}-..E}-.. p.iv?]v). Hermas uses it several times of the Church. See Vis. i. 3, iii. 5, iv. 2. Justin :Martyr speaks of Christians being "called" as Abraham was, Dial. c. cxix. ; and to the same effect Irenæus says that " the Word of God, which formerly elected the patriarchs, has now elected us tI (Adv. ll,ær. IV. lviii.). 468 THE TI-IIRTY-NINE ARTICLES rightly be addressed as cc elect." And there can be no doubt that this vie\v of election is recognised in our own formularies. Not only is the Church described in the Homily for Whitsunday as "an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people," but in three out of the four passages where the \vord " elect" occurs in the Book of Common Prayer, it is used of the Church or body of Christians generally. Thus, in the Collect for All Saints' Day, God is said to have" knit together His elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body" of His Son. In the Catechism the catechumen is taught to speak of "God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God"; and in the Baptismal Service, before the child is baptized, we pray that "he may receive the fulness of God's grace, and ever relnain in the number of His faithful and elect children,"-an expression \vhich implies the possibility that he may fail and lose his election.! In the fourth passage in which the word occurs in the Book of Common Prayer, the exact meaning to be given to it may be a matter of doubt. It is in the prayer which follows the Lord's Prayer in the order for the Burial of the Dead, where we pray God "shortly to accomplish the number of His elect,2 and to hasten His kingdom; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of His holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in His eternal and everlasting glory." It is scarcely natural to take the word here as practically equivalent to the bap- tized; and the probability s ems to be that something further is in tended here, and in the Article before ns, 1 To these three passages may be added the versicle, "Make thy chosen people joyful;" cf. Ps. cxxxii. 9, from which the words are taken. 2 The phrase seems to have been originally suggested by the language of S. Clement, quoted in the note on the previous page. ARTICLE XVII 469 where predestination is described as God's" purpose to deliver those \vhom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring then1 by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour." And if this is so, if, that is, the formularies of the Church while accepting "ecclesiastical election JJ point also to some- thing beyond it as well, it would appear that in this they faithfully reflect the teaching of Holy Scripture. For \vhile, as we ha ve seen, ecclesiastical election is distinctly taught therein, yet there are some passages the language of which is not really satisfied by this theory. Although it is true that in the Epistles the " called" and the" elect" are identified, yet in our Lord's words in the Gospel, " fany are called ("^'1}Toí), but few are chosen" (È"^EIlTOí), they are expressly distinguished. Moreover, while it is admitted that S. Paul's language in Rom. viii. and ix. is prima'rily in tended to refer to nations, and to the election of the Christian Church to privilege, yet it is impossible to exclude from his thought something further. The use of the \yords "prepared unto glory," cc fitted unto destruction" (ix. 22, 23), and of the phrase "them He also glorified," as the crown of the series of blessings enumerated in viii. 28-30, "prove conclusively that he is looking . . . to the final end and destination of man." 1 It appears, then, that the theory of ecclesiastical election, though perfectly scriptural, does not cover the whole teaching of Scripture on the subject; and that we must recognise that there is a further truth, if not definitely revealed, at least implied, in the passages just referred to. 1 Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 266; cf. p. 347: "It is quite true to say that the election is primarily an election to privilege; yet there is a. very intimate connection between privilege and eternal salva- tion, anrl the language of ix. 22, 23, 'fitted unto destruction,' 'prepared unto glory,' cannot be limited to a mere earthly destiny. 0' 3 1 470 THE THIRTY-NINE .ARTICLES (b) J.Jhe Ar1ninictn t!teory of P1'"edcstination.-The vie,v which is generally associated ,vith the nanle of Armillius is that God foresa\v fron1 all eternity who among Inell ,vouid make a good use of the grace which is freely offered to all, and that therefore, i.e. because He foresaw their future Inerits, He predestined some to final glory. This is sometimes called predestinatio ex prævisis meritis, and its leading characteristic is that it does away with the n1ystery of the doctrine, and makes predestination to life a consequence of God's forek;nowledge. Since Van Harmen or Arminius 1 only propagated his views at the beginning of the seventeenth century, it is obvious that an Article drawn up in 1553 can have nothing to do ,vith him and his followers. It is therefore quite unnecessary to enter into the history of the Dutch " }{emonstradts" and the Synod of Dort. 2 But there ,verc Arminians before A rn1Ïnius, and the view of pre- destination which he and his followers developed and worked into their systern \yas held in a loose and informal \vay by lllany before him. Indeed, so far as the Fathers before Augustine can be said to haye had any theory of predestination to life beyond that of ecclesiastical election, it would appear that they held it to be a consequence of foreseen merit. Possible indications of this vie\v have been found in the writings of J ustill l\fartyr:3 and Irenæus. 4 Still 1 Born in Holla.nd in 1560; professor at Leyden, 1604; and died in 1609. 2 See losheim, vol. iii. p. 354 (ed. Stubbs); and cf. Hardwick, History of th( A rUdes, c. ix. 8 'A"""'" Elp.app.Évr)V tþap.Èv å7rapáßaToJl TaÚ77JJI Elvat Toîs Tà KaXà ÈK}..eyop.{vots Tà lí ta È7rtTíp.La. Ka! TOtS óp.olws Tà. fvavTla. Tà d ta. Ë7rlXEtpa, Apol. I. c. xliii.; cf. Kaye's Justin J,fartyr, p. 81: "If Justin held the doctrine of pre- destin9.tion at all, it must have been in the Arminia.n sense-ex p'l"ævisis mC'l"itis. " 4 "Deus l1is quidem qui non credunt, sed nullifirant eum, infert cxcitatclll . . . ::;i igitnr et nunc, quotf}uot srit non crcdit1.lros Dc'us, cum ARTICLE XVII 471 Inore clearly is it seen in the teaching of the great .Alexandrians, Clement 1 and Origen. 2 Änlong later \vriters it is taught by Chrysostom,3 \vhose influence became predolninant in the East; and although in the 'Vest the system of Augustine in the main held the field, yet there are traces of sOlnething approaching to the earlier view among some of the schoolmen,4 and it has never wanted its defenders in the Church of Rome. 5 sit omnium præcognitor tradidit eos infidelitati eorum, et avertit faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in tenebris, quas ipsi siòi elegerwú; quid mirum si et tunc nunquam crediturum Pharaonem, cum his qui cum co erant, tradidit eos SUê:l' infidelitati."-Ad'l.'. Heer. lY. xlv. "Nec enim lumen deficit propter eos qui semetipsos excæcaverunt, sed illo perse- verante quale et est excæcati per suam culpam in caligine constituuntur. N eque lumen cum magna necessitate subjiciet sibi quemquam: uequc Deus coget eUlll, qui nolit continere ejus artem. Qui igitur abstiteruut a paterno lumine et transgressi 8unt legem liberta.tis, per suam abstiterunt culpam, liberi arbitrii et sure potestatis facti. Deus autem omnia præ- sciens, utrisque aptas præparavit habitationes."-lV. lxiv. 1 ODs 7rPOWPL(fEV å SfÒS, òLKaLovs f(fOpivovs 7rpÒ Karaßo fjs KÓ(fP.OV li'VWKWS, Strom. VII. :xvii. 107. MEra ap.ßcívEL ÒÈ rfjs EV7roLÍas lKa(fTOS -qp.wv rpòs Ô ßoú EraL l7rEÌ r1]v òLaq>opàv rfj!) iK cryfj!) å La -YEVO}.dv7J ý;vxfjs alpE(fls Tf Kaì (fvvcí(fK1](fL!) 7rE7rOí.1]KEV, ib. V. xiv. 141; cr. Kaye's Clement of Alex- andria, p. 434. 2 See especially Philocalia, xxv. p. 227 (ed. Robinson): 'AJlwrÉpw ÖÉ i(fn roû 7rpOOpL(fP.OÛ 7] 7rplryvW(fLS. OÛ!) -yåp 7rpof-YVW, tþ1](fì, Kaì 7rPOWPL(ffV (fVp.- p.ópøovs rijs E;.KÓVOS roû vloû aÚTOÛ. 7rpOfJlarfVL(faS OÙV å SEÒS T Eipp.i;J TWII È(fopivwv, Kaì KaTavof}(fa!) p07r1]v rou lØ' 1]}.Û.v rwvòÉ TLVWV f7rì fÌ!(fÉßELav Kaì åpp. v È7rl. ra.Vr1]v P.ETà rl}v p07r1]V, Kal W!) Ö OL ÉaVTOÙ!) È7rLÒW(fOP(fL r'8 KaT' åpETl}V fiiv, 7rpoÉi'vw aVroù!), -YLVW(fKWV p.Èv rà lVL(fTåp.Eva 7rPO')'LVW(fKWV ÒÈ Tà }ll ovTa. Kaì ous OÜTW 7rpoÉì'vw, 7rPOWPL(fEV, K.T. . ; cf. Ad ROiJt. vii. Ii. It is interesting to notice that Calvin frankly owns that Origen and S. Ambrose and S. Jerome were all "Arminialls," and" were of opinion that God dispenses His grace among men according to the nse which He foresees that each will make of it," Inst. III. xxii. 8. a'O p.dfwv ÒOv' EÚ(fEL T'8 ÈXå(f(fOVL. Tivos OUV ËVEK V roVro El7rEV Ó SE6s ; ón OUK åvapivn, KaOcí7rEp l1vOpW7rO!) á7rò roû TE OÛS TWV 7rpa-yp.árwII iòÛv TÒV å-yaOòv, Kaì TÒV ou rOLoÍÌTov, åX à 7rpÒ roVrwv OLÒE ris P.fV Ó 7rov1]pÒS, rL!) Òf Ó p.1} rOLoVro!).-Chrysost. In, Ep. ad RO'in., Hom. xvi. (on Rom. ix. 16). 4 See the summary of their teaching in Hagenbach, Hist014Y of Doctrine, vol. ii. p. 299 ; and Laurence, Bampt01t Lectures, p. 148. Õ "A largc number of Jesuits eg. Tolctu , :\la1donatu . Lcs::iillS, \' as- 472 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Turning llO\V to the consideratioll of the evidence of Scripture, we note that the only passage to which an appeal can \vith any sho\v of reason be nlade by the upholders of this theory is ROlll. viii. 28, 29: "'V e know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to then1 that are called according to His purpose ('Toî /laTà rrrpó8eut,v /lÀ'T}TOÎ8). For \vhom He forekne\v, He also foreordained (Trpowpt,ue) to be con- forined to the image of His Son," etc.! Here the Greek conlmentators generally have taken /laTà 7ipó8eut,v of the ?nan's free choice, a view \vhich is undoubtedly false, as the expression must refer to Goel's purpose (cf. . 11 ,,:'\, ' 8 ... e ... ) I ' IX. : 1] /laT F/l"-ory1]V TrpO eUL 'rov ,.. eov ; anc TrpoeryvCiJ has been interpreted of forekno\v ledge of character and fitness. This is plausible; but a careful examination of those passages of Scripture \vhere God's "knowledge" of individuals or nations is spoken of sho\vs that it cannot be maintained. The \vord ryt,ryv WUKCiJ , as used of God, " means' to take note of,' , to fix the regard upon,' as a preliminary to selection for some special purpose. The compound 7I"poéryvCiJ only thro\vs back this 'taking note' from the historic act in tinle to the eternal counsel which it expresses and executes." 2 But if the solitary passage which 1l1ight have seemed to favour the .A.rminian theory breaks do\vn, there is, on the other hand, a mass of scrip- tural evidence against it. The language of both Old and N e\v Testa1l1ent alike is quite decisive that God's quez, Valcntin, and Suarez (whilc he taught at Rome), admit that predestination to grace, but deny that predestination to glory, is irrespec- tive of merit foreseen. God def'rees, they say, to give gracc to all, and predestines those who, as He foresees, will correspond to it, the rest being reprobate."-Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary, p. 745. I cr. 1 Pet. i. 1, 2: iK,,^EKTO'i . _ _ KaTà 1I'PÓ'ì'''W(J't" 8EOÛ 1raTpó,;. 2 Sanday and Headlam 011, the Romans, p. 217, where reference is made to Ps. i. 6, cxliv. (cxliii.) 3; Hos. xiii. 5; Amos iii. 2; S. :Matt. "ii. 23, for 'ì"'ì''',:}(rKE'v. To these may be added Gen. xviii. 19: "I have h,"'}WlCn him, to the end that he may command bis children," etc. ARTICLE XVII 473 election of Israel ,vas not a consequence of foreseen faith or good \vorks. .Again a.nd again it is stated that it was" not for their righteousness, for the uprightness of their heart, that they ,vent in to possess the land" ; 1 and S. Paul appeals to the history of Jacob anù Esau in l om. ix. 10-13 as exhibiting "the perfectly free character of the Divine action, that purpose of God in the \vorld ,vhich ,vorks on a principle of selection not dependent on any fornl of human lllerits or any conven- tion of human birth, but sÌ1nply on the Divine \vill as revealed in the Divine call." 2 And although this election \vas simply to higher privileges, and had nothing to do with eternal salvation, yet it establishes the general principle that in God's dealings with men there is " an element of inscrutable selectiveness." 3 The Arminian theory ignores this fact, and does a,vay \vith the lllystery of the doctrine, \vhereas S. Paul insists that it is nlysteri- ous and unfathomable. ...t\..ccording to Arminianism, it is dependent on foreseen good works. S. Paul expressly says it is "not of works," and uses the history of Jacob and Esau to enforce this principle. "The children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election nLigllt stand, 'not of works, but of HinL that calleth, it \vas said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. x. 11-13). If God be omniscient and almighty, it is impossible to deny (1) that He does foresee fronl all eternity who will make a good use of grace, and (2) that He does predestinate such to final glory. But the error of the Arlninians lies in connecting the t\vù assertions by a 1 Deut. ix. 5, 6; cf. x. 15; 1 Sam. xii. 22; Jer. xxxi. 1-3; )18.1. i. 2, 3, etc. 2 Sanday and Headlam, p. 239. 3 Gore in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 40. 474 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES "therefore," and thus Inaking the one a consequence of the other. This introduces an idea of tirne, a (( before" and" after," into the Divine life, whereas the forekllo\v- ledge of God and His 11redestination, both being frolD all eternity, are (if the ,vord may be pertnitted) syn- chronous, neither being dependent upon the other. (c) 17 e Calrinistic theory.-There remain for considera- tion the Augustinian and the Calvinistic systems, the latter of which is only a more daring and logical develop- ment of the former; as \vhat Augustine suggested in the fifth century, that Calvin said plainly in the sixteenth; 1 and \vhat ,vas left indefinite in the earlier systenl, \Va8 filled up and completed in the later. Like Arminianisrn, Calvinisl1l holds that predestination is to life and not only to privilege; but, unlike that systenl (which arose as a reaction fronl it), it teaches that it is "arbitrary," springing from God s good pleasure, fronl motives unknown to us. The" five points" of the \vhole scheme are these- 1. Predestination, including ((t) predestination to life, and (b) reprobation or predestination to condenlnation. 2. Particular reden1ption, or the doctrine that Christ died, not for all Inen, but only for the " elect," i.e. those predestined to life. 3. Total ruin, or the doctrine that at the Fall man ,vas wholly deprived of original righteousness. 4. Irresistible grace or effectual calling. 1 Calvin's Institutes were first ]mb1ished in 1536, so that his views ]ul.d been made public some time before the English Articles were drawn up. Rut the great discussion on predestination at Geneya, and the pub1ication of 11is book Dc Predestinatia1tc, only took place in 1552. It has conse- quently been doubted whether his system had produced much influence in England at the time when the Seventeenth Article was drawn up. (See Bp. H. Browne On the Adicles, p. 412.) But it is certain that there was much fatalistic teaching among the Anabaptists, which is probably to some extent a reflection of his system. Cf. Hooper's letter quoted in vol. i. p. 22: "They maintain a fatal necessity," etc. ARTICLE XVII 475 5. Final perseverance. It must be admitted that on all these points Augustine in the course of the controversy with the Pelagians used language which practically involved the conclusions which Calvin with fatal logic did not shrink from dra\ving, at the expense of shutting his eyes to a whole series of counter-truths asserted in Scripture. But, on the whole, it appears to be true to say that Calvinism goes beyond Augustinianism in its definite and systematic teaching of particular redemption, total ruin, and reprobation.! A clear view of the \vhole system as it was presented and taught in England may be obtained from the" Lambeth Articles" (1595), which state the points with great precision, and from the imposition of which the Church of England was happily saved by the wisdom and good sense of Queen Elizabeth. 2 The Articles in question are as follows:- {{ 1. God from eternity hath predestinated some to life, some He hath reprobated to death. ee 2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination to life is not the prevision of faith, or of perseverance, or of good ,yorks, or of anything which may be in the persons pre- destinated, but only the will of the good pleasure of God. "3. Of the predestinated there is a fore-limited and cer- tain nUluber which can neither be diminished nor increased. " 4. They who are not predestinated to salvation \vill be necessarily condemned on account of their sins. " 5. A true living and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God sanctifying, is not extinguished, does not fall away, does not vanish in the elect either totally or finally. 1 Augustine's disciple, Prosper, seems definitely to ha\'e taught reproba- tion (Ep. ad Rufinurn, c. xiv.; App. ad Ope A'llg'llst. x. p. 168), and both it and particular redemption were maintamed by Gottschalc in tho ninth century. See Neander's Church Histo'NJ, yo1. vi. p. 180 seq., and Hagen- bach's History of Doctrine, vol ii. p. 293 seq., with the references there given. 2 cr. vol. i. p. 53. See Perry\; English Ckll'J"ch Hislorll, part ii. p. 351 seq. 476 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES "6. A truly faithful man, that is, one endowed \vith justifying faith, is certain by the fnll assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins, and his eternal salvation through Christ. " 7. Saving grace is not given, is not communicated, is not granted to alllnen, by which they might be saved if they would. "8. No man can come to Christ except it be given to him, and unless the Father draw him. And all nlen are not drawn by the Father that they nlay come unto the Son. ee 9. It is not placed in the will or power of every man to be saved." 1 No words are needed to point out ho\v alien is the \vhole tone and temper of this narro\v and harsh dogma- tism from the 'wise moderation ,vith which the Seventeenth Article is framed. A comparison of the two documents 1 "1. Deus ab æterno prædestinavit quosdam ad vitam et quosdam ad mortem reprobavit. "2. Causa moveus aut efficiells prædestinationis ad vitam non est prævisio fidei aut perseverantiæ, aut bonorum ope rum aut ullius rei quæ insit in personis pl'ædestinatis, sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei. "3. Prædestinatorum præfinitus et certus est numerus qui nec augeri nec minui potest. "4. Qui non sunt prædestinati ad salutem, necessario propter IJeccata sua damnahuntur. " 5. Vera, viva et justificans fides, et spiritus Dei sanctificans non extinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit in electis aut finaliter aut totaliter. "6. Homo vere fidelis, id est, fide justificante præditus, cert.us est plero. phoria fidei, de remissione peccatorum suorum et salute sempiterna sua per Christum. "7. Gratia salutaris non tribuitur, non communicatur unh g ersis homini- bus, qua servari possint, si voluerint. "8. N emo potest venire ad ChristUi..1l nisi datum ei fuerit, et nisi Pater eum traxerit. Et Olllnes homines non trahuntur a Patre ut vcniant ad filiurn. :, 9. N on est positum in arbitrio aut potestate uniuscujusque hominis servari. " Specimens of various Calvinistic Confessions drawn up on the Continent may be found in ,,-riner's Oonfessions of Christendom" I). 162.c:eq. ARTICLE XVII -1:77 is sufficient to sho\v that the Article is not fayourable to the Calvinistic theory, which, indeed, is directly contrary to Scripture in its lÙnitation of Divine grace to a fe, v ; 1 and assertion of its irresistible characte'}' 2 in those few, to say nothing of the dreadful dogma of reprobation, which \vas considered by Calvin as an integral part of his system, and on which the Article is wholly silent. 3 Further evidence that the Church of England is not favourable to the Calvinistic schelne will be found in the remarks offered above on Articles IX. and XVI.; 4 anù the last paragraph of the Article now under consideration will presently be shown to be aimed at two of the most dangerous tenets of the same system. (d) The A'ug'ust-inian theory.-The teaching of Augus- tine on the subject of predestination has exercised pro- found influence over the w hole 'Vestern Church. In the controversy with the Pelagians he was led to formu- late his views and to discuss the question thoroughly, and his teaching will be found fully stated in his works, 1 Particular redemption is ùirectly contrary to such passages of Holy Scripture as S. John iii. 16-17 ; 1 Tim. ii. 3-6, etc. Cf. 1 Cor. viii. 11, where S. Paul speaks of the possibility of a brother perishing, even one "for whom Christ died" ; which on the Calvinistic hypothesis is an impossibility. 2 Against the theory of "irresistible grace" it is perhaps sufficient to refer to S. Paul's dread lest he himself might prove a castaway, 1 Cor. ix. 27; and the whole tenor of his Epistles, in every one of which his readers are assumed to be in a state of grace which is real, but from which they m.ay fall, and in which they are therefore exhorted to continue. 3 The word" reprobate" (åòóKLp.or, Vulg. reprobus) occurs occasionally in the New Testament, the key passage being Rom. i. 28 (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 27), which shows that only those are blinded and hardened and become reprobate who have deliberately flung aside and scorned the knowledge of God, which they already possessed. III Rom. ix. 22, S. Paul purposely uses an indefinite form KaT1]pTt(fp.llla El å1rwXftav, whereas, when he speaks of the vessels of honour, he says expressly that God 1rP01]To[p.a(]'fJ1. See 011 the whole passage Sanday anrl Hea.dlam, p. 261. -& Cf. vol. i. p. 51 seq. 478 THE THIRTY-NINE .\RTICLES ])c JJuno Persc'vcrantiæ and])e Prædestinatione Sanctorum. In these he takes up the position (1) that predestination is to life, and not n1erely to privilege; (2) that it is u arbitrary," i.e. that the reason ,vhy one is predestinated to life and another is not, is unkno\vn to us; and thus (3) the reason is not foreseen faith; (4) only those endowed \vith the gift of final perseverance can be saved; but why this gift is granted to one and withheld from another, lies in the inscrutable ,viI} of God. His teaching has been made the subject of an admirable study by Professor Iozley, and the conclusion at which he arrives is, that \vhile Augustine is right in recognising fully that Scripture does speak of predestination to life, yet he is 'llJrong in ignoring the fact that Scripture is twosided on this great question. "If one set of passages, taken in their natural meaning, conveys the doctrine of predestina- tion, another conveys the reverse. The Bible in speaking of mankind, and addressing them on their duties and responsibilities, certainly speaks as if all had the power to do their duty or not, \vhen laid before them; nor would any plain nlan receive any other impression from its language than that the lnoral being had freewill, and could determine his acts one way or another. So that sometimes speaking one way and sometimes another, Holy Scripture as a whole nlakes no assertion, or has no definite doctrine on this subject." 1 " The characteristic of S. Augustine's doctrine compared \vith the scriptural one is, that it is f" d finite and absolute doctrine. Scrip- ture, as a \vhole, as has beel said, only informs us of a mystery on the subject; that is to say, while it informs us that there is a truth on the subject it nlakes no consistent statement of it, but asserts contrary truths, counterbalancing those passages which convey the pre- destinarian doctrine by paRsages as plain the other way: 1 A'ugllstÙziæn Thwl"!J uf PJ"()dcsli:ìZ( lion, p. 38. ARTICLE XVII 479 but S. _\.ugustine makes predestinarian stateluents, and does not balance thenl by contrary ones. Rather he endeavours to explain a\vay those contrary statements of Scripture. Thus he evades the natural force of the text that God \vould have all n1e11 to be saved, by supposing that it only llleans that no man is saved except through the \vill of God, or that "all men" means not all men, but some out of all classes and ranks of men." 1 The criticism then to be offered upon the Augustinian scheme is, that it is a onesidec1 development of scriptural truth. 'Vhat it gains in consistency it loses in truth. It is right to a great extent in its affirmations, and wrong to a great extent in its denials. It is right in asserting that predestination is to life, and that the ground of it is inscrutable by us; wrong in denying that sufficient grace is gi \Ten to all, and that salvation lies in the power of all men. The four principal theories of predestination have now been stated, and reasons have been given for not deeming anyone of them entirely satisfactory. Ho\v then, if all these are rejected, is the Seventeenth Article to be under- stood ? In exactly the sa-me way as these passages of Sc'rip- ture which speak of predestinlttion, i.e. " as containing one side of the whole truth respecting grace and freewill, the side, namely, of grace or the Divine power; but not at all as interfering with anyone's belief in a counter truth of lllan's freewill and originality as an agent. ..And in this sense it only excludes a Pelagian, and not such as are content to hold a mystery on the subject, and maintain the Divine power in conjunction with man's free\vill." 2 The fact is, that the Bible lays do\vn apparently contrary truths, both of which have yet to be held by one who \vould hold the \vhole truth. Freewill and predestina- tion are both taught in the Bible; and though we cannot 1 A'U[I'Ustinia/ l'heor1.J of Predestinaj,iO'n, p. 155. Iozley, Ope cit. p. 333. 480 TI-fE T] IIRT'''"-NI1'E ARTICLES see at present how they are compatible with each other. yet if. in the interests of logical consistency, we are led to deny either one of theIn, \ve shall find ourselves involved in errors and difficulties from \vhich there is no escape. For the present we nlust be content to hold both as pa').ts of the truth, remembering that \ve know but "in part," and leaving their cOlllplete reconciliation to the time when we "shall kno\v, even as \ve are known." Some words of Dr. Liddon's may serve to conclude this section. In speaking of the" old controversy between the defenders of the sovereignty of God on the one side, and the advocates of the freewill of man on the other," be says- U The very idea of God as it occurs to the human mind, and the distinct statements of revelation, alike represent the Divine will as exerting sovereign and resistless sway. If it \vere other\vise, God would not be Almighty, that is, He would not be God. On the other hand, our daily experience and the language of Scripture both assure us that Ulan is literally a free agent; his freedom is the very ground of his Illoral and religious responsibility. Are these tw'o truths hopelessly incolllpatible with each other? So it may seem at first sight; and if we escape the danger of denying the one in the supposed interests of the other, if we shrink from sacrificing God's sovereignty to man's freewill, with Arminius, and fronl sacrificing nlan's freedom to God's sovereigntJ, \vith Calvin, we can only express a wise ignorance by saying, that to us they seem like parallel lines \vhich must meet at a point in eternity, far beyond our present range of vie\v. We do kno\v, however, that being both true, they cannot really contradict each other: and that in some manner, which \ve cannot formulate, the Divine sovereignty must ARTICLE XVII 481 not merely be compatible with, but must even imply, the perfect freedom of created \vills." 1 II. l'he Steps 1-vkich accompany p'J'edcsti.natio'n. After having described in scriptural terms what is llleant by predestination to life, the Article proceeds, still in close dependence upon Scripture, to describe the several steps or processes which accompany it. They which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season: they through grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. These several processes, thus described, have been summed up as follo'ws :-(1) Vocation, (2) obedience to vocation through grace, (3) free justification, (4) son- ship by adoption, (5) conformity to the image of our Lord, (6) a religious life, and (7) eternal felicity.2 It is right that these various steps by \vhich God's eternal decree is carried out should be thus enumerated in the Article, because they form a most important safeguard against Antinomian perversions of the doctrine, showing how much is really involved in predestination to life. Though \ve cannot, with ....1.rminius, say that foreseen good works are the !Jrolt/ d of such predestina- tion, yet \ve can say that they are involved in it; and that \vhere there is predestinati0n to eternal felicity, 1 Liddon's El m.enú oj ReligÙYIt, p. 191. cr. Sanday and HeafUam an, the Romans, p. 348. Bishop ForLcs O/ tlw Adid s, p. 2j2. 482 THE THIRT\'"-NINE ARTICLES there is also predestination to obedience and to COll- forn1Ïty to the image of our Lord. This \vas fully brought out by Bishop Bancroft at the Han1pton Court Conference, as the subjoined extract \vill shO'w. " The Bishop of London took occasion to signifie to His l\lajesty, ho\y very many in these daies, neglecting holinesse of life, presumed too much of persisting of grace, laying all their religion upon predestination, If I shall be saved, I shall be saved; which he termed a desperate doctrine, showing it to be contrary to good divinity and the true doctrine of predestination, wherein we Hhould reason rather ascendcndo than descendendo, thus, 'I live in obedience to God, in love with my neighbour, I follo,v nlY vocation, etc.; therefore I trust that God hath elected me, and predestinated me to salvation'; !lot thus, \vhich is the usual course of argument, 'God hath predestinated and chosen me to life, therefore though I sin never so grievously, yet I shall not be damned; for whom He once loveth, He loveth to the end.' " 1 I II. The J11"cwtical b1Jcct of the Doctrine. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as 1 Dean Barlow's account of "the sum and substance of the Con- ference" at Hampton Court. Cardwell's Co, fe1-fnccs, p. ISO. ARTICLE XVII 483 because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Pre- destination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most un- clean living (impurissimæ vitæ securitatem), no less perilous than desperation. Briefly, this rather wordy paragraph amounts to this- (a) For "godly persons" the doctrine is full of comfort, as tending to establish and confirm their faith, as well as to kindle their love towards God. I t acts upon them as the sense of a lofty destiny often acts upon men, encouraging thenl to do and dare all things, secure that the difficulties and dangers which lie before them cannot really hinder the accomplishment of their designs. In this lay the real strength of the Calvinistic creed, and of the Puritan character which it trained and developed. On the other hand, in systems \vhere there is little or no sense of God's power carrying out His purposes \vith resistless force through His chosen instruments, there the character trained under them is likely to be deficient in fibre and tenacity of purpose. So Dean :\Iiln1an has, ill a striking passage, pointed out the \veakness of Pelagianism: "No Pelagian ever has, or ever \vill, work a religious revolution. He \vho is destined for such a work must have a full conviction that God is acting direc.tly, immediately, consciously, and therefore \vith irresistible po\ver, upon him and through him. It is because he believes himself, and others believe him to be, thus acted upon, that he has the burning courage to undertake, the indomitable perseverance to luaintain, the inflexible resolution to 484 THE THIRTY"-NINE ARTICLES die for his religion; so soon as that conviction is deadened his power is gone. . . . He who is not pre- destined, who does not declare, who does not believe, himself predestined as the author of a great religious movement, he in ,vhom God is not manifestly, sensibly, avo\vedly, \vorking out His pre-established designs, will never be saint or reformer." 1 (b) For those whom the Article calls "curious (i.e. inquisitive) and carnal persons" it i most dangerous and perilous to dwell on the mystery, as it exposes theln to a t\vofold danger, since (1) if they believe that they are not predestined to life it urges them to despair, while (2) if they believe that they arc so predestined it leads them into recklessness and Anti- nOIDlanlsm. Roth dangers were terribly apparent during the period of the Reformation, ,vhen this subject exercised so strong a fascination over men's minds. lYlany were taking up the "desperate" doctrine referred to by Bancroft, and saying, "If I shall be saved, I shall be saved," and thus became utterly reckless of their actions and conduct; while others were driven to despair by the conviction that they were" reprobate."2 Of this Foxe, the martyrologist, gives a remarkable instance, in his account of the death of John Randall, of Christ's College, Cambridge, who destroyed himself in a fit of religious desperation: H He was found in his study hanging by his girdle, before an open Bible, with his dead arm and finger stretched pitifully towards a 1 l\Iilman's Latin Christianity, vol i. p. 150. 2 It was evidently because of this danger that the clergy were exhorted in the CI Injunctions" of 1559 to "have always in a readiness such com- fortable places and sentences of Scripture as do set forth the mercy, benefits, and gooùness of Almighty God towards all penitent and believ- ing persons," in order that cc the vice of damnable despair may be clearly taken away." Cardwell's Documentary .Annals, vol. ÍÍ. p. 218. ARTICLE XVII 485 passage on predestination"; 1 and both the dangers are alluded to in a passage in one of Luther's letters, \vhich bears a striking resemblance to the language of our own Article. cc l\;Ien should not turn their eyes on the secret sentence of election, foreknowledge, and predestination, as they are called; for such speeches lead to doubt, security, or despair,-are you elected? no fall can hurt you, and you cannot perish,-are you not elected? there is no renledy for it. These are shocking speeches, and men ought not to fix their hearts on such thoughts; but the gospel refers us to the proclaimed word of God, wherein He has revealed His will, and through which He will be known and will work." 2 IV. Two Considerations calculated to gua'l"d the Doctrine froln Abuses. The last paragraph of the Article gives t\VO rules which seem more particularly intended to guard against the Calvinistic tenet of particular reùemption. They are the following:- (a) We must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally (generaliter) set forth to us in Holy Scripture. (b) In our doings that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared to us in the word of God. 1 Froude, History of England, vol. ii. p. 81 ; cf. Foxe, iv. p. 694. 2 Luther's Letters, :Ko. 1753. There are two expressions in the English of this second paragraph of our Article on which a note may be useful- (1) "curious" in the phrase "curious and carnal persons" simply means inquisitive (cf. Ecclus. iii. 23: "Be "'"lot curious in unnecessary matters "), (2) "wretchlessness" (Latin, sec'ltritas) is only another form of the word "recklessness." It occurs with various fonns of spelling. In modern editions it invariably appears as "wretchlessllcss," but in the edition of 1553 it is speIt "rechielesnesse"; in 1571, "rechelcssnesse." .., .)- 486 TI-IE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES In the first of these rules the English sounds some- what ambiguous, but there can be no doubt that " generally" here means "universally," i.e. of God's prolnises as applying to all 'men, and not, as the Calvinistic party asserted, only to a particular class consisting of ë:t few favourites of Heaven. This inter- pretation is rendered certain by the corresponding passage in the Reformatio Legul1L, which has been already quoted, where God's promises to the good, and threats to the evil, are spoken of as generalitc'r propositæ in Holy Scripture. The same interpretation ,vas pointed out by Baro in his Ooncio ad Olerum in 1595, in the con- troversy ,vhen the Lambeth Articles were first pro- jected ; 1 and was also asserted against the Puritans by Bishop Bancroft at the Hampton Court Conference. 2 Thus the clause directly condemns the theory of particular redemption. 3 The second rule seems eq ually clear against the doctrine of reprobation. "In our doings that will of God is to be follo\ved which we have expressly declared to us in the word of God"; and that will certainly is that "all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. ii. 4). The clause is perhaps still more directly aimed against a tenet not unknown to the Calvinists, but finding special favour with the 1 Strype's 1Vhitgift, p. 466. 2 Cardwell's History of Conferences, p. 181. For this meaning of thc word, cf. the Catec11ism, which speaks of two sacraments ordained by Christ "as generally necessary to salvation," i.e. necessary for all men; and cf. the use of the word "g( neraIly " in the Autborised Yersioll, in 2 Sam. xvii. 11 ; Jer. xlvii. 48. 3 With the expression "generaliter propositæ" cf. the language of Al'ticle YII., which says that in Scripture "æterna vita h (/lnano gewri est proposita "; cf. Latimer's Sermons, p. 182, ed. 1584. "'"rItc promises of Christ our Saviour be general; they pertain to all 'lJwltJ..:ind. . . . The promises of Christ which he general and pertain to the 'Whole world. " ARTICLE XVII 487 Anabaptists, which spoke of a secret ,viII of God opposerl to IIis revealed ,vill; so Hooper, afterwards Bishop of G-lol1cester, writes in 1549 of the l\nabaptists: "They maintain a fatal necessity, and that beyond and Lesides that will of His, which He has revealed to us in the Scriptures, God hath another will by which He altogether acts under some kind of necessity." 1 Such teaching as this is at once condemned in our Article, which refers us exclusively to the revealed ,vill of God. 2 It only remains, for the sake of completeness of treat- lllellt, to point out-(l) that there was no Article on the subject of predestination in the Confession of Augsburg; and (2) that at the Council of Trent n111ch perplexity was felt on the subject, and finally a decree was drawn up in most guarded terms so that everyone Inight agree to it: " No one, so long as he exists in this nlortal state, ought so far to presume concerning the secret mystery of Divine predestination as to deterluine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinated; as if it were true that he who is justified either cannot sin any more, or if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself a certain repent- ance; for except by a special revelation it cannot be kno,vn whonl God hath chosen to Himself." 3 1 Original LeUers, Parker Society, p. 66. It must be admitted that the wording of this particular sentence is nut particularly happy, and that Guest had some reason for his desire that it should be altered, because it might be thought to countenance the notion of a secret will of God opposed to "that will. . . which we ]Iave expressly declared to us in the word of God." See his letter to Cecil among the StaiR, Papers (" Domestic" Elizabeth, vol. lxx,'iii. K o. 37) referred to in vol. i. p. 45. 3 Sess. VI. c. xii. ARTICLE XVIII De 8pcntnda ætc1'na sal,ltte tanlu1Jl. in 1t01nine Okrist..i. Sunt ct illi al1athematizandi qui dicere audcnt, unumqucmquc in lege aut secta quan1 profitetur, esse scrvandum, modo juxta ill am et lumen naturæ accurate vixerit: cnm sacræ literæ tantum Jesu Uhristi nomen prædicent, in quo salvos fieri homines oporteat. Of obtainin[} eternal Salvation, only by the N ante of Christ. They also arc to be had accursed, that presum p to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he lll'ofe eth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature. For Holy Scrip- ture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, wherehy nlell must be saved. THIS Article no\v stands as it was originally published in 1553. 1 The copula with which it begins is difficult to account for. "They also are to be had accursed": The cc et" of the Latin was omitted in 1563, but restored again in 1571, and was perhaps intended to link this Article on to the last clause of Article XVI. : " They are to be condemned (illi danlllandi sunt) which say they can no more sin here," etc. The language of the Article has not been traced to any earlier source, but there is a. section in the Reformatío Legum Ecclcsiastica'ru'ì1t which affords a close parallel to it. 1 In 1[,53 anù 1563 the title was as fullows: ,. Tantum in nomine Christi speranda est æterna salus": "'Y e must trust to obtain eternal salvation only by the name of Christ." The change of construction in 15i1 brought it into 11armollY with the titles of the other Articles, almost all of Wllich now Legin in the ame way. 4B ARTICLE XVIII 489 "Horribilis est et immanis illorulH andacia, qui contendullt in onlni religione vel secta, quanl hOll1Ïnes professi fuerint, salutem illis esse sperandam, si tantnnl ad innocentiam et integritatem vitæ pro viribus enitantur juxta lumen quod illis prælucet a natura infusum. ..A.uthoritate vero sacrarum literarum confixa") sunt hujusmodi pestes. SOIUDl eninl et unicunl ibi J esu Christi nomen nobis comnlendatum est, ut omnis ex eo salus ad nos perveniat." 1 This section and the Article before us are evidently intended to rebuke the sanle error; and it has some- times been thought that the opinion condemned is that \vhich maintains a possibility of salvation for the heathen, and those \vho have never heard the name of Christ. On a careless reading of the Article such a view may seem probable. But there are t\VO considera- tions \vhich make strongly against it: (1) The title in the Latin is " De speranda æterna salute," etc.; strictly, " of hoping for eternal salvation." Such a phrase could only be used if the case contemplated was that of those \vithin sound of the gospel, knowing (I the name of Christ JJ and able to "trust to obtain salvation by it." (2) FroIn the fact that the Article begins with a definite anathema of certain people, and couples the opinion denounced with that condemned in Article x,rl., it is clear that it is no vague opinion that is intended to be here rejected, but the positive teaching of a particular set of persons. Now it does not appear that the question of the salvability of the heathen \vas formally raised by any of the sects of the day; but when we discover that one of the many schools of Anabaptists was teaching, not only that religion \vas a matter of indifference, but also that the deliberate rejection of the Saviour of the world would not be attended with loss, it ) J:iformatio Legu7Jl Ecrl., De H{p;'t's. c. xi. 490 TIlE TI-IIRTY-NTNE ARTICLES is almost certain that it is against thenl that this Article is directed. l "There are such libertines and wretches," \vrites Hooper," who are daring enough in their conventicles not only to deny that Christ is the Messiah and Saviour of the world, but also to call that blessed Seed a mischievous fcllo\v, and deceiver of the \vorld." 2 So at a somewhat later date (1579) one Matthew Hamant was burnt at Norwich for maintaining that" Christ is not God nor the Saviour of the world, lJut a mere man, a sinful.man, and an abominable ido1." There are other indications in the Articles-such as the emphatic language used in Article XV. on Christ who " came to be the Lamb without spot, Who, by sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the \vorlel," and Who was" clearly void" from sin" both in His flesh and in His spirit" -of the necessity there was to guard against teaching of this character; and it certainly was not without cause that the compilers of the Articles introduced into them this strong assertion, that eternal salvation is only to be looked for through the name of Christ. The Article, then, means neither more nor less than S. Peter's words in Acts iv. 12, which are referred to in it: "In none other is salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven that is given among men, wherein we must be saved." If this text be, as it surely is, reconcilable with a belief in the salvability of the heathen, then so aJso is this Article, which proclaims that Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved, for the one says no more than the other. With regard to the heathen who live and die out of reach of the gospel, Scripture says but little; 3 but 1 Cf. Hardwick, 1). 101. See vol. i. p. 23. a " I hold it to be a most certain rule of interpreting Scriptnre that it ARTICLE XVIII 491 sufficient is revealed, not only to make us shrink from pronouncing their condemnation, because we are taught not to judge" them that are \vithout" (1 Cor. v. 12, 13), but even to enable us to have a, good hope concerning them. God is " the Saviour of all 'Jnen," but" especially of believers" (1 Tim. iv. 10),-an expression \vhich can only mean that others besides Christians or" believers" can be saved. S. Paul also speaks of the "Gentiles which have no law," and yet" do by nature the things of the law," showing" the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith" (Rom. ii. 14, 15); and it is probable that our Lord's parable of the Sheep and the Goats in S. l\Iatt. xxv. is intended to refer primarily to their case. 1 Conse- quently, whatever individual teachers may have main- tained, the Church as a whole has never committed herself to the assertion that the heathen must be lost, nor denied to them the possibility of salvation. Though never brought into covenant with God here, they may be brought to kno\v Him hereafter. But if so, whatever never speaks of persons when there is a physical impossibility of its speaking to them. . . . So the heathen, who died Lefore 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's Life and Correspondence, Letter LXV. quoted in Browne On the Articles, p. 443. 1 In this chapter (S. :Matt. xxv.) there are three parables: the first two, the Ten Virgins and the Talents, refer directly to the kingdom of heaven, i.e. the Church. \Vith the third, the Sheep and the Goats, the case is different. (1) It is spoken of 1rá.vra rà t8vTJ, all the nations, a phrase which most naturally refers to the heathen world; (2) neither those on the right hand nor those on the left recognise that they have eyer seen Christ or ministered to Him on earth. A pparently, then, they had not known Him in this life; and (3) tne test by which their lives are judged is the test of works of mercy and kindness, just those "things of the law" which the Gentiles might" do by nature," if they had rc the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witnesJ:J therewith. " 492 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES grace may be theirs here, or glory be granted to thenl hereafter, they will not have been saved by the law (in lege) or sect which they professed, but only by Christ, the one Mediator, Who is " the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (S. John i. 9), and to whom, although they knew it not, they nlinistered, in doing works of mercy to their fellow-men. If these considerations are carefully borne in mind, it appears to the present writer that there need be no hesitation concerning the. acceptance of this Article. It certainly condemns a lax and latitudinarian view \vhich would treat religion as a matter of indifference, and hold that the rejection of Christ mattered not. But Scripture equally condemns this, and speaks in the strongest terms of those who reject the truth, and let it go after they have received it (see [So Mark] xvi. 16; S. John iii. 18,19, xii. 48, etc.). But this letting go of the true faith was exactly the sin of which so many of the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century were guilty, looking on our Lord sometimes as a mere lnan, and denying Him to be the Saviour of the world; affirming that Holy Scripture was given "only to the weak," and claiming the inner light of the Spirit, and licence therefrom for every kind of profanity.1 Not without good reason "Tas this Article inserted to condemn them. 1 See the Nineteenth Article of 1553, which immediately followed that one which has now been considered in the original series. The text of it willlJe found in vol. i. p. 78, and cf. p. 233. ARTICLE XIX De Ecclesia. Ecclesia Christi visibilis est cætus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei purum prædicatur et sacramenta, quoad ea quæ necessario exiguntur, juxta Christi institutum recte ad- ministrantur. Sicnt erravit ecclesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina et Antiochena: ita et erravit Ecclesia Romana, non solum quoad agenda et cæremoniarum ritus, venlm in his etiam quæ credenda sunt. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a f'ongregation of faithful men, in the which the pure worù of God is preached anù t11C sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all thoRe things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Hierusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. THI .l\.rticle has remained practically 1 unchanged since the original edition of 1553. It was possibly suggested by the words in the corresponding ..A.rticle in the Con- fession of Augsburg: c, Est autem ecclesia congregatio sanctorum, in qua evangelium recte docetur, et l'ecte administralltur sacramenta." But the Anglican Articlt-.. is more precise and guarded, and has nothing ans\ver- ing to the next worùs found in the Lutheran Confession: "Et ad veram unitatem Ecclesiæ satis est consentire de doctrina evangelii et administratione sacramentorum." 2 1 Slight verbal changes were introduced into the English Adide in Elizabeth's l'eign in order to bring it into more exact accordance with the Latin, in which there has been no alteration whatevel'. "And mauneI' of ceremonies" was added in 1563; and "their" beforp "faith" omitted in 1571. 2 C01 fe.(lS'l'o A llgustrma, C'. yii., De eC'f'lesia. 493 494 TI-IE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES The object of the Article appears to be twofold: (1) to give such a definition or description of the visible Church as shall exclude the claim of the Roman Church to be the only true Church, while not embracing under the terms of the definition the various sects of Anabaptists and others then springing up; and (2) to deny the claim of the Roman Church to infallibility. That some such polemical object \vas intended by those who framed the description in the first part of the Article a ppears from the following passage in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiastüa'l'urn, between which and the Article there is evidently a very close connection:- "Etiam illorum insania legum vinculis est constrin- genda, qui Romanam Ecclesiam in hujusmodi petra fundatam esse existimant, ut nee erraverit, nee errare possit; cum et multi possint ejus errores ex superiore majorum memoria repeti, et etiam ex hac nostra pro ferri, partim in his quibus vita nostra debet informari, partim etianl in his quibus fides debet institui. Quapropter illorum etiam intolera.bilis est error, qui totius Christiani orbis universam ecclesiam solius episcopi Romani principatu contineri volunt. Nos enim earn quæ cerni potest ecclesiam sic definimus ut omnium cætus sit fidelium hominum, in quo sacra Scriptura sincere docetur, et sacramenta (saltern his eorum partibus quæ llecessariæ sunt) juxta Christi præscriptunl administrantur. u 1 To a later date belongs the -Hon1Ïly for Whitsunday, first published in 1563, and a3cribed to the authorship of Bishop Jewell. But it is interesting to notice that it introdures a description of the Church \vhich is evidently suggested by that in the Article into a sÏInilar polemical passage combating the claims of the Church of Rome. "But now herein standeth the controversy, whether ) De l/æres. c. xxi., Dp Rom:.ma Ecdesia. ct potestate Romani pontificis. AR'fTCLE XIX 495 all nleu do justly arrogate to themsel vet:; the Holy Ghost, or no. The Bishops of Rome have for a long time made a. sore cha.llenge thereunto, reasoning for themselves after this sort. The Holy Ghost, say they, \vas promised to the Church, and never forsaketh the Uhurch: but \ve are the chief heads and the principal part of the Church: therefore we have the Holy Ghost for ever; and whatsoever things we decree are undoubted verities and oracles of the Holy Ghost. That ye may perceive the weakness of this argument, it is needful to teach you first \vhat the true Church of Christ is, and then to confer the Church of Rome therewith, to discern ho\v well they agree together. "The true Church is an universal congregation or fel- lowship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the h.ead corner-stone. And it hath alwa.ys three notes or marks whereby it is known: pure and sound doctrine, the sacraments nÜnistered according to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God and also to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, so that none nlay justly find fault therewith." 1 The connection between the description here given and that in the Article is obvious. That in the Homily is little more than a rhetorical a.mplification of that given in the Article. The chief difference is that the Homily adds a third note to the two given in the Article, namely, "the fight use of ecclesia.stical dis- cipline." 2 It may, however, fairly be argued that even 1 "The second part of the sermon for Whitsunday." The Homilies, p. 494 (ed. S.P.C.K.). :! This H note or mark" is also added in the" Short Catechism" issuefl together with the Articles in 1553 (see Dixon's Histury of the Church of 496 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES this IS no substantial additioll, because it is really included in the right administration of the sacranlcnts, which must involve their administration by properly qualified persons, and to those only \vho are properly qualified to receive them.l The main subjects to be considered in connection \vith this Article are the following :- 1. The description of the visible Church. 2. The statement that the Church of l olne hath prrpd in matters of faith. , I. The Description of the visible Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congrega- tion of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordi- nance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. It will be convenient to consider separately each term in this description. Engla,nd, vol. iii. p. 528), where it is said that cc the marks of this Church arc: first, pnre preaching of the gospel; then, brotherly love, out of which, as members of all one body, springeth goodwill of each to other; thirdly, upright and uncorrupted use of the Lord's sacraments, acrording to the ordinance of the gospel; last of all, brotherly correction and ex- C'ommullication, or banishing those out of the Church that will not amend their lives. This mark the holy Fathers termed discipline." See Liturgies of King Edward VI. (Parker Society) p. 513. Somewhat to the same effect we read in Nowell's Catechism, publish('d in 1570, that the If marks of the visible Church are the sincere preaching of the gospel, that is to say, of the benefits of Christ, invocation and administration of the sacraments," and it is added that H in the same Church, if it be well ordered, there shall ùe :;een to be observed a certain order and manner of government, and such a form of ecclesiastical discipline," etc. See Xùwell's Catechism (Parker Society), pp. 56, 175 ; cf. also Riclky's Trod....,: (Parker Society), p. ] 23. 1 Cf. TIp. TIrow}w, Eì pmr/! ifJ/i (If till' 7 1 hil'IY-J.Yinc A did",:, p. 4;) . ARTICLE XIX -197 (a) The visible Church. The word" Church" 1 i the English equivalent for the Greek ÈK"À'1]uía, which has passed through three stages of Ineaning. (1) In its classical sense it is not a religio'lls \vord at all, but Eimply stands for the assembly of the citizens of Athens and (later) of other free Greek cities, called together for the discussion of public business. In this sense it occurs once in the New Testament of the" lawful assembly" ( ËvvoJ.LOC; f.ICICÀ7]uLa) at Ephesus, Acts xix. 39. (2) It obtains a religious connotation first in the Septuagint version of the Old Testan1ent, \vhere it is frequently used as t,he tra.nslation of the Hebre\v , for the assembly of the Israelites, especially \vhen gathered for sacred purposes. 2 In this sense it is found t\vice in the New Testanlen t, viz. in Acts vii. 38, where S. Stephen speaks of " the Church in the wilderness," and in Heb. ii. 12 in a. quotation from the LXX. of Ps. xxii. 22. (3) This Old Testanlent use of the term prepared the \vay for the third stage in its usage, in which it is adopted by our Lord as the name of the Society which He came to found on earth. It is so used on t\VO occasions by Him in the Gospels, namely in S. !fatt. xvi. 18 (to be noted as its earliest occurrence), "Thou art Peter, a.nd upon thit:; rock I will build 1\1y Church" (OlICOðOJ.L U(J) J.LOV T V È""^'1}uíav), and S. fatt. xviii. 18, where it is said of the erring brother, "If he refuse to hear thee, tell it to the Church; and if he refuse to hear the Church also, 1 The Engli h word H Church " is ordinarily said to come from the Greek KtlpLaK1]. But see the Dicticmary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 694 (ed. ii.), where reasons are given for doubting this derivation. 2 It is never used for the Hebrew i1'V for which ius IY. can have been intended, as these '\vere not drawn up for some years after the Articles were issued. That the clause before us is not intended to cOlldenul the Roman Church as apostate is clear frOlll the language used. --'or thid the language en1 ployed must have been far stronger. The Roman Church is spoken of as a " Church," though an erring one; and although painfully strong language has son1etimes been used of that Conl- n1union by individuals '\vithin the English Church, identifying it with Antichrist and the Babylon of the Apocalypse, yet this has been only the la.nguage of incli- viduals. The position formally taken up by the Church of England has never wavered. 'Vhile lamenting the errors of the Church of Rome, she has never maintained that they amount to apostasy, or destroy her claim to be regarded as a branch of Christ's Church. So in the Institution of a Christian jIan (1537) it is said that the " Church of Rome, '\vith all the other particular Churches in the world, cOlnpacted and united together, do make and constitute but one Catholic Church or body," and "all the particular Churches in the \vorld, \vhich be members of this Catholic Church, Inay all be called apostolical Churches, as '\vell as the Church of ROIne, 01' any other Church wherein the apostles themselves '\vere ARTICLE XIX 509 sOllletime resident." 1 But an even lllore convincing proof than language such as this is to be found in the fact that the English Church accepts the Orders of the Church of Rome, and has never denied the priesthood of, or attempted to reordain, any Roman priests who have sought adlnission to her Communion. If the Church of Rome w'ere regarded as apostate, her ordinations could never be accepted as conveying a valid commission. The fact, then, that they are so accepted in the English Church is conclusive on this point, and further argument is needless. Some words of Hooker may, however, be cited ill conclusion, as sununing up the whole matter \vith clearness and fairness. "The Church of Christ, which \vas fronl the begin- ning, is and continueth unto the end: of which Church all parts have not been always equally sincere and sound. . . . In S. Paul's time the integrity of Rome ,vas fatuous; Corinth many ways reproved; they of Galatia much more out of square. In S. John's tinle Ephesus and Slnyrna in far better state than Thyatira and Pergamus were. We hope, therefore, that to refornl ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the Church 'we were of before. In the Church ,ve \vcre, and \ve are so still. Other differences between our estate before and now we kno\v none, but only such as we see in Judah; which having sometime been idolatrous became after\vards more 1 Fonnularies of Faith, p. 55. In the ]{ccesswJ'!f Doctrine and E'1''lulitiotl for an?1 Chrdstian J[an (1543), the passage is rewritten, but the recogni- tion of the Church of Rome is equally clear. " The Church of England, Spain, Italy, and Poole be not separate from the unity, but be one Churc11 in God." "The Church of Rome, being but a several Church, challenging that name of Catholic above all other, doeth great wrong to all other Churches. . . for that Church hath no more right to that name Ulan thc Church of France, Spain, England, or Portugal," ctc.-Op. cit. p. 4ï. 510 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES soundly religious by renouncing idolatry and supersti- tion. . . . The indisposition, therefore, of the Church of Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us for performing our duty to God; even as desire of retaining conformity with them would be no excuse if we did not perform that duty. " Notwithstanding, so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with theine For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel that they are in one respect enemies, but in another beloved of God, in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate concerning sundry her gross and grievous abominations, yet touch- ing those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ; and our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be His win) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distrac- tion remain in anything, but that we C all may with one heart and one mouth glorify God, the Father of our I.Jord and Saviour,' whose Church we are." 1 1 Eccl. Polity, ßk. III. eh. i. 10. AltTICLE XX Dc };ccl"sÙI3 A nlo'rilaJe. Habet Ecclc::;ia l'itus statuclldi jus et in fidei controversiis autori- tatem, quam vis Ecclesiæ non 1icet quicquam instituere, quod verbo Dei scripto ad versetur, nee unum Scripturæ locum sic exponere potest, ut alteri contradicat. Quare licet Ecclesia sit divinorum 1ibrorum testis et conservatrix, attamen ut adversus eos nihil de cern ere, ita præter illos nihil credendum de necessitate salutis debet obtrudere. Of the Authority of lIw Church. The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, anù authority in controversies of faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. "\Vherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy 'Vrit, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation. THIS Article, with the exception of the first or affirn1ative clause (The Church . . . controversies of faith), dates from 1553, and is almost identical with a passage in the R fo'rmatio Leg (''in Ecclesiastica'i'u'in. 1 It has not been traced to any earlier source, and there is nothing corresponding to it in the Confession of Augsburg. The affirmative clause first makes its appearance in 1563, and some doubt has been felt with regard to its source 1 Ref. Leg. Eccl., De Summa Trinitate et }'ide Catholica,c. xi.: "Quam- obrem non liC'et ecdesiæ quicquam constituere, quod yerbo Dei scripto advel':-Jetur, ueque pot est sic unum locum exponere ut alteri contradicat. Quallquam ergo divinorum librol'um testis sit et -custos f't conservatrh. Ecclesia, hæc tamcn prerogativa ei millime cOllcedi debet, ut contra ho::; lilJros vel quicquam decernat: vel absque horum 1ibrorum testimoniis ullos fidei articulos condat, eosque populo Christiano credendos obtrudat." 511 51 Tl-IE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES and authority. It is not found ill the J.>arkel' 1 . signed by the nlembers of the Upper House of Convocation on Jan. 29, 1563. Nor is it contained in an English U minute" of the Articles among the Elizabethan State Papers, dated January 31, 1563. 1 On the other hand, it is found in an undated Latin MS. in the State Pape'f's, in \vhich it has evidently been introduced (ifter the original draft was made. 2 This is probably the earliest doculnent to contain it, and Hard\vick's theory 3 ÌI:; likely to be true, that this is the actual MS. fronl \vhich the first edition of the Elizabethan Articles ,vas printed, viz. that published by \V oUe, the royal printer, under the direct authority of the Queen herself. Anyhow, thiH edition contains the clause in question; 4 and though it is just possible that it was added by the Lower House of Convocation, to which the Articles were subn1Ïtted after acceptance by the Upper House, yet there is a strong probability that it ,vas inserted by the Queen herself in the exercise of her royal prerogative. However, it was undoubtedly deficient in full synodical authority, and, consequently, some MS. copies of the Articles, as well itS some printed editions, omit it. 5 Of these the 1110St inlportant is the English edition printed by Jugge and Cawood ill 1563, to which the Act of Parlialnent of 1571, requiring subscription to the Articles; nlade ] "Domestic," vol. xxvii. 40. lb. 41 A. "The disputed clause in Article XX., filling just one line and somewhat overcrowding the page, was clearly intl'orlnced in the sanw hanù after the first draft was made."-Hardwick, 1'. 140. S Articles, p. 140. 4 Cf. vol. i. p. 31. 6 E.g. it is omitted (1) in an English draft of the Articles among the State Papers (" Domestic," 4.1), endorsed, " Articles of Religion agreed on, 1562, in the Convocation hous" ; (2) in an English 1\18. signed by the bishops in the Convocation of 1571 ; (3) in the English edition of Jugge and Cawood of 1G63 alluùed to ill the text; and (4) ill one Latiu awl one English edition of Jugge and Cawood in 1fJ71. See Harùwick, p. 142. ARTICLE XX !11:1 n fel'ence.l It, \vould appear certain, however, that at the final revision of 1571, if not earlier, the clause was ratified by Convocation; 2 for when the charge was raised against .A.rchbishop Laud a t his trial, that he had himself added the clause to the Articles without the Hlightest authority, a transcript attcsted by a notaJ.Y puùlic f1.0'ln the original J.ecords of Convocation was produced containing the 'lvo'l.d..;; in question. 3 The records of C011- vocation unfortunately perished in the great fire of London in 1666; but there is no possible room for doubting that this Article as found in them did contain the clause. As IIardwick says," the testimony of that record was produced upon the trial of Archbishop Laud, in the most open and explicit Inanner, at a time when it was perfectly accessible to his accusers, 01' was rather in the hands of his infuriated enemies, and yet' not one of them ever ventured to question the truth of the asser- tion, or attempted to invalidate the proofs on which his defence had rested.' " 4 The words of the disputed clause, it n1ight be added, are (like so many of the additions of 1563) probably suggested by similar language used in the Confession of 'VÜrtemberg: "Credimus et confitemur quod . . . hæc ecclesia habeat jus judicandi de olllnibus doctrinis." 5 The object of the clause, and indeed of the whole Article, is to state definitely the powers and offices of the Church, with special reference to (a) the errors of 1 Cf. vol. i. p. 43. At his trial Archbishop Laud stated publicly that" 'tis plain that after the stir about subscription in the year 1571 the Articles were settled nnll subscribed unto at last, as in the year 1562, with this clause in them for the Church: for looking further into the records which are in mine own hands, I have founù the Look of l!;r.S subscribed by all the Lower House of Convocation ill this very year of contradiction, 1571. "-Lanrl's TVorks, vo1. vi. p. 68 (A. C. Lib.). 3 Laud, Ope eit. p. 66. 4 .Articles, p. 144, :; De Ecrlc.'Iia. 514 TI-IE TI-IIRTY-NINE ARTICLES the Puritan party, \vho \vere inclined to deny to the Church any right to enforce rites or ceremonies beyond those for \vhich "Scripture proof" might be alleged; and (b) the exaggerated vie\v of the authority of the Church in doctrinal matters held by the Ron1anists, vvho denied that in the promulgation of necessary doctrine the Church was limited to \vhat \va contained in Scripture, or might be proved thereby. Three main subjects are brought before us ill the Article, and require separate consideration- 1. The legislative power of the Church \vith regard to rites or ceremonies. 2. The judicial authority of the Church with regard to doctrine. 3. The office of the Church \vith regard to Holy Scripture. 1. The Legislative Powe'l of the Church 'with 'l egafpd to Rites or Ceremonies. The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, that is, she may from time to time make new ones, if she deem it expedient, or she may decree to retain old ones in the face of opposition, or change and abolish existing ones. This power may fairly be called " legislative," and it is analogous to the power exercised in the State by Crown and Parliament, \vhich make new laws and abolish old ones. It was noticed under the last Article that the \vord "Church" was somewhat ambiguous, being sometimes used for the Church universal and sometimes for any particular or national Church; and the question may be raised in which of these two senses is it here employed. The answer iR found by a reference to the last clause of Article XXXIV'"., which (like the clause before us) was added ARTICLE XX 515 in 1563: "Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all thingR be done to edifying." This Inerely alll plifies the clause no\v under consideration, and makes it clear that \ve are to understand it as referring to the power of national or particular Churches, and vindicating the right of the Church of England to such action as \vas taken from tinle to time in the revision of the services of the Church. As historical instances, then, of the exercise of this po\ver, we may point to (a) the renewal of the baptismal vow prefixed to Confirmation, a new rite decreed for the first time in 1662 ; (b) the retention of the sign of the Cross, in face of much opposition, in 1604; and (c) the abolition of the " chrisom," or white vesture, given to the newly baptized in token of the innocency granted to them in baptism. This was retained in the first English Prayer Book in 1549, but dropped at the next revision in 1552. In each of these cases the local or national Church exercised the power inherently belonging to it. But the power is not unlimited; and after stating u,hat the power is, the Article proceeds to add t\VO restraining clauses, keeping it \vithin certain vlell-defined limits. (a) It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's word written. (b) It ought not to decree anything against the same. It will be noticed that the rites or ceremonies decreed need not receive any positive support from Scripture. All that is required is that there should be nothing in them that is opposed to or cundemned by Scripture. An illustration may make this clear; and a convenient one is furnished by Dean Goulbourn. The Church, in the exercise of her legislative power, might add to the 51G THE TI-IJRTY-NINE ARTICLES Book of Common Prayer a ne\v office of thanksgiving on the occasion of the harvest. No scriptural authority need be asked for. Bu t if in to such an office cc it were proposed to insert some words of adoration to the holy angels as being very possibly the minjsters of natural blessings to mankind, this would be a flagrant stretch of the Church's prerogative, since S. Paul condemns the worshipping of angels; and ,vhen S. John fell do,vn to worship at the feet of an angel, the being to whom the homage was offered replied, 'See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant.'" 1 .. It ,vas here that the Puritans went wrong, as they objected to many of the ceremonies of the Church, not because they were contrary to Scrip- ture, but sinlply because they were not based upon Scripture. To demand "Scripture proof," however, in such matters is seriously to mistake the purpose and object of the Scriptures. They were given" for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness" (2 Tin1. iü. 16), i.e. for moral and doctrinal purposes, not as a guide or directory in matters of ritual. In these the Church possesses the power which is conceded to every society to make rules for the guidance of its own members. The existence of such a power is assumed throughout Scripture. It obviously belonged to the Jewish Church. Although there was an elaborate ritual and ceremonial la,v \vith stated feasts ordained by God Himself, yet the Jewish Church claimed and exercised the power to add other feasts, such as Purim and Dedication, to thosp of Divine appointment. Our Lord's words, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on :\foses' seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe" (S. Matt. xxiii. 2, 3), imply that power to make regulations still remained with the authorities; and we see from the Acts and the Epistles ] Goulbourn's Holy Catholic Ch'lll"ch, I). 212. ARTICLE XX 517 that when the Christian Church was established, such powers ,vere exercised from the first in it as occasion re- quired. Thus ,ve find S. Paul incidentally laying down definite regulations in his Epistles on various details, e.g. that men are to \vorship ,vith the head uncovered, women with the head covered (1 Cor. xi.); on the conduct of public ,vorship by the prophets (1 Cor. xiv. 27); that ,vornen are to keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. xiv. 34; cf. 1 Tim. ii. 12). He lays down the general principle, "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. xiv. 40), and appeals to the" custom" of the Churches as if it were final and decisive, and individuals ought to conform to it. "If any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God" (1 Cor. xi. 16). These passages are sufficient to prove that it was understood from the first that such legislative power was vested in the Church; and it would be superfluous to prove at length that it has in all ages been exercised by national Churches, and that different customs have been followed in different places. Three quotations may, ho\v- ever, be appended in order to show how the matter was regarded in early times. In his faluous" letter to J anuarius," Augustine, after speaking of the sacraments, and SOlne things" which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the ,vhole ,vorld," e.g. Good Friday, Easter Day, etc., proceeds as follows :- "There are other things, however, which are different in different places and countries, e.g. some fast on Satur- day, others do not; some partake daily of the Body and Blood of Christ, others receive it on stated days; in some places no day passes ,vithout the sacrifice being offered, in others it is only on Saturday and Sunday, or it may be only on Sunday. In regard to these and all other variable observances \vhich may be met anywhere, one is 34 518 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES at liberty to comply ,vith theln or not as he chooses; and there is 110 better rule for the \vise and serious Chri tian in this matter than to cOllforlll to the practice which he fiu(ls prevailing in the Church to ,vhich it may be his lot to come. 1;01' such a custoln, if it is clearly not contrary to the faith nor to sound l11orality, is to be held as a thing indifferent, aud ought to he observed for the sake of fello\v- ship \vith those al110ng \VhOnl 'vo live." lIe t.hen goes on to describe his nlotber's perplexity when she first came to Milan and found that the Church there did not fast on Saturday; and gives the advice of S. Aillbrose, \vhich, he says, " I have al\vays csteelned, as if I had received it by an oracle froIn heaven": "'Vhcn 1 visit nOnle I fast on aturday; ,vhen 1 aln here I do not fast. On the same principle, do yon observe the custom prevailing in '\vhatevel' Church you C0nlC to, if you desire neither to give offence by your conduct Hor to Hnd cause of offence in another's." 1 Rather later than this the ecclesiastical historian Socrates sot hÜnsclf to catalogue as far as possible" the diversity of cUStOlllS in the Oh urches," with regard not only to the l..enteu fast, but also to the great" variation in the services perfornled in church," and other matters; remarking in conclusion that" it ,voulù be difficult, if not impossible, to give a cOlnplete catalogue of all the various custonlS and ceremonial obser, ances in use throughout every city and country." 2 Lastly, in ans\ver to the question of .þ..\ugustine of Canterbury, cc "\Vhereas the faith is one and the sanle, are there different custOU1S in different Churches, and is one custom of Masses observed in the holy Roman Church and another in the Gallican Church 1" Pope Gregory the Great replied as follows: " You know, my brother, the custonl of the Roman Church, in which you remember you 1 Ad inq'ltlsitiones Januarii, Ep. liv. 2 Socrates, H. E. V. c. xxii. ARTICLE XX 519 ,,,"ere bred up. But it pleases me, that if you have found anything either ill the I{oman or ill the Gallican or ill any other Ohurch, which l11ay be l1101'e acceptable to .Aln1Ïghty God, you carefully 11lake choice of the same, and sedulously teach the Church of the English, ,vldeh is as yet new in the faith, ,vhatsoever you can gather fronl the several Churches. .For things are not to Le loved for the sake of places, but places for the sake of good things. Ohoose, therefore, from each Ohureh thORP things that are pious, religious, and correct, and ,vhen you have, as it ,vere, made them up into one body, let the nlinds of the English be accustol1led thereto." 1 It is clear from these citations that the English Church is in eonlpletc harmony \vith the Church of earlier days \vhen she Hot only asserts that" the Church hath po,ver to decree rites or ceremonies," but further nlaintains that "every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that alJ things be done to edifying." 2 I Bæda, II. E. I. c. xxyii. The theory, as state!! in the' Artiele, is pcrfectly clear, and reprC1:)Cllts the position from which the Chur('h has never swcryed. It is to the Church, not to the l'ivil power, Parliament or Crown, that this" power ,. lll>longs. Hut in a Church hy law eHtabJi h('(l, it cannot he denied that there are grave practical diUieulties ill the way of exercising it. The Book of Common Prayer haviug heon actually attached to an Art of Parliament, of which it forms a part, it is plain that, as a matter of fact, it cannot be in any way altered without the consent of that authority which gave coercive power to l"'11fo1'ce its use. Hut it is equally clear that this authority, viz. ParlialIlL.nt, has no sort of moral right to attempt to alter it, except at the wish of the Church which first prepared and accepted it, and then presented it to Parliament to he attached to the Act or Uniformit.y; anù the constitutional methoù of proceeùing in the case of any "rites or ceremonies" to be decrc ll, is vcry clearly laid down in "the Royal Declaration" still prefixed to the Articles. " If any differ- ('11('e arise about the external policy concerning the Ini'ltnctions, Canon. , and other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the dergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them, baving first obtained leave undt-I' 520 THE THIRTY.NINE ARTICLES II. The judicial Authority of the Ch'ltrch wit7 regard to Doctrine. The Church . . . hath authority in contro- yersies of faith. (a) This "authority" is altogether distinct in kind from the" power" which has just been considered. The cc power" is legislative, and includes the right to make new ceremonies, to change and abolish old ones. The " authority" is judicial. It is the right not to make a single new Article of faith, but simply authority in a doctrinal controversy to pronounce what the true doctrine is. l And since, in the words of Article VI., "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation; so that what- soever is not read therein, nor lllay be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be be- lieved as an Article of the faith, or be thought requisite necessary to salvation," it is clear that the \vords mean that to the Church belongs the function of interpreting the Scripture, and deciding \vhat the true nleaning of it ll1ay be. This is strictly" judicial" authority, analogous to the power vested in the judges of interpreting the laws of the country. While the laws are made by the Crown with assent of Parliament, yet, when once a law has been placed on the Statute Book, Parliament has no po\ver whatever to say \vhat it means. Indeed, the legislators may have intended one thing, but if they have our Broad Seal so to do; and we approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions, providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land." 1 Cf. Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, B1 . V. c. viii. 2: "The Church hath authority to estab1ish that for an order at one time which at another time it may abolish, and in both may do well. But that which in doctrine the Church doth now deliver as a truth, no man will say that it may hereafter recall, and as rightly avouch the contrary. Laws touch- ing matter of Ol'der are changeable by the power of the Church; Articles concerning doctrine not so.' ARTICLE XX 521 expressed their meaning badly, it may turn out that they have passed something quite different, for to the judges alone belongs the power of interpreting the words of the statute and saying what they really involve. Just so, in the matter of necessary doctrine, the la\vs, so to speak, are contained in the written Scriptures; but, as hun1an language is never quite free from ambiguity, an inter- preter of them is required, and this is provided for us in "the Church," which" hath authority in controversies of faith." Instances of the exercise of this judicial authority are to be found in the dogn1atic decisions of the General Councils defining the faith of the Church; and no better example can be given to illustrate how the authority differs from the legislative power than ,vhat occurred at Nicæa. Two questions came before the assembled Fathers for decision: (1) the faith of the Church in our Lord's Divinity, and (2) the time for the celebration of the Easter festival. In regard to the former they simply claimed to lay down what the faith as contained in the Scriptures really was. They did not make a ne\v doctrine. In regard to the latter, they laid down a new rule to govern the Church for the future. The distinction is pointed out by Athanasius himself in a well-known passage. "Without prefixing consulate, month, and day, they \vrote concerning Easter: C It seemed good as fol- lo\vs '; for it did then seem good that there should be a genera] cOlnpliance in this matter. But concerning the faith they wrote not C It seemed good,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes'; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their o\vn senti- ments ,vere not novel but apostolical; and ,vhat they \vrote do,vn \vas no discovery of theirs, but the same as was taught by the apostles." 1 (b) That this authority belongs to the Church would 1 AthanaRius, De Synodis, 5. 522 THE THIRTY..NINE ARTICLES seelfi to follo\v of necessity froIn lnany passages of Scripture. Unless the Church possesses it, it would be impossible for her to exercise properly the function of teaching \vhich is distinctly laid upon her. She is " the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15). The power of "binding and loosing" 1 \vas granted to her by the Lord Himself (S. Matt. xviii. 18). It ,vas exercised at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.), \vhen the question was raised \vhether circumcision \vas to be enforced upon (J-entile converts, and the decision was arrived at under the guidance of the Holy.Spirit (" it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," vel'. 28) that there \vas no necessity for it. S. Paul charges Tinlothy to "hold the pattern of sound words" \vhich he had received fronl hinl (2 Tinl. i. 13); to "present himself approved unto God, a worklnan that ueedeth not to be ashamed, hand- ling aright the \vord of truth" (ii. 15); to "shun vain babblings": to " charge others that they strive not about ,vords, to no profit, to the subverting of them that hear thenl " (ib.); to "refuse ignorant and foolish questions" t vel'. 2;J); to "reprove, rebuke, exhort \vith alliongsuffer- ing and teaching, for the tinlc 'v ill come \vhen they ,, ill not endure sound doctrine" (iv. 2). To Titus he writes that the bishop is to" hold the faithful ,vord ,vhich is according to the teaching, that he nlay be able both to exhort in the sounù doctrine, and to convince the gaiu- ayers" (i. 9); vain talkers are to be "reproved sharply, that they IHay be sound in the faith, not giving heed to ,T e\vish faLles aHd COIUll1andlnellts of IHeH " (vel'. 13); he is to "shun foolish q uestionillgs auù genealogies" (iii. 1 J. Lightfoot (Hora: Hebraicæ on S. Iatt. xvi. 19) shows very fully that to "bind" and "loose" were familiar J ewish expression for to for- bid find allow. It is per11ap car('ely nef>essary to fidel that thi powt.-r, given first to S. Peter in xvi. 1 H, hnt extended to the Church gpuerally ill xviii. 18, is entirely different from the power of retaining an,l rCJUittiug illS givcn ill S. John X . 23. ARTICLE XX 523 10), and to " reject a lllall thai is heretical after the first and second adIllonition " (ib.). All such language as this plainly implies a po\ver of discrimination, and authority to judge and decide bet,veen the truth and falsehood. Unless the Church and her representatives possess such authority, who is to say what is "the sound doctrine" ,vhich is to be taught? or ,vho can tell which is "the man that is heretical," and which the man that is orthodox 1 (c) It ,vas shown above that tbe "po\\ger to decree rites or ceremonies" might be exercised by national Churches, and that it is not necessary that cerenlonies should be everywhere the sanle. With regard to this " authority in controversies of faith," the case is obviously different. .A.lthough " particular and national Churches" have frequently exercised this authority, yet it has ahvays been subject to the judgment of the whole Church, and liable to revision by this. To the ,vhole Church it is that the presence of Christ is pledged (S. l\Iatt. xxviii. 19); and to this alone is the promise made that" the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (S. 1\1att. xvi. 18). Thus, \vhile on various matters of doctrine the decision was made by local or provincial Councils, before ever the whole Church had an oppor- tunity of expressing her mind,! yet only so far as these local decisions have subsequently been found to be in accordance with the mind of the universal Church have 1 Thu the Council of Coustantinople (381), which condemncll Apol- linal'iauisIIl and )lacedonianisru, was not apparently summoned as a General 011\.., but has only come to be so regarded in consequence of it:i subsequent acceptance by the whole Church. Local Councils were naturally summoned to condemn lontailism (Eugebius, H. E. Y. x,i.) ; for in thc second ('{'ntl1ry no others werc possible. But even after the age of Gencral Councils had bef,'1.m, local one frequently considered an .l lleciò('(l 011 doctrinal questions, e.g., in the casr- of Pelngianism, it was a.t once COlldemIlCd by the Council of Carthag.., 412. 524 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES they been regarded as binding. In the present unhappy and abnormal state of a divided Christendom it is, of course, impossible to obtain a judgment from the whole Church on any nlatter in dispute; but it must always be remembered that while the English Reformers in the sixteenth century claimed and exercised this" authority," as is shown by the promulgation of the Articles, yet they did this subject to theÙ'" appeal to a free General Oouncil, which Cranmer and his colleagues never entirely lost sight of.! (d) But this "authority in controversies of faith" which belongs to the Church is not unlimited; and just as the Article stated two constitutional checks on the legislative power, so also it lays do\vn two definite limitations to the judicial power. 2 (1) The Church may not so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another.. (2) Besides the same (Holy Scripture), ought it 1 See Cranmer's" Remains" (Parker Society), i. pp. 224 and 455. 2 The following arrangement of the Article will s110w the bearing of the several clauses, the exact force of which is often missed, and (so far as I am aware) not noticed in any of the commentaries on the Articles:- The Levislative P01lJe'J". The Judicial Authority. The Church hath (1) power to decree rites and cere- (2) authority in controversies of monies, and faith. And yet it is not lawful for the Church (la) to ordain anytlling contrary {2a) neither may it so expound one to God's word written; place of Scripture that it be repugna.nt to another. \Yherefùre although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy 'Vrit, yet as (lb) it ought not to decree any- (2b) besides the same ought it not thing against the same, so to enforce anything to be be- lieved for necessity of salvation. ARTICLE XX 525 not to enforce anything to be believed for neces- sity of salvation. These limitations follow naturally from the position claimed for Holy Scripture in Article VI., and would seem to require no further comment or illustration here. (e) But there are difficult questions \vhich it is pos- sible to raise concerning the exercise of the authority thus limited, which it may be well briefly to consider. Who is to decide \vhether the Church has exceeded the powers thus conceded to her? And what is to be done if it should appear that as a matter of fact she has exceeded them? On these poin ts the Article is silen t. They raise the whole subject of the relation of Church authority to private judgment. Obviously there is no other body or society on earth \vith the fight of revie\v- ing the judgments of the Church and pronouncing upon them. But still the case may occur when it appears to some individuals, perhaps only to a very fe\v, that the judgment of the Church is wrong. To say that it is an impossibility that God would allow His Church thus to err, is to be untrue to the whole teaching of history. There \vas a time when "the \vor ld groaned and found itself Arian," and \vhen Athanasius stood contra mundum; and what has occurred once may occur again. '\Vith our eyes, then, open to the teaching of history, we cannot insist that a man must bow to the judgment of the Church. He is not called on to accept as truth that \vhich his deliberate conviction tells him is false. While he \vill rightly and naturally give the greatest weight to the judgment thus expressed, feeling that it is far D10re probable that he should be mistaken than that the \vhole Church should be wrong, yet in the last resort he himself must be the judge. He Inust be true to his conscientious and candid convictions. The right of 526 THE THIRTY-NINE \RTICLES private judgnlent is inalienable. He cannot divest hiul- self of it.! " To his own lllaster he standeth or falleth." He will feel in his inmost heart with Liberius before his fall, \vhen taunted váth the fact that he was the sole \Vestern challlpion of the Catholic faith, that" the cause of the faith is none the \vorse because he happens to be left alone," 2 and" with a sorrowful heart" will" refer all to God." 3 And, if the future luay be prophesied fronl the past, it will always be found that the error is of nu long duration, and that the truth \vhich has been kept . alive by the few faithful ones in a period uf general falling a\vay, \vill presently be accepted by the Church at large, and recognised as "the fa.ith \vhich \vas once for all delivered to the saints." Ill. Th(' OJJice vi the Uh'll1'ch 1J.;ith 1'c1Jard tv lloly SC1'iptu1"e. There is one clause of the Article on ,vhich nothing has yet been said, viz. that \vhich states that the Church is a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ. A t\vofold office is here assigned to her. She is (a) a 'witness, as testifying to us \vhat books are to be regarded as Scripture, for" in the nanle of Holy Scripture \ve do understand those Canonical books of the Old Testaluellt of \vhose authority ,vas never any doubt in the Church " (Article VI.), and also as declaring to us ,vhat is the Ineaning of Scripture; fur, as \ve have alrpady seen, she " hath authority in controvers;es of faith." Besides thiR, she is (b) á keeper of holy \vrit; fur just as to the Jews of 1 cr. Salmon'.:; Infallibil-ity of the Church, p. 46 seq. :l Theodoret, Ecchsiasticaillistor!l, Bk. II. c. xvi, 3 cr. 'Villiam of Occam, Dial, Bk. V. par. i. c. 28. I owe thi" and the prt-vious reference to 'l'he Chord, lli....torit..'ltl So('id!/ Lecfttn"i. Sf'rip ii. 1'. 7S, a. valua.ble It'l'ture on tll(. "Tt'ac11Ïug Pnw('1' of th(' ChurdJ," )'} Pr,)fcssol' \r. E. Collius. ARTICLE XX 527 old" ,vere conlnlÏtted the oracles of God JJ (Ronl. iii. 2), so 1l0\V that there is a " N e\y Testament" as ,veIl as au " Old)" the completed Canon is to be regarded as a treasure cOlnmitted to the custody of the Church, \\"ho is respon- sible for preserving it entire, and free fronl adn1Ïxture \vith other books, as well as for transmitting it and proclaiming it to each generation in turn. It is in the e ,vays that the Church fulfils her office as " a witness and a keeper of holy writ," and frolll \vhat has no\v been said the respective offices of the Church and Holy Scripture luay be clearly seen. The Church is the ordained tC(f.chC1' uf truth; Holy Scripture is the criterion of truth by \vhich the doctrines of the Church are proved and tested. To nlake Scripture, ill the first instance, the teacher, is entirely to mistake its true office and function. The Gospels were written, not to convert unbelievers, but that those \vho had been already orally instructed (i.e. \vho had received the teaching of the Church) lnight know the certainty of those things which they had been taught.! So also the Epistles were addressed to regularly organised Churches, ànd were ,vritten to confirnl those \vho had previously received apostolic teaching. Indeed, it is eyerywhere the case that" the Ðible assunles the existence of a living instructor in the truth, ,vho 'will indoctrinate us into the rudiments of it, and refer us to the Scriptures themselves for the proof of what he teaches. If the instructor is dispensed váth, and the disciple thrO\Vll hack lnerely on the l ible and hi natural faculties, he will ue very liable to stunlble, and almost certain to do so as re0'ü'rds those morE:' I::) recondite definitions of doctrine \ybich the Church's experience of heresies has sho\Yh her to be necessnry, and has taught her to make." 2 These offices of " the 1 See ::). Luke i. 1-4. :! UOUlOOUl'll'S Holy Uut/wlic Cltt,,'r:It , 1'. ::!tl4. 528 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Church to teach, the Bible to prove," may be illustrated frolll the incident recorded in Acts viii. 26-40. The Ethiopian eunuch was" sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. " He ,vas, then, in posses- sion of the Scriptures, and, according to the rather foolish saying, "the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants," these ought to have been sufficient for him. But plainly they were not; for in answer to Philip's question, " U nderstandest thou what thou readest?" the answer is returned, " How can I, except someone should guide l11e ? " and this is follo\ved by the further question, " Of whon1 speaketh the prophet this? Of hitnself, or of some other ? " Something more \vas needed than the possession of the Scriptures, and that something was supplied by Philip, the representative of the ecclesia docens, who " opened his mouth, and beginning fron1 this scripture preached unto him Jesus." Here we see the Church at work, and the right luethod to be followed, as it is seen throughout the Acts of the Apostles, where we every\vhere find them stating the facts, and teaching with authority, while they prove their statements from the Scriptures, and refer their hearers to these as confirming theIll. 1 And if this method was employed when only the Old Testament was in existence, it seems natural to suppose that much more should it be follo\ved no\v, when the fuller revelation is also cOlumitted to writing. 2 1 See Acts ii. 14-36, iii. 12-26, xiii. 16-42, xvii. 2, 3, 11, xviii. 28. 2 See on this subject Gore's Rom,an Catholic Claims, c. iii. and iv. ARTICLE XXI Dc autoritate ConCUiO'l"lt7lL Generali1.t?n. GClleralia Concilia sine jussu et voluntate prillcipum congregari non possunt, et ubi convenerint, quia ex hominilms constant, qui non omnes spiritu et verbo Dei reguntur, et errare possunt, et interdum errarunt, ctiam in his quæ ad normam pietatis pertinent: ideo quæ ab illis constituuntur, ut ad salutem neccssaria, neque rohur habent, neque autoritatem, nisi ostelldi posbint e saCl'is literis esse desum pta. Of the a1.tihority of General C01.tncils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered to- gether (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of God) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. 'Vherefore things ordained by them as necessary to sal va tion have neither strength nor autho- rity, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture. SINCE the Forty-two Articles \vere first published in 1553 this Article has remained practically unchanged. 1 But befo1'e publication a clause had been \visely omitted from the close of it, \vhich, as we find from the MS. signed by the six royal chaplains,2 had stood in the original draft: "Possunt reges et pii magistratus, non expectata conciliorum generalium sententia aut convocatione, in 1 In the Efl,glish edition of 15;-)3 "not only in worldly matters, but also" stood before" in things pertaining unto God." There was nothing corre- sponding to these worda in the Latin, and t ey were accordingly omitted in 1563. In the Latin" verbis Dei" stood in 1553 and 1563, being altered to the singular" verbo " in 15ïl. 2 State Papers, "Domestic," Edward VI. vol. xv. No. 28. Cf. vol. i. p. 14, and Hardwick, p. 283. 529 ;j?,O THE TI-IIRTY-NINE ARTICLES republica SlUt juxta Dei verbunl de rebus religionif' constituere." The gravest objection Inight have been taken to such a clause, and ,ve 111ay be thankful thHt it was ,vithdra'wn before the Articles were published. Perhaps no Article a.ins lTIOrC than this from being read in the Jight of the history of the tinle ,vhen it \va drawn up, and fronl bcing illustrated by contelnporary documents. Had \ve nothing but the Lare letter of the Article itself to consider, it lnight be plausibly Inaintained that by saying that "General Councils have erred," it condemns those Councils \vhich thp \vhole Church has ever reverenced as truly general, and expressing her tnilld, such as Nicæa (325), Constantinople (:381), Ephesus (431), and Chalccdoll (451 ). Nothing, ho\vcver, is more certain than the fact that no such s\veepiug COl1delunatiun is intended, for contemporary \vith the Forty-t\vO _\rticles, and dra\vn up to a great extent by the yery saIne 1uen \"ho are responsible for thenl, is the llcformatio Lcglt1n Ecclesi- asticarzun ; I and in this there is a. renlarkable section \vhich runs parallel \vith the Article, amplifying its statements, and affording a practical exposition of it, and cOlllluentary UPOll its meaning. It runR as follo,vs :- " Dc concili'Ú:> qnid senticnclllnz. " Jam vero conciliis, potissimUln generalibus, tanletsi ingentem honorem libenter deferimus, ea tamen longe omnia infra Scripturanun canonicarum dignitatem ponenda judicanlus: sed et inter ipsa concilia magnUll1 discrimen ponimus. Nam quredam illorum, qualia sunt præcipna ilIa quatuor, Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum primurn, Ephesinum, et Chalcedonense, nlagna cum l'everentia, alnplectimur et suscipimus. Quod quidem judicium de 1 See vol. i. p. 28 seq. ARTICLE XXI 531 nnl1tis aliis quæ postea celebrata sunt ferimns, in quibu vide1l1us et confitelllUr sanctissiuIOS patres de hca.ta ct summa Trinitate, de J esu Christo Dontino et servatore nostro, et humana reden1ptione per eum procurata, juxt(i Scripturas divinas nlulta gravissirue et perquam Rancte eonstitulsse. Quibus taillen non aliter tidenl nostranJ . . . -c.. obhgandanl es c cen::;enlUS, nISI qua,tenus ex crlptUrIS sanctis confil'luari po sint. N (tIll cuncilia llonnulla interdum errasse, et contl'al'ia. inter sese definivisse, partin1 in actiollibus juris, partilll etianl in tiùe, luanifestun1 est. Itaque legalltur cOllcilia quiùeul CUlll honore atque Christiana reverentia., sed interÏ1n ad Scripturarum pialn certanl rectan}(ple regnlan1 examin- entur." 1 The ...\.rticle 111USt beyond question be interpreted by thi longer statenlent. It iH certain, therefore, that it does not intend to east any slur upon those Council \vhich are received" Inagna CUln reverentia," but that it uses the tenl1 "General Councils" in a loose and popular \yay, of Councils \vhich claimed to be " general," as well as of those \vhich are truly representative of the mind of the \vhole Church. The necessity for sueh an Article is seen in the circulustances of the time. FrOln the early days of Luther, the Reformers, both on the Continent and in England, had persistently appealed to a free General COtmcil, and finally the Pope (Paul III.) had been driven, in 1545, to sumlllon a "General Counci!." But (1) it \vas called by the Pope alone, who claÏ1ned the right to cite to it, in person or by proxy, the king of England alllong other Christian princes; 2 and (2) it consisted only of bishops of the l onlan obedience. It \vas therefore not such a Counci1 as the Reformers could regard as truly" general," or feel themselves compelled 1 Rif. Leg'lt'ln Eccles., De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, c. xiv. 2 cr. Dixon's HistOT1j of the ChuTch of England, vol. i. p. 425. 532 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES to accept. But in view of the fact that it was actually being held when the Articles were drawn up, and that its decrees \vere certain to be appealed to as authorita- tive by the opponents of the Reformation, it was import- ant that in the Anglican formulary a statement should be found, asserting, in terms such as would justify a refusal to be bound by the decisions of Trent, the abstract position maintained with regard to " the authority of General Councils." Three principal statements are made concerning them- 1. They may not be gathered together without the consent of princes. 2. They are liable to err. 3. As a ID'1tter of history they actually have erred. I. They may not be gathe'red together without the consent of Princes. General Councils may not (non possunt) be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. It is sometimes inferred frol1l the I.,atin" non possunt" that \vhat is here meant is that as a matter of fact they cannot be 80 gathered together. This appears doubtful, for it is more probable that H non possunt" 11leanS "cannot la\vfully," i.e. " may not." 1 But, however this may be, either statement is true, for princes alone have it in their power to compel or to prohibit the attendance of their subjects, and therefore obviously have the right not only to be consulted as a matter of courtesy, but also to say 1 cr. Article XX., where "nee exponere polest" is equivalent to "neither 11Ut!] it so expound," and XXXVII., whcre "Leges civiles possunt," etc. can only mcan as the English I'cuders it, "the la.ws of the realm may punish," etc. ARTICLE XXI 533 whether a Council shall or shall not be held.! As a Inatter of history there is no question that all the early General Councils were summoned by the Emperor and not by the Pope. 2 Indeed, the idea of a General Council seems to have originated, not with the Church, but with the Emperor; 3 and although, after the decline of the Elnpire and the division of Europe into several kingdonls, since there ,vas no longer anyone supreme power, capable of conlmanding and enforcing the attend- ance of bishops froln various countries, it was natural that the Pope, ,vhose power \vas steadily growing, should not only preside at the Council when summoned, but actually issue the invitations to it; yet it stands to reason that even so this cOlùd only be properly done \vith " the consent of princes." 4 1 A'S a matter of fact, even so l..t.te as 1870 the various Governments of modern Europe played a_1l illlportallt part in determining whether or no the" Y aticHn Council" Rhould he ]lcl(1. Se(' Pm'cell's Life of Archbi. 7wp Jlaltning, vol. ii. e, xvi. That of XiC' ea by Con tantinc I. ; Constantinople hy Thcodosius J. ; Ephesus 1 'y rrhf'O(losin If. ; Chalcf'doll, at tllC l'eq1lcst a'fl.(l ÙLstig(úiullt of Pope Lco I., 1,y Mal'f'lal1. So the :':f'('ond Cou1l<.il of Constantinople (553) ""as SUlllHlOll(.d hy the Emperor .Justinian, and the tld,.d (G80) by Con- stal1tille Po:;{onatus ; so a.1:;;0 thf> ynod of Nicæa. (7Si), regardcd by both ihe Grc(>k aut! La.tins as the sev('uth General Council, was summoned ùy the Empress Ircne. Thus Cl'UY CU1IJltc-il which has any fair claim to l'cpre:-;ent the undividc(ll'lmrf'h was callcd togetllf'r " with the commam]. ment and will of l)rinces." :3 .: The f'onception of a Ueneral Coundl did not give ri e to Kiûi.C3, ùut 'Vicc'Cc1'.':a," RoLerh50u's.Atlmlla ill.", p. lxx,'., amI there can Le little douLt that the idea of the Couucil was (hI(' to COIl tantiue himself. Cf. Cltll1"clt Ilis m'Ù.:al Lcct'ltJ'cs, Scrit'S 2, p. lö4. .. So early as 1;j3;3 tlw question was raispd in Euglawl i1l cunS('l}l1CtH"C of IIl'11ry \'III.'s appeal from the POpt:' to a General Council, aud a dc('lara- tioll was put forth jglleLl Ly nine Lishop and four other llh.ines to the l'fl'eeL that though ill 0111 times ColtI1éih were "c l-lell and gi.tthered together l,y the El1lvrror.s t'olll1nalldment. . . . Y ct now, forasII1urh that the empirc of Rome and the llloml.rC'hy of the same has no such genrral dominion, Lut that many princes ha\Te absolute po"'er in their own realms, amI a whole entire monarchy, 110 other prince 1llflY hy his authol'ity (':111 a General 35 534 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES II. Gene1.al Oouncils are liable to e1.r. When they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of God) they may err. On this matter the verdict of history is conclusive. Had \ve not the experience of the past to teach us, it might have seemed, a prioTi, probable that God would not have allowed a body that is sUlllmoned as representative of the whole Church to err. Rut as it is, there can be no question on the subject. The record of Councils, summoned as "General" ones and con- ducted \vith proper forms, is often a painful one to read; and the exhibitions of hun1an passion and pre- judice SOlnetÍ1nes exhibited in them ha ve certainly shown that ll their members are not necessarily "governed by the spirit of God." loreover, they have ahvays been treated by the Church as liable to err,! for many of them have been revie\ved by later Councils, and sometimes their verdicts have been reversed. 2 Council" (Collier, Records, xxxviii.). Three years later a more authorita- tive "judgment concerning General Councils" was put forth by Convoca- tion, in which the divines of both houses gaye their opinion that" neither the Bishop of Rome ne anyone princp, of what estate, degree, or 1)rc- eminence soever he be, may, by his own authority, cal1, indict, or summon any General Council, without the cxpre ::; consent, assent, and agreement of the residue of Christian princes, aud especially such as have withiu thcir own rcalms and Heignories i'Jnpe'l'Í'ltm /1l('rltlJl" that is to say, of SUell as have the whole, entire, and supreme government and authority o\ret' all their subjec:ts, without knowledging or recogni::;ing of any other Hupremo l>ower or authority," Burnet, I. ii. p. 301 se']. 1 See the letter of Pope Tulius in Athallasins, Apologia contra Al'ianos, 20- 5. In this JuHns says that it is unreasonable that what has been established by Councils should ùe set .1side by "a few individuals," but tre:1ts the decision of Councils as liable to be reviewed l)y others, referring to the Council of Kicæa as having decided that thi<;; should be done (see Robertson's note, Ùt loco and p, lxxvi.). 2 Thus the" Latrocininm " was summoned as a General Council, }Jut its decisions were reversed by the Council of Chalcedon, 451. So also in ARTICLE XXI 535 Thus the Article is perfectly justified, Hot only ill ita cconcl stat81Uellt, but also in its t7 Í11d. III. ..As a 1nattc1" of Hist01'Y, General COllncils hCl'rc C1"1 1 Cd. That they sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God (etialll in his quæ ad normanl pietatis pertinent), is a matter \vhich can easily be sho\vn \vhen it is renlembered that the Article is referring to any Councils \vhich claimed to be General. Thus Ariminum and Seleucia were sunulloned as General Councils representative of the whole Christian \yorld, but they ,vent fatally "Tong" even in things pertaining to God." The same is true of many later Councils; and if the position taken up in Articles VI. and xx. \vith regard to Holy Scripture is sound, there can be no doubt that the closing \vords of the Article no,,- under consideration are justified, aud that things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture. The language of the Article itself and all that has here been said in the COllln1entary upon it, is, of course, only one side of the \vhole truth about Councils, and that the least pleasant to dwell UpOll. It 11lUst never he forgotten that there is another side, and that the Church o,ves very much to the work of Councils \vhich \vere truly "General" and representative. Xor has the Church of England been slo\v to ackno\vledge this. The language of the Rçf01'1natio Legum. È'cc!csÙlsf iC(('j"WJll has the 1('onoc.lastiC' Contro\'ersy, the seventh Council of COIl:;tùntinupll' (jfi-t-) l'orHlpmncd imagc-worship; Lnt its d('C'recs werc rcverscd by the sccon<1 Counf'Ï] of icæa, which sanctioned thc practicc in 787. ll'rallkfort (794) condemned the practice, but the eighth of Constantinoplc (869) sanctioned it. 536 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES been already cited. The HOllÜ]y ,( Against peril of Idolatry" speaks of the six Councils ,vhich ,vere allo,veLl and received of alllnen; and it luay be added that by an Act of Parliament passed in the first year of Elizabeth's reign it \vas detern1Ïned that" nothing is to be adjudged heresy, but that which heretofore l1as been 1:;0 adjudged by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or the first four General Councils, or SODle other General Council, ,vherein the same has been declared heresy by the express word of Scripture." 1 The question relnaills, Ho\v is it to be known ,vhether a. Council is truly" General" and representative of the ll1Ïnd of the ,vhole Church? To this it is believed that no ans,ver can be returned at the rnornent. Ho,vevel' large may Le the nunlber of the bishops present, no guarantee is thereby afforded that they faithfully represent the mind of the universal Church. That ,vhich alone can sho,v this, is the aftc1'-1'Cccpt-ion of thc decisions of the OOlln{]il by the ll1:tfe1'cllt lJarts of the Oh/ll1'ch. "There the decisions \vin their ,vay to uni- versal acceptance, there ,ve have the needful guarantee that the Uouncil has faithfully reliected the n1Ïnd of the universal Church, anù ,ve nlay ,vell be content to believe that the Uouncil has not erred. But" the inerrancy of a Council can never be guaranteed at the mOll1ent. The test of the value of a Council is its after-receptioll by the Church." 2 1 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Borne Anglican clivines, as Hookcr and ..Au clreW:i, eeIl1 to recognis(' hnt four General COUlleils: othc'l's, as FicIcI a 1111 Hammond, recognisc siJ'. t't' Palmer's J'",'tttis,' Oil the Vlnil'dl, part I\P. ('. ix. Bishop For1ll' 0,1. llip A,,.liclfS, p. 29R. On tllis, which is ùHll'- time..; cani'II the G;ll1ieall theory or thp le!St of the authority of General Councils, sce :-;Íl' "\L Palmer's 'l"reaIÙ;J VII 1111' Church, part I Y. c. vii.: It. L. Uttley, Doclt'ÍllC of tlte I'lcar/utlioll, vol. i. 1'. 21 Sf'f/.; antI G'lllll'di I[i. tol'iral j\:-Iodet!J LIJc:tltJ"CS, :;pries 2, p. 147 81'{J. .l\RTICI E XXII IJp ru,,'gal()7"io. Doctrina Romanensium d<, Pur- gatorio, (]c. indu]g<,ntiis, ùe venera- tionp et adoratione tum imaginulll tum reliquiarlUu, nec non (Ie invo- catiolle sßnctorum, res est futilis, iuauiter conficta, et nullis Scrip- tnrarum testimoniis innititur, imo verho Dei 1 contradicit, Of Purgatory. The Romish (lortrinp concerning Purgatory, Pardons, ,V orshipping, and Aùoration, as \H'1l of hnagp:o; as of Reliclues, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainJ,v invented, and grounded upon uo warranty of Srripturc, but rather r<,pugl1ant to the word of GO(1. THIS Article differs in one important point from the original one as first published in 1553, for in that the teaching condemned \vas terlned " the doctrine of school- authors" (doctrina scholasticoruI11). The effect of the substitution of " the ROl11Ïsh doctrine" (doctrina Roman- ensÏlun) for this is to nlake the Article condemn a present current form of teaching rather than the fornlal systenl of doctors \vhose day \vas past. 2 There is another Inatter in the history of the Article \vhich deserves to be noticed, viz. that in the Article as originally drafted was included a condelnnation of the scholastic doctrine dc p1.ccatione p1 O defunctis. These words are found in the l\tIS. signed by the six roya.l chaplains,3 1 The edition of lfi53 has" pernieiose eontradicit"; but the adverb was truck out in 1!j()3, there being nothing corrcsponding to it in the English .\rticle, 2 "The words 'Romanellscs' and 'Romanistæ' were already used as far ha('k as 1520 by LutllPr and {T]rich von Hutten, to designate the e trellic mc(1Ïæval party, "-Har r lwick, p. 410. 3 See above, p. 529, and vol. i. p. 13. 537 fi:1S TIlE TIIIRTV'-NINE ARTICLES hut they disappeared before the .A.rticle ,vas published,-a fact \vhich is highly significant, as jt shows that the (1hul'ch of England deliberately abstained froIH seelning tu express any condemnation of the practice of praying for the departed, and that it is inllJossiblc to strain the \vords of thit; .A.rticle on Purgatory to indicate such a condemnation.! 'Vith regard to the doctrines here condemned, it is important to bear in mind that \vhen the Article \vas originally dra\vn up, and even \vhen it \vas revised and republished in 156:3, none of thenl had been considered by the Council of Trent. The Article cannot, then, havp Leen deliberately aiuled at the formal decrees of that Oouncil: and, as a matter of fact, the decrees on these particular subjects, which were published during the last session of the Council in Deceluber 1563, ,vere dra\vn up ,vith studied llloderation, and some of the strong language of our Article could hardly he truthfully said to apply to the doctrine as stated in then), though it certainly \vas not one \vhit too strong in its condemnation of the current practice and teaching which the Refornlers had before them. It \vill be convenient at this point to quote so nluch of the Tridentine decree as bears on the subject before us, as the language used in it bears striking testimony to the existence of the errors \vhich called forth the vigorous protest of our O\Vll I efornlers. On Plt1''[jatory the decree sinlply lays do\vn that" there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there retained are relieved by the suffrages of the faithful, but chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." I t then proceeds: "....\.n1ong the uneducated vl lgar, let the more difficult and subtle questions, and those \vhich tend not to edifi- 1 It follows from this that the 8U bject of prayer for the departed does not come before us for consideration here. Reference may, however, be maa,ci VCIlustate imagincs non pingnntur, nee o1'nelltur, ct sanctonull "elf'brationc, ct rcliquiarum visitationc homincs ad comessationes atqnp ehrietates non abntautu1'. quaf'i fcsti dies in hOIlorcm sanctOl'nm per luxuUl, nc lasciviam agantur."-Ses . xxv. Dc I,n.omtio'ne, etc. fi42 TIlE TIIIRTY-NINE ARTICLES they think in1piously \vho deny that the saints, \vho enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or \vho assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocation of then1 to pray for each of 11S in particular is idolatry; 01' that it is repugnant to the \vord of God, and is opposed to the honour of the one J\lediator between God and Inen, Christ Jesus; or that it is a fond thing to supplicate orally or inwardly those who reign in heaven."l It is Ï111possible to read these extracts \vithout feeling how gross Inust have been the abuses \vhich called forth such language, and it would be unfair to neglect to take into account the fact that our o\vn Article was drawn up prior to these definitions and the practical reforn1s which the CO'lncil of Trent endeavoured to bring about. 'Ve proceed now to the consideration of the "Ron1ish doctrines" condenlned in the Article. Four of then1 are specified. 1. Purgatory. 2. Pardons. 3. Adoration of iUlages and relics. 4. Invocation of saints. I. Purgato1'Y. The Romish doctrine of Purgatory . . . is a 1. . . "Docentes cos, sanctos una emu Christo regnantes, orationes snas pro hominibus Den otferrc: bonum atque utile esse suppliciter eos invo('are, et ob henefÌcia impetrauda a Dco per filium cjus Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui solus no ter Red emptor, et SalvatoI' est, ad corum orationes, opem, auxiliumque confugerc: illos vero, qui negant sanctos æterlla felicitate in cælo frueutes, invocandos esse; aut qui assernnt, vel illos pro hominihus non orarc, vel cornm, ut pro nobis ctiam singulis orent, invocationem esse idolatriam, vel pugnare cum verbo Dei, adversarique honori nniu mediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi; vel stultum esse, in ('(('10 regnantihus voce vel mente supplicare, impie sentire," ütc. -In. ARTICLE XXII :14:1 fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scriptul'e, but rather repugnant to the word of God. It \vill be convenient to con- sider this subject under the t\VO follo\ving he (ls: (rt) the history of the doctrine; (b) the fo;criptul'al argunlents 011 the subject. (a) l'hf' llistory oj' the lJoctrinc.-During the first three centuries there are only to be found a fe,v traces of a Lelief in anything like a purgatory bet\veen death and judgn1ent. Three indications of such a belief are aU that can fairly be claimed during this period, t\VO of ,vh}ch con1e to us from the same quarter and fr0111 a 1'10n tanistic source. Tertullian in his treatise De AnÙna, written after he had joined the lontanists, says that in Hades (penes inferos) there are re\vards and punishn1ents, as may be learnt from the parable of Dives and Lazarus; and as he interprets the \vords, "Thou shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the uttern10st farthing," to mean that cc sn1al1 offences must be expiated by delay of resurrec- tion," it is probable that he looked on the punishInents as, at any rate, to some extent purgatoria1. 1 To the same period belong the Acts of the Inartyr Perpetua and her c0111panions, and in one of Perpetua's visions ,ve have \vhat is generally taken to be an indication of a belief in something like a purgatory. Perpetua in her vision sees her brother Dinocrates, who had died early from a gangrene in the face, in a dark place, hot and thirsty, dirty and pale, ,vith the \vound still in his face. He is trying in vain to get at the I Dc Anillw, c. lviii.: "In summa, t"tlm carcerem illum, quem cvallgelium demonstrat, inferos intellegimus, et novissil1lum quatlrantem modicum (luoque delictum mora resurrection is iJIic luendnm interpre- tamur, nemo dubitabit an imam aliquid pensare pencs infero::! salva resufl'rctionis plenitudine per earn em quoque." Cf. c. XXXY. ;;44 TI-IE TI-IIRT\"-NINE ARTICLES \vater in a "piscina," the rÏ1n of \vhich is above his hearl. Per p etna O'l'ieviu g for her brothel' 1 1ra v s llluch for him , 0 , ... , and ill a subsequent vision shp sees hinl cleansed, \vell elotlled, and refreshed. Only Lhe seal' renl:1Ílls \vhere the \vouncl \vas. The rinl of the piscina is lowered to his \vaist; he drinks out of a golden goblet that never fails, and departs to play after the nHtIlner of children \vith glee. "Then," she adds, "I understood that he \Va.R l'pleased frolll pUllishlnent." 1 This certainly looks very luuch like a belief in n purgatory, and it is so. understood by Augustine. 2 But this interpretation of the vision is not unquestioned, as sonle take it to mean that Dinocra tes had died un- baptized, and \vas therefore in a place of torment. 3 If, ho\vever, \ve adlllit what appears the n10l'e probable view, that it docs refer to a purgatory, a vision such as this UlUSt be allo\ved to be a very precarious ground 011 \vhich to base the doctrine. The third passage is in the \vritings of CleUlent of Alexandria (200), where, in speaking of Hades, he says that" the punishrnents of t10cl are saving and reformatory, and lead to repentance." 4 Beyond these it is thought that no passage can fairly be quoted as implying a belief in a purgatory bet\veen death and judgment till \ve come to the fourth century. --'or though Origen undoubtedly believed in temporary chastisements after death, and in a cleansing by fire, yet this does not scem to have been placed by him befoTe the judgment. Rather, it is the judgment, through \vhich luell have to pass, anrl by \vhich those in nced of ] PUS:1io S. P('rpctltll:, es. vii. yiii. Dc A/Lima ad Rcnat1.un, I. x. 3 It is so taken hy Prof. J. Armitage Robinson, Te<1 ts and Stl1dics, I. p. 29. 4 St1'Oíll(lteiS, 'PI. c. vi. 46: èrrd O"WT7,PLOL Kaì 7ratðWTLKaì aí Ko;\áO" H TOP e oû âs brtO"TpOlþ?]V ð.1'ot'O"at. ARTICLE XXII 545 purification are at once both chastened and healed.! But there can be no doubt, (1) that the whole Church from the very first practised and encouraged prayers for the departed; and (2) that the judgment day was conlnlonly regarded as a fiery ordeal, such as that spoken of by S. Paul in 1 Cor. iii. 1:3, through \vhich all \vould ha ve to pass, sonle passing through the fire unharmed, others suffering loss, but none failing who were built on the right foundation. This, ho\vever, is very different from purgatory. Not only is it placed at the judgment, \vhereas the purgatorial fire is regarded as cleansing those subjected to it befo?'c the final a\vard is Inade at the judgment day, but, further, it is an ordeal through \vhich all, the greatest saints and the greatest sinners, will h:nre to pass, \vhile purgatory is not for the saints, \vho are supposed to pass straight to the beatific vision, nor for those \vho die out of a state of grace, \vhose final condenlnation is assured, out only for those who die in grace, out in a state of iInperfect sanctification. Nor does prayer for the departed by any mean:) involye of necessity a. belief in purgatory. Indeed, llUtny of the prayers of the early Christians are quite inconsistent \vith it, for they include petitions for the Blessed Virgin and other great saints, \v honl no one \vould venture to n1aintain \vere in purgatory. rassing on to the fourth century \ve still find but fe\v traces of a belief in the doctrine in question, nor is there anything authoritative laid do\vn concerning it. Indeed, the hesitating and varying language employed by S. ..:\.ugustine carly in the fifth century ShO\VR clearly that he did not regard it as a fOl'lnal doctrine of thp Chureh, but only at best us a. "pious opinion." Thus in hiR }}'Lc!LcirÙlion, published ill 410, he speaks of it as " notï ] ::5èC TIp. \\Tcstcott in tllè TJidioll((J"!I of Oh,'i,OftltliL lJiOy,.(tjJI/!/, ,01. iv. p. 138. J46 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES incredible." 1 But in his great ,york, Dc Oivita.tc lJci, issued a fe\v years later (426), he speaks more strongly in favour of it, though even here his language is not altogether consistent. In Book XXI. c. xiii., after speaking of the opinion of some who cc \vould have all punishments after death to be purgatorial," he says definitely that" temporary punishlnents are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then: but all of them before the last and strictest judglllent. But of those who suffer temporary punishlnellts after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to SOlne, as ,ve have already said, what is not ren1itted in this world is remitted in the next, that i , they are not punished \vith the eternal judgment of the ,vorld to con1è." 2 But after speaking thus positively he elsewhere utters a note of hesitation on the subject, for in c. xxvi. of the same book he \vrites as follo,vs: " If it be sa.id that in the interval ûf time between the death of this body aud that last day of judgment and retribution ,vhich shall follo\'T the resurrection, the spirits of the dead shall be exposed to a fire of such a nature that it shall not affect those \vho have not in this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall be consumed like ,vood, hay, stubble, but shall affect those others \vho have carried ,vith thenl structures of that kind-if it be said that such ,vorldliness, being venial, shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation here ] EIlCltcidtlivlL ((ll Lnurc,i1. P. hix. "S('(1 tempor;tl'ia p(l'ua alii ill ha(' vita tautum, alii post JIIOl'ft'lll, alii et unu(' et tuue', vprmntamcn [lute ju,lit'ium illnd eYel'i siJUum uoYh:- <.:il1lumquc patiuutur. :Koll autt'lIl oml1e veninnt ill st-'mpitel'nas }In'nas, quæ post illnd jnùieium MInt rntnr l', tpÜ post mortem sllstilH'ut tempor3,lcs. 'Xalll quibusùam, llnodill isto 11011 rcmittitur, rcmitti in fhturo sæculo, id est, llC futnri sæculi æterno sUPl'licio pUllialltur, ja.m supra diximns." -])( Cidtatc Dci, XXI. c. xiii. ARTICLE XXII 547 only, or here and hereafter both, or here that it nlay noL be hereafter, I do not argue against it, for perha ps it is true." 1 Plainly there ,vas no fOrInal doctrine of the Church on the subject ,vhen a Father of the weight and learning of Augustine could ,vrite in this ,vay; and nut till a century and a half after his death do ,ve find anything approaching to an assertion ,vith any claim to authority. At the close of the sixth century Gregory the Great, in his" Dialogues," lays do,vn distinctly that "a purgatorial fire before the judgn1ent for lighter faults is to be believed." 2 But eyell so this is only a passing staten1ent by a single "Titer, hO\VeVel' great his authority, and it would seelll that there is nothing which can be regarded as in any ,yay a judgment of the Church upon the subject till ,ve come to the Council of Florence in 1439. ....-\.t this Council the representatives of the Greeks \vere persuaded to admit that" the middle sort of souls \vere in a place of torment, but ,vhether that \vere fire or darkness and telnpest, or something else, they would not contend," 3 and accordingly, when the decree of union \vas drawll up, it was asserted in it that cc if such as be truly penitent die in the grace of C od before they have made satisfaction for their sins by 1 "Post istius sane corporis mortem. ùonee ad illum velliatur, qui post rcsurreetionem corporum futurus est dalll11 ationis et remunerationis ultimus dies, si hoc tCI1ll'oris interyallo spiritus defullctorum ejuslllodi ignem ùicuntur perl'cti, quem non sentiant illi qui non habuerunt tales morcs ct amores in hujus corporis vita, ut corum ligna, fcellum, stil'ula consumatnr, alii vero SClltiallt qui ejusllloùi seeUll1 ædificia portavel'unt, sive ibi tantum, sive ct hie et ibi, sive ideo hic ut non ibi, /::)tl:cularia, quam- vis a damnatione venalia, concremalltem ignem transitoriæ tribulationis iu,'cniant, non ìcclargl1o, (luia forsitau Vl'rnm ('st, "-Op. cit. c. xxvi. :! "RC'd tamell (Ie ql1ibusùam leviLus eulpis l:'s...e aut(' judieilllll 1'11rga- tùrius ignis credclldus cst. Scd tamcn hoc de parvis miuimisqut' peccatis fieri posse credcndum est; sicut est assiduu:s otiosus sermo, iIll1ll0Ùeratus risus," etc.-Dial. IV. c. xxxix. 3 "Ai ôl JLfuaL iJ7råpxol'UL JLfll ill ßauallLUT7JplCfJ Kaì fLTf 7rÛP iUTLJI, frn ócþO'.à Kaì Oúf'X'Xa, fLn n ;TfPOll, ou cJLacþfp6p.fOa.-Concil. Florcnt. Sess. xxv. 548 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES ,vorthy fruits of penance, their souls are purged after death \vith purgatorial punishments." 1 But long before this decree was issued the doctrine had been universally accepted throughout the 'Vest, and had assumed a pron1Ïnence \vhich led to the gravest practical results. The original teaching had been strangely and terribly corrupted. cc It had C0111e to take the place of a living faith in the eternal painE of hell in the case of 11l0st men: there ,vas a perfect traffic in n1asses for the souls, and III en fancied that by leaving nloney to the Church at the lJour of death and at thp expense of their heirs, they n1Ïght purchase mitigation or exemption from pains ,vhich in degree, though not in duration, were said to equal the pains of hell." 2 It is, unhappily, only too easy to illustrate the truth of these 'Yc )rds from known and admitted facts of history and fron1 documents \vhich \vere before those ,vho dre\v up our Articles; but since the existence of such abuses in connection \vith the doctrine is so universally ackno,vlrdged, there is no lleed to cite evidence of it here. (b) Th(' SC'ì'.iptural al'[Ju'/Izcnts on the suuject.-It is no\\? generally adlllittp<1 Ly Itollutn Catholic \vritpl's that 1 " i ycre }I\knitentes ill' Dei chari tate .1cccsscrillt, antrquam clignis plJ nitentiæ fl'uctilms de commissis satisfecerillt et omif'sis, coruUl animas pænis 1mrgatoriis post mortem pnrgari."-Eugenii IY. Bulla Unio1l'is, Labhe and Cossart, vul. vii. p. "122. On the Council of Florencp set' P1uml'trc's Spi'rits ,in Pl'is(m, p. 296 seq., and Creighton's History of lite Papa('y, vol. ii. p. 1 ï9 cq. It is well kuown how the representatives of the Greeks WC1'(, receivcd on their return to Consbntinoplr, and how tIlP (Iecrce.s werc rejeetc f l throughout the East. But in spite of this thf' (:reek Chm't.'h of the present (lay, though not fo-,'),wlly committe(} to a doctrine of purgatory, allrl whi1p guarJing itself agaiu.;!' thf' notion of a /JltlleriaZ firc, appf'ar generally to tC:l('h th 1.t there i a l,rol't'ss of l'lll"ifil'i1- tiOll after lleath, and that the :-;onls of the IIl'parted profit hy the Euehal'ists, prayers, alll1 alms of tIle li\'illg, and arc then>Ly freed from the bonùs of IIad('s. Sec Plumptn>, l.c., awl 'YilWl', ('o1 ff!;;I inll nf Cltrisle/ldoJJl, 1). 312. 2 Up. Forbes O,t lite Adic1es: p. 30P. ARTICLE XXII 549 there is but little in Holy Scripture ,vhich can be quoted as bearing directly upon the doctrine. Of the "twenty passages" of which Bellarmine boasts,! there are very fe\v \vhich any controversialist ,vould venture to cite at the present day. Indeed, SOlne of then1 are so weak (e.g. "We went through fire and ,vater, and Thou broughtest out into a wealthy place") that they only indicate into ,vhat desperate straits the man ,vho could nrge them as serious arguments ,vas driven in order to find any scriptural proof ,vhatever. It is not too much to say that, when once it is recognised that prayer for the departed does not necessarily involve any belief in purgatory,2 there are not more than three or four passages "yhich require any consideration \vhatever. The following are perhaps the most important, and are sometimes quoted at the present day, as implying a terminable punishn1ent, ,vhich is said to be purgatorial only, after death :- S. Matt. v. 26 : "Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the last farthing." Of. S. Luke xii. 59. S. 1Iatt. xviii. 34: (( His lord ùelivered hÍ1n to the tormentors, till he should pay all that ,vas due. So like- ,vise shall also my heavenly Father do unto you," etc. S. l\fatt. xii. 32 : " It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this ,,,"arId, nor in that which is to come." 1 De PU1'gatorio, I. c. xv. The twenty passages are these,-ten from the Olà Testament and ten from the New Testament,-2 Mace. xii. 44 ; Tobit iv. Ii; 1 Sam. xxxi. 13; Ps. xxxviii. 1, lxvi. 12; Is. iv. 4, ix. 18; ]'fic. vii. 8, 9 ; Zech. ix. 11 ; Ial. iii. 3 ; S. :Matt. xii. 32 ; 1 Cor. iii. 12-15, xv. 29; S. :Matt. v. 25, 26, v. 22; S. Luke xvi. 9, xxiii. 43; ...\cts ii. 24 ; Phil. ii. 10; Rev. v. 3. See the ùiscussion of them in ope cit. C. iii.-yiii. 2 :Mace. xii. 44 certainly shows t11e belief of the ancient Jews in the efficacy of praYel' for the departed in the first or second century D.C. 3 6 550 THE THIRTY"-NINE ARTICLES In the case of the first t,vo passages cited, it is urged that they place a ternl to the punishment, and therefore Ï1nply a purgatory from which men will at some time be delivered. But such an inference is extremely precarious, and those who rely on it \vould probably be the last to apply a similar method of arguing to the parallel phrase in S. 1att. i. 25. The exegesis of S. Chrysostom is surely sound, which takes it as a form of expression intended to indicate the perpetual duration of the penalty, TOVTfuTt Ôt7jllÉICCJJr;, oùòÉ7rlfJ 'Yàp å7rOÒWCTEt. 1 While in the case of the third passage, the form of expression is evidently intended as an emphatic \yay of stating the irremediableness of the condition, and there is nothing in it to warrant the inference that some sins are forgiven in the world to come which aJ.e not forgiven in this world. 2 There remains the passage in 1 Cor. iii. 10-15; and this, if carefully considered, ,vill be seen to have no bearing \vhatever on the doctrine. It stands as follo\vs in the Revised Version :- "According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise master-builder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each n1an take heed how he buildeth thereon. "or other foundation can no luan lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on this foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble, each man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man's ,york of what sort it is. If any man's work shall abide, which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. 1 Horn. in loco Cf. Augustine, (( .Miror si non eam significat !Jænam quæ vocatur æterl1a."-De SermDne D01nini in J..llonte, I. xi. 2 See Salmond's Ohristian Doctrine of Immortality, p. 380, for a good statement of this. ARTICLE XXII 551 If any man's \vork shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he hhnself shall be saved; yet so as through fire." It is probable that it is from this passage, more than from any other, that the idea of a purgatorial fire has arisen. But, as a matter of fact, ,vhatever the passage may mean,-and there are different interpretations of it \vhich are possible,-the one thing it cannot refer to is a purgatory between death and judgnlent. According to the Apostle, it is "the day" \vhich "is to be revealed in fire" (Èv 7rvpì å7rOKaÀV7rTETat), and such an expression is never used of the intermediate state. It can only refer to the judgment day, or to the day of persecution in this life. I t appears to signify the former here; and if so, the Apostle is here regarding the day of judgnlent as a fiery ordeal which will test the \vork of Christian ministers. If the structure they have reared be durable, "it shall abide." If, however, through weakness and incompetence, they have built one of perishable material, it shall be burnt, and the careless builder shall "suffer loss," even though (since he built on the right foundation) "he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."! This appears to be the general drift of the passage; and, as \vas said above, it cannot fairly be used in support I Cf. Bp. Lightfoot, ...Yotcs on the Epistles of s. PCt'ltl, p. 193: "That the Apostle does not intend any purgatorial fire by this expression will appear from the following considerations :-(1) Fire is here simply regarded as a destructive agency; there is no trace here of the idea of refining or purging, an attribute elsewhere given to it, as in )Ial. iii. 3, though even there the prophet seems to speak of purging the whole uation by destroying the wicked, not of purging sin in the individual man. (2) The whole image implies a momentary effect, and not a slow, continuous process. The Lord shall appear in a flash of light and a flame of fire. The light shall dart its }"ays into the iUllHmost recesses of the moral world. The flame shall reduce to aRhes the superstructure raised by the careless or uu:,kilfnl builder. The builder himself shall flee for his life. He shall escape, but scorched, and with the marks of the flames about him." 552 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of the doctrine \ve al'e llO\V considering. The fire is p1 obato1 Y, not purgatorial; and it is J:>laced at the last day, not in the interval between death and judgnlent. Since, then, these passages, which have sometimes been urged in favour of the doctrine, have broken down, it is now generally ackno\vledged that there is little or nothing directly bearing on the subject in Scripture. The question must, therefore, be decided by broad con- siderations, and by reference to the general tenor of Scriptural teaching on the state after death, and man't=; relation to God. In this the following points, which bear on the matter before us, SeelTI to stand out clearly :- 1. This life is the time of man's probation; and no countenance is given to the view that a "second chance," or time of probation, is to be looked for after death. l "We must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. v. 10). The a ward will, then, be made for things done in the body, i.e. in this life. 2. The" dead which die in the Lord" are in a state of peace; "they rest from their labours" (Rev. xiv. 13). So for S. Paul "to depart" is "to be with Christ" (Phil. i. 23). But the dead are not yet made perfect. The souls of the martyrs are represented as "under the altar," and crying unto God-" and there was given them to each one a \vhite robe; and it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little tin1e, until their fello\v-servants also, and their brethren, which should be killed even as they were, should be fulfilled" (Rev. vi. 9-11; cf. Heb. xi. 40). The teaching summed up under this last head seems 1 On 1 Pet. iii. 18, which is sometimes referred to in this connection, see vol. i. p. 170 se'!. ÄRTIctE XXII 553 entirely inconsistent with any notice of a purgatory of pain, to be endured by the great lnajority of those \vho die in grace, before they are adn1Ítted to the rest of :Paradise. But "re are told that "\vithout holiness no luan shall see the I..orll" (lleb. xii. 14); and since the vast mass of the faithful pass out of this life in a state of very imperfect holiness, it is inferred that there is " a place in \vhich souls who depart this life in the grace of God suffer for a time because they still need to be cleansed from venial, or have still to pay the telnporal punishment due to mortal sins, the guilt and the eternal punishment of which have been remitted." 1 In this form the doctrine is stated by modern Romanists. But even in this form (which is very different froll1 the current medieval teaching) it IllUst be rejected as ,vanting in Scriptural and Patristic authority, as \vell as because it involves a purgatory of pain. That there is prog'ress after death \vould seen1 to be implied in Scripture; 2 and it is probable that this may involve a process of gradual purification, only it cannot be said that so much is actually revealed. The possibility remains, that the stains of sin, \vhich cling even to the hest, may be removed in the moment of death, so that the sanctification may be complete, " \vithout \vhich no man shall see the Lord." But to many minds it \vill appear far more probable, and far more in accordance \vith ,vhat \ve know of God's dealings \vith IHen, that as the stains \vere gradually acquired, and \vere gradually being reIlloved during this life, so still after death their removal hou]d be gradual. Such a view' is certainly not con- denlned by the terll1S of the Article before us. 3 But 1 Addis autl Arnold, A Catholic Dictimw,ry, p. ï66. 2 See Phil. i. 6: "Being confident of this v('ry thing, that He whi<:'h }wgan It g,)od work in you will pafed it 'U/ittil tlw day qf Jeslf s Chr ltft." 3 cr. The Life UIU{ Letlus of F. J. A. Hort, vol. ii. p. 3J6: H:K othillg, 554 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES even though it should appear to be highly probable, it cannot be regarded as revealed doctrine. It is but a " pious opinion," and not a matter 'which ought to be taught as part of God's certain truth. We Inay fairly conclude, ,vith Bishop Andre\vs: cc Whatever has not a stronger basis in Holy Scripture may have a place among the opinions of the school, \vhich are not \vithout fear of the contrary being true; but among Articles of faith it cannot. Let it therefore occupy its o,vn place; let it be an opinion . . . but let it not pertain to the , faith, nay, let it not even be accounted an ecclesiastical doctrine." 1 II. Pa'rdons (Indulgcntiæ). The Romish doctrine of pardons is so closely connected \vith the theory of "\vorks of supererogation," that in discussing the fourteenth Article it \yas necessary to anticipate n1uch that would naturally have found a place here. There is no need to repeat the sketch there given of the gro,vth of the systenl of granting indul- gences; or of the Scriptural arguments against the practice. All that seelll to be required here is (a) to give an explanation of the \vord cc indulgences," and (b) I think, can be clearer than that the Article does not condemn all doctrine that may he called a doctrine of purgatory. . . . 'Purgatory' is not a word that I should myself spontaneously adopt, because it is aS80ciated with Roman theories ahout thf> future state for which I see no foundation. Rut the idea of purgation, of cleansing as by tirt', seems to me inseparable from what tlw Bible teaches us of the Divinf' chastisements; and tbough litt](> is said directly respecting the future state, it seems to me in('redible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change Uwir character when this visible life is ended. N eitJler now nor her(>after is tJlere reason to suppose that they act mechanically as by an irresistible natural process, irrespectively of human will and acceptance." Reference may also be ma.cle to Plulllptl'e'g Spi,-its in Pris(J't1, p. 307 sCfj. 1 Rcsponsio (ul Bclllt'ì-I1Ûnllll , c. viii. p. 287 (A. C. LiL.). ARTICLE XXII 555 to add a brief description of the "Romisb doctrine" against which the terms of the Article are directed. (a) The word" Indulgences."-The word" indulgentia," \vhich was originally used of gentleness and tenderness, had come in the language of the Latin jurisconsults to signify definitely a remission of taxation or of punish- ment ; 1 and in all probability this suggested the technical use of the word \vhich grew up in course of time ,vithin the Christian Church. But for centuries before an y such technical use can be traced, the \vord had been a familiar one in Christian circles, in the sense of God's pærdon and forgiveness. It is used in the V ulgate in Is. lxi. 1, "to proclaim liberty to the captives" (et prædicarem captivis ind1llgentiant), as well as in a few other passages; 2 and is a common word in the \vritings of the Christian Fathers from the earliest times: 3 indulgentia, relaxatio, remissio, and venia, all being used generally of the pardon and forgiveness of God, sometimes in connection with the penitential system, and sometimes not. It \vas shown under Article XIV. that all these ,vords were employed of the fonnal grants of " pardon" or "indulgence" dispensed by the Pope from the eleventh century on\vards; and (probably for the reason stated above) the \vord "in- dulgentiæ" became in course of time the technical name by which they \vere kno\vn. In England \ve find both \vords, "pardon" and 1 Ammianus :Thlarcellinus, XVI. v. 16; Cod. Theod. IX. xxxiv'., De indztlge-ntiis criminurn. 2 Viz. Juùith viii. 14; Is. lxiii. 7, 9; 1 Cor. vii. 6. 3 Tertullian has it more than once: De Exhort. Cast. iii. ; Adv. Valent. xxix. ; Adv. }.[arc. IV. xxix.; and Cyprian uses it, not only of "favour" and "goodness," but ùefinitely of "forgiveness." De b01W patientiæ, viii. (illdulgentia criminis); De lapsis, xvi. (remittere aut donare indul- gelltia sua); Ep. Iv. ï. See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, vol. iv. p. 248. 556 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES CC indulgence," freely used from the days of Langland down ,yards. (b) The Rmnish doctrine of pardons condenuwd in the Article.-The sketch \vhich has been already given of the gro\vth of the system will have shown pretty clearly what the claims made for the indulgences granted by Tetzel and the preachers ,vere. 1 Luther in his famous theses (1517) was prepared to admit thern as a relaxation of canonical penance, but no further. 2 But, as is \vell known, this was totally insufficient for the ecclesiastical authorities. The decree of Leo x. (1518) reasserted the medieval doctrine, and the papal Bull of excommunica- tion (ExsU'rge Do.rnine, 1520) conden1ned as pestiferous, pernicious, and scandalous the assertions of Luther on this subject. 3 The Council of Trent (1563), as we have seen, retained the custom, though frankly acknow- ledging the abuses. But unhappily the Roman Church still stands comn1itted to the vie\v that they can avail to help the souls in purgatory, though, as formally held, only per 'Jnodum sujfragii; and though the ,vorst scandals have disappeared since the Tridentine decrees were issued, yet it is clear that Rome has retained only too much of the medieval system, and that the indulgences still granted are far more than a merp remission of ecclesi- astical penance imposed by the Ohurch. They differ, then, entirely from their original fornI, having practically little or nothing to do with ecclesiastical censures on the living, but being mainly concerned ,vith God's chastise- ment in the intermediate state. And while ,ve frankly admit the power of " binding and loosing" whieh belongs .l Cf. also Creighton's History of tlte Papacy, vo1. v. p. 58 seq., for all admirable sketch of the development of practice and teaching concerning indulgences. 2 The theses are given in full in Sehaff's llistory of the (L'lItheran) Reformation, vol. Í. p. 160 .o;cq. 3 See the Bull itself in S "hafr, op. cit. p. 23j. ARTICLE XXII 557 to the Church, we are compelled to reject altogether the theological defence for indulgences constructed by the schooln1el1, and with it the whole practical system of granting them \vhich it \vas constructed to support. III. The Adoration of Images and Rclú:s. In considering the Romish doctrine . . . of the worshipping and adoration, as well of images as of reliques, it will once more be convenient tû make a further division, and to consider separately (a) the history of the practice, and (b) the Scriptural arguments concerning it. (a) The history of the practice.-In the earliest ages of the Church there wa.s SOlne not unnatural hesitation as to the use of art in connection with Christian worship.! It ]1ad been so steeped in the spirit of an iInpure heathenisln, that the Church was shy of consecrating it for religious purposes. The Catacombs, however, reveal to us the beginnings of a Christian art; and \ve find fronl Tertullian that, by the end of the second century, it was customary to paint the figure of the Good Shepherd on the Eucharistic chalice. 2 In the fourth century, pictures began to be more freely introduced into the churches, though not without protest from various :Fathers; 3 and 1 The language of Irenæus on the followers of Carpocrates does not look as if he approvec1 of religious images and pictures, or as if such were usual among Christians: "Etiam imagines, quasdem quidem depictas, quasda.m autem et de reliqua materia faLricatas habent, dicens formam Chri:-:ti factam a Pilato, illo in tem!)ore fluO fuit Jesus cum hominibus. ]i:t has coronant, et proponunt cas cum imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagoræ, et Platonis, et Aristotelis, et reli- quorum; et reliqnam oùservationem circa en? 'iimiliter nt gentes faciullt." -Adv. HeRr. I. xx. :) "Pastor quem in chalice depingis."-De ]ntdic. c. x.; ('f. c. vii. I' pictnræ calicull1." 3 E.g. Epipllanius (390) descriLe how he foulHI a pailltillg of Christ or 558 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES from this tiule forward the cuI tus of both images and relics seems steadily to have increased. A great impetus \vas given to the latter by S. Helena's discovery of the remains of the true cross in 326. By the close of the fourth century it was believed that miracles ,vere ,vrought by the relics of the saints and martyrs; 1 and by the eighth century, in spite of protests raised fronl time to tÏ1ne,2 the practice of paying" worship" and" adoration" to inlages and relics had reached such a height that a reaction set in, and a vigorous protest was made against it. \Vhereas originally.pictures and inlages had been but the" books of the unlearned," by this time they had come to be regarded \vith such superstitious reverence, and such acts of homage and" ,vorship" were paid to them, that thp Church could with difficulty be cleared from the charge of idolatry. Hence the great " icono- clastic controversy" of the eighth century, in which for the most part the Emperors at Constantinople (c.g. Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copl'onymus) took the lead in destroying the images, and the Popes at Rome con- stituted themselves the champions of the cultus. Into the dreary history of the controversy there is no need to enter here. 3 It ,vill be sufficient to mention that the 1:;ome saint on a curtain in a church at AnaLlatha in Palestine, and tore it down because it was contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, in s. Hicronymi Epistolæ, Ii. 9. So the Council of Elvira (A.D. 305) forbade l>ictures to be placed in churches: "Placuit l)ictllras in Ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur." -Canon xxxvi. This was "evidently not directed against a prospective or imaginary danger, hut against an actual anrl probahJy a growing practice."- 'V estcott, Epp. of s. Joltr., p. 329. 1 See Augustine, Dp CÍ'l:llafe Dei, XXII. viii., and Confe. siollS, IX. vii., for notices of some of these. 2 See the letters of Gregory the Great to Serenns, Epp. Y II. ii. 3, and IX. iv. 9. 3 See 1\IiIman'g Latin Christianity, vol. ii. p. 3 9 seq., and t11p excellent lecture in ArehLp. Trench's JIedieval Ch'lttch History, Leet. vii. ARTICLE XXII 559 decisions of the iconoclastic Council of 754 at Constanti- nople (which claimed to be a general one) were reversed by the Council of Nicæa in 787, which has been finally accepted by both Greeks and Latins as the seventh General Council. At this the \vorship of images was decreed, and the following canon \vas passed :- "With the venerable and life-giving Cross shall be set up the venerable and holy images, whether in colour, in 11losaic \vork, or any other material, within the con- secrated churches of God, on the sacred vessels and vestments, on the walls, and on tablets, on houses, and in highways-the images, that is to say, of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of the immaculate mother of God, of the honoured angels, of all saints and holy Inen. These images shall be treated as holy menlorials, \vorshipped, kissed, only \vithout that peculiar adoration (XáTpfta) which is reserved for the Invisible, Incompre- hensible God." 1 Even after this the struggle lasted a short time longer. In 814 a Council was held at Constantinople nnder the Emperor Leo the Armenian, \vhich confirnled the decrees of the previous {;ouncil of 754: and anathe- Inatised the inlage worshippers. But, finally, in the reign of 1\Iichael Porphyrogenitus (840) the iconoclastic party entirely collapsed, and the "feast of orthodoxy" \vas established to commemorate the triumph of their 1 cOpí OfJÆV ouv åKPLßdQ. 7ráCTIl Kaì Èp.p.éÀf.ÍQ. 7rapa7r"'A7}CTíwç T TV7rciJ TOÛ TLP.lou Kat i-W07rOLOÛ CTTavpoû åvaTl(JECT(JaL Tàç CTf7rTaç Kat å')'laç EÌK6vaç, Tàf ÈK XPWP.áTWV Kaì Ý;7}cþîôoç Kaì ÉTfpaç ij" 7}ç È7rLT7}ôdwç ÈXOÚCT7}ç Èv Taîç å')'íaLS TOÛ 8eoû ÈKKÀ7}ülaLç, Èv ifpoîç CTKfÚfCTL h.aì. ÈCT(JfjCTL, TolXOLÇ Tf Kaì CTaVíCTLV , OLKOLÇ TE Kaì. óôoîç. TfjÇ TE TOÛ Kvplou Kaì 8eoû Kal CTWT7]pOÇ 'Ý}P.WV 'I7}CTOÚ X.pLCTTOÛ dK6voç, Kaì TfjÇ åXpáJJTOV ÔCCT7rolV7}ç 'Ý}P.WV TfjÇ å')'laç 8fOT6KOl', TLP.lwv TE å')'')'fÀWV, Kal 7ráVTWV å')'lwv Kaì. ÒCTlWJJ åvôpwv . . . Kal Taí1TaLç åCT7raCTfJ.ÒV Kaì. TLfJ.7}TLK7}V 7rpOCTKÚJJ7}CTLV å7rOJJffJ.HV OU fJ.Y]V TY]V KaTà 7rlCTTLV 'Ý}P.WV åÀ7}(JLV1]V XaTpdav, 'Î} 7rpf7rfL P.[.VIl TV (Jf.ÍQ. cþúCTfL.-Lahbe and Cossal't, vol. iv. p. 456. The translation givC'll above is in )Tilm:m's Latin Clll'isti(f Izity, \01. ii. p. 391. 560 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES opponents. :From this time for\vard \ve hear but little of an y opposition to image worship, 1 and the practice \vas generally accepted without question in both East 2 and \Vest, until S. Thomas Aquinas lays do\vn definitely that" the saIne reverence should be displayed to\vards an image of Christ and to\vards Christ HÏ1nself; and seeing that Christ is adored with the adoration of latria, it follo\vs that His image is to be adored with the adora- tion of latJ'ia"; and again, " the Cross is adored \vith the saIne adoration as Christ, that is, \vith the adoration of latria, and for that reason we address and supplicate the Cross just as we do the Crucified HiInself." 3 In accord- ance \vith this we find in the Roman Missal an office for the adoration of the Cross on Good Friday, in \vhich full directions are given for the adoration of the Cross, and an antiphon is sung, beginnÏ11g, " Crucem tuaIl1 adoramus 1 The Council of Frankfort (794), however, rejected the second Council of Nicæa, and the Caroline books absolutely condemned anyaùoration or worship of images. See Palmer, Treatise on the Ch'll'fch, vol. ii. p. 153 se'l. j The Eastprn Church, it should he mentioned, while it encourages the veneration of pictures, does not admit sculptured or hewn image;;;. The " icons" of the East are really pictures. For the Greek teaching on the suhject see 'V'iner, C01 rcssions of Ch'J''Ístcnd01n, p. ï6. One quotation may suffice here. 'Hp.eîs ÓTaJl TLp.wp.eJl Tàs eiKóvas Kai 'Tàs 7rpOCTKUJlOûp.eJl, ðÈJ' 7rpO(}KlIJlOûp.eJl Tà xpwp.aTa i} Tà úÀa. p.à ToÙr ó:ylovr iKEÍJlOVS, 'TWJl ó7rolwv lvaL ai. dK6v s, ðo á5oP.fJl p.È 7rpOCTKÚJlf}CTLJI ðovÀEÍ.as, ßáÀÀwJI'Tas P.f 'TÒJI JlOÛV I-',as T1JV iKEÍvWV 7rapov(}lav Els 'Tà òp.p.dná p.as.-Conf. Orthod. p. 328. 3 "Sequitur quod eadem reverentia exhibeatur imagini Christi et ipsi Christo. Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriæ consequens est tIUod ejus imago sit adoratione latriæ adoranda." "[Crux] utroquc modo arloratur eadenl adoratione cum Christo, sril. aòoratione Jatria>. Et propter hoc etiam crueem alloquimur et rleprecamur quasi ipsum cruci- tixum. "-S1.(/)nma III. Q. xxv. arts. iii. iv. In view of the distinction al'awll by Romanists Letween latâa, the worship due to God alone, hyperdulia, that due to the Blessed Yirgin, and dulict, that which is rll1f' to the saints, these worth; have caused no little difficulty, and arc frl"[lH'ntly explained away. But the statement of S. Thomas is clear cnough awl giv s to the Cruss latl'ia. ARTICLE XXII 5ûl J)olnine "; 1 and in our o\vn country the Constitutions of .c'\rchbishop ...-\l'undel, in ] 408, eluphatically urge the practice. "}'rom henceforth let it be taught commonly, and preached by all, that the Cross and the image of the Crucified, and the rest of the inlages of the saints, ill memory and honour of them \vhom they figure, as also their placeH and relics, ough t to be worshipped (venera'ri) \vi th processions, bendings of the knees, bo\vings of the body, incensings, kissings, offerings, lightings of candles, and pilgrimages, together with all other manners and forms whatsoever as hath been accustonled to be done in our predecessors' times." 2 It is needless to add illus- trations of the gross abuses and superstitions, such as that of the cc Rood of Boxley," 3 which had been exposed in the early years of the sixteenth century,-abuses \vhich afford a painfully strong justification of the vigor- ous language in condemnation of this worshipping and adoration of images and relics contained in the Article before us. 4 (b) The Scriptural argufments concerning the practice.- It n1Ïght have been supposed that it would be sufficient to quote the language of the second commandmen t as entirely prohibiting worship in any forn} being offered to ] .Jlissalc R01/tan1.lllt. Feria vi. in Parasceve. "Ab omnibus deinceps doceatur communiter atque lu'ædicetur, crucem et imaginem crucifixi cæterasque imagines sanctorum, in ipsorum memoriam et honorem quos figurant, ac ipsorum loca et reliquias, pro- cessionibus, genuflexionibus, inclinationibus, thurificationibus, deoscula- tionibus, oblationibus, luminarium acrensionibus, et peregrinationibus, nee non aliis quibuscunque modis et formis quibus nostris et prede- cessorum nostrorum temporibus fieri consuevit, venerari debere." - See Johnson's English Cancms, vol. ü. p. 469, and Lyndwootl's Prot"incialc, V. De hæret. cap. Nullus quoquc. :I See Dixon, History of the Chun:h of England, vol. ii. p. 52 seq. 4 It should also be mentioned that in the Second Book of the Homilies there is a lengthy Homily on this subject, entitled "Against Peril of Idolatry. " 562 THE THIRTY.NINE ARTICLES images; 1 but since it has appeared to Ronlan Catholics that the Scriptures contain instances of Ï1nage worship and exhortation to it, it lllay be ,veIl to examine the passages alleged by them. The action of David in dancing before the ark (2 San1. vi.) hal:) been referred to, but it is difficult to see \vhat justification there is for the assertion that any 'worship, be it latria or dulia, was paid by hÌ1n to it. But it is said that the 99th Psalnl contains a direct charge to "adore His footstool, for it iR holy," and that the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that Jacob" adored the top of his rod." 2 These two instances shall be considered, and if nothing stronger is forthcoming it may safely be concluded that there is not a shred of evidence in favour of the practice to be adduced fronl Holy Scripture, or to be set against the elnphatic con- demnation of it in the Decalogue. 3 1 It need hardly be sa.id that the second commanrlment cannot be strained into a condemnation of images and pictures as works of art, or for purposes of instruction. Had this been so, the figures of the cherubim, oxen, and lions would never have found place in the Tabernacle or Temple. :.! Both of these passages are l.cferred to as authorising "relative honour to the images of Christ aud the saints" in a table of references at the end of a copy of the Douay Bible lying before me; and to the passage in Heb. xi. 21 is appended the following note: "The apostle here follows the ancient Greek Bible of the Seventy interpreters (which translates in this manner Gen. xlvii. 31), and alleges this fact of Jacob, in paying a relative veneration to the top of the rod or sceptre of Joseph as to a figure of Christ's sceptre amI kingdom, as an instance and argument of his faith. But some translators, who are 110 friends to this relative honour, have corrupted the text by translating it, he wO'J'skippcd, lea'J .ing 'ltpon tlw lop of his sta.ff: as if this circumstance of leaning upon his staff were any argument of Jacob's faith, or worthy the being thus particularly taken notice of by the Holy Ghost." The IJrnarks above will show who are the real" corrupters of the text." 3 It is, to say the least, unfortunate that in the great majority of Roman Catholic Catechism::; the Commandments are given in an abbrevi- ated form, and, since according to the reckoning which obtains among them our first and second commandments form but one, the condemna- tion of image worship is practically unknown hy the va'lt ma:ss of the laity among them. ARTICLE XXII 5û3 Ps. xcix. 5 in the English version stands as follows: " Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool, for it is holy" (R.V., He is holy). In the "Douay version," however, which is comnlonly used by Roman Catholics, it stands thus: "Adore His footstool, for it is holy." The origin of the difference is this. The English version is taken from the Hebrew, and adequately repre- sents the original ? 'i! ;ï:1. The Douay version is trans- lated from the Vulgate (Ps. xcviii. 5), where the preposition is ignored and the words rendered," Adorate scabellunl pedurn ejus quolliam sanctum est." 1 Thus the argu.m ent 1'ests entÙ'ely on a 1nist1'anslation. The sallIe is true of the passage in the Epistle to the Hebre\vs (xi. 21). Here again the Vulgate," adoravit fastigiunl virgæ ejus," entÙ'ely 1nisrepresents the 1neaning of the original. The Greek is TrpOUEICVlI1](jEV ÈTrì TÒ å1CpOll 717ç þáßôov av,ov, words which can only Inean that Jacob \vorshipped upon (i.e. as the A.V. and R.V. "leaning upon ") the top of his staff. \Vith regard to the Scrip- tural argument for the adoration of relics, from tbe miracle 'wrought by the bones of Elisha (2 Kings xiii. 21) and the "handkerchiefs and aprons" brought from the body of S. Paul (Acts xix. 12), it cannot be said that they are worth anything. Neither the bones nor the handkerchiefs \vere preserved to be adored; 2 and until 1 The construction in the original is precisely the same as in vel'. 9, where both the Douay version and the Vulgate render correctly enougll U Adore at His holy mountain," "Aùm"ate in monte sancto ejus." 'Vhereas, if only they were consistent, the mountain would have to be adored as well as the footstool. 2 Cf. the :Martyrdom of Polycarp, c. xvii., where the Christians pour scorn on the notion that they would want to worship the body of the saint, or worship any other than Christ. TOÛTOV JÛv 'Yò.p vi.òv {)JlTa TOÛ OfOÛ 1rpOG'K VV 0 ûJJ.f:v , TOV(] ðÈ jláprvpa(] w(] JJ.a8'l]Tà(] Kaì JJ.Ljl'l]TÒ.(] TOÛ K vplov å'Ya7rwJJ.fV à lw(] VfKfV fuvola(] àVV7rfpßÌ\-!rrOV T1)(] fi(] TÒV (OLOV ßaG'LXla Kaì oLðá.G'KaXov. - Lightfoot, A}Jostolic Fathers, part II. yol. ii. ii. p. 979. 564 TlfE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES something stronger is adduced by our opponents, we ma.y safely rest satisfipd that nothing stronger can be found. III. Th Invocation of #f)aints. Once more we must consider separately (a) the history of the practice, and (b) the Scriptural argument con- cerning it. (a) The history of the p'ractice.-In tracing out thp growth of the custom of invoking the saints at rest, it \vill be \vell to start from the fact that the early Church undoubtedly believed that they \vere still engaged in interceding for those ,vhose warfare was not yet accom- plished,1 and very generally prayed to God to be bene- fited by a share in the prayers of the saints. 2 But there can aìso be no doubt that the early Christians did not think it right directly to ask the saints to use those intercessions, in \vhose efficacy she yet believed. The only writer during the first three centuries who has been quoted in favour of direct invocation is Origen (220), and it seems almost certain that in the passage in question he is really referring, not to the saints at rest, but to those still on earth. His ,vords are these: "It is not improper to offer supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving to saints: and t\VO of these-I mean inter- cession and thanksgiving-not only to saints, but to mere men; but supplication to saints only, if any Peter or Paul can be found, that they may help us: making us worthy to enjoy the licence which \vas . granted them of forgiving sins." S This passage, says Dean Luckock, 1 See Origen, In Jes'U l\Tave, Horn. xvi. c. 5; In Oant., Lib. iii.; Ep. ad Rom., Comment. ii. 4; Cypriau, Ep. Ix. ; De J/ortalitate, ad fin. etc. ; and cf. Luckock, After Death, part II. c. i. 2 Such prayers are found in all the ancient Liturgics, in which there is no direct invocation of the saints themselves. :: AbJCTL'II p. " oõ" Kallvrfl' L" Kal fuxapujrla" OUK d.r07rOJl Kal åÎ'lOL 7rpOU- ARTICLE XXII 565 "seen1S to have been quite unjustly claimed in favour of addressing petitions to departed saints. It is next to certain, as the \vhole context sho\vs, that he had in his mind none but living saints." 1 And this explanation is confirmed by \vords \vhich he uses else\vhere, saying of the " ten thousand sacred po\vers " which Inen "have on their side when they pray to God," that uninvoked (äKÀ'1}'TOt), these pray \vith them and bring help to our perishable race, and, if I Inay so speak, take up arms alongside of it." 2 It is, then, only in the latter part of the fourth century that the evidence for direct invocation really begins. 3 The Fathers of this age \vho have been cited in favour of the practice are these: in the East, S. Basil the Great (370), Gregory Nazianzen (370) and Gregory Nyssen (370), Ephraem the Syrian (370) and S. Chrysostom (390). In the West, S. Ambrose (::380) and S. Augustine (400). Their testimony has been carefully examined by Dean Luckock in his volume After Death, and the conclusion at which he arrives is that "S. Chrysostom's contradictions are such as to invalidate his evidence, that S. Gregory N azianzen speaks doubtfully, that S. Ambrose, in the little which he has said upon the subject, is inconsistent \vith himself; but that the testimony of SS. Basil, Gregory N yssen, Ephraem, and Augustine remains so far unshaken." 4 Some of the IIi"lK UI åXXà rà p.ÈII OVO, Xi"lw 07] illnv LII Kal EvxapufTlall oÎJ p.611011 å'Y10Ls àXXà 01] Kal ållOpW7rOLS, T7]II oÈ Ob-}G'LII p.ollðll å'YíOLS, r TLS VpEOEÍ7] IIaûXos 7} IIhpos ,"a wcþ X7}G'WULII 7}p.âs å íovs 7rOLOÛllUS TOÛ TVXÚII T1]S ofoop.ill7]S airroLs i ovuías 7rpÒS Tà åp.apT7}p.aTa åcþLillaL.-])c Oratione, 14. 1 After Death, p. 187. 2 "OG'U TOXP. II 'Ý}p.âs Xi"lELII, ÖTL åVOpW7rOLS, P.ETà 7rpoaLplu ws 7rponO p.lvoLS Tà KpdTTova, Euxop.llloLS T4J SE4J p.vpíaL öuaL l!KX7]TOL UVII vxoIITaL OVIIó.P.fLS i paì., uvp.7raplxovuaL Tc;, È7rLKTlP4J 7}P.WII 'YIII,;., Kal LII' O{!TWS d7rw, uVlla- "ywIIL{;:uaL. -Contra Celsl.lm, viii. 64. 3 It ought to be mentioned that such prayers arc found (undated.) in t.he Catacombs. 4 01'. cit. p. 197_ 37 566 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES passages in these Fathers certainly appear to be nothing more than rhetorical appeals, ,vhich can scarcely have been intended to be taken as seriously implying that the person so addressed \vas expected to be cognisant of the utterance,-as when S. Gregory N azianzen apos- trophises Constantius: "Hear, 0 soul of great Con- stantius (if thou hast any faculty of perception), and ye souls of all the kings \vho before him loved Christ." 1 Concerning the intention of others, however, there is no room for doubt; 2 and it cannot be denied that by the time of Augustine the practice of directly invoking the saints ,vas firmly established as a popular one, though even so there is no trace of such invocations being admitted into the forinal services of the Church. Rather, it \vould appear from the language of .A.ugustine that they were not allowed; for in a passage in \vhich be is speaking of the miracles \vrought by the martyrs, ee or rather ," as he corrects himself, by " God ,vho does tbem, while they pray and assist," he says, ",ve do not erect altars at these monuments that we may sacrifice to the martyrs, but to the one God of the martyrs and of ourselves, and in this sacrifice they are named in their own place, and rank as men of God who conquered the world by confessing Him, but they are not invoked by the sacrificing priest" (non tamen a sacerdote qui sacrificat invocantur).3 J _fter this tÏIne it ,vould seem 1 Adv. Jul. Imp. Ill/L.ect. i. OJ.at. iv. 3. 2 Thus S. Basil says: ,e I accept also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs, anù I invoke thenl (brLKa'Xoû}LaL) for their supplication to God, that by them, that is, by their meùiation, the merciful God may take compassion upon me, and that ther may be granted to me redemption for mine offences." -Ex epÙ,t. ad J'ulian Apost. ccclx.; cf. Dc .JIart. .J[amante, H01n. xxiii. and Horn. in xl. ltlart. 8. These and the other passages from the Fathers mentioned in the text are all quoted in full in Luckock, Ope cit. 3 Dc Civit. Dei, Bk. xxii. c. x.: "Just before this (c. viii.) Augustine has told a story of a tailor who had lost his coat, and had prayed to the ARTICLE XXII 567 that the custOlll grew apace. The practice having once established itself spread throughout the East and 'Vest,! and became part of the system of the Church. By the eighth century the invocations \vere introduced into the Litanies of the Church,2 the only public authorised service in which they have ever been prominent, except later devotions in honour of the Blessed Virgin. K or, unhappily, did the system long remain what it had been at first, i.e. merely asking the saints to pray for us. In tÏ1ne the saints were often invoked as if they were the authors of benefits; and the Blessed Virgin, in particular, was addressed in language \vhich (with every ,, ish to be charitable) it is impossible to a void stigmatising as blasphemous and idolatrous. Thus in Bonaventura's O,.own of the Blessed Virgin .J.1Ia7'Y \ve read: "0 Enlpress and our most kind lady, by the authority of a mother command thy most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ, that He \vould vouchsafe to lift up our nlinds," etc.3 Much more of the sanle character may be found in the Psalter of the Blessed Virgin,4 attributed to the same \vriter. And it cannot be doubted that in the sixteenth century twenty martyrs, begging in a distinct voice that he might be heard." The sequel was evidently regarded ùy Augustine as a (lirect answer to his petition. Cf. also Dc CUJ'(t PI'O 'IIW1.htis, e. iv. 1 At the present day t.he doctrine of the Ea.stern Church on this suhject differs in no respect from the formal teaching of the Latin Church. See 'Viner's Confessio'll,8 of Christclulom, p. 70, where citations are given from the" Orthodox Confession" of 1643, and that of )Ietrophanes Critopulus (16ì5). cr. also the LO'ngcr Catechism of the Russian Chtl'i.ch (t.ranslated by R. 'V. Blackmore), p. 78. :! It is hard to say exactly when they were introdueeù; but it was eerta,inly some time hefore the middle of the eighth century. See the seventeenth eanon of the Council of Clovesho (A.D. ï 47), which orders t.he name of Augustine to be introduced into the Litany, "post Sancti Gregorii vocationem." Haddan and Stubbs, vol. iii. p. 368. 3 See Usher's AJlSZ/'Cl. to Jcsuit, p. 424) where thb and much more of the same kind is quoted. -I ëshcr, l.c. 568 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES the practical systeln connected ,vith the invocation of saints ,vas grossly superstitious. l It naturally excited the indignation of our Reformers, and hence the emphatic condemnation of the" Romish doctrine" on the subject in the Article before us, and the vigorous polemic con- tained in the HOl11Íly " Concerning Prayer" which ,vaH issued in the reign of Elizabeth. 2 (b) The Scriptu1 al ar[J1.lrnent concerning in'Cocation of saints. - In considering the teaching of Scripture on this subject, it is well to remember that it is admitted by all parties that to regard the saints as the authors of the benefits which they are asked to obtain is wrong,3 and contrary to Scripture, \vhich distinctly forbids the worship of a creature, and contains striking instances of the refusal of \vorship by both men and angels. Thus in Acts x. 25 we read: ""Yben it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met hinl, and fell down at his feet and ] Thus Erasmus writes: "I call it superstition when all things are asked from the saints as if Christ were dead; or when we implore the aid of the saints with t1lC idea that they are more easily intreated than God; or when we seek some particular thing fron1 each, as if S. Catherine could bestow what S. Barbara could not; or when we call upon them, not as intercessors, but as authors of those good things which God grants us. I think that it may seem impious to thee to animadvert upon these things, but I well know that it would not seem superfluous, if thou knewest the ])rodigious superstition of our fellow-countrymen on this matter."- Epist. ad Jac. Sadolet., quoted in Forbes, Goítsiderationes .Jlodf'stæ \0J. ii. p. 310. Cf. the "Ten Articles" of 1536, where, though direct invocation is retained, a caution is aùded, that" it be done without any yain superstition, so as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us sooner than Christ, or that one saint doth sen'e for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same." -F01'1ïL'll[G1"ies of Paith, p. 15. See the "se('oUlI part of the Homily Concerning Prayer," Tit,. l!OíiLiUes, p. 3-11 ( .r.c. K.). :: Bellarmine says, that as far as wonl:;; go, it is lawlhl to say: "S. Peter IJity me, save 1ue, open for me the gate of }leaven"; also "give me health of body, patience, fortitude," etc., provided that we mean "::;ave and pity me by praying for me "; "Grant me this or that by thy pra.yers and lucri!::,." ARTICLE XXII 569 worshipped hinl (7rpOUfKVV7}UfV). But l)eter raised hÏ1n up, saying, Stand up; I n1yself also aUl a man." 1 So in the Revelation, t,vice over S. John "fell do\vn before the feet of the angel to \vorship him" (-:rpou- Kvvijuat), and twice over the angel refuses the worship. "See thou do it Hot; 1 alll a. fellow-servant \vith thee and with thy Lrethl'en that hold the testimony of Jesus" (xix. 10). " See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant \vith thee, and ,vith thy brethren the prophets, and with then1 \vhich keep the \vords of this book: worship God" (xxii. 9). The advocates of the invocations would not attelnpt to justify more than the " Ora pro nobis" or its equivalent (since they explain a\vay the far stronger language habitually used in their popular devotions). .... nd even here they are compelled to admit that there is nothing in Scripture \vhich directly sanctions the practice. It is based by theln (1) on the evidence that the saints at rest are engaged in interceding for us, and (2) on the admitted po\ver of intercessory prayer. To these arguments \ve reply, first, that it Inay be freely conceded that Holy Scripture does appear to imply that the saints at rest do pray for those still on earth,2 and 1 Acts xiy. 13 Beq., which is sometimes quoted against t.he invocation of saints, seems really not. to bear upon the subject, for the men of Lystra desireù to offer to the apostles divine honour, as to heathen deities; which under no circumstances could they have acC'epted. It is yery different, therefore, from the passages cited in the text. This was certainly the belief of the Jews, as is shown by more than one passagc in the Apocrypha. Sec 2 l\lacc. xv. 12-14: "And this was his vision: that Onias, who had been high priest . . . holding up his hands prayed for the whole body of the Jews. This done, in like manner there appeared a man with grey hair , and exeeeding glorious, who was of a wonùerful and excellent majesty. Then Onias answered, saying, This is a lover of the brethl'{:ll, who prayeth much for the people, and for tlH' holy city, to wit, J el'emias, the prophet of God." cr. Tobit xii. 12, where Raphael, "one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints," speaks of "bringing the remembrance" of Tobit's prayers "before the Holy One." Cf. also Rev. viii. 3, 4, and v. 8. 570 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES that therefore it cannot be wrong to ask God for a share in their prayers.! But \Vhell we are asked to go further, and address the saints themselves, we lnay well hesitate; for though, secondly, we fully believe in the power of intercessory prayer, yet if we wish to ask an earthly friend to exercise it for us, we take care that our ,vords can reach hin1; and so, Lefore asking the saints to do the same, ,ve require evidence that they are cognisant of our prayers. With Bishop Richard Montague (1624) we say: "Demonstrate unto me infallibly by reason, Scripture, authentic tradition, that saints departed are all of them, or any of them, interested ordinarily rebus viventi'llm.; tha t by either evening or morning know- ledge, natural endowment, or acquired accruments, by Divine revelation, angelical revelation, or other means, they do or can kno\v and understand n1Y necessities, exigencies, prayers, or practice in any time or place ,vhen I call upon them, or unto then1, and I ,, ill unfeignedly join hands of fellowship, and say, 'Saint Peter, Saint Paul, pray for me.' l. T ntil that, È7rÉXCIJ; and so I think will any desire to be excused for invoca- tion; for to be persuaded, as some have told me that in their opinion saints nor do nor can be privy unto lilY necessities, nor hear my prayers, and yet to pray unto them, is to my understanding so poor a part of piety that it is \vithout \varrant of COlumon sense." 2 It does not appear that there is any evidence in Holy 1 Cf. Field, Of the Ohu'1'ch, ilk. iii. Appendix: "That the saints do pray for us in gcncre, desiring God tJ be merciful to us, and to do unto us whatsoever in any kind He knoweth neeùful for our good, there is 110 question made by us; and therefore this prayer wherein the Church ùesireth God to be. gracious to her and to grant the things she desireth, the rather for that the saints in IlCavcn also are suppliant for her, will not be found to contain any point of Romish doctrine disliked hy us." :! A Treatise o/the Invoc(1tionof Saints, p. 218, quoted in H. R. Percival's In'l' ((fion of Saints, p. 111. ARTICLE XXII 571 Scripture that the saints are already admitted to the beatific vision, or that they are cognisant of our prayers, such as would wa.rrant us in addressing them.! Nor can it be said that there has been any certain and consi'3tent tradition of the Church on the subject \vhich \vould justify us in regarding it as "a Catholic practice." As \ve have already seen, there is no trace of direct invo- cation before the last half of the fourth century. In the fifth century S. Augustine uses language which betrays considerable doubt \vhen discussing the question whether the saints kno\v what is passing on earth. 2 In the twelfth century, all that Peter Lombard, the ::\laster of the Sentences, can say \vith regard to the theory which obtains most \videly at the present day, is that "it is not incredible that the souls of the saints, which in their secret dwelling rejoice in the illumination of the true light of the face of God, do in the contemplation thereof understand the things which are done in this outer \vorld, as much as pertaineth either to thenl for joy or to us for aid. For as to the angels, so also to the saints, \vho stand before God, our petitions are Inade known in the word of God \vhich they contenlplate." 3 Still later, Dun Scotus maintains "that it does not belong to the essence of blessedness that the blessed 1 It would be precarious in the extreme to build anything upon Heb. xii. 1, where the word for" witnesses" is fJ.apTupE . 2 The question is discussed by Augustine in De Cllra pro ?Jwrtuis, c. xiii. seq.; and though Augu tine believed that the martyrs were able to help the living, he confesses that he is utterly unable to solve the question how they are made aware of ,vhat passes on earth. 3 "Sed forte q uæris, N urn quid preces supplicantium sancti audiunt, et vota postulantium in eornm notitiam pelTeniunt Non est incredibile animas sanctorum, quæ in abscondito faciei Dei veri luminis illustratione lætantur, in ipsius contemplatione ea quæ foris aguntur intelligere, quantum vel illis ad gaudium vel nobis ad auxilium pertinet. Sicut enim angeIis, ita et sauctis qui Deo assistnnt, petitiolles nostræ innotescunt in Verbo Dei quod contemplantnr."-Scntent. IV. dist. xlv. 6. 572 THE THIRTY'-NINE ARTICLES hear our prayers, though it is probable that God reveals them to them"; 1 and even so late a8 the sixteenth century Cardinal Cajetan is forced to adn1Ït that" \ve have no certain kno,vledge as to ,vhether the saints arc a\vare of our prayers, though we piously believe 'it." In the absence, therefore, of any distinct revelation, and in the face of so much doubt and uncertainty, it would appear that the Church of England is amply justified (1) in removing from the public services of the Church all traces of such direct invocations, including the" Ave Maria" as ,yell as the 'Ora pro nobis"; 3 and (2) in condemning in round terms in the Article before us the current teaching and practice, \vhich can be abundantly sho\vn to be a fond 4 thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repltgnant to the word of God. 1 ,; Non esse ex ratione heatitudillis, quod beati audiant orationes nostras, probabile tamen esse quod Deus ipse revelat."-In Scnt. IY. dist. xlv. q. 4, quoted in Forbes, Consid. .J. Iodcst. vol. ii. p. 178. 2 "Certa ratione nescimus an sancti nostra cognoscant, quamvis pie hoC' credamns." -In 2a 2a:-, q. lxxxviii. art. 5, quoted in Forbes, up. cU. p. 1 i6. 3 'Yhen the English Litany was first puLlished in 1544, all the invo- cations of saints (which had formed so prominent a feature in this service) were deleted, except three clauses, namcly- "Saint Iary, mother of God our Saviour Jesu Christ, pray for us. " All holy angels and archangels, and all holy orders of bles ed spirits, pray for us. "All holy patriarchs and prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors and virgins, and all the blessed company of heaven, pray for us." On the publication of the first Prayer Book of Edward Yr. ill 1549 these three clauses were omitted, and all trace of the direct invocatioll of the saints was removed from the public offices of the English Church. 4 Fond (inanis), i.e. foolish. Shakespeare uses the word in the same sensc- " Thou fond mad man, hear me but speak a word." Romeo and Juliet, III. iii. 52. " And for 11Ís dreams, I wonder he is so fond To trust the mockery of unquiet slumber." Ricnrrrd III. III. ii. 26. .A.ItTICLE XXIII De 'Vucatione .JIiníst'j'o1'WJlz. :N on licet cuiquam sumere sibi munus publice prædicandi, aut ad. ministrandi sacramenta in ecc1esia, nisi prius fuerit ad hæc obeunda legitime yocatus et missus. Atque iUos legitime vocatos et missos existimare debemus, qui per hom- ines, (p1Ïbus potestas vocandi min- istros atque mittendi in vineam Domini puùlice eoncessa est in ecc1esia, cooptati fnerint et asciti in hoc opus. Of ./.}liniste1'iny 'hI, tlte Conglcgation. It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the oIlice of public preaching or ministering the sacra- ments in tIle congregation before he be lawfully caned and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called to this work hy men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send min- isters into the Lord's vineyard. THERE has been no change in the substance of this Article since it was first published in 1553. In that edition, ho,vever, and also in that of 1563, the title ran: " :N enlO in ecclesia ministret nisi vocatus" (" No lua.n may minister in the congregation except he be called "). The present title was substituted for this at the final revision in 15 71. The ultimate source of this Article is the fourteenth, " De ordine ecclesiastico," of the Confession of Augsburg: "De ordine ecclesiastico docent quod nemo debeat in ecclesia publice docere aut sacramenta administrare, nisi rite vocatus." Its debt to this nonfession is, however, only indirect; for there can be little doubt that its immediate origin ,vas the corresponding Article in the unfinished series of 1538, agreed upon by a joint- 5í 574 THE THIRTY.NINE ARTICLES cOlIuuittee of Anglican and Lutheran divines. l This document adopts the language of the Augsburg Confes- sion, but adds additional matter to it, which suggested the latter part of our own Article: "De ministris ecclesiæ docelnus, quod nenlO debeat publice docere, aut sacramenta n1Ïnistrare, nisi rite vocatus, et quidem ab his, penes quos in ecclesia, juxta verbum Dei, et leges ac consuetudines uniuscujusq ue regionis, jus est vocandi et admittendi." 2 Since the Lutherans were lacking in episcopal government, it is obvious that in any common formula to be agreeable o both parties refuge must be taken in language of a vague and general character. Hence the reference to "the laws and customs of each country," which ,vas omitted when the Article was remodelled for the use of the Anglican Church alone. The object of the Article is to condemn the theory held by many of the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, that "anyone believing himself to be called to the ministry, was bound to exercise his functions as a preacher in defiance of all Church authority." 3 The same error is condemned in the Ref01".matio Legu1n Ecclcsiasticarurfl, in which, after the mention of various Anaba ptist errors, ,ve come to the follo,ving passage :- "Sin1Ïlis est eorum amentia qui institution em minis- trorum ab ecclesia disjungunt, negantes in certis locis certos doctores, pastores atque ministros collocari debere; nec admittunt legitimos vocationes, nec solemnem manuum Ünpositionem, sed per omnes publice clocendi potestatem divulgant, qui sacris literis uteunque sunt aspersi, et Spiritum sibi vendicant; nec illos solum adhibent ad docendum, sed etiam ad lnoderandanl ecclesiam, et distribuenda sacramenta; quæ sane universa cnm Scriptis Apostolorum luanifeste pugnant." 4 1 See vol. i. p. 6. 3 Hardwick, p. 102. 2 See Hardwick. p. 270. -I R"..f. Leg. Eccles., De lIæres. c. xvi. ARTICLE XXIII - - 010 So in Hernlann's COllsultation it is said of sonle of the Anabaptists, that they" dispise the outwarde ministerie and doctrine of the Church, they denie that God ,vorketh by the same. They teache that we muste loke for private illuminations and visions. 'Vherefore thei avoyed the common sermons of the Church, and holye assembles of the people of Christe, they ,vyth- dnnve from the sacraments," etc.! Such a view as that here condemned can only lead to confusion and disorder, for according to it anyone ,vho claims for himself the Spirit may set hinlself up as a minister of the ,yord and sacraments, ,vith no commis- sion whatever from any external authority. In opposi- tion to this the statement of the Article is clear and decisive. It falls into two parts, each of which requires some little consideration- 1. The need of an external call and mission. 2. The description of those through whom the call comes. I. The l\Tccd of an CJ::ternal Call and lJIission. It is not lawful 2 for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or minister- ing the sacraments in the congregation (in ecclesia),3 before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. "Called and sent." The t\VO ,vords (which are repeated in the second part of the Article) should be carefully noticed. They refer to distinct things: the coll, to the original 1 English translation of 1548, fo1. cxlii. :! Evidently, though this is not stated, by the law of God. 3 It is not clear why throughout this Article, in the heading as well as in the body of the Article, ecclesia is rendered by cong1"cgatia]l. and not by (Y}t1.tTch. 576 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES SUlnUlons to enter the n1inistry: the ?117C;8 0?1, to the cOIn mission to execute it ill a. particular sphere. Unless the need of each of these is recoglliseù there can only arise confusion, as if only the call ,,-ere necessary different luinisters properly ordained nlighL assert rival claims to execute their office in the saIne place, and the \vhole principle of Church order would be destroyed. To obviate this they lnust be" sent to execute the same," as ,veIl as "called" to the office. '1'Inls the requirement of "mission" follo\vs from the general principle that "Uod is not a God of confusion, bu t of peace)); and from the necessity that " all things " should "be done decently and in order." 1 With regard to the" call" to the ministry, all Christians are agreed tha t a call frOlll God is necessary before a man can preSUlne to teach and minister in His nanle. "N 0 man taketh the honour unto bÏ111self, but \vhen he is called of God, even as \vas Aaron," and "ho\v shall they preach except they be sent 11 ? 2 So much is adn1Ïtted by all. The question really is \vhether the "Ï1nvard call" requires to be supplenlented by an external one. And here all the evidence from Scripture and antiquity is in favour of insisting upon one from properly constituted authorities. 'Vhile it cannot be doubted that under the Old Covenant in addition to the regularly constituted priesthood and IÆvitical ministry, God did frODl time to tinle raise up the prophets as His lnessengers, and send thenl forth \vith no commission fronl luell, as he did afterward at the beginning of the gospel in the case of S. Paul, \vho always clainled to hold his apostolate" not froDI (å7ró) men, neither through (olá) 111en, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father," 3 yet in these cases the call ,vas authenticated by signs \vhich could be recognised and 1 ] Cor. xiv. 33, 40. 3 Ga.l. i. 1. Hph. v. 4 ; Rom. x. 15. ARTICLE XXIII 577 known by meu. l The gift of prophecy ana the po\ver of working miracles no longer remaining \vith the Church, it can easily be seen that unless the necessity of an external call \vere insisted on, the Church would ùe at the Inercy of any religious fanatic \vho might be pleaseù to claim to be taught by the Spirit of God. 2 And so \ve find that, as a matter of fact, from the very first men \vere set apart by the properly constituted authorities of the Church, and did not take upon then1selves the ministerial office \vithout such a call. Thus the seven were" ap- poin ted" (oÐ KaTauT (J"wJ1ÆV) to the ministry by the A postles, after they had been " chosen" (ÈgE^É avTo) by the whole 111l11titude. 3 Paul and Barnabas" appointed" elders in every church (XE"poTov (J"avTE öÈ aVToî 7rpf.rrßVTtpov "aT' ÈK"^'T}uíav).4 Timothy received the gift "through (ö"á) the laying on of " S. Paul's hands, or, as it is elsewhere said, " through (ö"á) prophecy, \"ith (J1ÆTá) the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 5 Titus is commissioned to " appoint elders in every city," 6 and Timothy receives full instructions as to the character and qualifications of those who are to be admitted into the ministry.7 These facts seem quite decisive, and it is a sinlple fact of history that from the Apostles' day to the present time the Church has ahvays required an 1 See Deut. xviii. 20- :l. It will be remembered that the Church of England is equally emphatic in insisting on the need of an "inward" call, the first (plestion addressed to candidates for the ministry being this-" Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this office and ministration to serve Goù for the promoting of His glory anù the edifying of His people 1" Kot till this has been satisfactorily answerc(l is the further question put concerning the exterual eall-" Do you think that you are truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the dne order of this realm, to the ministry of the Church 1 " 3 Acts vi. 1-6. .& Acts xi v. 23. ;; cr. 2 Tim. i. tj with 1 Tim. iv. 14. Ii Titus i. 5. 7 1 Tim. iii. 578 THE THIRTY-NINE i\RTICLES external call in the case of all those whom she has recognised as Christian ministers. There is no necessity to prove this at length; but a single passage may be quoted from the first of the Christian Fathers to indicate bo\v the matter ,vas regarded in the very early tÍ1nes, and the principle of succession laid down- "Our apostles klle\V through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore, having received complete forekno,vledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and after\vards they provided a con tin nance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their n1inistration. Those, therefore, \vho \vere appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute \vith the consent of the whole Church, and have 111inistered unblanleably to the flock of Christ . . . these men ,ve consider to be unjustly thrust out froD1 their ministra- tion." 1 II. l'he Description of those tltJ'oll!Jh rwh01ï the Call con cs. "\Vhile the Article is perfectly clear in asserting the need of an external call, it cannot be lnaintained that it 1 Oi å7rÓO"TO OC. i]p,WJI l-YJlwuaJl õc.à TOÛ Kliplou Í]f.J.WJI 'I?]O"oû XpC.UTOÛ, ón lpc.s iO"Tac. brl. TOÛ òpópraTos T1]S È7rC.O"K07r1]S. Åc.à TaÚT?]JI ODJI T7JV alTlaJl 7rpó-yvwuc.JI Ei"J...?]fþ6TES TE"J...elav KaTIO"T?]O"aJl TOÙS 1rpOEtP?]f.J.ÉVOV , Kat prETa ù brt)J.oJl7JV òEòwKaulv Ö7rW , ià.JI Koc.)J.?]8wuc.JI, òtaoÉ wVTac. I!TEpOL OEOOKc.f.J.a.up,IJloc. åJlOpES T1W HTollp-YLav aVTWJI. TOÙ ODV KaTaO"Ta.8ÉPTo'S irK' iKdvwv 7} prETa ù Vrþ'iTÉpWJl i"J..."J...O"'fLprWV åJlopwJI, O"UVEUOOK?]uáO"?]s T1]S iKK ?]O"[a.S 1ráu?] , KaZ EC.TOllpyfJO"a.VTa. åprÉjJ.1rTWS T 7roc.f.J.plCfJ TOÛ XptO"TOÛ . . . TOÚTOVS ou oc.Kalws POjJ.lrO)J.EV å1roßá ^E0"8ac. T1]S Ec.TollfYYlas.-Ad Crt. I. xliv. On the reading and difficult word brtf.J.OV7jJ1 see Lightfoot's note, ad loco The old Latin published by Dom Iorin (Anecdota [aredsolana, vol. ii.) seems to have had bnvoJÛv, which it rendered by "legem." 'Yhichever be right, and whether Koc.p':1J8wO"c.JI refers to the death of the presbyters or of the apostles themselves, the principle of succession to the ministry, and of the need of an external call to it, is here clearly traced to the appointment of the apostles thcmselyes. ARTICLE XXIII 57!) IS eq ually clear in its description of those who are empowered to give this call. Those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard. 'Vho are these men "who have public authority given them in the congregation" (ecclesia)? The Article fails to tell us, and its silence on this point is to some extent explained (as we have seen) by the source to which it can be traced. But though an Article on the subject of the ministry, designed to be subscribed by Lutherans and Anglicans, must needs be vague and indefinite, the question may fairly be asked, Why, when the Article ,vas to be signed by Anglicans alone, ,vas not the indefiniteness removed, and a plain statement describing the proper authorities inserted? To this it may be ans\vered that Article XXXV. of 1553 referred definitely to the "book of ordering ministers of the Church" as "godly and in no point repugnant to the \vholesome doctrine of the gospel, but agreeable thereto," ,vhile the corresponding Article (XXX''''I.) of the Elizabethan revision supported the claims of the Ordinal more definitely, asserting that it "doth contain all things necessary to such consecra- tion and ordering: neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And, therefore, \vhosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the afore- nalned ICing Edward unto this time, or shall be conse- crated or ordered according to the same rites, \ve decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and la\vfully consecrated and ordered." These citations show that the omission in the Article before us is made up else,vhere, and that the ,vords under consideration are intended to refer to 580 THE THIRTY"-NINE I\RTICLES the bishops, to \vhom alone is given in the Church of England this" public authority to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." .A..nd, since the reference of the terms was thus rendered unmistakable, it was probably considered unnecessary to introduce a more forinal mention of the Episcopate here. 1 It \vill there- fore be more convenient that in this Commentary upon the Articles the discussion of the questions connected \vith the Episcopate and the threefold ministry should be reserved until they can be treated of in connection \vith that Article in \vhich they are distinctly ll1en- tioned. 1 It must be rcmembered that the Articles were 110t designed to be a complete system of theology. Original1y they were mere1y intenrled to be a practical test, called forth by the exigencies of the times. At the time when they were first drawn up in 1553 there was no practical question at issue in this country between Episcopal orders and Presby- terian; and an that was really necessary was to assert against the Anabaptists the need of an external calL ARTICLE XXIV Dc ]Jrecibu. ]J1.tblicis diandis in li1l[J1ta md[Jw'i. Lingua populo non intellecta publicas in ecclesia preces peragere, aut Sacramenta administrare, verbo Dei et primitivre ecclesiæ con. sueturlini plane repugnat. Of Speaking in the Cong1'e[Jation in such a Tongue a.. the People 'Under tandeth. It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people. THIS Article ,vas rewritten and brought into its present form by Archbishop Parker in 1563. The corresponding A.rticle in the Edwardian Series was this: "Jllen must speak in the congregation in such tongue as the people understandeth. 1 It is most seemly and most agreeable to the word of God, that in the congregation nothing be openly read or spoken in a tongue unknown to the people, the ,vhich thing S. Paul did forbid, except some were present that should declare the same." The dif- ference is practically this: Whereas in 1553 the Church of England contented herself ,vith asserting that it was "most seemly and most agreeable to the word of God" that public worship should be held in a tongue familiar to those present, since 1563 she has maintained the position that the contrary is "plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church." It is necessary, therefore, to consider separately- 1 This title was allowed to remain in 1563, the present one not being substituted for it till15ïl. 3 8 582 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES 1. The evidence of Scripture on this subject. 2. The custom of the primitive Church. 1. The Evidence of Script'ure. The only pasf:;age in the Bible which can be thought to bear directly upon the subject is 1 Cor. xiv., where S. Paul is speaking of the gift of tongues, and laying down rules for its exercise. His language Ünplies that the "tongue" was ordinarily not intelligible to those present, and he expresses a strong preference for the gift of prophecy, on the ground that it conduces to the edifi- cation, comfort, and consolation of those present (ver. 3), whereas the speaker in a tongue speaketh to God only and not to n1en, " for no rnan understandeth" (ver. 2). "He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the Church" (ver. 4); and thus, "in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue II (ver. 19). ]'or this reason he further charges the man that" speaketh in a tongue" to "keep silence in the church, if there be no interpreter" (ver. 28). In all this the general principle is laid down that it is right not only to "pray with the spirit," but to " pray with the understanding also," and to "sing with the understanding also," as well as to "sing with the spirit." But it is obviously impossible for this to be done where the service is held" in a tongue not under- standed of the people." In such a case "the spirit" Inay "pray," but cC the understanding" will be "un- frui tful " (ver. 14). It Inay be admitted that by the aid of a version in the vernacular, which shall be placed in the hands of the laity, the disadvantages of worship conducted in a dead language may be to some extent obviated. But even so ARTICLE XXIV 583 the broad principle laid down by the A postle remains untouched: nor does it appear possible that the bulk of the congregation can really join in intelligently unless the language is one that is familiar to them; and ho\v- ever much the idea that the unity of the Church should be expressed by the unity of the language in \vhich her prayers everywhere ascend to God may appeal to us, this is, after all, a matter of sentiment, and S. Paul's ruling distinctly places edification as the first consideration. We conclude, then, that it is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God . . . to haye public prayer in the Church or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people. II. The OustOll of the PrÍ1nitive Ohurch. It is also repugnant to the custom of the primi- tiye Church. This assertion is scarcely open to question. The evidence of the ancient Liturgies, as well as of incidental statements in the \vritings of early Fathers,! is amply sufficient to prove that as various countries were evangelised, the services of the Church, including the administration of the Sacraments, \vere held in \vhat- ever language was familiar to the people of the country. Thus there still exist Liturgies, not only in Greek, but also in Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, etc.; and it \vas only in the same \vay that Latin came to be employed in worship at all, as the general language in use throughout the West. 1 E.g. Origen, Oontra Oelsum, viii. 37: cc The Greeks use Greek in their prayers, the Romans Latin, and so everyone in his own language prays to God, and gives thanks as he is able. And He that is Lord of every tongue bears that which is asked in every tongue." . Cf. S. Jerome, Ad Eustoch., Epitaph. Paulæ. The evidence of the Fathers is set out at length in the Homily on Common Prayer amI tIle Sacraments, a large part of which is devoted to the consideration of the position maintained in this Article. See the Homilies, p. 378 seq. (S.P.C.K.). 584 TIlE TIIIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Originally the Roman Church \vas Greek-speaking; and so long as this was the case the Liturgy there used was, not Latin, but Greek.! But by degrees, as Latin became universal in the West among all classe , so the use of Latin in public worship spread, although it was never adopted in the East. Its retention throughout the \Vestern Church, after the dialects spoken in different quarters had diverged so greatly as to become different languages, as French, Spanish, and Italian, and after the conversion of the Teutonic races and the growth of their several languages, was for a time a real convenience, as Latin was the one language that was generally under- stood in all parts, and formed the medium of intercourse anlong educated people. But, as the old order changed, the disadvantages became greater than the advantages, though by a not unnatural conservatism the Church clung tenaciously to what was customary. Then, when the inconveniences were complained of, it was found necessary to justify the existent practice, and arguments \vere urged in its favour \vhich are clearly afterthoughts, and if seriously pressed would be fatal to the use of Latin, and compel us to revert to the original language in which the Scriptures were \vritten and the Eucharist instituted. But there is no need to enter into these here. Sufficient has been said to justify the position taken up in the Article, and that is all that is required fronl us. 2 1 A trace of this still remains in the Kyrie Elcison, which has never been translated into Latin, but is still u ed in its Greek form. 2 The formal statement of the Roman Church is, "If anyone shall say that. . . the :blass ought only to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue. . . let him be anathema. "-Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session XXII. canon ix. 1'his session was held in Sept. 1562, shortly before thc revision of the Articles in Elizabeth's reign. It is therefore possible that the altf>ration then made in the terms of t1w A.rtiC'le was in consequence of the .promulgation of t.þis canon. ARTICLE XXV Dc Sacra'inentis. Sacramenta a Christo instituta non tantum sunt notæ professionis Christianorum, sed certa quædam testimonia, et efficacia signa gratiæ atque bonæ in nos voluntatis Dei, per quæ invisibiliter ipse in nobis operatur nostramque fidem in se, non solum excitat, yerum etiam confirmat. Duo a Christo Domino nostro in Evangelio instituta sunt Sacra- menta, scilicet Baptismus et Cæna Domini. Quinque ilIa vulgo nominata Sacramenta, scilicet, COllfirmatio, Pwnitentia, Ordo, :Matrimonium, et Extrema Unctio, pro Saeramentis Evangelieis habenda non sunt, ut quæ partim a prava apostolorum imitatione profluxerunt, partim vitæ status sunt in Scripturis quidem probati, sed SacramentorUlU candem cum Baptismo ct Cælla Domini rationem nOll ha1entes: 1 ut quæ signum aliquod visibile sell cæremoniam a Deo institutam nOll habeallt. Sacramenta HOll in hoc illstituta sunt a Christo, ut sl'rda.rentur aut circumferrentur, seù ut rite iBis uteremur: ct ill his duntaxat qui digne percipiunt, salutarem habent OJ the Sacral1tents. Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure wit- nesses, and effectua.l signs of grace and God's goodwill 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 Sacrament/:) ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five, commonly caned Sacraments, that is to say, Con- firmation, Penance, Orders, latri- mony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as llave grown partly of the corrupt follow- ing of the Apostles, partly arc states of life allowed in the Scrip- tures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptisnt and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. The Sacraments were not orclained of Christ to bc gazed upon, or tv he carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in 1 The edition of 1563 adds here: "lluomodo nec prellitelltia." 585 586 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES effectum: qui vero iudignc per- cipiunt, da.mnationem (ut illquit Paulus) sibi ipsis acquirunt. such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation. But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul sa.ith. TIllS ..Article has undergone considerable alteration since the publication of the series of 1 553. In that year it began with a quotation from S. Augustine: " Our J.Aord Jesus Christ hath knit together a company of new people, with sacraments most few in number, most easy to be kept, most excellent in signification, as is Baptism, and the I.Aord's Supper." 1 Then follo,ved the last paragraph of our present Article, with the insertion (after the ,yords "wholesome effect or opera- tion ") of the fo.Jowing ,vords: "and yet not that of the work wrought, as some men speak, ,vhich word, as it is strange and unknown to Holy Scripture: so it engendereth no godly, but a very superstitious sense." 2 After this paragraph there stood ,vhat is now the fi1'St clause, with which the whole Article was concluded. In 1563 it \vas brought into the form in \vhich it now stands by means of the following alterations: (1) The quotation from S. Augustine and the clause condemning the theory of grace ex opere operato were omitted; (2) the order of the t\VO main paragraphs \vas reversed; and (3) hetween then1 t\yO fresh paragraphs were insprtp(l on (a) thp nUlnber of SaCrall1ents ordaiurd ] Cf. Augustine, Epist. lh .: "Sacramentis llumero paucissimis, obser- vatione facillimis, significatione præstantissimis, societatem novi populi colligavit, sicuti est Baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, com- munil'atio Corporis et Sanguinis Ipsius; l't si quid aliud in Scriptnri Callonicis commendatur." Cf. also De Doctr. Ohristiana, III. c. ix. 2 "Idque non ex oprrc (ut quidam loquulltur) operato; tluæ vox lIt peregrina est et sa.cris literis ignota, sic parit sensum minime pium, seù a.ùmodum sllpcrstitiosum." ARTICLE XXV 587 by Christ, and (b) the five rites "con1Dlonly called Sacralnents." 1 The origin of what now stands as the first clause may be found in the Confession of Augsburg,2 from \vhich it was taken through the medium of the thirteen Articles of 1538, where we read: "Docemus, quod Sacramenta quæ per verbum Dei instituta sunt, non tantum sint notæ professionis inter Christianos, sed magis certa quædanl testimonia et efficacia signa gratiæ et bonæ voluntatis Dei erga nos, per q Uie Deus invisibiliter operatur in nobis, et suam gratiam in nos invisibiliter diffundit, siquidem ea rite susceperimus; quod que per ea excitatur et confirn1atur fides in his qui eis utuntur. Porro docemus, quod ita utendum sit sacramentis, ut in adultis, præter veram contri- tionem, necessario etiam debeat accedere fides, qua credat præsentibus promissionibus, quæ per sacramenta ostenduntur, exhibentur, et præstantur. Neque enim in illis verum est, quod quidem dicunt, sacramenta conferre gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis, nam in ra.tione utentibus necessarium est, ut fides etiam utentis accedat, per quam credat illis pron1Ïssionibus, et accipiat res promissas, quæ per sacramenta conferuntur." 3 A comparison of this \vith the corresponding passage in the Confession of Augsburg shows the stronger position on the reality of sacramental grace \vhich the Anglican 1 The addition may perhaps have been suggested by the fact that the Confession of 'VÜrtemberg contained a long section on the subject. 2 Conf. A'llgll,stana, art. xiii.: " De 'US'll. Sacramentorum. De usu Sacra- mentorum docent, quod !:)acramenta instituta sint, non modo ut sint notæ professionis inter homines, sed magis ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos, ad excitandam et confirmandam fidem in his qui utuntur proposita. Itaque utendum est sacramentis, ita ut fides accedat, quæ credat promissionibns, qnæ per sacramenta e-xhibentur et ostenduntur. Damnallt igitllr illos, qui docent, quod sacra.menta ex opere oper1.to justificent, nec rlocent fidf'Dl reqniri ill usn sacramentorum, quæ credat remitti peccata." 3 See Hardwick, p. 70. 588 THE TIIIRTY-NINE ARTICLES divines n1ailltained. There is nothing in the purely Lutheran document answering to the "efficacia signa gratiæ," \vhich has been transferred from this unfinished series to our o\vn Article. The object of the Article is (1) to condemn the inadequate vie\vs of sacraments held by the Anabaptists, and to state their true position; (2) to distinguish between the two "Sacraments of the Gospel" and the other five "commonly called Sacraments"; and (3) to insist upon the necessity of a right disposition on the part of the recipients of them. It consists of four paragraphs, treating respectively of the following sub- jects, which shall be here considered separately: 1. The description of sacraments ordained of Christ. 2. The number of such sacraments. 3. The five rites" cOllilnonly called Sacraments." 4. The use of sacraments. I. The Description of # aC'í'a'íncnts ofrdaincd of Christ. 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 goodwill 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. Each phrase in this description requires careful con- sideration. Sacraments ordained of Christ are- (a) Badges or tokens of Christian men's pro- fession (notæ professionis Christianorum). This \VRR the regular phrase descriptive of sacralnents among the Zwinglians,l and adopted also by the Anabaptists, 1 The language of Zwing1i himself sometimes gave to sacraments the 10\\ cst position possible. In the Ratio fidei he says boldlr: "Credo, ARTICLE XXV 589 \vho regarded the Eucharist and baptism as nothing 'more than such tokens. So we read in ..Archbishop Hermann's SÙnplex ac pia deliberatio (which \vas translated into English in 1547), that they "withdrawe from the sacra mentes, \v hich they wil to be nothyn,g els than outwatrd sygnes of OU?" profession and felO1oship, as the badges of capitaines be in warre; thei deni that they be \vorkes and ceremonies instituted of God for this purpose; that in them we shulde acknowledge, embrace, and receyve thorough fayth the mercie of God and the nlerite and communion of Christ; and that God worketh by these signes and exhibiteth unto 'us the gyftes in dede, which He offereth wyth these signes." 2 Similarly, the same vie\v is condemned in the Refor'ìnatío Legum Ecclesiasticarum, in the following words: ":Nfagna quoque temeritas illorum est, qui sacramenta sic extenuant ut ea pro nudis signis, et externis tantum indiciis capi velint, quibus tanquam notis honlinum Christianorum religio possit a cæteris internosci, nec animadvertunt quantum sit scelus, hæc sancta Dei instituta inania et vacua credere." 3 Accord- iug to this Anabaptist theory, baptisnl was merely a " mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened," and the Eucharist was nothing more than "a sign of the love that imo scio, omnia sacramenta tam abesse ut gratiam conferant, ut ne adferant quidem aut dispensent" (see Niemeyer, Gollectio Confessio1l,1.lm, p. 4), and elsewhere (De peccato originali declaratio): "Symbola igitur sunt externa ista rerum spiritualium et ipsa minime sunt spiritualia, nec quid quam spirituale in nobis perficiunt: sed sunt eorum qui spirituales sunt, quasi tesseræ." But his followers were to a great extent influenced ùy Cal vin's teaching, and in the Consens'tts Tigltrin'ttS (1549) they admit that they are more than "marks or badges of profession." " Sunt quidem et hi sacramentOl'nm fines ut notæ sint ac tesseræ Christianæ professionis et societatis sive fraternitatis, ut sint ad gratiarum actionem iucitamenta et exercitia fidei BC piæ vitæ, denique syngraphæ aù id obligantes. Sic hic unus inter alia præcipuus ut per ea nobis gratialll suam testetnr Deus, repræsentat atque obsignet." -Niemeyer, p. 193. 2 English translation (cd. 1.348), fo1. cxlii. 3 Dc Hæres. c. xvii. 590 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Christians ought to have among thcmselvel5 one to another." Our Article condemns this view of sacra- ments as "notæ professionis" (not only in the Article before us, but also in XXVII. and XXVIII.), as not in itself untrue, but simply as inadequate. As Hooker says, they are" marks of distinction to separate God's own from strangers." But they are not only this. Far more important is it to remember that they are- (b) Certain sure witnesses . . . of grace and God's goodwill towards us. This view of sacra- lnents as "witnesses" (testimonia) is one to \vhich special prominence was given by both Lutheran and Calvinistic divines upon tbe Continent. Sometimes they spoke as if they were witnesses chiefly of past mercies, outward acts testifying to God's redeeming love, and assuring us of it in order to excite and confirm our faith in Him. l Sometimes, however, they regarded them also as witnesses of present blessings, testifying by ou t- ward ceremonies to that blessing which the grace annexed to the sacrament confers. 2 So also our o\vn Hooker speaks of them as " marks wheteby to know when God doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ lmto all that are capable thereof"; 3 and, in the Order for 1 "Baptism testifies that we have been clcansed and washed; the Eucharistic Supper tha.t we have been redcemed." -Calvin's Institutes, IV. xiv. 22. "Circumcision is nothing; so is baptism nothing; the communion of the Lord's Supper is nothing: they are rather testimonic!=; and sea.ls of the Divine will towards thee; through them is thy conscience assureù, if it ever doubted, of the gr ciouslless and the goodwill of God in thy regarù. "-)Ielancthon, quoted by l\loehler, Symbolism, p. 202 (Eng. Tr.). Cf. the 13th Article of the Confession of Augsbul'g, quoted ahove, p. 58ï. 2 So the Apuluyy f01' the Ucmfessiull, of A UgslJ'lLì"Y: "Sacramentum t:':st \'CreIllOllia vel opus, in quo Deus nobis exhibet hoc, qnod offert a.IIHPxa eeremoniæ gratia." 3 FÆCl. Polity, Bk. v. c. lvii. ARTICLE XXV 591 Holy Comnlunion we are renÜnded that the holy nlysteries are cc pledges of Hi love," and that by them God cc assures us of His favour and goodness to\vards us:' But this is not all. They are also to be regarded as- ( c) Effectual signs of grace (efficacia signa). An " effectual sign" is a sign that carries its effect with it. As the Church Catechism teaches us, it is something more than a mere cc pledge." It is also cc a means whereby \ve receive the same" spiritual grace, of which it is cc an outward visible sign." A sacrament, then, is cc not only a picture of grace, but a channel of grace." 1 It cc not only typifies, but conveys." 2 As Hooker puts it, the sacraments are cc means effectual whereby God, when we take the sacraments, delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacraments represent or signify." 3 This phrase, cc effec- tual signs of grace," first nlakes its appearance, as we have already seen, in the incomplete formulary of 1538, and it marks out very clearly the determination of the Anglican Divines to insist upon the truth that the sacramen ts are real means of g1'ace. 4 (d) By means of these effectual signs God doth work invisibly in us. In them cc it pleaseth God to communicate by sensible means those blessings \vhich are incomprehensible." 5 Once more the \vords seem to have been inserted with the express purpose of laying stress on the reality of the Divine gifts \vhich man 1 Bp. Alexander. Bp. A. Forbes. :I Hooker, l. r. 4 The phrase is one which had not commended itself to Luther, aud he was only willing to accept it with some qualification. " X ec verum esse potest, sacramentis in esse vim efficacem justificationis, sen esse signa dficacia gratiæ. Hæc enim omuia dicunt '.- ill jacturam fidei, ex ignorantia promissiollis divinæ. Nisi hoc modo eflicacia ùixeris, quod si a.dsit fides indubitata, certissime et efficacissime gratiam couferuut."-Dè (] 11 1 Jl . Babyl. Bec. OP1J. vol. iÏ. foJ. 2ï2 (Jenæ, 1600). 5 Hooker, l. c. 592 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES receives from God in and through the sacraments,l in which He "embraceth us, and offereth Himself to be embraced by us." 2 (e) Lastly, by them God doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him. In this phrase it appears to be natural to refer the first expression "quicken" (excitat) to the action of God's grace in Holy Baptism, and the second, " strengthen and confirm" (confirnLat), to the action of the same grace in the Eucharist. We have now gone through the description of sacra- ments ordained of Christ point by point. But before passing on to consider the next paragraph of the Article, it will be ,vell to cite the definitions given in the Church Catechism and in the Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacram nts, and to compare them with that in the Article before us. If we take the DIOSt familiar of them, viz. that in the Catechism, as the standard, and refer the other two to it, it will easily be seen that, though the forms are different, and belong to different dates,3 yet in each case the sante five points Ct1'e brought out. According to the Church Catechism a sacrament is "(1) an outward visible sign of (2) an inward spiritual grace given unto us, (3) ordained by Christ Himself as 1 These words, as well as "efficacia signa," have nothing corresponding to them in the Confession of Augslmrg, being first inserted in the joint Confession of 1538. It is curious, however, to find something very similar to them in the Confess'Îo Bclgica (1562). "Sunt enim sacramenta signa ac symbola visibilia rerum intel'narum et invisibilinm, per qua', ceu per media, Deus ipse virtute Spiritus Sandi in nobis operatur." -Art. XXXIII. (On this Confession see vol. i. p. 10.) 2II01m7y on Cormmo/ Prayer and the S(tCl'a7'/Zel,ls, p. 376 se'l. (s. P. C. h.). 3 The Article to 1553 (or iudeeù to 1[,38); the Homily in question to the early years of Elizabeth's reign; the part of the Catechism treating of the sacraments to 1604. ARTICLE XXV 593 (4) a rneans \vhereby \ve receive the sanle, and (5) a pledge to assure us thereof." According to the Hon1ily, sacraments, "according to the exact signification," are "(1) visible signs (3) expressly commanded in the New Testament, (4 and 5) \vhereunto is annexed the promise of (2) free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining \vith Christ." 1 To the same effect the Article says that sacraments (3) "ordained of Christ are. . . ( 5) certain sure \vitnesses, and (4) effectual (1) signs of (2) grace and God's good\vill towards us, ( 4) by the \vhich He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him." There are, of course, differences of detail, e.g. the IIomily leaves us free to look for the outward sign anywhere " in the New Testament," whereas the Catechism, with \vhich agrees the Article,2 requires it to be ordained" by Christ IIimself." The Catechism leaves the nature of the inward spiritual grace undefined. The Homily accurately makes it include, not only pardon, but sanctification and incorporation in Christ. Thus the different descriptions may be regarded as supplelnenting each other, and for teaching purposes none should be lost sight of. II. The Number of Sacral1wnts ordained of Ghrist. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 1 Homily on Cmnmon Prayer and the Sacrarnent.'<, 1). 376 (S.P.C.K.). 2 Though the first paragraph does not mention the outward sign as C C ordained by Christ Himself," yet the phrases used in the second ann third paragrapl1s, "ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospe]," and "any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God," indicate agreement with the CatC'chism on this point. 594 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES In considering this statement it will be convenient (a) to trace out the history of the word sacrament, and (b) to endea vour to set forth the precise difference between ngland and Rome on the number of the sacraments. ( (l ) The history of tlu' word sa.cra'J1 ent. - The \vord Sacranwntu,rn is a familiar classical one, \vith t\VO well- defined uses. It Jueans f'ither (1) a gage of money laid do\vn by parties who went to la\v, or (2) the military oath taken by soldiers to be true to their country and general. The idea which is COlnmon to both these Ineanings is that of a sacred pledge. The earliest occur- rence of the word in connection \vith Christianity and Christian associations is in Pliny's famous letter to the Emperor Trajan, in which he says that the Christians of Bithynia bound themselves sacramento not to commit any wrong.! It may be a matter of doubt to \vhat precisely Pliny was referring, but there can be no doubt that his use of the word "sacrament" is little more than an accident. It can scarcely have been the word which the Bithynian Christians used. In a letter at the beginning of the second century from a Roman governor to a Roman emperor the word can only be interpreted in its classical sense of an oath or obligation. Ecclesiastical Latin was not yet in existence: indeed, it is almost certain that there was as yet no Latin-speaking Church; and thus, though it is interesting to find the word employed in connection with a Christian rite, yet later associations \vhich have grown up round it must not be suffered to influence our interpretation of it. As an ecclesiastical term, its true home is North Africa, which 1 Pliny, Epist. xcvi.: "Affirmabant autem hane fuisse summam vel culpæ suæ vel erroris quod essent so1iti 8tato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, seque sacramento non in seelus aliquod obsb'ingere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, lle adulteria C'ommitterent, TIe fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abuegarent." See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, pt. II. yol. i. p. 51. ARTICLE XXV 595 \vas the first Latin-speaking Church. Here we find it used from the first as the equivalent of the Greek J1-VUT ptOV, and as such it is employed with a wide latitude of Ineaning, for either a religious rite or a religious truth; generally, however, with the idea that some sacred meaning lies under a visible sign. So Tertullian (200) uses the word again and again, some- tinles of the luilitary oath,l sometimes of a sacred truth, or a mystery, sometimes of a sacred rite, and even of the rite of infanticide with which the Christians were charged. 2 Similarly with Cyprian (250) it means a sacred symbol, a sacred bond, or a sacred truth. 3 From North Africa the word passed in to the common language and familiar speech of 'Vestern Christendom through the Latin versions of the Scripture, in which it appears in several passages always as the rendering of J.LVUT ptoV.4 In Patristic writers the same latitude in the use of the ternI, which has been already noticed, may constantly be 1 De Spectaculis, xxiv. Scoryiace, iv. 2 See Apol. vii. (Sacranumt'ltm infanticidii) ; xv. (Sacramenti nosiri) ; xix. (Judaici Sac1'arrunti); xlvii. (nostris Sacramentis); Adv. }[arc. V. viii. (panis et calicis Sacramento); De Bapt. i. (aquæ Sacrament'ltm), etc. 3 Cyprian uses it twice of the military oath: De lap. is, xiii.; Ep. lxxiv. Elsewhere with wide latitude of meaning. Of Baptism, Ep. lxxiii. ; of the Eucharist, De zela et livore, xvii., De lapsis, xxv. ; of the Passover, De unitate, viii.; of a sacred bond, Ep. lix., De unitate, vi. etc.; of doctrines, De Dominica Oratione, ix., TestÙn. Præf. etc. See the very careful note on his use of the word, which was "in many instances used with intentional vagueness," in Studia Biblica et Ecclesi- astica, vol. iv. p. 253. 4 "Sacramentum" appears in the Vulgate (1) in the Old Testament in Dan. ii. 18, 30, 47, iv. 6 (A. V. 9), each time as the equivalent of t-tr" TT a secret (Greek }.LVUT1}pLOJl); and also in Tobit xii. 7; Wisd. ii. 22, vi. 24 (A. V. 22); in all of which places it represcT'ts the same Greek word, }.LUUT1}PLOJl, as it does also (2) ill the eight passages in which it is found in the New Testament, viz. Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, 9, v. 32 ; Co!. i. 27 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Rev. i. 20, xvii. 7. It is also found occasionally in other passages in the ; Old Latin," e.g. in Rom. xvi. 25. 596 TI--IE TI-IIRTY.NINE ARTICLES observed. It is used frequently of sacred truths, as well as of sacred rites of mystic meaning. Even as late as the eleventh century it is applied by S. Bernard to the rite of feet washing.! But in comparatively early times there had been a tendency to contrast the sacraments or sacred rites of the Jews with those of the Christian Church, and to point to the former as numerous and burdensome, and the latter as few in number. Thus Augustine, in the passage quoted in the original Article of 1553, says that" under the new dispensation our Lord Jesus Christ has knit together His people in fellowship, by sacraments which are very few in number, most easy in observance, and most excellent in significance, as baptism solemnised in the nanle of the Trinity, the COlnmunion of His Body and Blood, and also \vhatever else is commended to us in Canonical Scripture, apart from those euactlnents ,vhich were a yoke of bondage to God's ancient people, suited to their state of heart and to the times of the prophets, and which are found in the books of Moses." 2 Elsewhere in his book on Christian Doctrine he draws a sinlilar contrast, pointing out how "our Lord Himself and apostolic practice have handed down to us a few significant rites (signa) in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in their observance. Such as the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of the Lord.":3 From this contrast between the multiplicity of sacred rites imposed upon the Jews and the fewness of those enjoined in the gospel to Christians, there grew up in time a disposition to use the word sacramentum more particularly of those rites which could claim the authority of the New Testament, and to speak of the" Sacraments 1 Sernw in, Oæna Domini, 24. 3 De DOC!'J'ÙUI Christial a, III. ix. 2 See above, p. 586. ARTICLE XXV 597 of the Church" as limited ill llulllbcr. So ill the East, "Dionysius the Areopagite" (c. 500), who is followed by later ,vriters, describes in his book on the Ecclesi- astical Hierarchies six Christian J.LVUT pta, Baptism, the Eucharist, Unction, Orders, 1onastic Profession, and the Rites for the Dead. In the "\Vest, Paschasius Radbert 1 and Rhabanus Maurus,2 in the ninth century, both speak of four sacranlents, BaptisD1, Unction, the Body, and the Blood of the Lord. Not till the eleventh century is the number fixed at the Inystic number seven, to correspond with the sevenfold gifts of the Spirit. The earliest writer to speak of this number (so far as is known) is Gregory of Bergamo,3 in his book, De 'llcha1'istia. In this he says definitely that the sacra- ments of the Church instituted by our Saviour ,vere scrcn ; 4 but in the next cha pter he speaks of three, Raptism, Unction, and the Eucharist, as more worthy, and contradicts ,vhat he has said before, by maintaining that of these three, only the first and third were instituted by the Redeemer Hinlself, for unction has only apostolic authority.s A few years later than Gregory ,vas Peter Lombard,6 to 'VhOlll it is generally stated that 1 Dc COT}JOre et Sangztine Domini, iii. 2. 2 Dc Clcricorum Institutione, I. xxiv. 3 Gregory became Bishop of Bergamo in 1133, and died in 1146. His hook, De Eucharistia, was first published ill 1877, and since then has been included in Hurter's Sanctoru?n Patrum Opusc'ltla Selecta, yo1. xxxix. 4 Dc E'luh. c. xiii.: "V erum ne quis occasione dictorum existimet tot esse sacramenta ecclesiæ, quot sunt quibus congruit sacramenti vocabulum, scire debemus ea solum esse ecclesiæ sacramenta a servatore nostro .Jesu. instituta quæ in medicinam nobis tributa fuere, et hæc numero adimplentur septenario. " 5 De E'ltch. c. xiv.: "Tria siquidem in ecclesia gerimus sacramenta (lure sacramentis aliis putantur non immerito digniora, scilicet baptismum, chrisma, corpus et sanguis Domini. Quorum trium primum et ultimum ex il'sius Redemptoris institutione perce!)imus, ex apostolica vero traditione illud quod medium posuimu::;." 6 Peter Lombard ùecame Bishop of Paris in 1159, and died ill 1164. 39 598 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES the limitation of the number to seven is due. It is found in his writings,! and it ,vas probably through his influence that it becanle generally accepted. :From hinl it passed into the writings of the schoolnlen, Aquinas 2 and others. It ,vas laid down in the" decree to the Armenians" sent in the name of Pope Eugenius IV. from the Council of Florence (143 9) ; 3 and ,vas definitely adopted by the Council of Trent at the seventh session of the Council (1547), when the follo,ving canon was passed: "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the- new law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord; or that they are more or less than seven, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, or Matrimony; or even that anyone of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be anathema." 4 It ,vill be seen from this brief sketch that our Reformers had a double use of the word before them. On the one hand, there was the wider sense given to it by the Fathers; on the other, the more restricted scholastic use. They 1 Sentent. IV. disl. ii. 1. :! Summa, III. Q. lxv. 3 Decret'ltrn Eugenii Papæ IV. ad Arvwnios, Labbe and Cossart, vol. ix. pp. 434 and 437. .. Cone. Trid. Sess. VII. canon 1: "Si quis rlixerit sacramenta novæ legis non fuisse omnia a J esu Christo Domino nostro instituta ; aut esse plura vel pauciora quam septem, videlicet Baptismum, Confirmatiol1Clll, Eucharistiam, Pænitentiam, extremam Unctionem, Ordinem, et Iatri- monium, aut etiam aliquod horum septem, non esse vere, et proprie sacramentum, anathema sit." It should be mentioned that the Greek Church agrees with the Roman ill reckoning the sacraments of the Church as seven in number; for though the Confession of Cyril Lucar says that only two sacraments were ordained of Christ (c. XV., see Kimmel's Libri Symbolici, p. 34), the "Orthodox Confession recognises the f1rTà fJ-VuTl]pta T1] ËKKX7]u[af1 (q. xcviii. ib. p. lïO seq.), as does also the Confes- sion of Dositheos (Decret. xv. ib. p. 448); and see also "the Longer Catechism of the Russian Church" (Blackmore's Doctrine of the llussian Ohurch, p. 84). The Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus calls Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance Tà 7rpÒf1 tfwT7JplaJl åJlai'Kaîa P.VtfT7}pta. See 'Viner, C()1'tfcssions of C7z.1'1.'"tc1ld01n, p. 241. ARTICLE XXV 599 recognised frankly that it \vas largely a question of definition. What they were concerned for was that Baptism and the Eucharist, as the two great rites ordained for all Christians by Christ Himself, should be put on a different footing from all others.! The medieval teaching about the seven sacraments might seem to obscure this; and therefore they felt that if the word was to be restricted to a limited number of rites, it woulù be well to restrict it to these t\vo. But they 1 According to the teaching of the earlier period, during the Reforma- tion three sacranlents were recognised as pre-emincnt, Baptism, the :Eucharist, and Penance. These alone arc mentioned in the Tell Articles of 1536, while in the "Institution of a Christian ])lan," or "the Bishops' Book," issued in the following year, they are expressly separated off from the others, and it is said that" although the sacraments of .Matrimony t of Confirmation, of Holy Orders, and of Extreme Unction have been of long time past received and approved by the common consent of the Catholic Church to have the name anò dignity of sacraments, as indeed they are well worthy to have. . . yet there is a ùifference in dignity anù necessity between them and the other three sacraments, tllat is to say, the sacraments of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Altar, and that for divers causes," etc.-See Formularies of Faith, p. 128. In 1540 a series of questions was propounded, probably by the Archbishop of Canter- bury, to a number of Bisl10ps and Divines, and their answers revealed a great variety of opinions on the number of the sacraments, and the proper use of the word (see the answers in Burnet, "Records, " Nos. xxi. aud lxix., and cf. Dixon, vol. ii. p. 303 seg.). Cranmer and others denied that it shoulù be rigidly used of seven. However, in the reactionary "King's Book" of 1543 the whole passage on the number of sacraments in the Bishops' Book is entirely rewritten, and the meùieval view is more rigidly adhered to (see Formularies of Faith, p. 293). In the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticar'ltm, as might be expected, a great change of view is manifest, as the following extract will show: "Ad sacra- menti perfectionem tria concurrere debent. Primum evidens est et illustris nota, quæ manifeste cerni possit, secundum est Dei promissum, quod externo signo nobis repræsentatur ct plane confirmatur. Tertium cst Dci præceptum quo necessitas nobis imponitur, ista partim facienùi, partim commemorandi: quæ tria cum authoritate Scripturarum in Baptismo solum occurrant, et Eucharistia, nos hæc duo sola pro vel'is et propriis novi testamenti sacramentis ponimus."-Dc Sacrament is, c. ii. Similarly in the Catechism published with the Articles in 1553, only t\yO sacramcnts are expressly recognised. 600 THE Tl-IIRTY-NINE ARTICLES were perfectly willing to extend it to other rites also- indeed, to " anything ,,,hereby an holy thing is signified" -provided that it was made clear that the word ,vas only used in a general sense. Thus the Article before us, after speaking of the five rites, "commonly called Sacraments," 1 proceeds, not to deny the name to thenl altogether, but only to assert that they" have not the lilæ nature of sacraments with Baptisln and the Lord's Supper," i.e. they are not to be put on a level \vith thenl. Still clearer, perhaps, is the teaching of the HOJlJily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments, \vhich puts the matter so admirably that the passage Inust be quoted here in full. "As for the nunlber of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a. sacrament, namely for visible signs, expressly COlIl- manded in the Ne\v Testament, ,vhereunto is annexed the prolnise of free forgiveness of our sin, and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, 13aptism, and the Supper of the Lord. For although Absolution hath the proll1ise of forgiveness of sin, yet by the express \vord of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I Illean laying on of hands) is not expressly conunanded in the New Testament to ùe used ill ..A bsolutioI1, as the visible signs in Baptisnl and the Lord's Supper are; and therefore Absolution is no such sacranlent as Baptism and the Comnlunioll are. And though the ordering of n1Ínisters hath His visible 1 It canuot Le saicl that this expression ùiHcourages the application of the name to them, any more than it can Le maintained that tht' parlillel form of expression in the Prayer Book, "The Nativity of onr Lortl, or the Birthday of Christ, c01n7nonly called Christmas Day, ' discourages the use of the popular name for the festival. ARTICLE XXV GOl sign and prolnise, yet it lacks the pron1ise of remission of Hill, as all uther saC1'ê:l.1nents except the two above Ballled do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacranlellt eh;e, be such sacranlent as Bavtislll and the COlllllluniu::'l are. But in a general acceptation the llétnle of a sacrament lllay be aLtribu Led Lu anything whereby an holy thiug is signified. In \vhich undel'sta.IHling of the word the ancient writers have given this nalue, not only to the other five, comn10nly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments; but also to . ARTICLE XXV 613 is conferred by virtue of the sacramental act instituted by God for this end, not by the merits of the nlinister or the recipient." 1 But while, as enlployed by careful and instructed Theologians, the phrase mean t nothing more than this, yet in the mouths of ignorant and ill- instructed persons it was easily capable of "no godly but a very superstitious sense," and might be taken to imply that the grace was so tied to the sacraments that the sacramental act became almost of the nature of a magical charm, bringing grace to the recipient ex opere operato, \vhatever his spiritual condition might be. 2 It ,vas this which led to the condemnation of the phrase in 1553. But by the time of the revision of 1563 it had been made abundantly clear that this superstitious use ,vas not the only one ,vhich the phrase conveyed. Con- sequently there ,vas a danger lest the language of the 1 So Bel1armine (De Sacram. ii. 1) explains it: "Id quod active et I)roxime atque instrumentaliter efficit gratiam justificationis est sola actio illa externa, quæ sacramentuIll dicitul', et hæc vocatur opus ope ratu '1n, accipiendo passive (operatum), ita ut idem sit sacra.mentum conferre gratiam ex opere operato, quod conferre gratia.m ex vi ipsius action is sacramentalis a. Deo ad hoc institutæ, non ex merito agentis vel suscipientis. . . . Y olu11 ta.s, fides, et pænitentia. in suscipiente adulto necessario requiruntur ut dispositiones ex parte subjecti, non ut causæ activæ, non enim fides et pænitentia efficiunt gratiam sacramentalem neque dant etficaciam sacramellti, sed solum tollunt obstacula, quæ impedirent, ne sacramenta suam efficiam exercere possent, unde in pueris, ubi non requiritur dispositio, sine his rebus fit justificatio." And, among moderns, see tbe careful statement of Moehler, Symbolism.., p. 198. 2 This superstitious sense is indicated in the language of the Thirteen .Articles of 1538, where tbe pbra.se is condemned (Art. IX.): "Nequa eniIn in ill is vcrum est, quod quid am dicunt, sacramenta. conferre gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu mentis, nam in ratione utentibus neces- sarium est ut fides ctiam utentis accedat, per quam credat illis promis- sionibus et accipiat res promissas quæ per sacramenta. conferantur." So in the" Apology for the Confession of Augsburg": "Damnamus totum populum scbolasticorum doctorum qui docent quod sacramenta. non ponenti obicem conferan t gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis." ""Iller's Confcssi()ns of Christendom, p. 246. 4 0 614 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Article might appear to condemn a real truth. Hence the clause was wisely on1Ïtted by Archbishop Parker,1 and nothing whatever was said either to sanction or to condemn the phrase. The superstition \vhich it was desired to guard against ,vas effectually excluded by the statelnen t that " in such only as duly receive" the sacralnents U have they a \vholesome effect or operation" ; while the truth \vhich the phrase had been originally intended to express was secured by the language of the following Article, which states "that they are effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be administered by evil rnen." 1 Cf. Hardwick, pp. 129, 130. ARTICLE XXVI Of the Unworthi1ll'SS of the Jlittisters, which killdc'i's not tlte e ffect of tlte Sacraments. Although in the visihle Church the evil be ever mingled with the gooù, and sometime the evil have chief authol"ity in the ministration of the word anrl sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not th(' same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the word of God, and in the re- ceiving of thc sacraments. Neithcr i::) the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away hy their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts dimin- ished from such as by faith and rightly do reccive the sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's insti- tution and promise, although they he ministered hy evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, th8,t inq uiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; au(l finally, being found guilty by just judgment, be deposed. TIllS .I..\.rticle has remailleù practically unchanged 1 since Dc vi Im titutio-n.U1n D{t"i,l.a,.u'úl" quod cmn non foUit 'ì1wlit1.'(t J/i It ish'or.1l1n. Quamvis in ecclesia visibili bonis mali srmper sint admixti, atque interdum ministerio verbi et sacra- mentorllm admillistrationi præsint, tamen cum non suo sed Christi nomine agallt, ejus'luc mandato et autoritate ministrent, illormn ministerio uti licet, cum in verbo Dei audiendo, turn in sacramentis percipirndis. N equc per illorum malitiam effpctus institutorum Christi tollitur, aut grat.ia do- norum Dci minuitur, quoad e08 qui fide et rite sibi oblata per- dpiunt, quæ propter institutionem Christi et promissiouem efficacia sunt, licet per malos admini- strentul'. Ad ecclesiæ tameu diseiplillam pertinct, ut in malos ministros inquiratur, accusenturque ab his, qui eorum ftagitia noyerint, atque tandem justo convicti judicio deponantur. 1 "Malos ministros" was substituted for "eos" in the last paragraph in 1563, and in 1571 the English was brought into conformity with the 615 616 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES its first issue ill 1553. It is llrawn substantially fronl the fifth of the" Thirteen Articles of 1538," 1 which in its turn rested to some extent on the eighth of the Con- fession of Augsburg. 2 Its object is to condemn the view maintained by the Anabaptists, that the ministry of evil Ininisters is necessarily inefficacious and ought to be rejected. The same view is expressly condemned in the Confession of Augsburg in the follo\ving words: " Damnant Donatistas et similes, qui negabant licere uti ministerio malorum in ecclesia, et sentiebant n1inisterium Inalorum inutile et il1efficax esse." 3 Similarly the R formatio LCf}1l/nt Ecclesiastica'J''U/ìn says that some of the .....\.nabaptists "ab ecclesiæ corpore seipsos segregant, et ad sacrosanctaln Domini mensam cun1 aliis recusant accedere, seque dicunt detineri vel n1Ïnistrorum impro- bitate vel aliorum fratrum." 4 Latin by the altcration of "such" into "cyil ministers." The title also in its present form only ùatcs from 1571. In 1553 anù 1563 it was "the wickedncss of the ministers doth not take away the effectual operation of Goers ordinances." " Iinistrorum malitia non tollit efficaciam institutionum divinarlUll." 1 "Quamvis in ecclcsia secundmu posteriorem acceptionem mali siut bonis aùmixti atque etiam ministeriis verbi et sacramentorum non nunquam præsint; tamen cum millistrent non suo seù Christi nomine, mandato, ct auctoritatc, lÏcet eorum ministerio uti, tam in vel'ùo audiendo quam in recipiendis sacramelltis juxta illnd: 'Qui vos audit me audit.' :N t'c per eorum malitiam minuitur effectus, aut gratia donorum Christi rite accipientibus j sunt enim efficacia propter pl'omissionem et ordina- tioncm Christi, etiamsi per malos exhibeantur." :! "Quanquam ecclesia proprie sit congregatio sallctorum et verc credelltium; tamen cum in hac vita multi hypocritæ ct mali admixti sint, licet uti sacramcntis, quæ pcr malos administrantur, juxta vocem Christi: Sedent Scribæ et Pharisæi Ùt Cathedra .Jloisis, etc. Et sacra. menta et verbum propter ordinationem et mandatum Christi sunt cfficacia, etiamsi per malos exhibeantur. to 3 Conjess-io A'ltgnst(tna, Art. V I I I. 81tb fine. 4 Ref. Legul1t Ecclcsiast., Dc Hæ1'es. c. xv, Cf. Rugers On the Articlt's (published in 1586). "The Anabaptists will not have the people to use the ministry of evil ministcrs, and think thc service of wicked minÜ;tcrs ARTICLE XXVI 617 It has been sonletilnes thought that the Article may have also been aimed at the doctrine of "Intention." 1 This, however, is unquestionably a luistake. The language of the Article in no way bears on the doctrine, and it is difficult to see ho\v it could ever have been thought to do so. Certainly ,vhen the Puritans at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 asked that a condemnation of the doctrine might be inserted in the ....\.rticles, it cannot have occurred either to thenl or to the Bishops ,vho ans,vered them that a condemnation of it was there already.2 Moreover, when in 1633 Francis a Sancta Clara (Davenport) ,vrote his 00111- mentary on the Thirty-Nine Articles, endeavouring to reconcile them \vith the Tridentine decrees, while some of the statenlents in the Articles were evidently stubborn facts ,vhich it ,vas hard to manipulate, the Article before us gave him no trouble whatever. It appeared to him entirely satisfactory, and the only comment which he deemed necessary upon it ,vas this: " This is the very doctrine of the Church and of all the Fathers." 3 Taking, then, the Article as aimed solely against the notions of the Anabaptist , it needs but little COllunent unprofitable and not effectual; affirming that no man who is himself faulty can preach the truth to others. . . . The disciplinary Puritans do bring all ministers who cannot preach, and their services, into detestation. For their doctrine is that where there is no preacher, there ought to be no minister of the sacraments. None must minister the sacraments which do not preadl, etc. . . . So the Brownists: :no man is to communicate (say they) where there is a blind or dumb ministry." Rogers On the Thirty-Nine Articles (Parker Society), p. 2i1. 1 See Bishop Harold Browne On the A 'l'ticli; ,. p. 60i. 2 Cf. Cardwell's History of C01iferen s, p. 185. a Davenport's hook, which is more remarkable for ingcIluity than for d.nything else, has been republished by the Rev. F. G. Lee (J. T. Hayes, 18i2). 618 TI-IE THIRTY-NINE .\RTICLES or explanation.I The opinions condelnned in it, \vhich have found favour \vith Puritan sects fronl the days of the Donatists on\vard, \vould, if adn1Ïtted, Inake all ministerial and sacr ìlnental acts utterly uncertain, for no luan can see into the hearts of the ministers, autI say who are in the sight of God" evil" and \vho are not. ] esides this, there is ample support in Holy Scripture for the position maintained in the Article. The principle underlying our Lord's ,vords, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in ßtloses' seat: all things, therefore, \vhatsoever they bid you, these do and Òbserve; but do not ye after their \vorks" (S. Matt. xxiii. 2, 3), may fairly be applied to the case of "evil ministers" in the Christian Church. 'Vhen the T\vel ve were sent forth t\VO and two, and given" po\ver against unclean spirits to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness, and all n1anner of disease," the ministry of Judas must have been effectual like that of the rest of the Apostles, or suspicion ,vould have been directed to,vards him. Again, our Lord lays down the rule with regard to " the Seventy" which must apply to Christian ministers also: "He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth }'1e; and he that rejecteth Me, rejecteth Him that sent 1\1e" (S. Luke x. 16); and S. Paul teaches that the minister is nothing. "What then is Apollos? and what is Paul? ministers through ,vholn ye believed; and each as the Lord gave to hiln. J planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase" (1 Cor. iii. 5, 6). Such passages when fairly considered seeln sufficient to establish the position taken up in the Article, and to lead us to believe that even in an extrelne case, when the evil have chief authority in the ministration of 1 The doctrine of "Intention" b noticed in connection with tl1(' question of the \ alirlity of Anglican Or(lers in the Commentary 011 Article XXXVI. Sec below, 1). ï55. ARTICLE XX"J 619 the word and sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the word of God, and in the receiving of the sacraments. At the same time, important as it is that this principle should be established, it is no less necessary that the Church should guard herself \vith the utmost care from any I::\uspicion of indifference to the character of the lives of her ministers, ,vhom she charges before their ordina- tion to the priesthood to "endeavour themselves to sanctify their lives, and to fashion them after the rule and doctrine of Christ, that they may be \vholesome and godly exaluples and patterns for the people to follow"; and, therefore, it is \vell that the statenlent already considered should be followed by that in the last para- graph of the Article, which must commend itself to everyone, and seems to require no formal proof. It appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgment, be deposed. ARTICljE De Baptismo. Baptismus non cst tantunl pro- fessionis signum ac discriminis nota, qua Christiani a non Christianis discernantur, sed etiam est signum Regenerationis, per quod tanquam per instrumentum recte baptismum suscipientes, ecclesiæ inseruntur, promissiones de remissione pecca- torum atquc ad( ptione nostra in filios Dei, per Spiritum sanctum visibilitcr obsignantur, fides con- firmatur, et vi divinæ invocationis, gratia augetur. Baptismus parvulorum omnino in ecclesia retinendus est, ut qui cum Christi institutione optime con- gruat. XXVII Of Baptism. Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are àis- cerned from other that be 110t christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed: faith is confirmed: and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained ill the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. THIS Article dates from 1553; but in the revision of Elizabeth's reign, ten years later, the last paragraph was rewritten, and the language on Infant Baptism was con- siderably strengthened. The earlier clause had simply stated that" the custom of the Church to christen young children is to be commended, and in auy wise to be retained in the Church." 1 The language of the Article 1 It should be mentioned that though the words Ie per Spiritum Sanctum" stand in the Latin edition of 1553, there is nothing to corre- spond to them in the English. The omi!;sion was rectified in the English edition of Jugge and Cawood in 1563. G20 ARTICLE XXVII 621 has not been traced to any earlier source. There is nothing in the Confession of .A.ugsburg 1 or in the Thir- teen Artirles of 1538 suggesting its phraseology; nor is there any resemblance between its language and that of the Rcf01'1rw.tio Legu1n Ecclesiasticærzl1n on the san1e subject. 2 The object of the Article is to state the Church's teaching on Holy Baptisn1, in vie\v of the errors of the Anabaptists, \vho (1) Inaintained an utterly unspiritual view of the sacrament, and (2) denied that Baptism ought to be administered to infants and young children. s There are two main subjects \vhich come before us for consideration- (1) The description of Baptislu and its effects. (2) Infant Baptism. 1. The lJesc1'iption of Bapl'lsm and its Effects. Each phrase in the description requires separate con- sideration. (a) Baptism is . . . a sign of profession. So much \vas admitted by Zwingli and the Anabaptists, who regarded Baptism as little nlore than this. The expression used in the .A.rticle n1ay be illustrated by the language of the closing exhortation in the Office for the Public Baptism of Infants in the Book of Common Prayer, where it is said that cc Baptism doth represent unto us our profession; \vhich 1 The Article in the Confession of Augsburg (IX.) is this: U De Bap- tismo docent, quod sit necessarius a.d salutem, quodquc per baptisruuru offeratur gratia Dei; et quod pueri sint baptizandi, qui per baptismum oblati Deo recipiantur in gratiam Dei. Damnant Anabaptistas, qui im- probant baptismum puerorl1m, et affirmant pueros sine baptismo salvos fieri. " . :! IÙf. Legum Eccles-iasf., De Sacra-mentis, cap. 3. 3 This, together with other errors on Baptism, is condemned in the R formatio Legum, Ecclcsiasficm'l11n, De Hæl'es. cap. 18 ; anù cf. Hermann'g " Consultation, U fo1. cx1ii. G2 THE THII TY.- INE ARTICLES is to follo\v the exanlple of our Saviour Christ, and to be made like unto Hinl: that as He died and rose again for us, so should \ve who are baptized, die from sin and rise again unto righteousness; continually ulol'tifying all our evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living." 1 This view of Bap- tism is based directly on the language of S. Paul in !{OIU. vi. 4, " 'Ve \vere buried \vith Him through baptism in to death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might \valk in ne\vness of life" (cf. also Co!. ii. 12," Having been buried \vith HiIn in baptisln, \vherein ye \vere also raised \vith HÌ1n through faith in the \vorking of God, Who raised Him from the dead "). (b) It is a mark of difference whereby Christial1 men are discerned from other that be 110t christened (a non Christianis). Just as circumcision was a mark distinguishing the J e\vs fronl all others, so also Baptism distinguishes Christians from non-Christians. I t is thp initial rite by which a man is, so to speak, made a Christian. But Baptism is much more than this. It it is to be regarded not only as a badge or mark, for, .1 Cf. also the Collect for Easter Even (1662), "Grant, 0 Lord, that as 'we are baptized into the death of thy blessed Son our SaviO'lir Jes7ls Christ, so by continually mortifying our corrupt affections we may be buried with him; and that through the grave and gate of death we may pass to our joyful resurrection; for His merits," etc. Expression is also given to the same thought in the RtfoT'Jnatío Leg'll?n Ecclesiast., De Sacramentis, cap. 3: IC Dum autem in aqua demergimur et rursus ex illa emergimus, Christi mol'S nobis primum et sepultura commendantur, deinde suscitatio quidem HHus, et reditus ad vitam," etc. S e also Bishop Lightfoot on Co1. ii. 12: "Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of thp new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. . . . Thus Baptism is an image of his participation both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ." It is obvious how muC'h the dramaUc impressiveness of Baptism aud its representative force is increased where immersion is the method employed. ARTICLE XXVII 623 (c) It is also a sign of regeneration or new birth. Here it lllust be renlenlbereù that sacraments have been already defined in Article XXV. as "effectual signs of grace," and therefore, since cc Regeneration" is the 'word which the Church has ever used to describe the grace of Baptisln, and to sunl up the blessings conveyed in it, \ve Inust interpret "sign" in this clause as an effectual sign; and thus the \vhole expression \vill mean that in Baptisnl the blessings of regeneration are not only represented, but are also conveyed to the recipient. The word Regeneration is expanded in the Church Catechism into" a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness," and explained in the following \vords: "For being by nature born in sin and the chilùren of wrath, ,ve are hereby made the children of grace." It has been selected by the Church, not only because of its use by S. Paul, ,vho speaks in Titus iii. 5 of a "laver of regeneration" (ÀOV7PÒV 7raÀI/yryfvfu{ar::),l in a connection in \vhich it can only refer to Baptism, but also because, previously to this, expression had been given to the thought of a "ne\v birth" as requisite by our Lord Himself in His conversation \vith Nicodenlus, where, after saying, "Except a man be born ane\v (or from abo 'e, aVW()fV) he cannot see the kingdorn of God,"2 He explains His \yords by adding the statenlent that a man must be 1 The only other passage in the :K ew Testament in which the word 1raÀL,),'YEIIEu[a occurs is S. Matt. xix. 28, where it has no reference to Baptism. Thus among the Greek Fathers ålla')'IIlIl7](jLÇ occurs from the days of Justin Martyr onwards (Apol. I. !xi. : "E1rELTa li')'ollTaL vq>' 'Ý]p.,WII {Ilea i:ôwp i(jTí, Kaì. Tp61rOIl ålla')'E'VII7}(jE'WÇ, Ôll Kal 'Í]p.,E'Î at/Toì. ållE'')'E'IIII7}e7]p.,E'II, åva- ')'EvllwIITaL). (Cf. Irenæus, Ad'L'. Hæ1". I. xiv. 1: E'i i ápv7](jLII TOÛ ßa1rTl(j- fJ.aTO T1] E'i 8E'òll ålla')'E'IIII7}(j w ). Indeed it- is more common in this connection than 1ra'XLi'ì'E:vE:(jía. For these two words the Latins haye but the one equivalent, Regeneratio, which is apparently first found of Christian Baptism in Tertullian, De Resurr. Carnis, xlvii. (its ll e in ne CarM Christi, iv., is ambiguous). 624 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES CC born of water and the Spirit" (È ;;ÔaTO Kat 11 VEV- j.Laróç), S. John iii. 3, 5. 1 But though the word Regeneration sums up the special grace of Baptisnl, yet the precise blessings con- veyed by it may seem to demand more explicit state- ment, and therefore the Article proceeds to define them, and to state them under at least three distinct heads. 1. By it (Latin lJcr quod, i.e. by the sign'll1n fre!Jcnera- i'Lonis) , as by an instrument,2 they that receive Baptism rightly (recte) are grafted into the Church. So in the Church Catechism (dating in this part from 1549), the child is taught to speak of cc Iny Baptism wherein I was made a member of Ckfrist," that is, a member of His mystical body, the Church; and thp language of the Article is capable of abundant illustra- tion from the Baptismal Offices in the Book of Common Prayer, which frequently speak of admission to the Uhurch as one of the blessings of Baptism. l\lost per- tinent are the words of the declaration of Regeneration to be used after the actual Baptisln, which, as they date from th revision of 1552, are almost exactly contem- 1 Since exception is sometime:; taken to the reference of these words to Christian Baptism, it may be well to remind the reader of Hooker's forcible vindication of the Catholic interpretation of them, and the three arguments by which he supports it. (1) 'Vhere a literal construction win tanù, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst; (2) of an the ancients, there is not one that can be named that did ever understand it except of Baptism; and (3) c, where the letter of the law hath two things plainly expressed, water as a duty 011 our part, the Spirü as a gift which God supplieth, there is danger in presuming so to interpret it as if the clause concerning ourselves were more than ueedeth. By sur h rare expositions we may perhaps in the end attain to be thought witty, but withilladvice."-Eccl. Pol. Ek. Y. e.lix. j The phrase tanq'ult'lìl, pc']' Íitst1.wrMnt'U.m1, was pcrha}ls suggested by the Confession of Augsbul'g, which says (Article V.) that "per verbum et sacramenta, tanq'ltam pe? instrll/m,enta, donatur Spiritus Sanctns." But the expres:-;ion is not uncommon in contemporary writings. See Hard- wick, p. 414. ARTICLE XXVII 625 porary with the Article before U . " Seeing llO\V, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is 'regenerate and grafted into the body of Ghrist's Ch1l1'ch," etc. The metaphor of " grafting" employed here and in the Article is suggested by the language of S. Paul in R.oln. xi. 1 7 seg.; but throughout the Acts of the Apostles, Baptism every\vhere appears as the rite of adn1Ïssion into the Church. Our Lord's charge after the resurrection had been, cc Go ye a,nd lllake disciples of all the nations, baptizing thern," etc. (S. fatt. xxviii. 19, cf. [So Mark] xvi. 16), and from the day of Pentecost on\vard the command \vas obeyed, and those that received the word were forthwith (C bap- tized." See ...t\cts ii. 38, 41, viii. 12, Lx. 18, x. 47, xvi. 15. 2. The promises of the forgiveness of sin . . . are visibly signed and sealed. So in the "Nicene" Creed the Christian is taught to say, "I acknowledge one Baptism f01 the 1"C'lnission of sins," and Article IX. has already stated that "there is no condemnation to thenl that believe and are baptized" (renatis et credentibus). With regard to the expression eluployed in the Article, (C signed and sealed" (obsignantur), its force \vill be clearly seen \vhen it is relnelubered that" a seal is appended to a deed of gift or any other grant, \vhen the donor, who has promised it, actually }nakes the thing promised O1.:er to the receÍ1;er, and thereby assures the possession of it to hilll." 1 Thus the words of the ...t\.rticle imply that Baptism is the mOlllellt in the spiritual life in which the forgiveness of sin is actually made over to us. It is not to be inferred that Divine grace has been altogether \vithheld from the Catechumen. In the case of adults it must have been presen t, or they \vould never have come forward " truly repenting, and coming to Christ by faith." But 1 Sadler'g ClI/u,,'clt Doctrine Bibll T,'uth, p. 120. 626 THE THIRTY-NINE ARrrICLES what is meant is that Baptism is the decisive moment in \vhich a person passes out of the order of nature into that of grace, and in which, according to the teaching of Scripture and the Church, the forgiveness of his sins is cc yisibly signed and sealed." Very instructive is the language of Scripture on the case of S. Paul. There can be no question that he received Divine grace at the Illoment of his conversion. For three days after this he \vas left to himself, and grace was \vorking in his heart: U :For behold he prayeth," was the description of him given to Ananias (Acts ix. 11). But not till the time of his Baptism \vere his sins \vashed a\vay, for the \vords of Ananias to him were these: "And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name" (Acts xxii. 16). 80 on the day of Pentecost those \v ho heard Peter speak received the grace of compunction, for (( they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter, and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, \vhat shall \ve do?" but the forgiveness of their sin is connected by the Apostle with the decisive act of Baptism: "Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you unto the ren1Ïssion of your sins, a.nd ye shaU receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 37, 38).1 'Vith these passages before us there can be no ùoubt that the Church is right in thus connecting, as she has ever done, the proD1ise of forgiveness of sin \yith the sacra- luent of Baptism. 2 1 Cf. Eph. v. 25, 26: "Christ also loved the Church, anù gave Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of wa.ter with the word (KalJaplcraç TciJ "'OllTp TOÛ üðaTo ill þ1J/J.an); that He might present the Church to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish." The teaching of the Church may be illustrated from the Baptismal Offices, wherein we are taught to cc call upon God for this infant, that he, coming to Thy holy baptism, may receive remission of his sins by ARTICLE XXVII 627 It may be added that even John the Baptist" preached the baptism of repentance unto 'rcl1 ission of sins" (S. Mark i. 4), and that the natural action of \vater in cleansing would ainlost of necessity suggest that something analogous to this in the spiritual sphere was intended to be effected by Baptism, more especially as the symbol- ism had been so fully recognised under the Old Covenant, C..f}. in the sYlubolic \vashings of the priests under the law (Lev. viii. 6); the cleansing of the leper (Lev. xiv. 8) ; the Psalmist's prayer, C( Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin" (Ps. Ii. 2); and many passages in the Prophets, such as Is. i. 16; Ezek. xxxvi. 25 ; Zech. xiii. 1, and others. 3. The promises . . . of our adoption to be the sons of God . . . are visibly signed and sealed. So in the Catechism we have the expres- sion cc my baptism wherein I \vas made . . . a child of God "-a child, that is, by adoption and grace, for we are all children of God by creation, and Christ alone is God's cc Son" by nature and eternal generation; and so (to illustrate the language of the Article once more from the Book of CoronIon Prayer) after a child has been baptized we are taught to thank God" that it hath pleased [Hinl] to regenerate this infant ,vith [His] Holy Spirit, to receire hÍ1n for [His] O1.lJn child by adoption, and to incorporate piritual regeneration," and pray that God would U sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sins." Naturally there is even more emphasis laid on this in the form for the Baptism of such as are of I'iper years, in whose case there is actual as well as original sin to be washed away. See especially the exhortation after the Gospel: "Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly believE:' that He will favol1rably receivE:' thesp present persons, truly repenting anù corning unto Him by faith; that He 'Will grant them remission of their sins, mul bestow upon them the Holy Ghost; that He will give them the blessing, U etc. The words in italics are substituted for" that He will embrace him with the arms of His mercy U in the corresponding passage in the Office for the Baptism of Infants. . 628 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES hinl into [His] holy Church.! Again, the language used in the Article is entirely Scriptural. S. l>aul tells us that U ,vhen the fulness of the tÏ1ne canle, God sent forth His Son, born of a 'VOlnan, born under the law, that He luight redeenl them ,vhich were under the law', that we lnight 1 eccive the adoption of sons" (T V vío8eu{av), Gal. iv. 4, 5; and in ROin. viii. 15-17 he says, U Ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption (7rvevp.a tJloOEl1"taç), ,vhereby ,ve cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit Hinlself beareth witness ,vith our spirit, that ,ve are children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that ,ve suffer ,vith HÍ111, that ,ve may be also glorified with Hinl." It is true that there is no direct mention of the rite of Baptisln in this passage; but the tense used (tA.áßETe, Aorist) points to a definite time, and that can only be the tinle of Baptism,2 with ,vhich the thought of sonship is connected by S. Paul in Gal. iii. 26, 27: cc Ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ J esus. Þ'o'i as nlany of you as ,vere baptized into Christ did put on Christ." 'Ve now come to the consideration of the ,vords by the Holy Ghost (per Spiritum Sanctum), ,vhich stand in the Article in the middle of the sentence now under consideration. ....\s usually taken, they are con- nected ,vith the ,vords ,,'hich immediately precede them, so that the Article is made to speak of " the promises of . . . our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost" being cc visibly signed and sealed." It seenlS, ho,vever, unquestionable ttat they ,vere originally in- I Compare the recognition of the same truth in the Collectfor Cltristma D(t!1: "Almighty God . . . grant that we being rc!/enerate, a/tel made thy childrc,l, by adoption and VI.ace, ma.y daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit, II etc. :! See Sanda.y an(l Headlam's Coml1unta,"y in loco ARTICLE XXVII 629 tended to be construed with the \vords that follow, and to refer to the action of the Holy Ghost in signing and sealing the promises. U The promises of the forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed." The words are thus punctuated in the authoritative Latin edition of 1563, and in the earliest English translations. l And though in English the natural order, if this were the meaning, would be "visibly signed and sealed by the Holy Ghost," yet against this must be set the fact that 1 The evidence, so far as I have been able to col1ect it, is this-(l) In 1553 in the Latin :M8. signed by the royal chaplains (State Papers, Edward VI. "Domestic," vol. xv. No. 28), as well as in the published Latin edition, there is no stop till after obsignantur, "promissiones de . . . adoptione nostra in filios Dei per Spiritum Sanctum visibiliter obsignantur," etc. In the En,gUsh the words" per Spiritum Sanctum" are not represented at all. (2) In 1563 in the Latin Parker bI8. at Corpus College, Cambridge, there is no stop tin after obsignantur, but in the printed edition, published by \Y olfe, there is a comma after "filios Dei," "adoptione uostra in filios Dei, per 8piritum Sanctum visibiliter obsignantur." This is also the case in the English 1\IS8. in the State Paper Office belonging to the same year (Elizabeth, "Domestic," vol. xxvii. Nos. 40 and 41), "our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Spirit are visibly signed and sealed"; as well as in the English edition published by Jugge and Cawood. The Latin MS. among the Statt Papers (ubi supra, No. 41a) has no stop till after obsignantur, but the a.rrangement of the words in the lines looks as if the words" per Spiritum Sanctum" were intended to be read with what follows rather than with what precedes. (3) In 15ï1 the English IS. signed by some of the Bishops, now in the Library of Corpus College, Cambridge, has the comma after "sons of God," "our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed." Of the published editions in this year the Lati'n (Daye) has no stop till after obsignantur ; the English (Jugge and Cawood) punctuates as follows: "our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed." (4) The English reprint of 1628 with the Royal Declaration prefixed to it adopts the same punctuation as ill the edition of 1571 by Jugge and Cawood. But (5) in a reprint of 1662 we find the modern punctuation. "Our adoption to be sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed. II I cannot say whether it ever occurs earlier than this, but this is the earliest edition in which I have discovered it. 4 1 630 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES in the edition of 1571 there stands a comma bef01'C as ,veIl as after the words, thus: "the pronlises . . . of our adoption to be tbe sons of God, by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed," which does not look as if the translators intended them to be taken closely with the preceding words. Further, whatever n1ay be t.he case else\vhere, in the instance before us the Latin is unquestionably the original, and in this there is nothing unnatural in the order of the words "per Spiritum Sanctulll visibiliter obsignantur." The ,vords, then, should apparently be taken as a definite rrecognition of the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism. By Him the promises are visibly signed and sealed. The" ne,v birth," as our Lord Himself teaches us, is 011e of U ,vater and the Spirit" (S. John iii. 5); and as S. Paul says, "By one Spirit ,ve are all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. xii. 13).1 It is clear, then, from the teaching of Holy Scripture that a new relation is formed between the baptized person and the floly Spirit who is the instrument of his regeneration, and that in some sense the Holy Spirit is "given" in Baptism. As Hooker puts it ,vith his usual accuracy," Baptism was instituted that they which receive the same might thereby be incorporated into Christ, and so through His most precious merit obtain as well that saving grace of imputation which taketh away all former guiltiness, as also that infused divine virtue of the Holy Ghost, which giveth to the po,vers of the soul their first disposi- tion to\vards future ne,vness of life." 2 But it is a further question whether It is right to say precisely that the gift of the ind,velling of the Holy Spirit is given in Baptism apart from Confirmation. On the one 1 tEJI IJl' 7rJlEú,.,.an denotes the means, a.nd the El (into one body) the result attained," Godet in loco 2 E. P. V. 1x. 2. ARTICLE XXVII 631 hand, the gift of the Spirit is apparently definitely connected with Baptism (with no mention of Confirma- tion) in Acts ii. 38. On the other, though the action of the Holy Spirit might well be predicated, it is difficult to assert definitely the existence of the in- dwelling gift in the face of Acts viii. 15-17 and xix. 1-6, \yhere the gift is distinctly connected \vith the "laying on of hands" which followed (in one case at least after some interyal) after the actual Baptism. The question cannot be dealt with further here, as it is not directly raised by the terms of the Article. Indeed it appears to require a fuller consideration than it has yet received in the Church. 1 There ren1ain son1e other \yords of the Article of which it is hard to say \vhat is the precise significance, faith is confirmed: and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God (vi divinæ invoca- tionis). No Scriptural authority can be urged, as in the case of the statements already made, for connecting these blessings \vith the administration of Baptism. Moreover, the Article contemplates the Baptism of infants, in whose case faith cannot be looked for; and yet the expression before us is "faith is confirrned and grace increased "-words which of necessity presuppose an already existent" faith" and "grace" which can be cc confirmed" and "increased." The difficulty is a real one, and is not easily solved. But, on the whole, it appears to the present writer that the best solution is to understand the 'words as descriptive of that which takes place in the baptized, and subsequent to Baptism. 2 So 1 Reference should be made to A. J. Mason, The Relation of Confirma- tion to Baptism. 2 The following arrangement of the Article may scrye to bring out the view taken of it in the text :- l aptism is not oIlly (a) A bign of profrssioIl, and G32 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES in the Baptisnlal Office, the baptized persons present are taught to use these words, ,vhich correspond in a reDlark- able manner to the expression before us: cc Almighty and everlasting God, heavenly Father, we give Thee humble thanks, for that Thou hast vouchsafed to call us to the knowledge of Thy grace, and faith in Thee. Increase this knowledge, and confirl1 this faith in us evermore." It is not claimed that this explanation of the words is altogether satisfactory; but it appears to be more free from difficulty than any other which has yet been suggested.! Since in SOll1e minds there appears to exist a certain alllount of confusion on the subject of this Article, and a prejudice against the Church's doctrine of baptisll1al Regeneration, largely due, it is believed, to a misunder- standing of the term, it n1ay be ,veIl if, before the subject of Infant Baptism be considered, a few ,vords are added on the distinction between regeneration, conversion, and (b) l\Iark of difference, etc., but is also (c) A sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument. (1) They that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church. (2) The promises of the forgiye_ } ness of sin, and by the Holy Ghost arc visibly (3) Of our adoption to he the signed and sealed. sons of God, Faith is confirmed; and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. I Cf. Britton, Horæ SacTamentalcs, p. 185: cc The Church enrls her descril)tion of the graces conferred by the sacrament with the word , sealed I; and here speaks of the wholesome effect of her ritual upon the persons present." The clause is considered by Bishop Harold Browne in his work On th Articles, p. 667, where it is stated that" the Latin and English do not correspond, and appear 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 la.tter would imply that the prayers of the congregation might, over and above the ordinance of God, be blessed to the recipienes soul: so that, whereas he might receive grace by God's appointment, whether prayer accompanied Baptism or not, yet the addition of l)rayer was calculated to bring down more grace and to confirm fa.ith. It ARTICLE XXVII 633 renewal. Regeneration, as we have seen, is the Church's name for the special grace of Baptism, and in the Church's formularies is never used for anything else. What those blessings are has been already stated} and they need not be further described here. Con'rersion is in the Prayer Book spoken of but rarely: once the term is used of what we call the cc conversion" of S. Paul; 1 once of a change of religion, the turning fronl heathenism to Christianity; 2 and once only in a n10re general sense of a turning from a life of sin to God. 3 It is in this sense that it is popularly used now; and the word ,yell expresses an experience ,vhich is needed by all save those who, like the Baptist, have been sanctified from their mother's \vomb. The difference between it and Regeneration may be expressed in this way. In Regenera- tion God gives Himself to the soul; in Conversion the soul gives itself to God. It may be illustrated from the Parable of the Prodigal Son. All the time that he ,vas in the" far country" the prodigal ,vas still a son. So the man who has once been regenerated in Baptisnl is still a Cc child of God," even though, like the prodigal, he has wandered away from the Father's house, and is spending his substance in riotous living. And that ,vhich in the parable is represented as the "coming to himself" of the prodigal, \vhen he realised his condition and determined to arise and go to his father, and confess his sin, that in the spiritual reality is Conversion. Thus there is no sort of inconsistency in proclaiming both Regeneration and Conversion. It was just because the prodigal was a son that he could venture to arise and go 1 The Collect for the Festival of the Conversion of S. Paul: "Grant that we, having his wonderful cOlwersion in remembrance." 2 Preface to the Book of Common Prayer: (( The baptizing of natives in our plantations, and others con'L'c'j.ted to the faith." 3 The third Col1ect for Good Friday: "Nor wouldest the death of a inJlcl', but rather that he should be cont'c1.ted anù live." 634 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES to his father, and say, látlwr. So also just because a person is a child of God in virtue of his Baptism, he can venture to arise and, confessing his sin, yet call God by the nalne of lid/w'}'". Rene'loal, the third term mentioned above, should be distinguished from both Regeneration and Conversion, as that which, o\ving to man's natural infirmity, is constantly and even daily required in all Christians even after they are (C converted." It is that for \vhich \ve ask in the Collect for Christmas Day, in ,vhich we pray "that \ve, being 'regene'rate and n1ade [God's] children by adoption and grace, 'JILay daily be 're'Mwed by [His] Holy Spirit"; and again the prayer in the cc Order for the Visitation of the Sick," even after the sinner is absolved there is a prayer that God ,vill " '}genew in him \vhatsoever hath been decayed by the fraud and Inalice of the devil, or by his o\vn carnal \vill and frail- ness." If the language of the Book of Con1llion Prayer in the various passages that have been here referred to be carefully attended to, it is believed that confusion \vill be avoided, and that the distinction between these several terms \vill be clearly apprehended. II. Infant Baptism. The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. In considering the evidence for this assertion it may be ,veIl to begin \vith (a) the silence of Scripture. It is often said that there is no command to baptize infants, and therefore they are not proper subjects for the administration of the rite. In answer to this it may be pointed out that the charge to baptize is perfectly general. There is nothing in our Lord's words to c:rclude infants, and it is believed that had He intended them to ARTICLE XXVII 635 be excl uded, He \vould ha ve expressly said so. Indeed the silence of Scripture, so far from being an argulllent against the practice, may really be turned into one in its favour, for the Apostles and all Jews were perfectly familiar \vith the idea of children being brought into covenant \vith God by means of circumcision; and therefore when Christ instituted Baptism as the rite of admission to the ne\v Covenant, and said nothing ex- pressly as to the age of those to \vhom it ,vas to be administered, the natural inference must have been that children were proper subjects of it, else the new Covenant ,vould be narrower than the old. Nor was the analogy of circumcision the only thing that ,yould incline the Apostles to the practice, if, as seems almost certain, Baptism ,vas already practised by the Jews in the admission of proselytes. The Talmud lays down the express rule that infants were to be baptized \vith their parents; 1 and though its evidence does not positively prove that the custom was already in existence at the tinle of our Lord's earthly nlinistry, yet the probability is very strong that the Talmud is recording a tradition ,vhich dates back to so early a date. If, then, the ...\.postles were accustomed (1) to circumcision, and (2) in the case of proselytes to Infant Baptisnl, it can hardly be doubted that to them it would have seemed natural to include infants, and admit them into the ne,v Covenant by means of the rite enjoined for "making disci pies." (b) But there is positive evidence to supplement the argument from silence. 'Vhen S. John iii. 5 is connected \vith S. !fark x. 13-16, the inference that children are proper subjects for Baptism appears irresistible. "Except a man (TIS) be born of ,vater and the Spirit he cannot enter into th kingdom of God." These words teach the 1 See the passages cited in Lightfoot's Horæ Heb'1.aicæ on S. Iatt. iii. 6 (vol. ii. p. 56). 636 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES U necessity" of Baptism for admission into the Church. But in S. Mark \ve are expressly told that the kingdom is "of such" as children; and, as the Baptismal Office in the Book of Common Prayer reminds us, our Lord cc commanded the children to be brought un to Him, blamed those that would have kept them from Him, took them in His arms, and blessed them." N or is the fact (mentioned by S. Mark) that He thus cc blessed them" without its importance in this connection. It teaches us that children are capable of receiving spiritual blessings, and thus furnishes an answer to a question sometimes asked-\Vhat good can Baptism do to them? Thus we may say that the Baptism of young children is . . . most agreeable with the insti- tution of Christ, for (1) It \vaì:) instituted as the rite of admission to His kingdom; (2) He Himself has laid down no limit of age; but (3) Asserts that children are to be allowed to come to Hin1, and (4) Teaches that they are capable of receiving spiritual blessings. (c) When we pass from the Gospels to the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, it is not surprising that there is but little which bears directly upon the subject. \Vherever and whenever the Church is in a 'nlissio'nary stage, the Baptism of adults must be the rule-that of young children the exception. It is so in the present day, and must of necessity have been so in the days of the Apostles. But there are hints and indications which appear sufficient to warrant the inference that the Apostles must have admitted young children to Baptisn1 where the opportunity of so doing was given them. We shall, perhaps, be wise not to lay too much stress on the mention of 'whole households being baptized (Acts ARTICLE XXVII 637 xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. IG), for it can never be proved that those particular households contained children (nor, however, on the other hand, is there the slightest evi- dence that they did Mt). But more to the point is it to notice that S. Peter in his address on the day of Pen- tecost seems expressly to point to the interest of children in the promise, and hence to their inclusion. "Repent ye, and be baptized everyone of you in the nanle of Jesus Christ . . . for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him" (Acts Ïi. 38, 39). And in full accordance \vith this, \ve notice that S. Paul in his Epistles sends messages to children, treating them as within the Covenant, and therefore, according to all the evidence available, as already baptized (see Eph. vi. 1; Col. iii. 20). (d) It may be said that these indications are but slight. But there is nothing to be set against them on the other side. And the inference here dra \vn fronl them is confirmed by the fact that there is sufficient evidence from the Fathers to show that from the second century onwards the Church was familiar \vith the idea and practice of Infant Baptism, though, for the reason stated above, that she \vas still in her missionary stage, it must have been the exception rather than the rule. The Patristic evidence from the second and third cen- turies is here given. Beyond that period it is unnecessary to quote authorities for the practice. Before the middle of the second century, the exist- ence of the practice is implied in some words of Justin Martyr, who not only speaks of "many both lllell and women of sixty or seventy who had been Christ's disciples from childhood,1 but also compares Baptism \vith 1 lloXXol TLIIH Kal 7roXXaì it7JKOIITOûTaL Kaì ißÒOP.7JKOJlTOÛTaL, ot fK 7ralôwJI fp.c.07]TEÚ07]UaJl T XpLUrCfJ, ð.cþOOpOL ôLap.lJloVULJI. -Apol. I. xv. 638 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES circUlllcision, and speaks of it as the" spiritual circum- cision." This is especially noteworthy, as it occurs in his Dialogue with Trrypho,l ,vho was a Jew; and if the analogy failed in so important a point, it could hardly have been pressed as it is by Justin. To\vards the close of the century (A.D. 180) Irenæus has these ,vords: "He caIne to save all by HÏ1nself- all, I say, who are regenerated by Him unto God, infants, and little chilcl1 en, and boys, and young men, and those of ld " .) o er age. . No less decisive is the language of Tertullian (200), ,vho in his book on Baptism argues strongly against the practice, urging that the rite should be postponed till the recipients of it are growing up. But the \vhole force of his words depends upon the fact that Baptism ,vas actually being administered to young children when he wrote.3 III the \yritings of Origen (220) thrre is more than one passage \vhich bears on the subject. Thus in his Comnlentary on the ROlnans he says definitely that it is an apostolic tradition u to adlninister Baptism even to little children," and gives the reason for this; 4 and in the Homilies on S. Luke he speaks to the same effect, aying that infants are baptized for the remission of sins." 5 1 Dial. Cltm T'1'Yplwnt, c. xliii. :! "Onmes enim venit per semetipsum salvare : omnes, illquam, qui per Emu rellascuntur in Deum, infalltes et parvulos et pueros et juvenes et scuiores. "-Adv. Hær. II. xxxiii. 2. 3 " Haque pro cujusque personffi conditione ac dispositionc, etiam ætatc, C'unctatio baptismi utili or est, præcipue tamcn circa paryu]os. . . . Veniant ergo dum adolescunt," etc.-De Baptismo, xviii. 4 "Pro hoc et ccc1esia ab Apostolis traditionem susccpit, etiam parvulis baptisDluDl dare. Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta com- missa sunt divinorum quod esscnt in omnibus genuinæ sordes peccati, quæ per aquam et Spiritnm ablui deberent."-Com. in PJp. ad Rom. Bk. Y. c. ix. 5 "Parvu1i haptizantur in remÌ:-isione1ll l'eccatorum. Quorum l'ecca- r\RTICLE XXVII 639 The last witness who need be cited is S. Cyprian (250). In his day ,ve find that the analogy of circum- cision was so rigidly pressed, that it was questioned whether it ,vas lawful to administer Baptism before the eighth day after birth. The question is considered by hinl, and decided in the affirmative.! "rom this time on ,yards there can be no question as to the custoln of the Church pennitting Infant Baptism, although in 111al1Y ca.:5es it was deliberately deferred owing to the dread of post-baptismal sin. This, however, has no real bearing on the question before us; and the passages quoted are sufficient to justify the statement made above, that from the second century onwards the Church was fan1iliar \vith the idea and practice of Infant Baptism. torum 1 vel quo tempore peccavcrunt 1 aut quomodo potest u1la lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulo ante diximus: Nullus mundus a sorde, nee si unius diei quidem fuerit vita ejus super terram 1 Et quia per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur et l)arvuli. Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potuerit intrare in regnum cælorum. "_In L1tca'l1t Ho-milia }{V. ; cf. Hom. in LCl'it. yiii. 3. 1 Ep. lxiv. (eel. Hartel). ART rOLE XXVIII De C'æ'iUL D01nini. Cæna Domini non est tantum signum mutuæ benevolentiæ Chris- tianorum inter sese, verum fotius est sacramentum nostræ per mortem Christi redemptiollis. Atque ideo rite, digne et cuni fide sumentibus, panis quem frangimus, est conl- municatio corporis Christi: simili- ter poculum benedictionis est com- municatio sanguinis Christi. Panis et vini transubstantiatio in Eueharistia, ex sacris literis pro- bari non potest, seù apertii Scrip- turæ verbis adversatur, sacramenti naturam evertit, et multarum superstitionum dedit occasionem. Corpus Christi datur, accipitur, et manducatur in cæna, tantum cælesti et spirituali ratione. Me- dium autem quo Corpus Christi accipitur et manducatur in cæna, fides est. Sacramentum Eucha.ristiæ ex in- Btitutione Christi non servabatur, circumferebatur, eleva.b&tur, nee adorabatur. Of the Lord's SlIppe)-. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Chris- tians ought to have among them- selves one to another; but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption hy Christ's death: insomuch that to such as right1)", worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a par- taking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transu bstan tiation ( or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot he proved by Holy 'Vrit; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many supersti- tions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and sJ}iritual manner. And tbe mean whereby the body of Christ is received and ea.ten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordi- nance reserveù, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. l no Article are the changes introduced at the revision of 1563 of greater Ï1nportance than in this. It is not GIO ARTICLE XXVIII 041 too much to say that they completely transform it and alter its character. In order to make this clear, it \vill be necessary to remind the reader briefly of the course of thought on the subject of tbe Eucharist in the Church of England during the sixteenth century. In all the formularies put forth in the reign of Henry VIII. the doctrine of the real presence is strongly asserted,! as also in the abortive series of Articles agreed 1 (1) The Ten Articles of 1536. (( As touching the Sacrament of the Altar, we will that all hishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people committed by us unto their spiritual charge, that they ought and must constantly believe, that under the form and figure of bread and wine, which we there presently do see and perceive by outward senses, is verily, substantially, anù really contained a.nd comprehended the very self-same body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which was born of the Virgin :Mary, and suffered upon the cross for our redemption; and that under the same form and figure of bread and wine the very self-same body and blood of Christ is corporally, really, and in the very substance exhibited, distributed, and received of all them which recehre the said sacrament." -FormularÙs of Faith, p. II. (2) "The Institution of a Christian man" (the "Bishops' Book ") of 1537 repeats this almost word for word.- Op. cit. p. 100. (3) The uN ecessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian man" (the King's Book) of 1543, not content with this, substitutes a passage which clearly teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation. " In the other sacra- ments the outward kind of the thing which is used in them remaineth still in their own nature and substance unchanged. But in this most high Sacrament of the Altar, the creatures which be taken to the use thereof as bread and wine, do not remain still in their own substance, but by the virtue of Christ's word in the consecration be changed and turned to the very substance of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ. So that although there appear the form of bread and wine, after the con- secration, as did before, and to the outward senses nothing seemeth to be changed, yet must we, forsaking and renouncing the persuasion of our senses in this behalf, give our assent only to faith and to the plain word of Christ, which affirmeth that substance t11ere offered, exhibited: and received, to be the very precious body and bl(Y.)d of our Lord. . . . By these words it is plain and evident to all them with meek, humble, and sincere heart will believe Christ's words, and be obedient unto faith, that in the sacrament, the things that be therein be the very body and blood of Chri t in very substance." -Op. c'it. p. 262. 642 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTfCLES upon by the Anglican and Lutheran divines in 1538. 1 But about the year 1545 Ridley came across the book of "Bertraln," or rather Ratramn of Corbie (840), De Corpore et Sanguine DO'T/ i1li. 2 By this he was greatl y impressed. cc This Bertram," he said, cc \vas the first that pulled me by the ear, and that brought 111e from the conlnlon error of the Ron1Ïsh Church, and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the writings of the old ecclesiastical Fathers in this matter." 3 Nor did the influence of Ilatramn's book end here; for Ridley, having been convinced by it himself, never rested till he had ,von over Cranmer also, and under his influence Cranmer was led definitely to abandon the medieval theory of transubstantiation. 4 Even so, however, he wavered and hesitated as to \vhat his positive belief was, and for a considerable time appears to have inclined to something like the Lutheran tenet of con- substantiation; 5 though finally, after the death of Bucer 1 Art. VII. De Euclwristia: "De Eucharistia constanter credimus ct docemus, quod in sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini, vere, sub- stantialiter, et realiter adsint corpus et sanguis Christi sub speciebus panis et vini. Et quod sub eisdem speciebus vere et realiter exhibentur ct distribuuntur illis qui sacramentum accipiunt, sive bonis sive ma1is." This iH ùeciùeùly stronger than the Article ill the Confession of Augsburg, which in the original edition of 1530 runs as follows: "De cæna Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint, et distribuantur vescentibus in cæna Domini, et improbant secus docentes." This was altered in the edition of 1540 to "De eæna Domini docent, quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus in cæna Domini. "-See Sylloge Confcssio1tum, pp. 126 and 172. 2 Ratramn's book was written in answer to questions aùdressed to him by Charles the Bald, in consequenc of the '\\ork of Paschasius RadLert, in which a theory of transubstantiation had been plainly put Ïorward. As against this, Ratramn strongly asserts that there is no change in the elements. See below, p. 650. 3 See :Moule's Bishop Ridley on the Lord's Supper, p. II. 4. lb. p. 13. 5 In 1548 he issued an English translation of a Lutheran Catechism, and great wa.s the dissa.tisfaction and disappointment among the more ARTICLE XXVIII 643 early in 1551, he seems to have fallen cOll1pletely under the influence of the Polish refugee John a Lasco, who synlpathised entirely with the Swiss or Z\vinglian school on the subject of the Eucharist. The result is seen in some of the changes introduced into the Book of Common Prayer in 1552, and in the publication of the T\venty- ninth Article, lJe cæna lJo1nini, in 1553. It will be remembered that in the Prayer Book of 1552, among other changes, the words of administration ,vere altered, ardent spirits at the position which he took up. "The Archbishop of Canterbury, moved, no doubt, by the advice of Peter :Martyr and ot.her Lutherans, has ordered a Catechism of some Lutheran opinions to be translated and published in our language. This little hook has occa- sioned no little discord; so that nghtings have frequeutly takcn place among the common people, on account of their diversity of opinion, even during the sermons."-Burcher to Bullinger, Oct. 29, 1548 (Original Letters, p. 642). "This Thomas," wrote John ab Ulmis to tIle same correspondent (Aug. 18, 1548), "has fallen into so heavy a slumber that we entertain but a very cold hope that he will be aroused even by your most learned letter. For he has lately published a Catechism, in which he has not only approved that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation of the Papists in the Holy Supper of onr Saviour, but all the dreams of Luther seem to him sufficiently wen grounded, perspicuous, and lucid" (ib. p. 380). Towards the end of the year a change was noticed, for in November the same correspondent writes: "Even that Thomas himself about whom I wrote to you when I was in London, by the goodness of God and the instnlmentality of that most upright and judicious man, 1IIaster John a Lasco, is in a great measnre recovered from his dangerous lethargy" (p. 383). In 1549 he was apparently again inclined to higher views than were acceptable to the extreme men. Bucer had "very great influence with him"; he was with him "like another Scipio, and an inseparable companion" (pp. 64, 67). But by the end of the year he had taken a decided step. "The Archbishop of Canterbury," wrote Hooper to Bullinger on December 27, "enterta.ins right views as to the nature of Christ's presence in the Supper, and is now very friendly towards myself. He has some Articles of religion, to which all preacl1ers and lecturers in divinity are required to subscribe, or else a licence for teach- ing is not granted them, and in these his sentiments respecting the Eucharist are pure and religions, and similar to yours in Switzerland" (p. 71). In the following year no room for doubt was left, as Cranmer's own Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrinc of thc Sacrament was pub- lished. 644 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (( Take and eat (drink) this in remembrance," etc., being substituted for "the body (blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ \vhich was given (shed) for thee," etc., and that there appeared at the end of the Communion Office the (( black rubric " or declaration concerning kneeling, \vhich asserted that " thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here,-it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one." 1 In the Article as pub- lished in the following year, 1553, the first, second, and fourth paragraphs were the same as those in our present one (save that the words" overthroweth the nature of a sacrament JJ were added in 1563). But the third para- graph was widely different from that which the Article now contains. It stood thus: cc Forasmuch as the truth of man's nature requireth, that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in diverse places, but must needs be in some one certain place: therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diverse places. And because (as Holy Scripture doth teach) Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the world, a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly to confess the real and bodily presence (as they terlD it) of Christ's flesh and blood, in the sacralnent of the Lord's Supper." 1 On the history of this J'ubric, which was added a.t the last mOIDt'nt, see Dixon, iii. 475 Stq. ARTICLE XXVIII 645 Exactly in accord with this teaching is the language of the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, which, it will be remembered, dates from the same period. In this a violent and rather coarse attack is made on both tran- substantiation and consubstantiation, or "impanation," as it is called; and the cc real presence" is positively denied. 1 On a review of these and other facts, there can be little doubt that in 1552 and 1553 the formularies of the Church in this country were (to say the least) intended to be acceptable to those \vho sympathised with the Swiss School of Reformers in regard to the Eucharist, and who held that the Presence was merely figurative. But happily the accession of Elizabeth, after the }larian reaction, brought with it a return to wiser counsels, and a great and marked change in the language of our formularies. In the Prayer Book (1559) the words of administration used in the firs t Prayer Book of Ed ward VI. were restored, in addition to the formula of the second book, so that there might be once more a definite recognition of the Presence at the moment of administration to each individual; and the "black rubric" was altogether omitted. 2 In the Article, when it was republished a few years later (1563), the third paragraph, denying the "real and 1 Reformatio Legum Eccles., De Hæres. c. 19; cf. De Sacramentis, c. 4: "Cum autem ad hæc omnia nee transubstantiatione opus sit, nee illa quam fingere solebant reali præsentia corporis Christi, sed potius hæc curiosa hominum inventa primum contra naturam humanam sint a Filio Dei nostra causa sumptam, deinde cum Scripturis divinis pugnent, et præterea cum universa sacramentorum ratione confligant, ista. tanquam frivola quædam somnia merito desecanda curavimus, et oblivione obruenda, præsertim cum magnum ex illis et perniciosum agmen super- stitionum in ecclesia Dei importatum fuerit." This may well be con- trasted with the much more sober condemnation" of transubstantiation in the Articles. 2 The rubric was restored in 1662 with the very important substitution of " corporal" for" real and essential." 4 2 646 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES bodily presence (as they terlD it) of Christ's flesh and blood," ,vas also deleted,1 and in its place ,vas inserted our present third paragraph, asserting in careful and accurate language that "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 author of this paragraph was Edmund Guest, Bishop of Rochester, who says in a letter to Cecil that is still preserved, that it was of (( mine own penning," and tbat it was not intended to " exclude the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving thereof." 2 Naturally these changes were not agreeable to the Puritan party in the Church,s for they amounted to a complete change. Whereas in the latter years of Edward VI.'S reign the formularies had seemed to exclude the doctrine of the real Presence and to incline to Zwing- lianism, they \vere now (at the lowest estimate) patient of a Catholic interpretation, and contained nothing under cover of \vhich the Zwinglianizing party could honestly 1 What makes the omission more noteworthy is that the following clause was presented to the Synod and rejected by it: "Christus in cælum ascendells, corpori suo Immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit, humanæ enim naturæ veritatem (juxta Scripturas) perpetuo retinet, quam uno et definito loco esse, et non in mu1ta, vel omnia simulloca diffundi oportet, quum igitur Christus in cælum sublatus, ibi usque ad finem seculi sit permansurus, atque inde non aliunde (ut loquitur Augustinus) venturus sit, ad judicandum vivos et mortuos, non debet quisquam fidelium, carnis ejus et sanguinis, realem et corporalem (ut loquuntur) presentiam in Euchari8 ia vel credere vel profiteri." See Lamb's Historical Account of the XXXIX. A.rticles, p. 12. 2 The letter quoted in full in G. F. Hodge's Bishop Guest Articles XXVIII. and XXIX. p. 22. 3 See the letter of Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger, quoted in vo]. i. p. 41, and the notice in Strype of the controversies concerning the Real Presence, and of Parker's supposed "Lutheranism," Annals, vol. i. p. 334; cr. Zurich Letters, p. 177. ARTICLE XXVIII 647 shelter theulselves. {oreover, they have since been supplemented by the clear teaching of the Church Catechism (1604). It follows from all this that the opinions of the Edwardian Reformers, such as Cranlller and Ridley, on the subject of the Holy Communion, bave nothing more than an historical interest for us. Destruc- tively they performed a task for which we o\ve them a great debt, in courageously attacking the medieval teaching on transubstantiation. But the positive charac- ter impressed upon the Articles in regard to Eucharistic doctrine is not theirs; nor have their \vritings any claim to be regarded even as an expositio contemporanea of for- mularies, which, in their present form, belong to a later date, and to a time when much greater respect \vas shown to the ancient teaching of the Church. Weare now in a position to consider the substance of the Article as it stood unchanged since 156 H. It contains four paragraphs dealing with the following subjects:- 1. The description of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 2. The doctrine of Transubstantiation. 3. The nature of the Presence, and the" mean whereby it is received." 4. Certain practices in connection with the Eucharist. 1. The JJescription of the Sac1 4 a1nent of the Lord's Suppe1 4 . (a) It is a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another. So much was admitted by the Anabaptists, who regarded it as an outward sign of our profession and fellowship, but nothing more. The Article adnlits that it is this, but it is not only this. Far more important is it to remember that it is rather (b) A Sacrament of our Redemption by 648 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Christ's death. It \vas instituted" for the continual relnelnbrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby," and by it \ve " proclaim the Lord's death till He come" (1 Cor. xi. 26). (c) To such as rightly (rite), worthily, and with faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking (conlmunicatio) of the Body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. This clause is entirely founded on S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. x. 16, the words of which it follo\vs very closely: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion (<. 123: '" I, Sir John Cheke, Knight,' etc. . . . The tenor of which was, that he pretended with heart and mouth to profess that he acknowledgeù the true Catholic and Apostolical faith, and did execrate all heresy, and namely that wherewith he lately had been in famed, as holding that the bread and wine upon the altar, after the consecration of the priest, remained only a sacrament, and were not the very Body anù Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither could be handled or broken by the priest's hands, or chewed with the teeth of the faithful, otherwise than only in manner of a sa.crament. That he consented now to the holy aud apostolical Church of Rome, and professed with mouth and heart to hold the same faith touching the sacrament of the Lord's Jrlass, which Pope Nicholas with his Synod at Rome, anno 1058, did hold, and commanùed to be held by his evangelical and apostolical authority; that is, that the bread and wine upon the altar, after consecration, arc not only a sa.crament, but abo are ARTICLE XXVIII 655 In spite, however, of the popular superstitions encouraged by the use of the ternl, it was authorita- tively reasserted at the Council of Trent. The whole question of the Eucharist was there considered at the thirteenth session in October 1551, lnore than a year before the promulgation of the English Articles of 1553. At this session it ,vas laid down-(l) that "in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the con- secration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the form of those sensible things"; 1 and (2) that" because Christ our Redeemer declared that \vbich He offered under the forIn of bread to be verily His own Body, tberefore it has ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it ane,v, that by the consecration of the bread and wine, a conversion takes place of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood: wbich con- version is, by the holy Catholic Church, conveniently and properly called Transubstantiation. 2 Further, the the very true and self-same Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, felt and broken with hands, and chewed with teeth: swearing by the holy Eyangelists that whosoever should hold or say to the contrary, be should hold them perpetually accursed; and that if he himself should hereafter presume to teach against the same, he should be content to abide the se\'erity a.nd rigour of the Canons," etc. I "Principio docet sancta Synodus et aperte ac simpliciter profitetur in almo sanctæ Eucharistiæ sacramento, post panis et vini consecra- tionem, Dominum nostrum J esum Christnm verum Deum atque hominem, yere, realitcr, ac substantialiter sub specie illarum rerum sensi bilium ron tineri. "-Cone. T'J'id. ess. xiii. cap. 1. 2 "Quoniam autem Christus redemptor noster, corpus suum iù quod sub specie panis offel'ebat, vere esse dixit; ideo persuasnm semper in ecclesia Dei fnit, idque nunc denuo sancta hæc Synodus declarat, per consecl'ationcm panis et vini conversionem fieri totius snbstantiæ l'allis in substantiam Corporis Christi Domini nostI'i, et totins substantiæ Villi 656 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES first two Canons passed at this session were the following :- cc If anyone shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are verily, really, and substantially contained the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently whole Christ; but shall say that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure or virtue: let him be anathema. "If anyone shall say that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and ,vine remains conjointly with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the 'whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, the form only of the bread and wine remaining, which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation: let him be anathema." 1 Thus the scholastic theory was forn1ally sanctioned by the Roman Church, and is regarded as an Article of faith in that cOllln1union to this day. (b) TIM grounds on which the doctrine is conde nl-n ed. The Article gives fOU/I- grounds for rejecting the in substantiam Sanguinis Ejus; quæ conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta CatllOlica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appe11ata." -lb. cap. 4. I {C Si quis negaverit in sanctissimo Eucharistiæ Sacramento contineri vere realiter et substantialiter Corpus et Sanguinem, una cum anima et Divinitate Domini nostI'i J esu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum: sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo, ut in signo, vel figura, aut virtute, anathema sit. U Si quis dixerit in sacrosancto Eucharistiæ Sacramento rcmanere sub- stantiam panis et vini, una cum Corpore et Sanguine Domini nostri J esu Christi; negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversion em totins substantiæ panis in Corpus, et totius substantiæ vini in Sauguinem, mal1entibns dumtaxat spccicùlls l,allis et villi, quam quidem conversioncJJl Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appelIat: anathema. sit." -lb. Canons 1 and 2. ARTICLE XXVIII 657 doctrine. It says that Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord- (1) Cannot be proved by Holy Writ. It is hard to see how a philosophical theory such as Transub- stantiation confessedly is, can ever be cc proved by Holy \Vrit." Romanists point to the words of institution, Tofrró lCTTt TÒ uwp.á !-"ov. But though they can certainly be clainled in fa vour of the real Presence, yet to bring into them a theory of cc acciè.ents " remaining while the cc substance" is changed, is to read into the text that which is certainly not contained in it, and what we deny can reasonably be inferred from it.! (2) It is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture. According to the theory now under con- sideration, what remains after consecration is no longer cc bread," and has no claim to be so called. But Scripture freely speaks of that which is received as " bread," e.g. cc As often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till He come. . . . Let a man prove hinlself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. xi. 26, 28). (3) It overthroweth the nature of a Sacra- ment. It is of the essence of a sacrament that there should be in it two parts-the" out\vard visible sign" and the cc in\vard spiritual grace." But if "bread," the outward visible sign in the Eucharist, no longer remains after consecration, one of the two essential parts has been destroyed, and the cc nature of a sacrament" is cc overthrown." 1 Both Scotus and Bellarmine have allowed that there is no passage of Scripture so plain as to compel belief in Tr:msubstantiation, apart from the decree of the Lateran Council. See Bellarmine, De EucharisUa, III. xxiii., where Scotus is referred to [In IV. disl. xi. q. 3]. Cf. Forbes, Consiclerationes ,Jlodestæ, vol. ii. p. 446. 658 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (4) It hath given occasion to many supersti- tions. These \vords are only too painfully true, and in support of them reference Inay be made to the medieval stories of alleged miracles, such as those freely instanced by Paschasius Radbert,l in \vhich the Host has dis- appeared, and the Infant Christ Himself been seen, or \vhere drops of blood have been seen to flow from the consecrated wafer. Of these none is more to the point than the so-called miracle of Bolsena, which led to the institution of the Festival of Corpus Christi in 1264. According to one a 'count, the n1iracle, in which the corporal ,vas suddenly covered with red spots in the shape of a Host, actually happened to remove the priest's doubts concerning Transubstantiation. These four arguments brought forward in the Article appear to be perfectly satisfactory, as directed against the coarse and carnal form of the doctrine \vhich was present to the minds of those who compiled the Article. But it must be admitted that they scarcely touch the subtle and more refined and spiritual form in which it is held by thoughtful and well-instructed Romanists. With regard to the first two arguments, they may fairly point to the fact that the consecrated Host is actually termed " panis" in the Missal, and therefore Ina.y claim that they recognise it as in some sense" bread," and give it the same term as does S. Pau1. 2 As to the third, they reply that "what we see, feel, or taste in the Blessed Sacrament is real, for the accidents are real entities, and the accidents are all that the senses ever do perceive. . . . It is, moreover, because the accidents remain that the EucharÏbt is a sacrament. They con- stitute the outward part-they are the sensible sign of 1 A considerable number of such "miraclts" are related in his work, De Oorpore et Sang1.tÍne Domini. c. xiv. 2 Cf. Be]]armine, De E1.IClia1'istia, I. c. xi. ARTICLE XX"III 639 that refresluuent - of the soul which follows fron1 it worthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament." 1 Thefourth argument is obviously inconclusive as an argunlent. If everything that" hath given occasion to many supersti- tions" is to be rejected, then Christianity itself must go, for there is scarcely a doctrine ,vhich has not been so perverted and abused. But even ,vith regard to the more refined and spiritual fornl in ,vhich the doctrine is capable of being presented, \ve cannot but feel conl- pelled to resist it \vhen it is pressed as an Article of faith, and our assent to it is required as a condition of communion. At best it is but a theory of the schools, a philosophical opinion \vhich is "destitute and incapable of proof," 2 as well as "involved in tremendous meta- physical difficulties." 3 As such we decline to be bound by it. But as an "opinion," hard as it is to free it altogether from materialistic conceptions,4 it has been conceded by Anglican divines, representing very different schools of thought, that it need be no bar to communion, provided no assent to it \vere demanded from us. 5 1 Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, p. 347. 2 Bp. Thirlwall, Charge, 1866, Appendix B. S Gore, Dissertations, p. 269. -I Cf. Gore, Ope cit. p. 271, where it is pointed out that the accepted teaching of the Roman Church holds that the real Presence is withdrawn as soon as the process of digestion commences; and the following is quoted from Perrone, Prælecti07les Theologicæ: c, Etenim cum species eo devenerint ut corpus sive materia dissolvi seu corrumpi deberet, cessante reali corporis Christi præsentia, Deus omnipotentia sua iterum producit materialem panis aut vini substantiam in eo statu quo naturaliter inveniretur, si conversio nulla præcessisset, ut fides locum habent."- De Eucharistia, 151. IS So Hooker, E. P. V. lxvii. 6: cc, This is Iy body,' and' This is :My blood,' being words of promise, sith we all agree that by the sacrament Christ doth really and truly in us perform His promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions, "vhether by consubstantia- tion or else by transubstantiation the sacrament itself be first possessed with Christ or no 1-a thing which no way can either further or hinder us however it stand, because onr participation of Christ in this sacra- 660 THE THIRTY- INE ARTICLES III. The Nature of the P.resence and the" Mean whereby it is received." On the nature of the Presence the teaching of the Article is this. The Body and Blood are in no way carnally and corporeally present, i.e. after the manner of a body, physically, and according to the laws which govern a local and material presence, for the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner; that is, it is present in a manner above . sense and nature, by the power and working of God's Holy Spirit, and for the highest spiritual ends. It has been noticed by a thoughtful ,vriter that in this clause "the body of Christ is not said in a general ,yay to be 'received,' but to be C given, taken, and eaten'; as if there were a solicitude, in correcting the abuses of the sacrament, explicitly to maintain the union between the heavenly and spiritual blessing ment dependeth on the co-operation of His omnipotent power which maketh it His body and blood to us, whether with change or without alteration of the elements such as they imagine, we need not eatly to care nor inquire." Cf. the bIS. note in which Hooker defends these words, quoted by :M:r. Keble (Hooker's lVorks, vol. ii. p. 353). Bp. Andrewes: Cc De Hoc est, fide firma tenemus, quod sit: De, IIoc 'modo est (nempe, Transubstantiato in corpus pane), de modo quo fiat ut sit, per, sive (In, sive Con, sive Sub, sive Trans) nullum inibi verbum est. Et quia verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul: inter Scita Scholæ fortasse, inter Fides Articulos non ponimus." -Resp. ad Bellarm. p. 13 (A. C. Lib.). So Archbp. Bramhall places Transubstantiation "among the opinio1t.'J of the schools, not among the Articles of our faith. "-Answer to Militierc, p. 1. Burnet also says: ""\V e think that neither consubstantia- tion nor transubstantiation, however ill-grounded we think them to be, ought to dissolve the union a.nd communion of Churches." -On Art. XXVIII. And Bp. Harold Browne, in speaking of the teaching of Roman divines, admits that" by the more learned and liberal, state- ments have been made perpetually in acknowledgment of a spiritual rather than a carnal presence; and such as no enlightened Protestant would cavil at or refnse."-Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles, p. 701. ARTICLE XXVIII 661 and the out\vard and visible sign. . . . To nse these precise expressions, therefore, respecting the Body of Christ is, by clearest implication, to combine that 'heavenly and spiritual' blessing ,vith the given and taken symbol."] The words of the \vhole paragraph imply that the Presence is what is now commonly called " objective," i.e. that it is there, in virtue of consecration, as something external to ourselves, in no way dependent on our feeling or perception of it. It is " given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual nlanner." But the mean whereby the body of Christ is receiyed and eaten in the Supper is faith. It is "given, taken, and eaten" (datur, accipitur, et manducatur). It is" received and eaten" (accipitur et manducatur). Three ,vords are employed in the first sentence; only two in the second; and this designedly, for the Presence is not due to faith. Faith receives. It cannot C1.eate or bestow. The Presence must be there first, or it cannot be received. As Thorndike said, "the eating and drinking of it in the sacrament presupposes the being of it in the sacrament . . . unless a man can spiritually eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ in and by the sacrament, ,vhich is not in the sacrament ?vhen he eats and drinks it, but by his eating and drinking of it comes to be there." 2 If, however, it is clearly iInplied that the Presence is there first, before it is " received," it seems to be no less clearly taught in the last part of the clause that faith is a necessary condition to the reception of it, for" the mean ,vhereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." So much is practically confessed by Bishop Guest, the author of the clause, in . a remarkable letter addressed to Cecil in 1571. Guest ,vas very anxious 1 A. Knox, Essays, yol. ii. 1'. 173. 2 Laws of the Church, c. ii. S 12. 43 662 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES that Article XXIX. " Impii non manducant," which had been withdrawn before publication in 1563, should not now be restored, or receive any sanction "because it is quite contrary to the Scripture and the Fathers"; and in order to make the Twenty-eighth Article harmonise with the view that the wicked do partake of the body, though not fruitfully, he suggested that the 'Word" only" should be removed, and that the word "profitably" should be inserted, and that the words should run, " the mean whereby the body of Christ is profitably received and eaten in the Svpper is faith." 1 The Article was, however, left untouched, and the Twenty-ninth ,vas, against his wish, inserted; and, if the words of the Articles are to be taken in their plain literal and grammatical sense, the whole paragraph would seem to indicate, (1) that the Presence is there independent of us, and thus that it is offered to all; but (2) that the faithful, and the faithful only, are able to receive it. The subject will require some further consideration under the next Article, but so much it seemed necessary to say here, for the right understanding of the words before us. All the positive statements of the Article ,vith regard to the Presence in the Eucharist have now been dis- cussed (for the fourth paragraph which still relnains is concerned only with certain practices in connection with the sacrament), and if the exposition that has been given is a fair one, the result of it ,vill be this: that while the doctrine of the real Presence is distinctly taught, and the theory of Transubstap tiation is condemned, there is an entire absence of any counter theory of the manner of the Presence. And in this lies the real strength of the position taken up by the Church of England. She 1 State Pape10s, "Domestic," Elizabeth, vol. lxxviii. No. 37. Cf. vol. i. 1). 45. .\RTICLE XXVIII 663 devoutly accepts her Lord's words. She does not attempt to explain thelll Rway or to resolve them into a mere figure. But, on the other hand, she is content to hold them as a mystery. Her Lord has not explained them. He has no\vhere revealed "ho\v" His Body and Blood are present; and therefore she declines to specu- late on the manner, and rejects as no part of the Church's faith all theories on the subject presented to her, \vhether that of Transubstantiation, or the Lutheran tenet of Consubstantiation, or that associated with the name of Calvin, the theory of a "virtual" presence only in the heart of the faithful recipient.! To the present \vriter it appears that on this mysterious subject \ve may well be content to n1ake our o\vn the \vords of Bishop Andrewes in the sixteenth century, and of Bishop l\loberly in the nineteenth- "Præsentiam credimus non n1Ínus qualn vos veraUl : de modo præsentiæ nihil temere definimus, addo, nec anxie inquirimus." 2 "The Body and Blood of Christ are present, not corporeally (for that \ve kno\v from our Lord's words 1 This, it must be remembered, is a distinct "theory" quite as much as Transubstantiation. It is probably largely owing to the belicf that it was the view of R. Hooker that it has obtained such wide acceptance in this country. It cannot, however, be fairly said that it represents the v:hoZc of Hooker's teaching on the subject. See Book V. c. !xxvii. 1, where very strong language is used on "the power of the ministry of God," which "by blessing visible elements maketh them invisible grace" (a phrase which is scarcely reconcileable with a merely" receptionist" theory), and" hath to dispose of that flesh which was given for the life of the world, and that blood which was poured out to redeem souls." The arguments in c. lxvii. by which Hooker seeks to justify his conclusion that" the real Presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacra- ment," cannot be deemed convincing, and the reader will find an able criticism of them in Freeman's PdncilJZCS of Di1:Íne Service, vol. ii. Introd. p. 202 seq. 2 RcsjJonsio ad Bellarm. 1'. 13. 664 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES in John vi. 63), but spiritually, in and \vith the elenlents. 'Ve know no lllore . . . Consubstantiation, like Transub- stantiation, is a theo1 0 Y of the 1nanner of the Presence, \vhereas the Church only kno\vs the Presence as a fact, respecting the manner and mode and extent of which she is not informed." 1 IV. C'ertain P'loactices in connection 'with tlw Eucharist. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. Of the practices here spoken of, at least three are directly enjoined by the Council of Trent, and it is possible that to tbe pro- mulgation of the decrees of the thirteenth session of that Council (October 1551) the paragraph before us is due. The decrees in question lay do\vn, (1) that cc there is no rOOln left for doubt that all the faithful of Christ, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, exhibit in veneration the \vorship of latria, \vhich is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament"; (2) that" very piously and religiously was this custom introduced into the Church, that this most sublime and venerable sacrament should be, \vith special veneration and solemnity, celebrated every year on a certain day, and that a festival; and that it should be borne reverently and \vith honour in processions through the streets and public places " ; 2 and (3) that 1 Bampton Lect'll'J'CS, p. 172 (ed. 1). 2 "Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quia omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriæ cultum, qui vero Deo debetnr, huic sanctissimo sacramento in veneratione exhibeallt. . . . Declarat prætcrca sancta Synodus pie et religiose admorlurn in Dei ccclesiam indnctum fuisse hunc morem, ut singulis auuis peculiari quod am et festo die præcelsum hoc et venerabile sacramentum singulari vcncra.tionc ac solemnitate celebraretur, utque in proccssionibus rever- ARTICLE XXVIII 665 "the custom of reserving the Holy Eucharist In the , sacrariunl' is so ancient that even the age of the Council of Nicæa recognisecl it. :Thloreover, as to the carrying of the sacred Eucharist itself to the sick, and carefully reserving it to this purpose in churches, besides that it is confornlable with the highest practice, eq uity, and reason, it is also found enjoined in nUlllerous Councils, and observed according to the 1110St ancient custonl of the Catholic Church. Wherefore this holy Synod ordains that this salutary and necessary custom be by all means retained." 1 These chapters are followed as usual by canons condenlning \vith an anathema those 'who deny the la\vfulness of these practiceR. The statement made in the Article is worded with the utlllOSt care, and \vith studied moderatioll. It cannot be said that anyone of the practices IS condemned or prohibited by it. It only amounts to this: that none of thenl can claim to be part of the original Divine institution. The sacrament . . . was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. That is all that is said; and in a fOrIllulary, such as the Articles, that \vas sufficient. The four practices in question, belonging nlainly to the ritual use of the Church, came nlore directly into considpration in connection with the arrangements for public \vorship in the Book of Conlmon Prayer. enter et honorifice illnd per ,.ias et loca publica circumferrctur. ,. --Cone. Trid. Sessio xiii. cap. 5. 1 c, Consuetudo asservandi in Sacrario sanctam Eucharistiam adeo &utiqua est ut eam sæculum etiam Nicælli Concilii agnoverit. Porro deferri ipsam sacraru Eucl1aristiam ad infirmos, et hUllC USUIn diligenter in ecclesiis conservari, præterquam quod cum umma æquitate et ratione conjunctum cst; turn rnultis in Conciliis præceptum invenitur ct vetus- tissimo Catholicæ Ecdesiæ more ('st observatnm. Quare sancta llæc ynodus retinendurn omnino salntarem hunc et necessarium morem statuit. "-lb. cap. vi. G66 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES 1. Reservation for the sick, undoubtedly a primitiye practice,l \yas permitted, under certain restrictions, in the First Prayer Book of Ed\vard Vl. 2 In the Second Book (1552), in view of the danger of superstitious reservation,3 the provision for it was onlitted altogether. At the last revision in 1662 an express direction \vas inserted in one of the rubrics at the end of the Order for Holy Conln1union, that" if any renlain of [the bread and wine] \vhich \vas consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, but the priest and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same." 2. The festival of Corpus Christi ,vas ren10ved from the Calendar in 1549, and the "carrying about" of the Eucharist in procession through the streets and public places is forbidden by the rubric that bas just been quoted. 3. The Ele .ation of the Host for purposes of adora- tion is said to have been introduced about the year 1 See Justin brartyr, Allol. I. c. lxvii.: Toî où 7rapoûcTL Òtà. TWV ÒtaKÓVWJI 7rÉ}J.7rf:Tat. ::! The sick were communicated with the reserved sacrament if there waR a celebration of the Holy Communion on the same day; but if the day was "not appointed for the open Communion in the church," provision was made for a special consecration. See the rubrics before "the Communion of the Sick" in the book of 1549. 3 The danger of such superstitious reservation is very clearly indicated by the last rubric at the close of the Order of the Holy Communion in the Prayer Book of 1549: "Although it be read in ancient writers that the people many years passed received at the priest's hands the sacrament of the body of Christ in their own hands, and no commandment of Christ to the contrary: Yet forasmuch as they many times conveyed tlte sarne secretly away, kept it 'with them, and diversely abused it to superstition and 'Wickedness: lest any such thing hereafter should be atteml)ted, and that an uniformity might be used throughout the whole Realm, it is thought convenient the people commonly receive the sacrament of Christ's body, in their mouths, at the priest's hand. J) ARTICLE XXVIII 667 1100,1 and (like the institution of the festival of Corpus Christi) was a direct consequence of the growth of a belief in Transubstantiation. It was distinctly prohibited in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., though the prohibition is not repeated in the Second Book. 2 4. Adoration of Christ pres en t in the sacrament is not and cannot be prohibited. But it is one thing to worship Christ there present, and quite another to find in the sacrament a distinct localised object of \vorship; and the "Declaration concerning Kneeling," restored (\vith the important modification previously mentioned) in 1662, expressly says that by the posture of kneeling "no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood." 3 1 See Scudamore's Notitia Eucha't"istüa, p. 546 seq. (ed. 1). And on the earlier elevation connected with the proclamation Tà å')'La TOLS å')'loLS, which was certainly not for purposes of adoration, see the Dictionary of Christian A ntiq'ltitics, vol. i. p. 605. cc These words before rehearsed [i. . the words of consecration] are to be said, turning still to the altar, without any elevation, or showing the sacrament to the people." - Rubric after Consecration in the Prayer Book of 1549. 8 Reference may be made in general on this subject to 1.lozley's Lectures and other Theological Papers, p. 210 seq. ARTICLE XXIX De 'lJw/Jul'ltcatiQ71.,C Corporis Chr'isU, ct impios ill'ltd non mænd'llcare. Impii, et fiùe viva destituti, lieet carll aliter et visibiliter (ut Augustinus loquitur) corporis et sanguinis Christi sacramen turn dentibns premant, nullo tam en modo Christi participes efficiuntur. Sed potius tantæ rei sacramen- tum, seu symbol\lm, ad judicium sibi manducant et bibunt. Of the TVicked u'ILich do not eat the Body of Chr'ist in the Usc of the Lord's Supper. The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacra- ment of so great a thing. THE first appearance of this Article (to \vhich there is nothing corresponding in the series of 1553) is in Parker's 1S., which was signed by the bishops on January 29, 1563. 1 It is also found in two English MSS. of almost the same date, now in the Record Office, in one of \vhich there is a marginal note: "This is the original, but not passed." 2 In a Latin 1S. in the same office it is altogether wanting,3 as it is in the published edition issued a few months later by 'Volfe, the royal printer, under the direct authority of the Queen. It must, therefore, have been omitted either in the passage of the Articles through the Lower House of Convocation, or else at an even later stage by the direct interposition 1 See vol. i. p. 30. 2 State Papers, "Domestic," Elizabeth, vol. xxvii. Nos. 40 and 41. 3 Ib. K o. 41A. 668 ARTICLE XXIX 669 of the Queen herself, the reason for its omission evidently being a desire to avoid needlessly offending some of those \vho sympathised with medieval belief and feeling, WhOlll it \vas desired, if possible, to retain \vithin the limit'3 of the Church. Since it lacked all authority it is naturally \vanting in the printed copies up to 1571, when \ve Ineet \vith it again. On May 11 th of that year the Articles " ere considered by the Upper House of Con- vocation, and a copy \vas subscribed by Parker and ten other bishops. In this the Twenty-ninth Article is con- tained.! A fe\v days later ."-e find Bishop Guest, by an appeal to Cecil, making a deterlnined effort to prevent the ratification of it on the ground that it "will cause much business." 2 His efforts were, ho,vever, unavailing, as it is contained in the copy which was ratified by the Sovereign,S and fron1 this time forward it finds its place in all printed copies, both Latin and English. It ,vill be remembered that by this date (1571) the Anglo- Roman schism ,vas cOlnplete, and therefore there \vas not the same reason as there had been eight years earlier for ,vithholding the Article. The language of the Article has been traced to no earlier formulary; but it is throughout suggested by a 1 A ropy of this is given in Lamb's Historical Account of the Thirty- ])"Tine Articles, No. iv. 2 See above, p. 662, and G. F. Hoùge'sBislwp Guest, Articles XXVIII. and X.XIX. p. 24. 3 Guest's letter in May 15ïl had, however, apparently led to tIle interview bctween Cecil and Parker on June 4, referred to in Strype's Parker, pp. 331, 332, when Cecil questioned the reference to S. Augustine. The interview was followed by a letter from Parker on the same day, in which he told the Treasurer that he was" advisedly" still ill the same opinion concerning the authority of S. Augustin , "anù for further truth of the words, besides S. Austen, both he in other places and Prosper ill his 'Sentences wrote of Austen' (Scnten. 338 and 339), doth plainly afiìrm our opinion in the Article to be most truc, howsoever some men vary from it." (Parker's Correspondence, p. 381.) 670 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES pasl:;age in the ,yorks of Augustine on S. John's Gospel. In the prin ted editions the text stands as follows: "Qui non luanet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec manducat [spiritualiter] carnem ejus, nee bibit ejus sanguinem (lieet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentun1 corporis et sanguinis Christi]: sed magis tantæ rei sacralnentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit." 1 It is thought, however, that the text has been interpolated, and that the ,vords placed in brackets are due, not to Augustine, but to Bede, in whose Commentary they are also found. Coming no\v to the consideration of the substance of the Article, it may be noticed that the phrase employed in the title is not repeated in the Article itself. In the forlner, it is said of the wicked that they do not eat the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper. In the latter, the phrase used is that in no wise are they partakers of Christ. It has been thought that the heading is in itself inexact, and must be interpreted by the phrase in the Article itself, as many have held that though the \vicked do actually receive the Body and Blood, and therefore in SOlne sense "eat" it, yet since they receive it not to their soul's health, but to their condemnation, they are "in no \vise partakers of Christ." 2 There can be no doubt that the n1edieval Church did thus teach that what the wicked receive in the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Christ being present in the sacrament in their case to judge, as in the case of the faithful He is present to bless. s But it may be doubted whether so 1 In Joann. Tract. xxvi. 18. 2 See Pusey, Real Presence, p. 251 seg. 3 It is sufficient to refer to S. Thomas, Summa, iii. 80. 3: U Cum corpus Christi in sa.cramento semper pcrmanet donee species sacra.- mentales corrumpantur, etiam injustos homines Christi corpus manducare consequitur. n For the Trirlentine traching, see Sessa xiii. ca.p. viii. ARTICLE XXIX 671 lunch \vonld have been allo\ved in the early Church,! or \vhether it can be proved from Scripture. T\vo passages of the N e\v Testament directly bear upon the question, (1) S. Paul's \yords in 1 Cor. xi 27-29, and (2) S. John vi 51-59. In the former passage the Apostle says: "Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the 1 On the teaching of Augustine, see the interesting correspondence petween Pusey and Keble, quoted in yol. iii. of Pusey's Life, Appendix to c. xviii.; but see also Gore, Disse1 o tations, p. 232, where it is admitted that Augustine'::; language, while "probably somewhat inconsistent," "may fairly be interpreted on a receptionist theory like Hooker's." Even so late and so materialistic a writer as Paschasius Radbert is not really clear as to what the wicked receive. De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, c. vi., and cf. the following from Mozley, Lectures, etc. p. 203: "The language of the Fathers is not indeed free from some real and much more apparent dis- agreement on this subject. On a. subject where language has so many nice distinctions to keep, it will not always.keep them; nor avoid indis. criminateness, saying one thing when it means something else close and contiguous to it, but still quite different from it. Thus the rule or custom by which the bread itself was called the Body, a.s being the figure of the Body; and by which the whole sacrament, not distinguish. ing its material part from its spiritual, wa.s called the Body, as containing the Body, necessarily led to occasional confusion of language; writers saying that the Body was always, and in any case, eaten together with the reception of the sacrament, without any condition, when they really meant that the bread, which was the sacrament of the Body, was eaten. 'Vhere, however, this distinction was in the writer's mind, a large mass of language shows that the true Body of Christ in the sacrament could not be eaten except by the medium of faith. S. Augustine, who is quoted in our Article on this point, has frequent similar statements. S. Hilary says, "The bread which cometh down from heaven is not received e1.:cept hy him who is a member of Christ" [De T1 o iuitate, Lib. viii.]. S. Jerome says, "Those who are lovers of plea.sure more than lovers of God, neither eat His Body nor drink His Blood;" [in Esai. lxvi. 17]; though he also speaks of the polluted and unworthy approaching the altar and drinking His Blooù. But the connection which this latter assertion has with the visible altar and the open reception of the sacra. ment gives the body and blood here rather the open and sacramental sense just mentioned, than the true sense. " He who obeys not Christ," says Prosper, "neither eats His flesh nor drinks His blood" [Sent. 139]. "He receives who approvcth himself," says Ambrose. "The wicked cannot eat the word made flesh," says Origen ['in Jlatt. xy.]. 672 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES blood of the Lord. But let a nlan prove himse1f, and so let hin! eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For be that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body." These ,vords beyond question teach us that the Body and Blood are so present that the unworthy communicant is guilty of their profanation. Ho\v could he fail to U discern" the Body, unless it was there? Rut it is by no nleans clear that S. l)aul means to say that the ulnvorthy com- nlunicant receives the Body. It is thetre, and he is so brought into contact \vith it as to be "guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord." But if it be true, as Article XXVIII. has asserted, that (( the mean \vhereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith," then, although it is offered to him, he is incapable of receiving it, and thus the wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth . . . the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their own condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing. This view of the meaning of S. Paul's \vords derives support from our Lord's own statenlents in S. John vi. 51-59. There throughout He speaks of (( life" as the gift imparted by (( eating His Flesh" and "drinking His Blood." No doubt the discourse has a ,vider reference than only to the Holy Communion. Our Lord is speaking primarily of the Incarnation, and faith therein as the Ineans of life. But from this He proceeds to speak of the \vay in which lHen can be united with Him and thus made sharers of His life, especially by "eating His Flesh" and "drinking His Blood." And \vhen it is remembered that exactly a year after this discourse was spoken He took bread and ARTICLE XXIX 673 gave it to His disciples, and said, "Take, eat, this is my Body," and gave them to drink of the cup, saying, " This is my Blood," it seems impossible to doubt that the Holy Communion is intended to be in ordinary cases the means of that eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood of ,vhich He is speaking; and if this is so, since the wicked are certainly not made to" have life" through participation in the sacrament, it would not appear to Le safe to assert that they do "eat the Body of Christ in the sacramell t." It cannot be maintained that it follo,vs as a nccessa1.Y inference from the doctrine of the real Presence; for if the connection of the Presence with the elements be of such a nature that of necessity all those who receive the out,vard elements must thereby also receive the" in'\vard part," ulterior consequences will follow: such as the reception of the Body of Christ by birds or mic , which might through some deplorable accident eat a portion of the consecrated bread. 1 To this it may be added that "no'\vhere in Scripture do we hear of an eating and drinking of the true Body and Blood of our Lord ,,-hich is not profitable. The Body and Blood are of that nature, that they are in the reason of the case, by the simple fact of being eaten and drunk, beneficial; and no such thing is contemplated as a 'real eating of them, ,vhich is not a beneficial eating of them also. " vVhoso eateth :\Iy flesh and drinketh My blood," saith the Lord, "hath eternal life. . . . He that eateth l\fy flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in :\1e, and I in him. . . . He that eateth :Nle, even he shall live by 1\1e." The spiritual food of our Lord's Body and Blood cannot, as has been said, be eaten except spiritually; it cannot be I For the extraordinary shifts to which the medievalists were driven in orùer to explain what really happens under such circumstances, see 'Vitmunù, Dc Corporis et Banguinis Christi Vc'ritatc, ii. 7 SC']. 674 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES eaten carnally by the mere natural mouth and teeth; such an idea is a discord and a contradiction in reason. But if it cannot be eaten except spiritually, how does the carnal man supply the spiritual medium and instru- mentality of eating? The carnal man has only the natural mouth and teeth to apply; all this he has; but this is totally irrelevant to spiritual food." 1 On the whole, then, even if, as nlany have thought, the view that the wicked do actually receive the Body and Blood without being thereby made "partakers of Christ," 2 be capable of. reconciliation with the terms of this Article, yet it appears to be more in accordance with Holy Scripture and the mind of the primitive Church, as well as with the n10st obvious and natural meaning of Articles XXVIII. and XXIX.,3 to hold that the wicked, though brought (so to speak) in contact with the Body and Blood, are through want of faith unable to receive that spiritual food which is offered to them. Thus they are" in no \vise partakers of Christ," because, lacking "the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper," they" eat not the Body of Chris t." 4 1 !Iozley, 0)1. cit. p. 205. This phrase which is used in the Article is taken from Heb. Hi. 14. 3 It ought to be stated that BisllOp Guest, in spite of his criticisms of this Article, felt himself able to sign it; for his signature is contained with those of other bishops in the IS. of !tray 11, 1571. 4 It s}lOuld be added that it was freely admitted by both Cranmer anù Ridley that in S01ne sense the wicked may be said to "eat the Body." And their language is verbally identical with that of the Council of Trent, where it was said that" some receive it sacramentally only, vi?. sinners, others sacramentally and spiritually" (Sess. xiii. cap. viii.). So Cranmer: "I say that the same visible and palpable flesh that was for us crucified . . . is eaten of Christian people at His holy Supper . . . the diversity is not in the body, but in the eating thereof; no man eating it carnally, but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is, figuratively. "-O'1t the Lord's Supper (Parker Society), p. 224. So Riùley: "Evil men do cat the very true ARTICLE XXIX 675 and natural body of Christ sacramentally ana no further, as 8. Augustine saith; but good men do eat the very true body both sacramentally and spiritually hy grace." - JVorks (Parker Society), p. 246. In these two extracts" sacramentally" is equivalent to "figuratively," or ratller eating the body s&cramentally is equivalent to "eating the sacrament of the body" (cf. the remarks on the language of the Fathers in the extract from 1tlozleyon p. 671, note 1). This may tllrow some light on the wording of the "Prayer of Humble Access" in the Book of Common Prayer: "Grant us . . . so to eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies," etc. ARTICLE XXX De utraqllc specie. Calix Domini Laicis non est denegandus: utraque cllim pars dominici sacramenti ex Christi institutione et præcepto, omnibus Christianis ex æquo administrari debet. Of both Jands. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to tIle lay people. For hoth the part') of the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and com- mandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike. THIS Article is one of the four which were added by Arch- bishop Parker in 1563. I t was accepted by the Convoca- tion, and has kept its place ever since without any change. In considering it, it \vill be well to treat separately- 1. The history of the practice condemned in it. 2. The arguments by \vhich it has been justified. I. The HistOl'Y of the Denial of the Cup to the Laity. The evidence for the administration of both the parts of the Lord's sacranlent . . . to all Chris- tian men alike, ,vhether clergy or laity, during the first eleven centuries, is so full and complete that it is not now even pretended by llonlan divines that during this period the administration of the Eucharist in one kind was ever pern1Ïtted ill the Catholic Church, save only in exceptional cases, as (perhaps) to the sick. 1 1 This admission was not always so rcadily made, for BisllOp 'Vatson in 1558 says that "the holy Church hath used, even from the time of Christ Himself and His Apostles, to minister this sacrament under the form of Bread only both to laymen and women, aud also to priests J save 6ïG ARTICLE XXX 677 There is not one word in the Ne\v Testament to indicate. that the Cup was to be \vithheld from the laity. On the contrary) S. Paul's language directly implies that he contemplated that all alike would receive both parts of the sacrament, for he says, "Let a Inan prove himself,. and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup ,,. (1 Cor. xi. 28). The words of Justin l\lartyr are con- clusive for the practice in the second century.! S.. Cyril of Jerusalem 2 and many other Fathers supply evidence for the fourth and later centuries. But it is' needless to cite testimonies \vhen it is admitted by Cardinal Bona that "the faithful ahvays and in all places, from the first beginnings of the Church till the twelfth century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine, and the use of the chalice began little by little to drop a\vay in the beginning of that century, and many bishops forbade it to the people to avoid the risk of irreverence and spilling." 3 There is, ho\vever, evidence \vhich is very \vorthy of note, that during this period there \vas a tendency in some quarters to abstain from receiving the chalice, and that this ,vas severely condemned by the ct1.ähorities of the Church. Thus Leo I. (440) \vrites of certain fanichees, and says, "They receive Christ's Body with un\vorthy mouth, and entirely refuse to drink the Blood of our when they do consecrate and minister to themselves with their own hands."-Serm. viii. p. xlvi (Lond. 1558); quoted in Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica, p. 621 (ed. 1). As :Mr. Scudamore remarks: ".A falsehood more gross and palpable could not he committed to writing. ,. 1 Apol. I. lxv.: c, The deacons give to each of those present to receive of the consecrated (d.rxaptCfT1]OillTOS) bread and wine and water, and they carry them to those not present." 2 Cat. .J1fyst. v. 22: "Then after having partaken of the Body of Christ, approach also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine- hand, but bending and saying in the way of worship and reverence)- Amen; be thou hallowed by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. " 3 Rerum Lit'urg. Bk. II. c. xviii. 1. 44 678 THE THIRTY.NINE ARTICLES }{edemption; therefore we give notice to you, holy brethren, tba t men of this sort, whose sacrilegious deceit has been detected, are to be expelled by priestly authority from the fello\vship of the saints." 1 About fifty years later Gelasius I. (490) repeats the condenlnation of the practice. " We have ascertained that certain persons, having received a portion of the sacred Body alone, abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred Blood. Let such persons, without any doubt (since they are stated to feel themselves bound by some superstitious reason), eithe1. receive the sacra nent in its entirety, or be repelled froln the entire sacrament, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege." 2 From these early testimonies we may pass on to the close of the eleventh century, when the custom was beginning to creep into the Catholic Church, probably from motives of reverence, and anxiety to avoid accidents or scandals. At this time the Inatter attracted SOlne attention, and the custom of communicating in one kind alone was definitely condemned by the Council of Cler- mont under Urban II. (1095), as well as by Pascal II. at the beginning of the next century (1118). The twenty- eighth Canon of the Council is clear, and state positively that" no one shall communicate at the altar unless he receive the Body and the Blood separately and alike, unless by way of necessity and for caution"; 3 1 H om. xli. 2 Corp'ltS J'ltrÏ8 Canon. Decret. III. ii. 12. The after-history of the decree is curious and instructing. Aquinas boldly says that "Gelasius speaks only in reference to priests, who, as they consecrate the whole sacrament, so ought they also to communicate in it whole." -Summa, III. q. lxxx. art. xii. 3 Cone. Clarom. Can. xxviii.: cc N e aliquis communicet de altari nisi corpus separatim et sanguinem similiter, nisi per llecessitatcm et cautelam."-Labbe and Cossart, vo1. vi. p. 1719. ARTICLE XXX 679 while the ,vords of Pope Pascal are these: "There- fore, according to the same Cyprian, in receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord, let the Lord's tradition be observed; nor let any departure be lllade, through a human and novel institution, from what Christ the l\laster ordained and did. For we know that the bread \vas given separately and the wine given separately by the Lord Himself; which custom \ve therefore teach and command to be al\vays observed in the holy Church, save in the case of infants and of very infirm people, who cannot swallow bread." 1 But that which \vas denounced by Pascal II. early in the eleventh century as a" human and novel institu- tion," and a " departure" from Christ's ordinance, in the course of the next two centuries gradually spread throughout the West; and when the abuses of the Church began to attract general attention, and the cry for reforlnation of them made itself heard, there was none which \vas more severely denounced than this. It was one of the abuses for the reform of which much was hoped from the Council of Constance (1415). But instead of abolishing the practice of Communion in one kind, the Council not only ventured to assert that" though Christ instituted and ga ve this sacrament to His dis- ciples under both kinds, yet the Church has the power of ordering that to the laity it be given under one kind only," but actually proceeded to exercise this" power" by positively forbidding Communion in both kinds to the lay people. 2 The troubles and bloodshed which were due to this decree are matters of history, on which it is 1 Ep. 535. 2 "Quod nullus presbyter sub pæna excommunication is communicet populum sub utraque specie panis et vini. "-Cone. Const. Sessio xiü. Labbe and Cossart, vol. viii.. p. 581. 680 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES unnecessary to enter here. 1 The restoration of the Cup to the laity was insisted on in the Confession of Augsburg (1530) in the first of the Articles concerning abuses; 2 and though in this country nothing could be done in this direction so long as Henry VIII. was alive, yet after his death one of the earliest Acts was to pro- vide an English form for communicating the people in both kinds (1548), and to put an end to the abuse of "half-communion," which had gro'\vn up. As far as the history of the practice is concerned, it is only needful to add that at the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent (October 1551) the doctrine of "concomitance" (on ,vhich the theological defence of the practice of con1- municating in one kind is based) was distinctly asserterl, and that at the twenty-first session held in July 1562, shortly before the promulgation of our own Article, the practice was more definitely considered by the Council. 1 See Creighton's History of the Papacy, vol. ii. p. 37 seg. 2 Ie De utraq1te lJpecie. Laicis datuI' utraque species sacramcllti in cæna Domini, quia hic mos habet mandatum Domini, Iatt. xxvi. Bibite ex hoc omnes, ubi manifeste pI'æcepit Christ us de poculo, ut omnes bibant, et ne quis possit cavillari, quod hoc ad sacerdotes tantum pertineat, Paulus ad Corinth. exemplum recitat, in quo apparet totam ecclesiam utraque specie us am esse. Et diu mansit hie mos in ecclesia, nee cOl1stat quando aut quo auctore mutatus sit, tametsi Cardinalis Cusanus recitet, quando sit approbatus. Cyprianus aliquot locis testatur populo sanguinem datum esse. Idem testatur Hieronymus, qui ait, sacerdotcs eucharistiæ ministrant, et sanguinem Christi populis dividant. Imo Gelasius papa mandat ne dividatur sacramentum, Dist. II. de consecratione, cap. Comperimus. Tantum consuetudo non ita vetus aIiud habet. Constat autem, quod consuetudo, contra mandata Dei introducta, non sit probanda, ut testantur canones, Dist. VIII. cap. Veritate, cum sequentibus. Hæc vero consuetudo non solum contra Scripturam, sed etiam contra veteres canones et exemplum ecc1esiæ recepta est. Quare si qui maluerunt utraque specie sacramenti uti, non fuerunt cogendi. ut aliter facerent cum offensione conscientiæ. " Et quia divisio sacramenti non convenit cum institutione Christi, solet apud nos omitti processio, quæ hactenus fieri solita est." -Conf. August.. Pars II. art. i. Sylloge Confessionu7n, p. 135. ARTICLE XXX 681 It \vas detennined to uphold the existing custom; but it ,vas an a wk\vard one to defend, and the decrees of the Council concerning it are Inore renlarkable for the bold- ness of their assertions than for any arguments offered in support of then1. At the outset it is laid down dog- matically "that laymen and clergy when not consecrating, are not obliged by any Divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds; and that it cannot be by any nleans doubted, \vithout injury to faith, that Comnuu1Ïon in either kind is sufficient for theu1 unto salvation; for although Christ the Lord, in the last Supper, instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament in both kinds, of bread and wine, yet that institution and delivery do not therefore reach so far as that all the faithful of the Church be bound by the Lord's institution to receive both kinds." 1 It is added that no inference can rightly be drawn from S. John vi. 53 seq. that our Lord enjoined Communion in both kinds. It is next declared that in the dispensation of the sa.cralnents, so long as their substance remains untouched, the Church has power to ordain or change whatever things might be deen1ed expedient, according to the variety of circumstances, tin1es, and places; and that, therefore, " holy mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both kinds has, fron1 the beginning of the Christian religion, not been un frequent, yet in 1 "Sanda ipsa Synodus . . . declarat ac docet, nullo divino præcepto laicos, et clsricos, non conficientes, obligari ad Eucharistiæ sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum; neque uIlo pacto, salva fide, dubitari posse quin illis alterius speciei Communio ad salutem sufficiat. N am etsi Christus Dominus in u1tima cæna venerabiIe hoc sacramentum in panis et vini speciebus instituit, et apostolis tradidit, non tamen ilIa institutio ct traditio eo tendunt, ut omnes Christi fideles statuto Domini ad utramqne specicm accipicndam ast.ringalltur. "-Cane. Trid. Sess. xxi. cap. i. 682 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES process of time that custom having already been widely changed-has, induced by weighty and just reasons, approved of this custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed that it should be held as a law, which it is not lawful to reprobate or change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself." 1 To this is added a reassertion of the doctrine of " Concolllitance," 2 as well as the following three canons on the subject:- i. cc If anyone shall say that by the precept of God, or by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist: let him be anathema." ii. "If anyone shall say that the holy Catholic Church was not induced by just causes and reasons to communi- cate under the species of bread only, laymen and clergy when not consecrating; or has erred therein: let hin1 be anathema." iii. "If anyone shall deny that Christ, whole and entire, the fountain and author of all graces, is received under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received according to the institution of Christ Himself under both kinds: let him be anathema." 3 1 "Præterea declal'at, hane potestatem perpetuo in cccJesia fuisse, ut in sacramentornm dispensatione, salva illorum substantia, eo. statueret vel mutaret, quæ suseipientium utilitati, seu ipsonlm sacramentorum venera.- tioni pro rerum, temporum et loeorum varietate, magis expedire judicaret . . . quare agnoseens Sancta !tlater Eeclesia hane suam in administratione sacramentorum auctoritatem, Hcet ab initio Christianæ Religionis non infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset; tamen progres5u temporis latis- sime jam mutata illa eonsuetudine, gravibus et justis causis adducta, hane consuetudinem sub alter a specie ccmmunieandi approbavit, et pro lege habendam decrevit: quam reprobare, aut sine ipsius ecclesiæ auetoritate pro libito mutare non Heet." -Cap. ii. I Cap. iii. S U Si quis dixerit, ex Dei præcepto, vel necessitate salutis, omnes ct øingulos Christi fideles utramque speciem sanetissimi Eueharistiæ sacra- menti sumel'e debere: anathema sit. U Si quis dixel'it. sanctam Ecclesiam Catho1icam non justis causis et. ARTICLE XXX 683 But, finally, at the close of the canons a section is added, holding out a promise that on " the earliest oppor- tunity that shall present itself," the Council will further consider whether some relaxation of her rules might be permitted, and the use of the chalice conceded in some nations or kingdon1s under certain conditions. 1 It only remains to add that though exceptions have been made by special privilege, yet, as far as the great body of the faithful are concerned, this" opportunity" appears never to have come, and that the Ron1an Church remains to the present day bound by the Tridentine decrees upon the subject. II. The Argurnents by which the P'ractice has been justified. These are of two kinds, (a) theological, and (b) prac- tical. (a) The theological ones are two in number, (1) the doctrine of concomitance, and (2) the Church's power to decree rites or ceremonies. The former of these, the doctrine of concomitance, is the belief \vhich was definitely laid do\vn at the thirteenth session of the Council of rationibus adductam fuisse ut laicos, atque etiam Clericos non conficien- tes, sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret, aut in eo errasse: 3nathema sit. "Si quis negaverit, totum et integrum Christnm omnium gratiarum fontem et auctorem, sub una panis specie sumi, quia, ut quid am falso :\sserunt, non secundum ipsius Christi constitutionem sub utraque specie- sumatur: anathema sit." J II Duos vero articulos, alias propositos, nOlldum tamen excusso8, videlicet, an rationes, quibus sancta Catholica Ecclesia adducta fuit, ut communicaret laicos, atque etiam non celebrantes sacerdotes, sub una tantum pan is specie, ita sint retinendæ, ut nulla ratione caIicis usu::; cuiquam sit permittenùus: et, an, si honestis et Christiauæ charitati COll- sentaneis rationibus concedenùus alieui vel nationi vel regno calicis usu viùeatur, sub aliquibus conditionibus eoncedendus sit: et quænam sint illæ: eadem sancta Synodus in aliud tempus, oblata sibi quam primum occasione, examinandos, atque definiendos reservat." t>84 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Trent, that" as llluch is contained under either kind as under both, for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and likewise whole Christ is under the species of wine, and under its parts."1 It must be said, however, that this doctrine, that" whole Christ," both body .and blood, is received under either kind, is theologically most uncertain. There is no trace of any belief in it in the early Church. It only makes its appearance in con- nection \vith the gro\vth of the doctrine of Transub- stantiation,2 and comes into prolnil1ence when a theo- logical justification for the practice of Communion in one kind is \vanted. There is but a single passage of Scrip- ture \vhich can with any show of reason be quoted in its fa vour: "Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup 'Ûf the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. xi. 27). But it is rash in the extreme to infer the doctrine frOll1 this text, \vhen the \vords of the institution are ren1embered, as ,veIl as S. Paul's COlnment UpOll them: "Jesus took bread . . . .and said, Take, eat; this is 1\1y ody. And He took a cup . . . and gave it to thenl saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is Iy blood" (S. l\Iatt. xxvi. 26,27). "The cup of blessing which \ve bless, is it not a conlmunioll of the blood of Christ? The bread \vhich \ve break, is it not a .con1munion of the body of Christ? JJ (1 Cor. x. 16). 1 cc Yerissimum e&t tantumdem sub alterutra specie atque sub utraquc contineri, totus enim et integer Christus sub panis specie; et sub quavis ipsius sl)eciei parte, totus item sub vini specie, et sub ejns partibus existit." -Cone. Trid. Sess. xiii. cap. iii. Cf. canOll 3: cc Si quis negaverit in venerabili sacramento Eucharistiæ sub una quaque specie, et sub singulis cujuscumque speciei partibus, separatione facta, totum Christum .con tineri: anathema sit." 2 Hildebert of Tours (1124) is "perhaps the first to affirnl that the -entire Christ is in eitller species taken by itself." Gore, Di sert. p. 266, where is quoted De Cæ1ta Domini: "In acceptione sanguinis totum Christum, verum Deum et hominem, et in acceptione corporis similiter totum." 1tIigne, vol. clxxi. p. 535. ARTICLE XXX 685 \Vhere the gilts are so carefully distinguished by our Lord and His Apostle, it seems the height of presumption to assert that "whole Christ" is so contained under either species that cc they \vho receive one kind alope are not defrauded of any grace necessary to salvation." 1 Next, with regard to the Church's power to decree rites or ceremonies, \ve cannot admit that it extends to the alteration of a Divine command. Our Lord's \vords are express: "Drink ye all of it" (S. Matt. xxvi. 27). The lin1Ítatiolls to the Church's legislative power have been already stated under Article XX. It was there shown that she may not" ordain anything contrary to (-}od's \vord \vritten"; and, with every desire to be charitable, it must be said that to order the celebrant alone to partake of the Eucharistic chalice is to ordain something that is directly contrary to Scripture. (b) If the theological argulnents thus fall to the ground, no weight whatever can be assigned to the prac- tical ones. These are drawn luainly from convenience, the fear of accidents, and the desire, fronl motives of reverence, to do all that can be done to minimise the possibility of their occurring. As a matter of fact, we deny that the dangers are really serious. With due care 1 "Insuper declarat, quamvis Redemptor noster ut antea. dictum est in suprema illa crena hoc sacramentum in duabusspeciebusinstituerit,et Apostolis tra.diderit, tamen futendum esse, etiam sub a.1tera tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum, verumque sacramentum sumi; ac prop- terea, quod ad fructum a.ttinet, nulla gratia, necessaria ad sa.lutem, cos defra.udari, qui unam speciem solam accipiunt."-Oonc. Trid. Sess. xxi. cap. iii. In connection with this the admission of Vasquez (quoted in Scudamore's Notitirt Eucharistica, p. 631) should be noted. "The opinion of those who say that greater fruit of grace is acquired from both species of this sacrament than from one only, has always appeared to me the more probable. . . . We grant that, according to this our opinion, the laity, to whom one species is denied, are defrauded of some grace indeed, yet not of any necessary to salvation; and that the Council did 110t mean to deny this."-Com. i1 Thmn. Ag. P. III. q. lxxx. dist. ccxv. c. H. iii. 686 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES they can in almost every case be guarded against. But even if they were far more im portan t than they are, we could not admit that they would justify the Church in departing from a plain direction of her Lord; for, if Holy Scripture is to have any weight with us, it is most certain that both the parts of the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike. . ARTICLE De unica Christi oblatione in Cruce peifecta. Oblatio Christi semel facta, per- fecta est redemptio, propitiatio, et atisfactio pro omnibus peccatis totins mundi, tam originalibus Cluam actualibus. Neque præter illam unicam est ulla alia pro peccatis expiatio. Unde missarum ;-;acrificia, quibus vulgo dicebatur, acerdotem offerre Christum in re- missioncm pænæ aut culpæ pro vivis et defunctis, blasphema figmenta sunt, et perniciosæ imposturæ. XXXI Of the o'Jw Oblation of Ch/J"Íst finished upon the C'J'oss. The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitia- tion, 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. "Therefore the sacri- fices of Iasses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests 1 did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. THE alterations which have been made in this Article since it was first put forth in 1553 are insignificant and immaterial. In 1553 the English of the title was "of the perfect oblation of Christ 'made upon the Cross"; anù in the last clause of the Article the" sacrifices of Masses" were said to be "forged fables," while" culpa" was translated "sin" instead of "guilt," and there was nothing in the Latin corresponding to the word "blas- phema," which was only introduced in 1563. The wording of the Article as a whole does not seem to be actually based on any earlier document; but some expressions in it may be traced to a draft Article pre- pared by Cranmer for the Conference of Anglicans and Lutherans in 1538, but not actually accepted by the 1 In the majority of modern editions of tIle Articles this is incorrectly printed as "priest." 687 688 THE 'fHIRTY-NINE .ARTICLES divines \vho then l11et together. This is headed "De missa privata," and in it occurs the following passage :- "Damnanda est igitur Í1npia illa opinio sentientiulll USUIn Sacra,menti cultum esse a sacerdotibus appli- candum 171'0 aliis, v(ivi et defunctis, et n1ereri illis vitanl a ternalll et 1'cntlssionCín cullJW ct pænæ idq ue ex opere operato." 1 The expressions here placed in italics reappear, it \vill be noticed, almost word for word in our own Article. Besides this, as \vill be shown presently, the general thought, if not the actual words, of the Article may be abundantly illustrated by language that had been previously used. The object of the Article is by a restaten1ent of the doctrine of the perfection of Christ's atonement to condemn current theories of the Eucharistic sacrifice which seriously conflicted \vith it, and which led to grave practical abuses. The subjects treated of in it are thus t\VO in number: 1. The sufficiency of the sacrifice of the Cross. 2. The condemnation of the" sacrifices of l\fasses." I. Tlw S(l fficicncy of tlw SaC1.ificc of tlte 01'OSS. TIle offering of Chl"ist once made is the perfect redemption, pl"opitiation, and satisfac- tion for all tIle sins of the whole viorld, both ol"iginal and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. It is clear from the position of this Article in the series, as well as from the connection of the t\VO clauses, the second of which is introduceù by wherefore, that the doctrine of the Atonement is only here introduced in order to assert 1 See Jenkyns' Orrtmncr's Rcnutin8, iv. p. 2fJ2; and cf. the Chwr('ll Qllnl'tCrly Revicw, yol. xlii. p. 39. ARTICLE XXXi 689 elnphatically the ground on \vl1Ïch the "sacrifices of J\Iasses" are condemned. This first sentence, therefore, need not detain us long. Its language, \vhich is very similar to that used in the opening of the Prayer of Consecration in the Order of the Holy Communion,! is in entire harmony \vith the teaching of the Epistle to the' Hebrews, in which special attention may be drawn to the following passages :- vii. 26, 27: "For such a high priest becanle us, holy guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the hea.vens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this Re- did once for all (lcþá7raE), when He offered up Himself." Lx. 11-14: "But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made \vith hands, that is to say, not of this creation; nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- tion. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling thenl that ha ve been defiled sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?" ix. 24-28: "Christ entered not into a holy place- made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, no\v to appear before the face of God for us: nor yet that He should offer Himself often; as the 1 "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of Thy tender mercy didst give Thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for. our redemption; who made there (hy His one oblation of Himself once- offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction,. for the sins of the whole world." 690 'rHE THIR'rY-r\INE ARTICLES high priest entereth into the holy place year by year witlJ blood not his own; else ll1USt He often have suffered since the foundation of the ,vorld: but now once (lí'1T'a ) at the end of the ages hath He been lllanifested to puL away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed unto Inen once to die, and after this cometh judglnent; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him, unto salvation." x. 10-14: "By ,vhich will we have been sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (lcþá7raE). And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: but He, when He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,! sat down on the right hand of God; frolll henceforth ex- pecting till His enemies be made the footstool of Hit; feet. For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." These passages are absolutely conclusive as to the perfection of the sacrifice once offered on Cal vary. The language of the Article is entirely covered by thpm, and exception to this first clause in it could bardly be taken by any wen-instructed Theologian. But if so much is admitted, an important consequence follows, for the words are entirely destructive of any notion that in the Eucharist there can be any sacrifice suppletory 01' additional to the sacrifice made cc once for all" on the Cross. They prove, therefore, that (to borrow the words of a most careful Theologian) " the Eucharistic sacrifice, even in its highest aspect, must be put in one line (if we may so say), not with what Christ did 011ce for all on the 1 On the punctuation of thesc words, see Bp. 'Vesteott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 314. ARTICLE XXXI 691 Cross, but \vith what He is continually doing in heaven; that as present naturally in heaven and sacramentally in the Holy Eucharist, the Lamb of God exhibits Himself to the Father and pleads the Atonement as once finished in act, but ever living in operation; that in neither case does He repeat it or add to it." 1 But since the Article is not concerned with the state- ment of the true doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice, \vhich has been called C( commemorative, impetrative, applicative," 2 the subject need not be further considered here. We may therefore pass at once to the second part of the Article. II. The Oondemnation of "the Saerifices of Masses." The sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said (vulgo dicebatur) that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blas- phemous fables, and dangerous deceits (blasphema figmenta sunt, et perniciosæ importunæ). Public attention has been recently directed to this statement, and an altogether unreasonable amount of importance has been attached to it in connection with controversies on the validity of Anglican Orders. A desperate attempt has been made in some quarters to represent it as a denial of the Eucharistic sacrifice, \vhereas the terms in which it is drawn ought to have Inade it clear to every reader that this could never have been its object. Had it been the intention of its com- pilers broadly to deny this doctrine, nothing would have been easier than for them to use words which would have conveyed their meaning without any ambiguity. 1 Bright's Ancient CoZZl'cts, p. 144. note. 2 Archbp. Bramhall, 1Vorks (Anglo-Catholic Library), vol. i. p. 54. 692 THE THIRTY..NINE ARTICLES As a matter of fact, ho\vever, it is not even "the sacrifice of the Mass" which is condemned, but the sfMrijiÆes of Masses (missarum sacrificia), and in connection \vith them a current theory (" in which it ,vas commonly said," quibus vulgo dicebatur) rather than a formal state- ment of doctrine. What those who are responsible for the Article had before them was the \vhole system of private Masses, and the" opinion JJ which gave such disastrous encourage- ment to them (besides being the fruitful parent of other superstitions), that" Christ satisfied by His Passion for original sin, and instituted the l\1ass, in which might be made an oblation for daily sins, both mortal and venia!." 1 Whether this dreadful perversion of the truth was ever authoritatively taught or seriously maintained by Theolo- gians of repute is not the question, though it has been attributed to more than one. 2 The words just cited from the Confession of Augsburg are fair evidence that the error was sufficiently \videly spread to demand notice; 3 and it alone \vill account for the emphasis 1 u Accessit opinio quæ auxit privatas nlissas in infinitum, videlicet quod Christus sua passione satisfecerit pro peccato originis, et instituerit missam, in qua fieret oblatio pro quotidianis delictis, nlortalibus et venialibus/' -Conf. Aug'ltst. Pars II. art. iii. De missa. Sylloge Oon- fessionum, p. 139. 2 E.g. a Spanish Theologian, Vasquez (1551-1604), attributes it to Catharinus, one of the Tridentine divines; and, as was pointed out in the first volume of this work, p. 149, the error is contained in a series of sermons attributed to Albertus :Magnus. It has been replied that Catharinus has been misrepresented (see the Tablet for 1895, referred to in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xlii. p. 41); and it now appears that the sermons De 8. E'lI,chåristú/3 Sacramento are not the work of Albertus 1tlagnus (see the references as above, and Vacant, Histoire de la Oonception du Sacrifice de la íesse, p. 40). The authorship, however) of the sermons Inatters little. There they are j and nothing could be plainer than their language on the subject, as quoted in vol. i. p. 149. It conveys proof positive that the error was taught; and that is sufficient. 3 Cf. Gardiner's language, which can only have been called out by existing false teaching: cc For when men add unto the .Mass an opinion ARTICLE XXXI 693 ,vhich is laid twice over 1 in the Articles on the fact that the death of Christ is the perfect satisfaction for all the sins of the whole ,yol'ld, both original and actual. The Tridentine decrees upholding private Masses, and laying do\vn that the sacrifice of the fass is "truly propitiatory (vere propitiatorium) both for the living and the dead," 2 ,vere certainly not present to the minds of of satisfaction or of a new redemption, then do they put it to another use than it was ordained for." -Dixon, vol. iii. p. 264; and cf. Latimer's Sermons, pp. 72, 73 (Parker Soc.); and the Reformatio Legu'llt Ecdesiast., De HU;'1'CS. c. 10: "Quapropter alia conquirunt sacrificia, quibus per- pm'gari possint, et ad hanc I'em missas exhibent in quibus sacrificium De() Patri credunt oblatum esse." 1 Cf. Article I I. 2 Cone. Trident. Sess. xxii. cap. ii.: On these decrees see rozley, Lect1tr s and other Theological Papas, p. 216: "The popular belief of later times exaggerated the Eucharistic sacrifice till it became, to all intents and purposes, a real one, and' the priest offered up Christ on the altar for quick and deaù, to have remission of pain and guilt'; that is to. say, offered Him up as a Victim in a sense which could not be dis- tinguished from that in which He was offered up by Himself on the Cross. It is tnle that the decree of the Council of Trent just saves itself by cautious, not to say dissembling language, from the extreme anù monstrous conclusion that the sacrifice of the 1\Iass is the same with that upon the Cross. It distinguishes between a bloody and an unbloody oblation; and it states that the fruits or consequences of the bloody oblation or the sacrifice on the Cross are' received through the unhloody one' (oblationis crucntæ fructus per hanc incruentam percipiuntur); but at the same time it asserts that the sacrifice of the Iass is a really propitiatory sacriji-ce-vere propitiatorium. Now undoubtedly there are two senses in which an act may be said to be propitiatory. The act of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross had an original propitiatory power; that is to sa;r, it was the cause of any other act, or any act of man, or any rite being propitiatory, that is, appeasing God's anger, and reconciling Him to the agent. "\,-r e may allO\v that in common language a man may do something which will reconcile God to Him, ann restore him to God's favour; but then all the power that any action of man can have for this end is a derived power, deriveù from Christ' sacrifice, from which any other sacrifice, the Eucharistic one included, borrows its virtue, and without which it would be wholly nun and void. There is, then, an original propitiation and a borrowed propitiation, a first propitiation and a secondary one. \Vhy then did the Fathers of Trent, when they had 45 694 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES those who formulated the Article, for they were not in existence, as the subject ,,,,as only considered at Trent in the autumn of 1562, nearly ten years later. And it has been recently pointed out that these decrees are (( the beginning, not the end, of a discussion which has been going on ever since," for "it is relnarkable how little attempt there is in the l\liddle Ages to formulate the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and ho\v little theological interest is spent upon it." 1 It ,vas the popular teaching alone which the Reformers had before them; and no one whð knows anything of the history of the Reformation can doubt that the gravest abuses were connected wi th the \vhole system of private 1iasses, and that its U practical outcome . . . was to intensify the belief that Christ's once perfected oblation had to be reiterated and supplemented." 2 The system had fallen, swept away by the Acts for the suppression of Chantries passed in 1545 and 1547 . It only remained to guard against any revival of the erroneous teaching on which it largely rested, and this was effectually done by the promulgation of the Article which has no\v been con- sidered. all human language at their command, deliberately choose to call the sacrifice of the Iass vere propitiatorium î They may l1ave said that it was vere propitiatoriU'rn in the secondary sense; but no one can fail to see the misleading effect of such language, and that nothing could have been easier to the divines of Trent, had they chosen, than to draw a far more clear distinction than they did between the sacrifice of the :rrlass and the sacrifice on the Cross. It is evident that, as ecclesiastical statesmen, they were afraid of interfering with the broad popular established view of the 1.lass, while, as theologians, they just contrived to secure themselves from the responsibility of a monstrous dogmatic statement." 1 F. E. Brightman in Ohurch Historical Society Lectures, Series i. pp. 193, 194. 2 Church Quarterly Review, vol. xlii. p. 45. The wbole discussion of this Article in the Review (pp. 38-49) is well worth consulting. ARTICLE De conjugio Saæ'rdot'ltm. Episcopis, Presbyteris et Dia- conis, nullo mandato divino præ- ceptum est, ut aut cælibatum voveant, aut a matrimonio abstin- eant. Licet igitllr etiam iBis, ut cæteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc ad pietatem magis facere judi- caverint, pro suo arbitratu matri- monium contrahere. XXXII Of the Marriage of Priests. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by God's law, either to vow the estate of single }ife, or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness. IN its present form this Article only dates from 1563, when it was entirely re\vritten by Parker. The corre- sponding Article in the series of 1553, as originally drafted, ran as follo\ys:- " Cælibatus ex verbo Dei jJ1'æcipiha' 'Jle1ì1,ini. "Episcopis, Presbyteris, et Diaconis non est man- datum ut cælibatum voveant, neque jure divino coguntur matrimonio abstinere, si don'll1n non habeant, tametsi v01;erint, quandoquidem hoc voti genus verbo Dei 1 4 ep'llgnat." r'?: It is found in this form in the MS. signed by the six royal chaplains; but before publication the last clause (placed above in italics), \vith its deliberate encouragement to priests to break the vows which they had taken, \vas omitted, so that the Article in English was sin1ply this: " The State of Single Life is c01nvwnded to no ltIan by the JV01'd of God. " Bishops, priests, and deacons are not comnlanded to 695 696 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES vo\v the state of single life \vithout marriage, neither by God's law are they con1pelled to abstain from n1atrimony." The language of the Article has not been traced to any earlier source, though there is a very lengthy ....4..rticle on the same subject headed like our o\vn, "De conjugio Sacerdotum," in the Confession of Augsburg; 1 and the prohibition of Inatrimony to the clergy is condemned as a suggestion of the devil in the Refo1 9 rnatío Legum Eccle- siastica1'um. 2 There are two main statements in the Article, each of \vhich requires separate treatn1ent, 1. There is no prohibition of the marriage of the clergy in Scripture. 2. It is la\vful for the clergy to Inarry if they think it advisable. I. The're is no Prohibition of the J.lfar'riage of the Cle1YlY in SCT.zptU1 9 C. Bishops, priests, and deacons are not com- manded by God's law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage. This subject admits of the briefest treatment, for the statement made in the Article \vill scarcely be denied by the most ardent advocate of the rule of clerical celibacy; nor has the Roman Church ever committed herself to the assertion that it is lnore than an ecclesiastical law. There is certainly no single passage of Holy Scripture which can be cited as containing any command to the clergy either to "YOW the. estate of single life," or to "abstain from marriage." On the contrary, the injunctions of S. Paul distinctly contemplate the ordina- tion of married men, and con tam no hint that they are 1 Confessío A ugustana, Pars II, art. ii. 2 Ref. Legu/tn Ecclesiast., De Hæres. c. 20. ARTICLE XXXII 697 expected to abstain fronl the use of luarriage: "The bishop must be \vithout reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-n1Ïnded," etc. (1 Tim. iii. 2). " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest . . . appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge: if any man is blanleless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe," etc. (Titus i. 5, 6). "Let the deacons be husbands of one \vife, ruling their children and their own houses \veIl " (1 Tim. iii. 12). So elsewhere he claims for himself "the right "-although he was content to forego the exercise of it-" to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas" (1 Cor. ix. 5). These texts are conclusive. There is plainly nothing unscrip- tural in the existence of a married clergy; and we may pass on to the consideration of the next subject. II. It is lau'.ful for the Clergy to 'JJzar'ry if they think it advisable. It is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discre- tion, as they shall judge the same to serye better to godliness. For the existence in early days of a 11larried clergy there is abundant evidence. But in considering it, t\VO distinct questions present themselves which require separate treatment. (a) "Vas the use of marriage per- nÜtted to those clergy \vho had married before their ordination? and (b) was nlarriage after ordination per- missible ? The two questions must be examined separ- ately; for it is not fair to quote, ßS is sometimes done, passages \vhich imply the existence of a married clergy, as if they necessarily involved the fact that marriage was per- mitted to those who had previously entered into holy orders. 698 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (a) There is no roon1 whatever for doubting that during the first three centuries the use of marriage was freely allo,ved, and many allusions to the existence of a married clergy ll1ight be cited. E.,r;. Clement of Alex- andria says that S. Paul certainly admits the husband of one wife," whether he be presbyter, or deacon, or lay- man, using Inarriage blamelessly"; 1 and the sixth of the "Apostolical Canons" forbid bishops, presbyters, and deacons to separate from their \vives upon the pretext of piety, on pain of excommunication and deposition. 2 In the fourth century, for the first time, ,ve find objection to this raised in the West, especially in Spain, which has throughout taken the lead in advocating strictness. Thus, at the Council of Elvira, at which Hosins was present (A.D. 306), the clergy were positively forbidden to live in wedlock ,vith their wives. 3 A canon enforcing the same prohibition ,vas pressed (not improbably by Hosius himself) on the Council of Nicæa (325) for its acceptance as a rule of the universal Church. It ,vas, however, rejected at the earnest entreaty of the Bishop Paphnutius, himself an unlnarried man, and the stricter rule bas never received the sanction of the \vhole Church. 4 In spite of this, we trace a growing feeling in various quarters against the ministrations of a married clergy. The Council of Gangra (350) endeavoured to check it by condemning those who held aloof from the ministra- tions of such. 5 But in the "\Vest the feeling made rapid progress, and before the close of the fourth cen tury 1 Nal }J..l}JI Kal TÒJl T r }J..,ar -YVJla'KÒr 11 öpa 1rdJlV å.1rOålXfTa' Ka.Jl7rpf(jßÚTfpor f1 Ka.JI Ö,áKOJlOS Ka.JI "J\a'Kòs åJlf1rt"J\1]7I"'Twr'" á}J..Cf' Xpw}J..fJlo<;.-Strornateis, III. xii. 90. 2 Apost. Can. vi.: 'E7r[(jKo7l"'or 7} 7I"'pf(jßúTfpor 7} Ö,dKoJlor T1]11 faVTOÛ 'YVJlaí'Ka }J..1} EKßa"J\"J\lTw 7I"'POrþá(jf' fù"J\aßdar. ËàJl ÔÈ ËKßá"J\"J\V, å.rþop'!ÉcrOw. Ë7I"',plJlWJl Öf, KaOatpd(jOw. 3 Cane. fllib. Can. xxxiii.; cf. Dale, Synod of Elvira, p. 197. 4 Socrates, H. E. I. c. xi.; Sozomen, H. E. I. c. xxiii. :> Canon iv. See Hefelc, Councils, vol. ii. p. 329 (Eng. tr.). ARTICLE XXXII 699 began to obtain official sanction from the Church. A Council held at Carthage, under Genethlius, in 387 or 390, commands the bishops, priests, and deacons to separate from their wives; 1 and later Councils in Spain 2 and France 3 insist upon the same rule. In the East, \vith pa.rtial exceptions, the stricter rule was never enforced. Socrates tells us that in the fifth century the custom of the Church in Greece, J.\tlacedonia, and Thessaly \vas peculiar, as those clergy who continued the use of Inarriage after ordination were degraded; \vhereas else- \vhere in the East there was no rule against this, and "there have been among them many bishops who have had children by their lawful wives during their Episco- pate." 4 In process of time this liberty was no longer conceded to bishops, but for priests and deacons it has renlained intact to the present day. The Council in Trullo (6 9 2) speaks strongly on the subject, and notes the divergence between the East and 'Vest in this matter. "As \ve know that the Roman Church has ruled that candidates for the diaconate or the presbyterate are to nlake profession that they \vill no longer live \vith their wives, we, observing the ancient canon of apostolical perfection and order, declare that the marriages of all in holy orders are to be henceforth accounted valid, and \ve refuse to forbid cohabitation, and will not deprive them of conjugal intercourse at proper times. Therefore, if a nlan is found fit to be ordained subdeacon, deacon, or priest, he is not to be refused on the ground of living with his wife. Nor at the time of ordination is anyone to be required to profess that he will abstain from inter- 1 Canon iÏ. Hefele, Ope cit. p. 390. 2 I. Toledo (Canon i.) in 400, Hefele, p. 419; and IX. Toledo (Canon x.) in 655, Hefele, iv. p. 473. · 3 II. Arles (Canon xliv.) in 452, and I. 1tlâcon (Canon xi.), Hcfele, p. 404. 4 Socrates, H. E. V. c. xxii. 700 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES course with his la,vful wife; lest \ve thus do dishonour to marriage, which was instituted by God and blessed by His presence. . . . If, then, anyone, in despite of the apostolic canons, be induced to forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to live with their lawful wives and hold in tercourse with them, let him be deposed. And like- wise, if any priest or deacon disn1Ìsses his wife on the pretext of piety, let him be excommunicated; and if he be obstinate, let him be deposed." 1 The present custonl in the East is for bishops to be always selected from the ranks of the monks and unmarried clergy. But to others, both priests and deacons, Dlarriage before ordina- tion is freely conceded. (b) With regard to the second question raised above, Was marriage after ordination regarded as permissible in the early Church? it nlust be candidly admitted that there is very little evidence for an answer in the affirma- tive, and that the prohibition of marriage to the clergy appears in very early days. The fierce attack of Hip- polytus upon Callistus (c. 220) shows that early in the third century it \vas not usual to permit those already ordained to nlarry; for Hippolytus says that Callistus deternlined that" if anyone of the clergy should marry, he might remain in the clergy as not having sinned," evidently Ï1nplying that it \vas the first time that such a thing had been allowed. 2 The apostolical canons permit marriage only to readers and singers. 3 The Council of Ancyra (314) allo\vs deacons to lnarry, provided that they had given notice of their intention to do so at the time of their ordination. 4 That of N eo-Cæsarea provides that" if a priest marry, he shall be removed from the 1 Canon xiii. See Hefele, vol. v. p. 226. :! See Wordsworth's H'ippolyt'lls, p. 91. 3 Canon xxv. See Hefele, vol. i. p. 468. 4 Canon x. See Hefele, vol. i. p. 210. ARTICLE XXXII 701 ranks of the clergy"; 1 and the rule of the Roman Synod under Innocent (402) is absolute: "Bishops, priests, and deacons must remain unmarried." 2 In spite, however, of these canons, and of the gro\v- ing feeling against the ministrations of a n1arried clergy, a strict rule of clerical celibacy \vas found very difficult of enforcement, and in the eleventh century married clergy were still comn1on. Gregory VII. set his face vigorously against then1, and under his influence more stringent rules than ever were made. At a Synod held in Rome in 1074 he passed a decree \vhich "in its inexorable provisions went beyond the sternest of his predecessors," absolutely forbidding the laity to avail themselves of the ministrations of n1arried priests. s The rigour of Gregory's rule ,vas some\vhat mitigated in England by the good sense of Lanfranc, as the Council of Winchester (1076), \vhile absolutely forbidding mar- riage to the capitular clergy, ordered that the 11larried priests who were scattered up and down the country in towns and villages should not be compelled to dismiss their wives, though for the future no married men were to be ordained. 4 A fe\v years later, under Anselrn, a stricter law was franled at the Council of "\Vestminster (1102), and an absolute rule of celibacy "became for the first time the universalla\v of the English Church." 5 But it \yas one thing to frame rules on this subject and quite another to enforce thenl, and there is much I Canon i. See Hefele, vol. i. p. 223. 2 Canon iii. See Hefele, vol. ii. p. 429. 3 :Milman, Latin Christianity, vol. iv. p. 31: "Uxoratos sacerdotes a divino officio removit, et laic is missam eorum audire interdixit, nO'l:o exemplo, et (ut multis visum est) inconsiderato prejudicio contra sanc- torum patrum sententiam," etc. Sigeberht (F'ertz, vol. vi. p. 362). 4 'Vilkins' Concilia, vol. i. p. 367; cf. Freeman's NOT1nan CO/lqtlest, vol. iv. p. 423. ð Freeman, vol. v. p. 223 ; and see ",Yilkins' Concilia, vo1. i. p. 382. 702 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES painful evidence that" the newly-devised rigour only led to laxity of a "\vorse kind than any which it was intended to stop." 1 Clerical concubinage was only too common, and was often secretly pern1Ïtted by ecclesiastical authority.2 ..A.nd the evil results of the stringent rules ,vere so patent tbat in the sixteenth century Reformers of various schools of thought "\vere all agreed on the necessity for some relaxation of them; and even before any alteration had been made in the law on the subject, clerical marriages were by no means uncommon. 3 Thus Cranmer himself, whose first wife had died before his ordination in 1523, contracted a second marriage in 1532, very shortly before his elevation to the Archi- episcopate. It is impossible to defend such an act on his part, since at this time there had been no relaxation luade by the ecclesiastical authorities in the la"\v of the national Church; and naturally Cranmer was involved in considerable difficulties by his act. In 1539 Con- vocation, in answer to questions submitteù by Crom'\vell, asserted that "priests, after the order of priestbood received, as afore, 111ay not marry by the law of God," 4 and the staten1ent "\vas embodied in the statute of the Six Articles (" the whip "\vitb six strings") of the sa1l1e year. The "Bishops' Book" of 1537 had passed over the subject in silence; but in the "King's Book" of 1543 it ,vas stated that the estate of matrimony" is not com- manded as necessary to any particular man, but left at liberty to all men, saving priests, and to others, which of their free liberty, by Vo\V advisedly made, have chosen the state of continency, "vho, according to their free 1 Freeman, 'ltbi S1tprCt. 2 See the horrible story told by Gascoygne in the fifteenth century, Liber Veritatis, p. 35 (ed. Rogers). 3 See Strype's Cranmer, Bk. I. c. xviii. 4 \Yilkins, vol. iü. p. 845 ; cf. Dixon, ii. p. 133. ARTICLE XXXII 703 choice, must freely and \villingly continue in the same." 1 Shortly afterwards, however, a change \vas made in the law on this matter. In 1547, soon after the accession of Echvard VI., a large majority of the Convocation agreed to the following: "That all such canons, laws, statutes, decrees, usages, and customs, heretofore made, bad or used, that forbid any person to contract matrinlony, or condemn matrimony already contracted by any person, for any Vo\V or pronlÎse of priesthood, chastity, or wido\v- hood, shall from henceforth cease, be utterly void, and of none effect." 2 At the same time the statute of the Six Articles was repealed. Two years later, in 1549, any doubts as to the legality of the marriage of the clergy were set at rest by an Act of Parliament \vhich repealed all the positive la\ys and canons \vhich stood against it, and deelared all to be free to marry, provided that it was aceording to the rites of the ne\v Prayer Book; 3 and in 1553, and again in 1563, the decision of the Church as to the freedom of the clergy to marry \vas eInbodied in the series of Articles. There is no need to pursue the subjeet further. 4 It is quite clear froln \vhat has been said above that there is no la\v of God \vhich forbids the luarriage of the clergy. Any prohibition of their right to marry \vhich may be cited (and it has been sho\vn that such can be quoted from conlparatively early da rs) is merely a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, and belongs to those "traditions of the Church" \vhieh "may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word" (Art. XXXIV.). The experience of several 1 Fo-nn'ltla-ricB of Faith, p. 293. :: Strype's Cranmer, Bk. II. c. iv. :; 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 21; cf. Dixon, vo1. iii. p. 6 Beq. Mention may be made of Elizabeth's "Injunctions" of 1559, which require the clergy to obtain the bishop's permission before marriage.- CardweIl's Docwnentary Annals, vol. i. p. 224. 704 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES centuries had shown to our Refornlers the grave evils that flowed from the rigid rule \vhich had been customary; and they were perfectly justified in holding that the national Church was competent to settle the nlatter for herself, and that she \vas well within her rights in altering her rule.! 1 It may be added that the subject was considered at Trent in the twenty-fourth session (November 1563), when the fonowing canon was l)assed: "Si quis dixerit Clericos in sacris ordinihus constitutos, vel Regulares, castitatem solemniter professos, posse matrimonium contrahere, contractunlque validunl esse, non obstante lege Ecclesiastica, vel voto, et oppositum nil alind esse, q lam damnare nlatrimonium, posseque orones contrahere matrimonium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, etiam si earn voverint, habere donum, anathema sit: cunl Deus id recte petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos supra id, quod possumus, tentari."-Oonc. 'lTrid. Sess. xxiv. c. ix. According to this, anyone who says that the clergy in holy orders can marry is to be anathema. This makes it very difficult for Rome ever to review her position, or for Ronlan ecclesiastics to hold any opinion favourable to a relaxation of their existing rule. See the Church Historical Lcct'ltrcs, Series i. p. 68. ARTICLE XXXIII Dc excomrnu:nicatis Vitandis. Qui per pllblicam Ecclesiæ de. nunciationem rite ab unitate Ec- clesiæ præcisus est et excommuni- catus, is ab universa fidelium mnltitudine, donee per pæniten- tiam publice reconciliatus fuerit, arbitrio judicis cornpetentis, haben- dus est tanquam EtImicus et Publicanus. Of eæc01nmunicate Person8, how they are to be avoided. That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an heathen and publican, until he be openly reconciled unto the Church by a judge that hath authority thereto. EXCEPT for a slight alteration in the form of the title,1 there has been no change in this Article since it was first published in 1553. There is nothing to suggest this Article in the Confession of Augsburg, and though the Rcforrnatio Legu'In Ecclesiasticaru'fn contains a long section of sixteen chapters-" De Excommullicatione"- there is nothing in it corresponding to the language of the Article before us, and its provisions are only of historical interest, as they never obtained any legal force. The object of the Article is to assert the right of the Chureh to exercise discipline, and to exclude unworthy members from the body. Such a right is inherent in a visible society such as the Church clainls to be. Indeed the very notion of a definite society, with its rules and officers, implies the existence of a 1 Excommunicati vitandi sunt. Excommunicate persons are to be avoided. 1553 and 1563. 705 706 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES power to decide upon the terms of Dlembership, and to expel disloyal and Ílnproper persons. This po\ver \ve find was exercised by the Jewish Church. It is fore- shadowed ill the words used when first circumcision is established as the sign of the covenant: "The un- circu1l1cised man-child . . . shall be cut off fronl his people; he hath broken fy covenant" (Gen. xvii. 14). The same threat is repeated in connection with the command to observe the Sabbath in Ex. xxxi. 14, and there is coupled with a command to inflict capital punishment on the transgressor. 1 As might be expected, a more definite reference to something like a fornlal sentence of excommunication is found after the return from the Captivity, when Ezra lllade proclamation" that whosoever would not COllle within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and elders, all his substance should be forfeited (c"}q , àVaeEJ.LaTtUe Uf.Tat), and hinl- self separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away" (Ezra x. 8). And from this tinle oll\vards exclusion from the congregation (ÈKJCÀ'1}ULa) took its place among the Jews as a recognised method .of enforcing discipline. As such it is frequently referred to in the New Testament. See S. Luke vi. 22 (àcþOptUWULV vfLâ ); s. John ix. 22 (à7rouvvá'Yw'Yo 7ÉV7JTat), xii. 42, xvi. 2. 2 And that our Lord intended 1 See also Ex. xii. 15, 19, xxx. 33, 38 ; Lev. vii. 20, etc. Its proper "1nealling, according to Delitzsch, is the" being snatched away by dirf'ct Divinejudgment" (New Com'l'Mntary on Genesis, vol. ii. }).36). Temporary .exclusion from the congregation was, however, definitely ordered by the law in certain cases, e.g. in the ca8 of 1t1iriam, Num. xii. 14, 15, fUþOpLU- 8f]TW t w Tf] 7rapfp..ßo"J\f] , and in the case of the leper, Lev. xiii. 5 seq. ( à4JOpLå). 2 It is generally stated that there were three stages of Jewish excom- munication (to which our Lord's worùs, ò.4JOplUWULV, òVfLÒí.UWULV, iK- ßá"J\.WULV, in S. Luke vi. 22, are thought to correspond), viz. ' ':J , separa- tion; z:r1iJ, or åvá8fp.a, a severer sentence, involving additional penalties .anù accompanied by a solemn malediction; and N1;1 ;i, an entire cutting off ARTICLE XXXIII 707 that such a po\ver should be exercised by the Church \yhich He came to found is sho\vn by the very definite \vords \vhich He Himself used in speaking of the erring brother, when He gave to His Church the po\ver of binding and loosing. "If thy brother sin against thee, go show him his fault bet,veen thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or t\VO more, that at the mouth of two \vitnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear then1, tell it unto the Church: and if he refuse to hear the Church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican" (S. l\Iatt. xviii. 15-17). This is the great passage on \vhich the Church has always based her claim to exercise such discipline; and in close accordance with its terms she has always held that the sentence should not be inflicted \vithout \varning, and that the effect of private expostulation 111 ust first be tried. Passing from the Gospels to the Epistles, we find various allusions to the existence of the po\ver of excommunication in the Church, and two clear eases of the exercise of the po\ver by the Apostle Paul. The first of these is that of the incestuous man at Corinth. In regard to him S. Paul writes as follo\vs: "Y e are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed n1ight be taken a\vay from among you. For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged hinl from the congregation. Schiirer, however, shows that this is a mistake, and that Ni;1 and '1':t are really synonymous, so that in {'eality only two kinds can be distinguished, '1,:] or temporary exclusion, and the t:liJ or permanent ban (dválhp.a). The Jewish People in the Time ()f Oh7 o ist, Div. II. yolo ii. p. 60. 708 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, . . . to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord J esus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the \vhole lump 1 Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened" (1 Cor. v. 2-7). The \vhole passage is especially instructive. It not only sho\vs us the infliction of a solemn judicial sentence of exclusion from the body of the faithful (the phrase" to deliver to Satan" is eXplained below), but it further explains the reasons for it. It ,vas inflicted partly for the sake of the faithful generally, to save the body from the danger of the evil influence spreading further,! partly also for the sake of the individual, that the temporal judgments inflicted upon him might bring him to a better mind, and so "the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is generally thought to contain the conclusion of the history. The offender \vas over- whelmed with sorrow, and brought to a true repentance. Accordingly S. Paul pronounces his punishment" suffi- cient," and writes to the Corinthians to "forgive him and cOlllfort hinl, lest by any means such a 011e should be s\vallowed up \vith his overmuch sorrow," adding these words: "To \vhom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the person of Christ" (2 Cor. ii. 5-11).2 1 Godct, however, denies altogether that verso 6-8 bear on the subject of the incestuous man. Comment. in loc., and see Ellicott, in loco 2 It ought to be said that some writers hold that this passage refers to the case of an entirely different person from fhe man spoken of ill 1 Cor. V. See Godet, C01nmentary on 1 Corinthians, vol. i. p. 259. ARTICLE XXXIII 709 The other case of formal excommunication by S. Paul is that of Hymenæus and Alexander, who had" made shipwreck concerning the faith JJ; "whom," says the Apostle, "I delivered unto Satan, that they might be ta.ught not to blaspheme" (1 Tim. i. 19, 20).1 It will be noticed that in both these cases the same expression is employed-" to deliver to Satan." It has been doubted whether (1) this denotes simple excom- munication, regarded as the reversal of that translation from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God, which had taken place when the persons referred to had been admitted into the Church, or whether (2) something more is implied, as the authoritative infliction of bodily disease or death. On the whole, remembering the language used else\vhere by S. Paul on the po\ver of darkness which \vorketh in the children of disobedienee,2 there seems to be no suffieient reason to think that any- thing more than the penalty of excommunication is intended. 3 But, however this may be, the later Chureh never ventured to adopt the formula in inflieting her sentences.4: Although these are the only two cases of actual excommunication mentioned in the New Testament, there are several apostolic precepts which bear directly upon the subject, and furnish ample warrant for the exercise of the power by the Church in later ages. Of these the most important are the following:- 1 If the Hymenæus who taught that the resurrection was already passed (2 Tim. ii. 17," 18) be the same person, we should gather that in his case the sentence failed to bring him to repentance. 2 See especially Co1. i. 12, 13; Eph. ii. 1-6, vi. 12; Acts xxvi. 18. 3 It is possible, however, that such powers as those exercised by the Apostles on Ananias and Sapphira (Arts v. 1 seq.) and Elymas (xiii. 10) may be referred to. 4 See Bingham, Antiquities, llk. xvi. c. ii.; and for patristic comments on the phrase, cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. aTaJlâ!;. 4 6 710 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Rom. xvi. 17: " fark them which are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned; and turn away from them." 2 Thess. iü. 14: "If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed." Titus iü. 10: "A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse; kno\ving that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned." 2 John 10: "If anyone cometh un to you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive hiIn not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works." 1 To these should be added the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians in which S. Paul says of anyone, whether angel or man, who should preach another gospel, "let him be accursed" (àváÐEJ.La f(jTCrJ) , Gal. i. 8, 9; and 1 Cor. xvi. 22: "If any nlan love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathenla. Maranatha "; for though the phrase refers to spiritual condition rather than to ecclesiastical censure, yet it certainly suggested the later ecclesiastical sense in which the word lueant " excommunicated." 2 With, then, the very definite command of her Lord before her, and guided by the practice and injunctions of the Apostle, it is no wonder that the Christian Church from the first felt it fight to exclude unworthy nlenlbers from Communion, and that gradually there grew up a method of formal excommunication, with an elaborate system of penitential di8'3ipline to be undergone before the excommunicated person could be restored to the peace of the Church. The well-known stories of S. 1 It may be added that 3 John 10 possibly implies a power of excom- munication, which was wrongly used by Diotrephes. 2 See Lightfoot, Epistle to the Galatians, p. 77. ARTICLE XXXIII 711 John fleeing from the bath when the heretic Cerinthus entered, \vith the exclamation that he feared lest the bath might fall in when Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, was within, and of Polycarp refusing to acknow- ledge ßfarcion except as " the first-born of Satan," testify to a determination to hold no communion with heretics. l In the third century S. Cyprian speaks expressly of those who were guilty of heinous sins being forbidden Communion, and separated from the body of Christ; 2 and the troubles which arose in connection ,vith those who had lapsed during the Decian persecution brought the whole subject prominently before the Church, and compelled her to consider carefully the terms on ,vhich readmission to Church privileges might be granted. Pillther later than this we come across indications of the division of penitents into distinct classes, with a separate discipline for each; 3 and though the particular system has varied from time to time, being administered some- times publicly,4 sometimes privately,5 the Church has, through all changes, claimed the right to decide on her 1 Both stories are told in Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. iii. 2 De Oratione Dominica, c. xviii. 3 Thus the Councils of Neo-Cæsarea (A.D. 314) and Ancyra (314) refer to the ßaOp.ol of penance as if they were well known, and allude to the stages by name (see Neo-Cæs. 5, Ancyr. 4, etc.). The four stages, accord- ing to the complete system, which was, however, seldom enforced, are these - (I) Mourners, flentes, 7f'po(jK'Xa.loVíES; (2) hearers, audúntes, dKpOWjJ.EJlOL; (3) kneelers, 8ubstrati, V7f'07f'l7f'TOJlTES; (4) bystanders, con- sistentes, uVJ!urra.}JlJlOL. See the article "Penitence" in the Dictionary of Ohristian AntÜJ'ltities, vol. ii. p. 1591 seg., with the references there given. .a Thus from the time of the N ovatian schism until the days of Nectarius, 391, there was at Byzantium a public officer termed the Penitentiary, whose duty it was to determi o what offences excluded from Holy Communion, and what crimes were too scandalous for public acknowledgment. See Socrates, H. E. V. xix., and Sozomen, VII. xvi. :5 On the decline of public penance, and the introduction of the "Penitentials," see Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 1596. 712 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES terms of Communion, to reject the unworthy, and exclude them from fellowship, and also, on their repent- ance, to admit them once more and remove the sentence. l There is no need here to give the history of the penitential discipline of the Church, and of the various changes through which it passed. 2 It will be sufficient to notice how the claim to exercise it \yas preserved and reasserted in the Church of England in the sixteenth century. We have already seen how the right use of ecclesiastical discipline was generally mentioned among the notes of the Church in the various descriptions and definitions of it that were drawn Up.3 Very clear is the statement of the Catechism which was issued with the Articles in 1553, and which gives as the last of the marks of the Church "brotherly correc- tion and excommunication, or banishing those out of the Church that will not amend their lives. This mark the holy Fathers termed discipline." 4 Equally clear is the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer. Excommunications are to be publicly read out in church after the Nicene Creed. 5 The Office for the Burial of the Dead is not to be used for those that die excommunicate; 6 and precise rules are laid down direct- 1 For the medieval forms of pronouncing excommunication and of reconcilia.tion, see Martene, De Antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus, Lib. III. c. iv. v. 2 Reference may be made to the great work of l\Iorinns, De Disciplina in Administr. Sacram. Pænit.; Bingham's Antiquities, Bks. xvi. and xvii.; Marshall's Penitential Discipline,. as well as to the Dictionary of Christian Antiq'u,ities, arts. "Excommunication" and" Penitence." 3 See above, pp. 495, 496. 4 See Litltrgies of Edward VL (Parker Society) p. 513. ð "Briefs, Citations, and Excommunications read." Rubric after the Nicene Creed, dating from 1662. 6 " Here is to be noted that the Office ensuing is not to be used for any tha.t die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves. U Rubric before the order for the Burial of the DeaJ. Although this rubric was only inserted in 1662, it simply embodies the ARTICLE XXXIII 713 ing the curate to refuse to admit to Communion any "notorious evil liver," as well as" those betwLxt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign." These " disciplinary rubrics" ha ve stood before the Order of Holy Communion since 1549, \vith the exception of the final clause in the latter of them, which was only added at the last revision in 1662: "Provided that every nlinister so repelling any, as is specified in this or the next preceding paragraph of this rubric, shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the Ordinary within fourteen days after at the furthest. And the Ordinary shall proceed against the offending person according to the canon." The canon here referred to is the 1 0 9 th of the series of 1604: " Notorious crlDles and scandals to be certified in to Ecclesiastical Courts by presentment." Nor is this the only canon in the series \vhich bears upon the subject before us. A large number of others speak of excommunication as due to (1) impugners of the laws relating to the Church; 1 (2) schismatics; 2 and (3) offenders generally against religion, morality, and good order in church. s The sixty-fifth requires "ministers solemnly to denounce recusants and excommunicates"; and the sixty-eighth prohibits the clergy from refusing to use the Burial Office, "except the party deceased were denounced excommunicated, majori ex.co'lnmunicatione, for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to testify of his repentance." Thus this canon explicitly recognises the distinction, \vhich has come do\vn froDl comparatively early days, bet\veen two kinds of excom- munication. What is called the lesse'l'l excommunication deprives the offender of the use of sacranlents and ancient rule of the Church. Cf. the Council of Braga (563), Canons xv. xvi. xvii. See Hefele, vol. iv. p. 385. 1 Canons ii.-viii. 2 Canons ix.-xii. 3 Canon cix. 714 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Divine worship. It is inflicted by a formal sentence passed by judges ecclesiastical on such persons as are guilty of obstinacy or disobedience in not appearing upon a citation, or not submitting to penance or other injunction of the Court. By the g?eater exco1ìt?n1lnication, inflicted for graver offences against morality and faith, the offender is not only deprived of the use of the sacraments and benefits of Divine offices, but is further excluded from the society of the faithful. And it is clearly to this that the Article before us is referring, for it says that the excommunicated person ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an heathen and publican. Such was and still remains the law of the Church; but the civil pains and penalties involved in excommunication, which rendered it so formidable a weapon, not only before but also after the Reformation, have been almost entirely extinguished. Matrimonial and other partly civil matters have been withdrawn fronl the Ecclesiastical Courts, and by Act of Parliament a summary process of signification for con- tempt of Court has been substituted for excoIDrllunication as a means of enforcing civil processes. But the Act which thus abolishes civil penalties attaching to excom- 111unication says definitely that "nothing in this Act contained shall prevent any Ecclesiastical Court from pronouncing or declaring persons to be excommunicate in definitive sentences, or in interlocutory decrees having the force and effect of definitive sentences, such sentences and decrees being pronounced as spiritual censures for offences of ecclesiastical cùgnisance in the same Inanl1er as such Court might la\yfully have pronounced or declared the san1e had this Act not been passed." 1 Thus the right of the Church to pronounce through her 1 53 George III. c. 127; and on the whole subject, so far as legal questions are concerned, see Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law, p. 141i seq. ARTICLE XXXIII 715 proper courts and officers sentences of spiritual censure remains unimpaired, and though her disciplinary powers over the laity are but seldom exercised, yet circum- stances may easily render a revival of them an absolute necessity. There is probably no desire on the part of anyone that the legal consequences of excommunication should be revived, - it was largely owing to the disastrous confusion between things spiritual and secular that excommunication fell into such discredit,-but the restoration of something corresponding to the godly discipline of the primitive Church is, as we are reminded by the Commination Service every year, a thing that is "much to be \vished." ARTICLE XXXIV De traditionibus Ecclesiasticis. 1 Traditiones atque cæremonias eas- dem, non om nino necessarium est esse ubique aut prorsus consimiles. Nam et variæ semper fuernnt, et mutari possunt, pro regionum, tern- porum, et mOl'um diversitate, modo nihil contra verbum Dei illstituatur. Traditiones et cæremonias ecclesi- asticas q uæ cum verbo Dei non pugnant, et sunt autoritate publica institutæ atque probatæ, quisquis privato consilio volens et data opera publice violaverit, is, ut qui peccat in publicum ordinem ecclesiæ, qui- que lædit autoritatem magistratus, et qui infirmorum fratrum consci- entias vulnerat, publice, ut cæteri timeant, arguendus est. Quælibet ecclesia particularis, sive nationalis, autoritatem habet insti- tuenùi, mutandi, aut abrogalldi cæ- remonias aut ritus ecclesiasticos, humana tantum autoritate insti- tutos, modo omnia ad ædificationem fiant. Of the Traditions of the Church. It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's man- ners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word. Whosoever through his private judgment, will- ingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repug- nant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that other may fear to do the like), as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak breth- ren. 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. THE last paragraph of this Article (" Every particular or national Church," etc.) was added in 1563, as was also the single word "times" in tbe first sentence. "\Vith 1 "Traditiones Ecclesiasticæ," 1553 and 1563. 716 ARTICLE XXXIV 717 these exceptions, it has remained unaltered since its first issue in 1553. Its language may be traced to a con- siderable extent to the fifth of the Thirteen Articles of 1538, in which we find the following paragraphs:- "Traditiones vero, et ritus, atque ceremoniæ, quæ vel aJ decorem vel ordinem vel disciplinam Ecclesiæ ab hominibus sunt institutæ, non om nino necesse est ut eædem sint ubique aut prorsus similes. Hoc enim et variæ fuere, et variari possunt pro regionum et morum diversitate, ubi decus, or do, et utilitas Ecclesiæ videbuntur postulare: "Hæ enim et variæ fuere, et variari possunt pro regionum et morunl diversitate, ubi decus decensque ordo principibus rectoribusque region urn videbuntur postulare ; ita tamen ut nihil varietur aut instituatur contra verbum Dei nlanifestum." 1 The clause added in 1563 seems to have been taken from a Latin series of t'wenty-four Articles, apparently drawn up by Parker in 1559; but "whether, from motives of prudence, or from inability to gain the sanction of the Crown,"2 not circulated among the clergy. In this document we are told that" quævis ecclesia par- ticularis authoritatem instituendi, mutandi et abrogandi ceremonias et ritus ecclesiasticos habet, nlodo ad decorem, ordinem et ædificationem fiat."s The rnain object of this Article is, as against the Romanists, to assert the right of the Church of England to Dlake such changes as were carried out in her" tra- ditions and ceremonies" in the sixteenth century; and a further object is to insist upon the duty of loyalty on the part of all members of the Church to those traditions 1 See Hardwick, p. 264. ,,; e may be thankful tha.t the cha.racter- istically Erastian reference to "princes and the rulers of countries" was not adopted in the Anglican form ulary. 2 Hardwick, p. 118. 3 See Strype, Annals, i. p. 216. 718 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES and cereillonies \vhich were ordained and approved by common authority. This was rendered necessary, not only by the entire rejection of all authority by the Ana- baptists, but by the way in \vhich some among the English clergy, who were very far from sympathising doctrinally with these fanatics, were prepared to take the law into their own hands, and discard such ceremonies as they disapproved of. l These men were the ecclesi- astical ancestors of the" Nonconformists" of Elizabeth's reign-nlen \vho \vould not secede, and \vho denounced the" separatists," but claimed to set at defiance the laws and regulations of the Church in which they ministered 2 There are three principal positions maintained in the Article- 1. There is no need for traditions and ceremonies to be every\vhere alike. 2. Those persons are deserving of censure who break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which are ordained by common authority. 3. Every particular or national Church is competent to arrange her own ceremonies and rites. Of these the first and third statements have been already considered in connection with Article XX., and it \vill be sufficient to refer the reader to what was there said. Nor does the second appear to require any lengthy proof. The position of the Church of England with regard to "ceremonies, why some be abolished and sonle 1 Of these men Hooper was the leader. His objection to the Episcopal habit, and the difficulty about }is consecration in consequence, is well known (see Dixon, vol. iii. p. 213 3cq.); and it must be owned that con. siderable encouragement was given to this party by Ridley's utterly illegal onslaught upon" altars" in 1550. See Dixon, vol. iii. p. 200 scq. 2 In the Lower House of Convocation a vigorous attempt was made in 1563 to have the terms of this Article softened in the interests of the Puritans, and the attempt only narrowly escaped being su cessful. See Strype, Annals, i. p. 335 seq. ARTICLE XXXIV 719 retained," is clearly stated in the section with thÜ heading at the beginning of the Book of Common Prayer (dating from 1549). In this ,ve read that" although the keeping or omitting of a ceremony, in itself con- sidered, is but a small thing, yet the wilful and con- temptuous transgression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small offence before God. Let all things be done a1nong YO'll, saith Saint Paul, in a seemly and due order: the appointment of the which order per- taineth not to private men; therefore no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter any publick or common order in Christ's Church, except he be law- fully called and authorised thereunto." It is obvious that unless such a position as this is conceded, nothing can result except confusion and dis- order. No better example of this can be given than the extraordinary state of things which existed in Elizabeth's reign before the vigorous efforts of Parker, and subse- quently of Whitgift, had succeeded in enforcing a certain degree of order and conformity to law. l Naturally this 1 See the contemporary Paper prepared for Cecil in 1564, now among the Lansdowne :MSS., vol. viii. art. 7: "V arietees in ye service, and ye administracion used." c c Se'1' "Íce and P1-aY"S.-Some say ye service and prayrs in ye chauncell, others in ye body of ye church, some say ye same in a seate made in ye church; some in ye Pulpitt, w th yr faces to ye people. C C Some kepe precysly ye order of ye booke, oth rs intermeddle Psal. in meter. "Some say w th a surpless, others wthout a surplesse. U Table.-The Table standeth in ye body of ye church in some places, in others hit standeth in ye chauncell. " In some places the Table standeth Alterlyke distant from ye waIle a yarde, in some others in ye miùdest of ye chaullcell north and south. "In some places the Table ys joyned, in others hit standeth UppOll Trestells. "In some ye Table hath a carpett, in others hit hath none. cc Administration of ye Co[mmvn ]ion.-Some w th surpless and copes, some with surpless alone, others with none. 720 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Thirty-fourth Article was not much to the mind of the Nonconforming party, although they were able to evade its force, and to reconcile their conscience to the act of subscription to it by pleading that everything which they disliked was " repugnant to the \vord of God." 1 This is not the place to enter in to the history of the controversy, which is really chiefly important because it was the occasion of Hooker's magnificent work. Nor does it appear necessary to say n10re here than to remind the reader of the four propositions which Hooker claims to bave granted" concerning matters of outward form in the exercise of true religion." " (1) In the external forn1 of religion such things as are apparently or can be sufficiently proved, effectual and generally fit to set forward godliness, either as betoken- ing the greatness of God, or as beseeming the dignity of religion, or as concurring with celestial impressions in the minds of men, may be reverently thought of; some few, rare, casual and tolerable, or otherwise curable, inconveniences notwithstanding. "(2) In things the fitness whereof is not of itself apparent, nor easy to be made sufficiently manifest unto all, yet the judgment of antiquity concurring \vith that which is received may induce them to think it not unfit "Some w th chalice, some w th a Co[mmun]ion Cuppe, others w th a como[n] Cuppe. " Some w th unlevened Bread, some w th leavened. " Receaving.-Some receave knelillg, others standing, others sytting. "Baptising.-SOlue baptise in a fount, some in a Bason. e'Some signed w th ye signe of ye Crosse, others not signed. "Some minister in a surpless, others without. "Apparell.-Some with a square Cappe, some with a round Cappo Some w th a Button Cappe, some w th a Hatte. "Some in Schol rs Clooke, some in others." The document is printed in full in Parker's Postscript to a Lettcr to Lord Selborne, p. 148. 1 See Hardwiek, Articlcs, p. 110. ARTICLE XXXIV 721 who are not able to allege any known weighty incon- venience 'v hich it hath, or to take any strong objection against it. "(3) 'Vhere neither the evidence of any la\v Dime, nor the strength of any invincible argument otherwise found out by the light of reason) nor any notable public incon- venience, doth make against that which our own laws ecclesiastical have although but newly instituted for the ordering of these affairs, the very authority of the Church itself, at least in such cases, may give so much credit to her laws, as to make their sentence touching fitness and conveniency weightier than any bare and naked conceit to the contrary; especially in them who can owe no les8 than childlike obedience to her that hath more than motherly po\ver. "( 4) In cases of necessity, or for common utility's sake, certain profitable ordinances some time may be released, rather than all men always be strictly bound to the general rigour thereof."! These propositions, Hooker fairly claims, are" such as no man of moderate judgment hath cause to think unjust or unreasonable"; and if they be admitted, they appear to be fully sufficient to establish the position taken up in the Article before us. 1 Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V. c. vÍ.-ix. ARTICLE De Homüiis. Tomus secundus Homilianlm, quarum singulos tihùos huic Articulo subjunximus, continet piam et salutarem doctrinam, et his temporibus l1ecessariam, non minus quam prior Tomus Homili- arum quæ editæ sunt tempore Edwardi sexti. ltaque eas in ecclesiis per ministros di1igenter et clare, ut a populo intelligi possint, recitandas esse judicamus. Catalog'ltS H 07nüiarum. De recto ecclesiæ usu. Adversus Idolatriæ pericula. De reparandis ac purgandis ecclesiis. De bonis operibus. De jejunio. In gulæ atque ebrictatis vitia. In nimis sumptuosis vestium apparatus. De oratione sive precatione. De loco et tempore orationi destin- atis. De publicis precibus ac Sacramentis, idiomate vulgari omnibusque noto, habendis. De sacrosancta verbi divini autori- tate. De eleemosina. De Christi N ativitate. De dominica passione. De resurrectione Domini. xxxv Of Homilies. The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth: and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the ministers di1i- gently and distinctly, that they may be understanded by the people. Of the Na'1Ms qf the Homüies. 1. Of the right use of the Church. 2. Against peril of Idolatry. 3. Of repairing and keeping clean of ChurcheR. 4. Of good works, first of fasting. 5. Against gluttony and drunken- ness. 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 almsdoing. 12. Of the Nativity of Christ. 13. Of the Passion of Christ. 14. Of the Resurrection of Christ. 722 ARTICLE XXXV De digna corporis et sanguinis dominici in cæna Domini par. ticipatione. De donis Spiritus Sallcti. In diebus, qui yulgo Rogationum dicti sunt, concio. De matrimonii statu. De otio sen socordia. De pænitentia. 723 15. Of the worthy receiyillg of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. 16. Of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. 17. For the Rogation Days. 18. Of the state of matrimony. 19. Of repentance. 20. Against idleness. 21. Against rebellion. SLIGHT verbal alterations of no importance \vere intro- duced into the English of this Article in 1571, when the mention of the twenty-first Homily "Against rebellion" (which had only just been issued), was added. But except for these the Article dates from 1563. The corresponding Article in the series of Edward's reign, of course, only referred to the first book, and without giving a list of them, merely stated that U The Homilies of late given, and set out by the King's authority, be godly and wholesome, containing doctrine to be received of all men, and therefore are to be read to the people diligently, distinctly, and plainly." In considering this Article it will be well to consider separately- 1. The history of the Homilies. 2. The nature of the assent demanded to them. I. The History of the Hornilies. The earliest mention of the Homilies is in 1542, ,,-hen a certain number of them were introduced in Convocation with the design of having them promulgated and set forth by authority.! The design miscarried, and we hear nothing more of them until after the death of Henry VIII. But in the first year of Ed\vard VI. the schen1e was taken up again, and what is now known as 1 Strype's Cranmer, Bk. II. c. iii. 724 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES the first Book of the Homilies was printed and authorised by Royal authority, being ordered to be read in churches every Sunday after High Mass. The book contained twelve Homilies, with the follo\ying titles:- (1) A fruitful Exhortation to the Reading of Holy Scripture. (2) Of the Misery of all Mankind. (3) Of the Salvation of all J\lankind. (4) Of the True and Lively Faith. (5) Of Good Works. (6) Of Christian Love and Charity. (7) Against S\vearing and Perjury. (8) Of the Declining from God. (9) An Exhortation against the Fear of Death. (10) An Exhortation to Obedience. (11) Against Whoredom and Adultery. (12) Against Strife and Contention. The authorship of the ,vhole number has not been ascertained, but probably the first, on the Reading of Holy Scripture, and certainly the third, fourth, and fifth, of Salvation, of Faith, and of Good Works, come from the pen of Cranmer. The sixth, on Charity, is by Bonner; the second, on the J\lisery of J\lankind, by his chaplain, Hartsfield; and it is said that the eleventh is by Becon. In 1549, in order to render them more acceptable to the people, they were subdivided into thirty-two parts, and the Prayer Book, which had just been published, directed that U after the Creed ended, shall follow the Serlnon or Homily, or fome portion of one of the Homilies, as they shall be hereafter divided." That the book was only intended as an instalment, is shown by the following note which stood at the close of it: "Hereafter shall follow Sermons of Fasting, Praying, Alms deeds; of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our ARTICLE XXXV 725 Saviour Christ; of the due receiving of His blessed body and blood under the form of bread and wine; against Idleness, against Gluttony and Drunkenness, against Covetousness, against Envy, Ire, and Malice; \vith r.ùany other matters as well fruitful as necessary to the edifying of Christian people and the increase of godly living." Accordingly the rubric in the second Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1552) said that" After the Creed, if there be no Sermon, shall follow one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth by COlnmon authority." The death of the king, ho\vever, occurred before anything more \vas done. Shortly after the accession of Elizabeth the Book of the HOlnilies ,vas reprinted (1560), and in 1563 a second book was added to it, presented to Convocation, and after some consider- able delay authorised by the Sovereign. 1 l\fean\vhile, as we have seen, the Article was re,vritten, and made to refer to the second book as ,veIl as the first. The direc- tion in it, that they are to be read in churches by the ministers diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people, should be noticed. It was rendered necessary by the dislike with which the Homilies were regarded by many of the clergy, who revenged themselves by reading them unin- telligibly. The dislike was not confined to one party in the Church, for we find that in the" Admonition to Par- liament" in 1571 one of the demands of the Puritans is this: "I{emove Homylies, Articles, Injunctions." 2 The second book, which contains twenty-one Homilies in forty-three parts, professes to supply "Homilies of such matters as were promised and entituled in the former part of Homilies"; but, as a matter of fact, those 1 See Parker's Correspondence, p. 177. 2 For the Puritan objections to the reading of Homilies in church, see Rogers On the XXXIX. Articlp,s, p. 326 (Parker S0ciety). 47 726 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES actually provided ùo not correspond exactly to the list of those pronlised at the close of the first book. Thus there are no Homilies expressly treating of Covetousness, Envy, Ire, and Malice; while there are several ,vhich 'were seemingly not contenlplated ,vhen the first book ,vas issued. The writer ,vho is supposed to have had the chief hand in the preparation of the book is Bishop J e\vel, but a considerable number of the Homilies were only translations or adaptations of ,yorks that had pre- viously been issued. Thus those on the Passion and Resurrection are taken from Taverner's Postils, which had appeared so early as 1540. That on Matrimony is taken half fronl Veit Dietrick, of N urernberg, half from S. Chrysostonl; and t\vo-thirds of the first part of that on Repentance are translated from l{andolph Gualther. The Preface, or "Admonition to all ministers ecclesiastical," was fronl the pen of Bishop Cox. It should be added that the last Homily, viz. that against Disobedience and wilful Rebellion, ,vas only added in 1571; the occa- sion which called it forth being the rebellion of the Earls of Northumberland and 'Vestmoreland, which had taken place shortly before (1569), and to which the Homily itself clearly alludes. II. The Nature of the Assent demanded to the HO'Jnilies. The statement of the Article is that the Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times. It is obvious from this that the assent demanded to them is of a very general charaûter, and cannot be held to bind us to the acceptance of eyery statement made in them. Nothing ,vhatever is said about the hist011ical statements contained in thenl, Home of ,vhich are highly questionable, or even demonstrably false. And as to the doctrine, all ARTICLE XXXV 727 that is asserted is that they" contain a godly and whole- some doctrine." On one subject certainly their teaching appears to be invested \vith a peculiar authority, viz. that of justification, O\ving to the express reference to thenl ill Article XI. But on other nlatters a \vide dis- cretion is left to the individual, and he cannot fairly be called upon to maintain any particular view simply be- cause it is taught in the Homilies. The formal doctrinal teaching of the Church of England is found in the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer; and so far as the Homilies agree with these, and bring out the sense of their teaching, they are authoritative. But that is all. So much is confessed by all p&rties, and it has been frequently pointed out that it is impossible to tie persons down rigidly to the acceptance of every doctrinal pro- position contained in these thirty-three sernlons. 1 The nlatter is \vell put by Bishop J\iontague in his Appello Cæsarem, published in 1625- " I \villingly admit the Homilies as containing certain godly and wholesome exhortations to move the people to honour and worship Almighty God; but not as the public dogmatical resolutions confirmed of the Church of England. The XXXVth Article giveth them to contain godly and 'wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these tirnes: which they may do, though they have not dogmatical positions, or doctrine to be pTopugned and subscribed in all and every point, as the Books of ...A.rticles and of Common Prayer have. They may seem, secondly, to speak somewhat too hardly, and stretch some sayings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England, both then and now; and yet what they speak may receive a fair, or at least a tolerable construction and mitigation enough." 2 Still more important, as being of the nature of a 1 See especially Tracts for tlz" Times, Nos. lxxxii. and xc. 2 Appello Cæsarc'In, p. 260. 728 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES judicial decision UPOll this yery point, is the statement of Sir Herbert Jenner Fust in his judgment in the .Arches Court of Canterbury on Nov. 19, 18:38. The question before him \vas whether the Church of England regarded praying for the dead aH an illegal practice; and the authority of the HOlnilies had been quoted against it. l The judge entered fully into the n1atter, and decided that "it seemed clearly to have been the intention of the composer of the Homily to discourage the practice of praying for the dead; but it does not appear that in any part of the Homily he declares the practice to be an unla ,vful one.!' And then he adds the follo\ving important staten1ent: "But supposing he had been of opinion that such prayers \vere unla\vful, it is not to he necessarily inferred that the Church of England adopted every part of the doctrines contained in the Homilies." 2 1 See the third part of the lImnily Concerning Prayer, p. 355 (S.P.O.K. ed.). 2 The judgment is given ill full in Lee's Christian Doctrine of Prayel' for tlte Depm'ted, Appendix XII, ARTICLE De Episcoporu'in ct .J.lli,dsl'l'ol''ll/Jn Consecratione. Libellus de Consecl'atione Archi- episcoporum et Episcoporum et de ordinatione Presbyterorum et Dia- conorum æditus nuper temporibus Edwardi sexti, et autoritate Parla- menti illis ip is temporibus con- firmatus, omnia aù ejusmodi consecrationem et ordinationem necessaria continet, et nihil habet quod ex se sit aut superstitiosum aut impium, Itaque quicumque juxta ritus illius libri consecrati aut ordinati sunt ab anno secundo prædicti Regis Edwardi, usque ad hoc tempus, aut in posterum juxta eosùem ritus eonsecrabuntur aut ordinabuntur rite, ordine, atque legitime, statuimus esse et fore com;ecratos et Ol'dinatos. XXXVI Of Consecrat ian 0/ Bishops and 11linisters, The Book of Consecration of Arch- Lishops and BisllOps, 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 or ungodly. And therefore, whosoever are con- secrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the aforenamed King Edward, unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the Rame rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordel'ed. IN its present fonn this Article dates froln 1563, \vhen it was entirely rewritten. The corresponding Article in the Edwardian Series ,vas of a much more general character, referring to the Book of Common Prayer as a whole, and not only to the Ordinal. OJ' the Boule of Pr;'uyers ancl Ce1'C1iwnics of the Church of England. cc The Book which of very late tirne \yas given to the Church of England by the King's authority and the ï:! 730 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Parliament, containing the manner and form of praying, and ministering the sacraments in the Church of England, likewise also the book of Ordering l\1inisters of the Church, set forth by the fore said authority, are godly, and in no point repugnant to the wholesome doctrine of the Gospel, but agreeable thereunto, furthering and beautifying the same not a little; and therefore of all faithful members of the Church of England, and chiefly of the nlÏnisters of the word, they ought to be received, and allo\ved \vith all readiness of mind, and thanksgiving, and to be con1- Inended to the peopl.. of God." 1 As originally drafted and signed by the royal chap- lains, it had contained some \vords referring expressly to the ceremonies of the book as in no way repugnant to the liberty of the Gospel, but rather agreeable to it, and tending to prolnote it. To this serious objection \vas taken by John Knox, \vhose dislike of the ceremonies ordered in the book was perhaps not unnatural; and it is proùable that it was in consequence of his remon- strances that all that part \vhich referred especially to the ceremonies \va onlÏtted before publication. 2 I "De libro precationum ct cæremoniarum Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ. Libel' qui lluperrime authoritate Regis et Parliamellti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ traditus est, continells modum et formam orandi, et sacramenta admini- strandi ill Ecclesia Allglicalla: Similiter et libellus eadeIll authoritate editus de ol'dillatione ministorunl ecclesiæ, quoad doctI'inæ veritatem, pii sunt, et salutari doctrillæ Evangelii in nullo repugnant sed cOllgruunt, ct eandem non lJarum promovent ct illu::;trant, atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ fidelibus membris, et maxime a ministris verbi cnm omni prolllptitudille animorum et gratiarum actione, recipiendi, appro- bandi, et populo Dei commendandi sunt." The clause in question appears in this forUl in the .MS. sigued by the royal chalJlains: "Et quoad CC1'enwniant/n .ratiQJl,eIlL alutari Eva'llgelii libedati, si ex sua natU1'Ct ce1'emoniæ illæ æstiment'lt'j', iu nullo repugnant, sed probe congruunt, et eandem in cOlnpl'ltrimis inprimis pl'omovent, atque ideo," etc. The words in italics were altogether omitted or modified in the published Article. For the part taken hy Knox in securing the change, see vol. i. p. 14, with the references there given. ARTICLE XXXVI 731 As it now stands, the object of the Article is to assert emphatically the validity of Anglican Orders, and this against objections raised froln t.wo opposite quarters. On the one hand, the "N onconforn1Ïst" and Puritan party denounced the Ordinal as containing in it things that ,vere of then1selves superstitious or ungodly; on the other hand, the disaffected Romanists might deny that the form used could be said to contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering. And thus, as against both parties, it ,vas deemed advisable to assert definitely that whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the aforenamed 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. The principal subjects, then, to be treated of here are these- 1. The objections of the Puritans. 2. The objections of the Romanists. T. The Objections of the P1l1 itan:). Since ll1any of those ,vho objected to the Ordinal, as containing that ,vhich ,vas "superstitious and ungodly," objected not only to the special formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost," etc., used in conferring orders on the priesthood (which they denounced as "manifest blaspheluy"), but also to Episcopacy itself, it seems desirable to consider here- (a) The question of the threefold n1inistry. (b) The formula of Ordination. . (a) The question of the threefold minisl1 y.-The Preface to the "Form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacuns according 732 .THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES to the order of the Church of England" (1550), begins with the statement that "it is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." The evidence for the existence of the threefold ministry, from the second cent llry onwards, is so full and complete, that it is not likely to be questioned, and need not be summarised here. All that the opponents of Episcopacy can do is to endeavour to show that there are in later times a few possible exceptions to the rule,! and to deny that it is found in the New Testament, and can be traced back to " the Apostles' tin1e." It váll be well, therefore, to exan1Íne the evidence of the N e\v Testament, and for this purpose it will be convenient to break up the Apostolic age into three distinct periods, each of which requires to be discussed separately. (i.) The foundation of the Church. In this S. Peter is the most promil1en t figure, and the period is closed by his imprisonment and departure from Jerusalem in the year 44. Even at this early time we can discern the germs and beginnings of what afterwards grew into the threefold ministry. The Apostles are naturally the leaders and rulers of the Church, and at first its only ministers. But as the \vork gro\vs under their hands some portion of it is delegated to the seven, who, though never called " deacons" in the Acts, are plainly the first representatives of that order, selected by the \vhole multitude of the faithful, but receiving their appoint- ments from the Apostles (ot KaTauT uoJ.JÆV," ,vhom we may appoint," Acts vi. 3), and set apart for their office 1 Of these the most important is the supposed exceptional constitution of the Alexandrian Church, on which see Gore, The Church and tlte lIIinistry, p. 134 seq.; and for supposed ordinations by presbyters in East and "\Yest, ib. p. 374. ARTICLE XXXVI 733 with the imposition of hands and prayer (ver. 6).1 Of the origin of what we term the second order of the ministry no account is given us, but by the end of this period ,ve find it already in existence, for in Acts xi. 30 (just about the time of Peter's impriso11111ent or release) ,ve read that the Christians at Antioch "deterIllined to send relief unto the brethren that d,velt in J udæa; which also they did, sending it to the elders (rrrpò') TOV') -rrpf.UßVTÉpOV')) by the hand of Barnabas and Bau!." This is the earliest mention of an order of n1Ínisters ,vhich ,ve shall find appointed everywhere during the next period. Since its origin is nowhere related in the Acts (our sole authority for this period), it can only be a matter of conjecture. Possibly it was suggested to the Christian Church by the organisation of the J e,vish comlllullities, in \vhich "the elders" occupied a recog- llised position. 2 However this may be, the fact remains that in this first period ,ve find something fairly corresponding to our three orders of ministers, viz. Apostles, ,vith the oversight of the whole Church, and, 1 The reasons for maintaining that the appointment of the cc seven" gives the origin of the diaconate are briefly these: (1) Although the title ðLáKOJlOS does not occur, yet the correspolHling verb and substantive (ÔLaKOJlEÎJI and ôLaKoJlla) are both used (vel's. 1, 2). (2) The functions are substantially those exercised by the later deacons (cf. Lightfoot On Philipp. p. 186). (3) From tIle position of the narrative in the Acts and the emphasis laid on it by the writer, it is clear that he regarded it "not as an isolated incident, hut as the establishment of a new order of things ill the Church" (Lightfoot, 'ubi .'iupra). (4) Tradition is unanimous as to the identity of the two offices, and that from the earliest times. See further, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (ed. 2), vol. i. p. ï39. So Lightfoot On Philipp. p. 189, and cf. Core, p. 399. But it is important to renwmber that, though the naJiW was certainly borrowed from the synagogue, yet the functions of the Christian presbyters, as found in the writings of the New Testament and the earliest Fathers, mark out the office as really a lJew one of a spiritual character. For these functions see 1 Pet. v. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 17 ; Titus i. 9 ; S. James v. 14.; Clem. RolU. ad Cor. xliv. 734 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES locally, elders and deacons. Indeed, we may go a step further, and maintain that something approaching to the local Episcopate already obtained in Jerusalem; for the message of S. Peter after his release from prison, when read in the light of later notices, is highly significant, "Tell these things unto Janles, and to the brethren" (Acts xii. 17). vVhy" unto tTa-nws"? The only explanation is that he already occupied the position \vhich \ve find him holding at a later period, of president of the local Church (see Acts xv. 13-21, xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 9, 12), or, as the tradition of the Church has ever regarded him, first bishop of J erusalelll. (ü.) The second period is that of the organisation and extension of the Church. In it the prominent figure is the Apostle Paul, \vhose missionary labours formed the main instrument for planting the Church in various . regions. The period is perhaps best closed, not by the Apostle's death, but by the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 7 o. Our authorities for it are the narrative ill Acts xiii.-xxviii. and the apostolic Epistles. In it we trace the extension of the different orders of ministers as new Churches are founded. For the diaconate \ve have the eviùence of the Epistle to the Philippians (A.D. 60), which sho\vs us two orders of resident ministers existing at Philippi, f:lrtuIC07rOt lCaì ôtálCovo" (c. i. vel'. 1). Still earlier (during S. Paul's second missionary journey), Rom. xvi. 1 sho\vs us a woman deacon at Cenchreæ; and at a later period, after the A postle's first imprisonnlent, 1 Tim. iii. 8 seq., bears evidence of the extension of this order to the Ch ul'ch of Ephesus, though it is interesting to note that in the almost contelnporary Epistle to Titus there is no luention of ö"álCovol,. It may, perhaps, be inferred from this that they were only appointed. as the \vork grew, and the ueed for them ,vas felt. III Ephesus, a Church which ARTICLE XXXVI 735 had existed for some years (cf. Acts xx. 17), they \vere required. In the newly-founded Church in Crete the necessity for their help \,,"ould not exist. :For the second order of the ministry as well the evidence during this period is full and complete. A representative passage is Acts xiv. 23: ""'\Vhen they had appointed for theIl1 elders in every Church, and had prayed \vith fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on \vhom they had believed." This refers to S. Paul's first missionary journey, but it clearly indicates a. custom \vhich he follo\ved every\vhere. Only, having once stated it, S. Luke does not concern hinlself with recording it in other cases. In vie\v, however, of such passages as Acts xv. 6 (Jerusalem), xx. 17 (Ephesus), Titus i. 5 (Crete), S. Janles v. 14, 1 Pet. v. 1, \ve are justified in assum- ing the existence of 7rpEUßÚTEpOL every,vhere as a permanent feature of ecclesiastical organisation, and Acts xx. 17 compared with vel'. 28 (" he called to him the clde1's of the Church" . . . "the flock in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, È7ríUIC07rOL), and Titus i. 5, 7 (" appoint elders in every city . . . if any Ulan is blameless . . . for the bishop, È7T{UK07rOC:;, Inust be blanleless "), enable us to identify the TrpeußvTepoL \vith the È7TíUIC07rOL, \VhOlll \ve find Inentioned, evidently as resident officers of the Church, in Phil. i. 1 and 1 Tim. iii. 1. 1 1 There has recently been a tendency in ð01lle quarter:::; to deny this identity, and maintain that the offices were distinct (So Réville, Les Origines de l'Episcopat), but 011 quite insufficient grounds. It has not been thought necessary to enter into the questions which have been raised of late years with regard to the origin of the name br[u,'(o7rOfJ, and the original character of the office, because throughout this work the genuine- ness of the whole of the New Testa'JJWllt is a ClRulned, and if we admit as genuine the First Epistle of S. Peter, and the Pastoral Epistles, together with the discourse to the El'hesiall elders iu ...\cts XX., it appears to me simply impossible to Jeu)? that (whatever may have suggested the name, which is rtally of a very general and indefinite character) the offiee was 736 THE THIRTY.- I:\fE ARTICLES With regard to the fi'J'st order of the 111inistry, it is evident that a general superintendence of the affairs of the Church was exercised by the Apostles themselves. S. Paul" \vent through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches" (Acts xv. 41). The "apostles and elders" \vere gathered together to consider the question of circumcision (Acts xv. 6). Letters of apostolic counsel and direction are ,vritten by them \vith superior authority, and by their hands ministers are set apart. But as the years passed Churches 111ultiplied, and the original company of the Apostles became fe\ver in number, it becanle necessary to lllake provision for the future. Con- sequently, to\varcls the close of this period \ve Ineet \vith IHen like Timothy and Titus exercising apostolic powers, commissioned to take the general oversight of Churches, to "set in order the things that are ,vanting, and appoint elders in every city" (Titus i. 5; cf. 1 Tinl. i. 3). These men are plainly superior to the È7rlUIC07rOL or 7TpEC7ßÚTfpOt over \vhom they exercise authority, and they are empowered to ordain others, \vhereas we never read of any such po'wer being given to the elders. 1 But it ,vould seem to be inaccurate to speak of Timothy and Titus as bishops of Ephesus and Crete, for in each ca e the Apostle directs them to return to hin1 \vhen they have accomplished the work for \vhich he left them in these places (see 2 TiIn. iv. 9; Titus iii. 12, with which cf. 2 Tim. iv. 10, ,vhich sho\vs that after Titus rejoined a spiritual one from the first. The use of the uame in 1 Pet. ii. 25, as applied to Christ, "the shepherd and bishop of your ouls," is surely decisive as to this. On the theori('s in question reference may be made to Gore, as above. ] It is instructive to compare the address to the Ephesian elders in ..:\('ts xx. with tbe apostolic charges to Timothy in the two Epistles addressed to him. 'Vhile to Timothy is given the power to ordain others, togetller with instructions concerning the qualifications of those on whom he shall " lay hanlls," there is 110 indication ill the adllrc s to the elders that any such power had heell illtrnsted to them. .:\RrfICLE XXXVI 737 the Apostle, instead of retul'nillg to Crete he was sent elsewhere, to Dalmatia). All that can be claimed for them is a "'flwveabll' Episcopate" ; 1 nor need we at this early }Jeriod expect to find l11ore. Time ,vas required for the full ecclesiastical system to gro\v up into its present forlH; and the diocesan systc1n, ,vith its territorial bishops \vith definite regions assigned to each, ,vas a later growth. In the period 1l0'V under consideration ,ve find no trace of it outside Jerusalem, ,vhere, as we have seen, it existed from the Leginning. But the order of bishops as chief ministers of the Church may be distinctly traced to the Apostles. Men like Timothy and Titus form the link bet\veen the later regionary bishops and the Apostles themselves. It is probable also that with them ,ve should include the" prophets" of the N e,v Testa- nlent as exercising similar powers, for not only are they mentioned in various places as occupying positions of inlportance, and sometimes joined very closely with the Apostles (see Acts xi. 27, xiii. 1, xv. 32, xxi. 10; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11); but also in the LJtoax TWV owoe"a å7TOUTÓÀ(J)V, while the È7TlrJ"IC07TOt "aì otá"ovot are the two orders of resident ministers (exactly as in the New Testament), à7TÓC170ÀOt "aì 7Tporþ9jTat appear as itinerant ministers, exercising a general superintend- ence, and superseding the local officers from time to time. 'Ve may, then, sum up the results of our investiga- tions so far. At the close of the second period t\VO orders of resident ministers (l!rrlu,,07Tot or -rrpEußvTepOt and ðtálCovot) are found in fully organised Churches; and superior to them are Apostles and apostolic men, who visit their Churches from time to time, set in order things that are wanting, and appoint local officers as they are needed. But 80 far the precedent set at 1 The phrac;e is due to Bishop Lightfoot. 738 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES J erusalelll has not been follo\ved else\vhere, and beyond this Church the diocesan systeln is not yet in existence. (iii.) The third period lasts from the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) to the close of the century and the death of the last surviving Apostle, S. John (A.D. 100). For this period our authorities are luuch less full than for the period iInmediately preceding it. But sufficient renlaills to enable us \vithout any hesitation to assign to this tinle the change from the general to the local ministry, with th introduction of an approximation to the diocesan system, if not everywhere, at least in some of the Gentile Churches; and since the change falls in the lifetÏ1ne of S. John, there can be no doubt that it was made under his guiding influence. The proof that the change \vas made during these years Dlay be put in this \yay. "\Ve have seen that in A.D. 70 there was no such thing as the diocesan system except in Jerusalem. At the beginning of the second century we find from the Epistles of Ignatius that this system is already in existence, and firmly planted in the Churches to which he \vrites. 1 This necessarily thro\vs back its origination to the first century, and to the period subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 7 o. There are other slight indications ,vhich confirn1 this, and show us the change in Q progress. .. 1 X othing can be stronger than the language of Ignatius 011 the position of the bishop as superior to the prE'sbyters, and the necessity of doing nothing without him. There is scarcely one of his Epistles in which this is not insisted on. See Eph. i. ii. iv.; .lúagn. ii. iii. iv. vi. vii. xiii.; Trail. i. Ïi. iii. vii.; Philad. i. iii. iv. vii. viii.; Smyrn. viii. ix. 2 .x 0 reference is made in the text to the cc angels" of the seven Churches of Asia (Rev. i.-iii.), because of the uncert inty which there is concerning the meaning of the term. If the early date of the Apocalypse be accepted, it is scarcely possible to identify the "angels" with the "bishops." If, however, the later date be adopted, the objection against the identification falls to the ground. Cf. Lightfoot On Philipp. p. 197. ARTICLE XXX\7J 739 (a) The LJtOaX71 TWV ðcñoEKa å7TOUTÓ)..,OJV, ,vhich has been previously referred to, nlay perhaps belong to the early part of this period. 1 ....\.s has been already mentioned, it bears ,vitness to the existence of the earlier state of things \vith t,vo orders of resident Ininisters, È7T{UK07rOt and ðtáKOVOt, and superior to thenl the å-rrÓUTO)..,Ot Kaì 7TpocþijTat. 2 (b) The Epistle of S. Clelnellt to the Corinthians ,vas ,vritten about the year 96. It contains an important passage on the Christian ministry, c. xl.- xliv. The passage requires to be quoted at some length. Clement starts by saying that ",, e ought to do all things in order, as many as the ::\faster hath commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons. Now the offerings and n1inistrations He conlmanded to be performed ,vitb care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And ,yhere and by whom He would have them perfornled He Himself fixed by His supreme ,vill: tha t all things being done váth piety according to His good pleasure, might be acceptable to His will. They, therefore, that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed: for ,vhile they follow the institutions of the :\Iaster they cannot go wrong. For unto the high priest his proper services have been assigned, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the Levites their proper luinistra- tions are laid. The layman is bound by the layman's ordinance." 3 It ,vould be impossible to state the general principle of ecclesiastical order n10re strongly 1 The exact date is quite uncertain, but it would probably be correct to place it sometime between 70 and 120. 2 See c. xi. xiii. xv., and cf. Gore, The Chltrch and the .J[i1l'l.stry, p. 276 seq. 3 c. xl. The translation is Bishop Lightfoot's, Apost. Fathers, Part I. vol. ii. p. 292. The origin l Greek may be seen on p. 121. 740 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES than is here ùone by Clement; and even if (with Bishop Ligh tfoot 1) "' e decline to press the analogy of the th'refjold ministry, yet still it remains true that a general comparison of the Christian ministry with that of thp J e\vs is nlade, and that Clement regards the ministry as a necessary and ])iviup institution. Further, in the follo,ving passage, a portion of ,vhich bas been already quoted under Article XXIII.,2 he proceeds to state \vith equal clearness the principle of the succession: "The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; J esns Christ \vas sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having, therefore, received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in the \vord of God \vith full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching every,vhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, ,v hen they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. 3 . . . And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance,4 that if these should fall asleep, other approved lnen should succeed to their ministrations. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute \vith the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblameably to the flock of Christ . these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out lOp. cit. p. 123. S C. xlii. See above, p. 578. 4 'E1T'L,uOV7}V, see the note on p. 578. ARTICLE XXXVI 741 from their ministrations. For it will be no light sin for us, if \ve thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblameably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters \vho have gone before," etc.! These words need but little by way of comment, since they clearly insist on the importance of the succession 'with an appointment fronl the Apostles in the first instance, and after\vards from others in accordance with theÙ. al.rangerMnt. The only possible question is whether Clenlent recognises \vhat is called nlonarchial episcopacy as existing at Corinth. His o\vn position as " bishop" (in the modern sellse) of the Church of Ronle is thoroughly well established, but the passage just cited sho\vs that ÈWtUKOWOt and 7TpEUßVTEpOl, are with hirn still convertible terms, and there is llO reference in his Epistle to anyone person as ruling over the Church of Corinth above the presbyters. It is possible, then, that the local and diocesan systenl had not as yet been adopted at Corinth. 2 But on the principles of ecclesi- astical order, and the lleed of a valid commission and succession, S. Clement's evidence is perfectly clear. (c) To a later date belongs S. Clement of .A.lexandria's treatise, Quis Dives Sal1:et-ur (c. 180). But it may here be mentioned, because the narrative contained in it concerning S. John and the robber bears such manifest tokens of reflecting the genuine state of things in the apostolic days. In it È7T{UKOWOf; and WpEUßÚTEpOf; are still convertible ternls; but the position of the bishop as presiding over the Church seems to be implied; and, 1110reOVer, the organisation of the Churches is expressly a.ttributed to S. John, who is said to have COllle frolll Patmos to Ephesus, and to have gone also" \vnen called, to the neighbouring regions of the Gentiles; in some to 1 c. xliv. 2 cr. Gorc, Th!.- Church cuHf the Jlinist7'Y, p. 322. 4 8 742 THE THIRT\7-NINE ARTICLES appoint bishops, in some to institute entire new Churches, in others to appoint to the ministry some one of those indicated by the Holy Ghost." 1 This exactly fits in with ,vhat we find else\vhere; and taken together we n1ay say that the L1 t8ax , the Epistle of S. Clement of Rome, and the narrative preserved by Clement of Alexandria, give us glin1pses of the change that ,vas passing over the system of the Church during the last quarter of the first century,-the change, that is, \vhereby the chief pastor became permanently resident as the highest officer in each Church, and the name of bishop or È7ríUK07rOf; was attached exclusively to him. The Epistles of Ignatius, as referred to above, sho\v us the change complete: and there is no necessity to pursue the history further here. Against the view which has here been taken, that to the Apostles and their successors alone belonged the right of ordaining others, transrnitted by them to the È7ríUK07rOt of the later Church, two passages of Scripture have sOlnetimes been urged. 2 (i.) The incident in Acts xiii. 1-3, ,vhere Paul and Barnabas are "separated for the work" by some who ,vere not Apostles. The answer to this is twofold: first, it may be urged that if this is to be regarded as their actual ordination, it is still not an instance of Presbyterian any more than of .Episcopal ordination; for if bishops are not Inen tioned, no more are presbyters. Those who are spoken of are called" prophets and teachers," and, as has already been shown, the position of the prophets seems 1 Quoted in Eusebius, H. E. III. xxiii. 2 It SeE'IDS unnecessary to refer further to the view sometimes urged, that as i1rlcrK07rOL and 7rpfcrßÚTfpOL are convertible terms in the New Testa- ment, their subsequent distinction is an invention of a later date, for the facts already summarised go to show that the "bishops" of the second century and later are the successors of the Apostles and of men 1ike TImothy, rather than of the New Testament br[crK07rOL. ARTICLE XXXVI 74:3 to correspond more nearly with that of the later bishops than with that of the second order of the ministry. But, secondly, it is very doubtful whether it was an ordination at all. Indeed, the arguments against regarding it as one seem overwhelming. To begin with, both Paul and Barnabas are included among the "prophets and teachers," and Barnabas actually heads the list. There- fore, whatever ministerial authority those who laid their hands on them possessed, Paul and Barnabas already possessed the same. Moreover, S. Paul always claimed that his apostolic conlmission came to him direct from Christ Hinlself, and "not from men, neither through nlen " (Gal. i. 1); and though on this view there is no actual mention of the ordination of S. Barnabas, yet it is worthy of note that on a previous occasion he appears as the delegate and representative of the Church of Jerusalem, invested with powers which it may fairly be said presuppose a fornlal comn1Íssion from the Church (see Acts xi. 22, èEa7rÉuTEtÀav Bapváßav). It appears, then, to be practically certain that the incident narrated in Acts xiii. was no ordination, but only a setting apart of the two Apostles to the Gentiles for their special \vork, done according to ancient custOlll, with prayer and ilnposition of hands. (ii.) It is said that Timothy is spoken of as having been ordained cc \vith the laying on of the hands of the presbytery" (1 Tim. iv. 14 ). Yes; but if the text ie referred to, it \vill be seen that the expression enlployed is this, "N eglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy (Ôtà 7rpocþ1]TE{aç), with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery" (J1ÆTd È7rtBéuE(JJÇ TWV XEtpwV TOV 7rpEUßUTEpíou). It came to him, then, primarily through (ôtá) prophecy, and only with the accompaniment of (I-LE'Tá) the laying on of the hands of the presbyters present: and (C prophecy," it IDUSt be 744 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES repeated, is closely connected with the Apostolate; besides \vhich, in 2 Tim. i. 6 S. Paul speaks of the gift as being in Timothy "th'i'ough the laying on " of his own hands (Ôtà Tij È7rt()ÉUEW\j TWV 'XEtpwv fLoU). Clearly, therefore, he hinlself took the chief part in the ordination of his disciple, anù the presbyters present were probablJ' joined \vith him, as they are to this day when men are set apart for the priesthood. We conclude, then, that the statenlent in the Preface to the Ordinal is strictly true, and that "from the Apostles' times there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons"; and thus the cc Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons," cannot be said to contain anything that is of itself superstitious or ungodly, because it recognises and retains the Episcopal order. Before passing on to the next objection, it nlay be well to add a few words concerning the lnind of the Ohurch of England on the necessity of Episcopacy. Certainly all that the actual ternlS of the Article no\v under consideration bind us to is this: that Episcopacy is not in itself superstitious or ungodly. This amounts to no more than saying that it is an allo'wable f0101n of Ohu/I"ck gove'pnment, and leaves the question open whether it is the only one. This question is not decided for us elsewhere in the Articles; for even where \ve 11light have reasonably expected some light to be thrO\Vll upon it, we are met with a remarkable silence. Thus there is no mention of Episcopacy in the Article on the Church; and in that cc de vocatione ministrorUlll," as ,vas pointed out in the remarks upon it, there is a singular vagueness in the description of those who cc have public authority given unto them in the congre- gation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." The Articles, then, leave us ,vithout any ARTICLE XXXVI 745 real guidance on the question whether Episcopacy is to be regarded as necessa'J'Y. Nor need we feel surprise at this, for at the time \vhen they received their final form English Churchluen were standing on the defensive, and engaged in a severe struggle with a strong Presbyterian party, who objected to Episcopacy altogether. As against these nlen they were mainly concerned to defend the Episcopal form of Government as allO'lcable, and \vith this they \vere content. 1 For the deliberate judgment of the Church of England \ve must look elsewhere. We find it in the Book of Common Prayer, \vhich received its final form nearly a hundred years later than the .Articles. The statements there made in the Preface to the Ordinal are conclusive as to the view taken by the Church. They may be summed up as follows:- (i.) The threefold ministry has been the rule of the Church from the Apostles' days; and no one has ever been allowed to exercise that ministry without a proper commission from lawful authority. (ii.) It is to be continued in the Church of England. (iii.) And therein no one is to be accounted a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon, \vithout Episcopal ordina tion. The formal and deliberate assertion of this last fact dates from the final revision of 1662. The other two statements come down to us from the first Prayer Book 1 It is possible to see indications of a change of view in Hooker. In Book III., though he maintains that govelnment by bishops "best agreeth with the Sacred Scripture" (xi. 16), yet he does not press for it as necessary. In Book VII. c. :xiv" a lUuch stronger position appears to be maintained by him. A strong position is also taken up in Bishop Bilson's Perpetual Go'Ve1"n1Jtent of Ch1'ist's Churclh published in 1593 ; and Bishop Ha.ll, in Episcopacy by DivÙu Right (1639), directly maintains that Episcopacy. . . is not only an holy and lawful, but a Divine insti- tution, and therefore cannot be abdicated without a manifest violation of God's ordinance. lV(Yf'ks, vol. ix. p. 160. 746 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of Ed\vard VI. (1549), and belong to a tinle when the question of Presbyterian orders had scarcely been seriously raised in this country. Had the question never been raised they might have been ùeenled sufficient. When, however, it had been raised, and attempts had been lnade by certain persons (as they \vere in Elizabeth's reign) to minister in the Church of England without an Episcopal cOlnmission, it \vas \veIl that their right to do so should be more expressly denied, and this is what is done by the addition to the Preface of the words referred to above. Thus the Church of England, as judged by her formal documents, recognises none but Episcopal orders. But even so, it is interesting to notice how she treats the subject entirely from a practical point of view, pronouncing on it, not as an abstract theological question, but only as it concerns herself. She is not called upon to judge others. But her own position she is called upon to nlake clear: nor does she shrink from the responsibility. She sees that Episcopacy has been the Church's rule from the days of the Apostles. She in the providence of God has retained it, and it is her duty to hand it on \vithout breach of continuity. It may be "cha 'ity to think 'well of our neighbours." It is certainly "good divinity to look well to ourselves"; 1 and therefore she feels conlpelled to insist upon Episcopal ordination in every case, and can recognise no other. (b) The form'ltla of 01'dination.-Besides objecting to Episcopacy in itself, the Puritans denounced as super- stitious and ungodly the words used by the bishop in con- ferring the order of the priesthood: "Receive the Holy Ghost [for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of 1 Archbishop Bramhall. So Thorndike "neither justifies nor con- demns" the orders of the foreign ProtestaDt . See Haddan's Apostolical Succession, p. 168 seq. ARTICLE XXX"I 747 our hands ].1 Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments; in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." The words appeared to them" ridiculous and blasphemous," and they maintained that the bishop might "as well say to the sea, when it rageth and 8welleth, Peace, be quiet, as say, Receive," etc. 2 Their objections led Richard Hooker to consider the form very fully, and ,vith his vindication of it we may well rest content. The main points in his defence of it are these: (1) The term" the Holy Ghost" is often used to signify the gifts of the Spirit as well as the Person of the Holy Ghost. (2) Authority and power for the ministry is a spiritual gift. (3) He, then, through whom the po\ver is given may surely say, "Receive." (4) If our Lord, in ordaining, used the words (S. John xx. 22), why may not His ministers, seeing that the same po\ver is now given? (5) The use of the words teaches and acts as a constant ren1inder that, "as disposers of God's mysteries, our words, judgments, acts, and deeds are not ours, but the Holy Ghost's." 3 Of course, if it be held that no special spiritual power is given to Christ's ministers, and that they are not " sent" by Him, as He ,vas "sent" by the Father, the words may \vell appear not only ridiculous, but blas- phemous. But by those \vho hold that such powers have been granted for the benefit of the Church, and transmitted in the line of the regular ministry, no serious 1 The words in brackets were only added in 1662. They were there- fore, as a matter of fact, not before tbe Purita4 of Elizabeth's reign. 2 Admonition to Parliament, and "T.C." quoted in Hooker, Y. lxxvii. 5. ;I Hooker, Bcd. Polity, Bk. V. c. lxxvii. 748 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES difficulty Càn be raised concerning the use of this par- ticular irnperative fornl of \vords, although it cannot be considered as essential, since it is of cOluparatively late introduction into the Church, not being fouud in the older Pontificals and Ordination Services. l II. The Objections of the ROlnanists. The ROluan objections to the validity of Anglican orders have been singularly varied; those \vhich at one time \vere most confidently relied on being at another quietly discarded in favour of fresh ones which a diligent search had been able to discover. They Inay be divided into t\VO classes: (a) historical difficulties as to the succession; and (b) alleged insufficiency of the form, and lack of "intention." Apparently at the present tinle the tendency is to rely exclusively on the latter. But the fornler have been urged with such per- sistency that it is necessary to recapitulate thenl here, and give a brief outline of the answer returned to thenl. (a) Historical difficulties as to the succession.-Shortly after the accession of Elizabeth, objections were taken by the Romanists to the legal status of the ne\vly-consecrated bishops, partly in consequence of the fact that at Parker's consecration it had been found impossible to comply \vith the terms of an Act of Parliament of Henry VIII.'S reign, req uiring a luetropolitan to be consecrated by an arch- bishop and two bishops, or else by four bishops in the occupation of sees; 2 partly because the Act of l\Iary's reign which repealed the Prayer Book had mentioned 1 See lIartene, De Antiquis Eccl. Ritibus, vol. ii. p. 22; and cf. Iaskea, .Jfonumenta Ritualia, vol. ii. p. 231 (ed. 2). 2 25 Henr. VIII. c. 20. See the account of Bonner's objectiol1s to Horn's jurisdiction in Strype, Annals, i. p. 377 ; and cf. Denny and Lacey, Dr Hlernrchia An!llicano, p. 9. ARTICLE XXXVI 749 the Ordinal separately, whereas Elizabeth's Act of Unifornlity, which brought back the legal use of the Prayer Book, had not done SO.l All such objections were, howeyer, disposed of by Act of Parlian1eIl t in 1566,2-an Act 'v hich is only referred to here because it has sometimes been alleged as if it involved a practical confession of the invalidity of our orders. More serious are the allegations subsequently raised, that the succes- sion of bishops really failed at the conlmencemen t of Elizabeth's reign. Shortly after her accession no fewer than ten of the twenty-seven sees were vacant by death, including Canterbury, and as fifteen bishops had been deprived, it is natural that this should appear the weakest point in the chain of our succession. Accord- ingly Roman controversialists have strained their energies to the utmost to prove that the chain ,vas. broken, and that Parker, through whom the great majority of subse- quent English bishops have derived their orders,s ,vas never validly consecrated. It is, ho,vever, a very remarkable fact that no such objection ,vas ever heard of during his lifetime. The earliest rum our of it appears in 1604, forty-five years after Parker's consecration, and t\venty-five after his death. In this year the notorious " X ag's Head fable" was set afloat by an exiled Roman priest named Holywood, ,vho asserted that Parker had been U consecrated" by a n10ck ceremony at the Nag's Head tavern. The story is so palpably ridiculous, and its falsehood so glaring, that it is now almost universally discredited,4 and Ron1ans themselves have been forced to 1 Denny and Lacey, 'Ithi supra. :! 8 Eliz. c. 1. 3 It must, however, be remembered that the Italian and Irish succes- sions also met in Laud, and that, therefore, the validity ûf our orders i1) not really entirely dependent on t11e due consecration of Parker. See Denny Rnd Lacey, p. 6, and Appendix I. 4 Denny and Lacey, however, give instances where the story has hecn treated as trne by recent Roman Catho1ic controversialists, see p. 215. 750 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES admit that" it is so absurd on the face of it that it has led to the suspicion of Catholic theologians not being sincere in the objections they make to Anglican orders.:' 1 In refutation of it, it n1ay be sufficient to point out the following facts:- (1) According to the original author of the story, it merely rested on hearsay, for Holywood asserted in 1604 that he had heard it from one Neal, one of Bonner's chaplains, who had died in 1590. (2) As Fuller quaintly puts it, "rich men do not steal." There was no possible reason for Parker to submit to such a ceren10ny. He was a man with a clear head, well aware of the difficulties of his position, and no possible rfiotive can be suggested why he should have consented to be a party to such a transaction. (3) There is abundant contemporary evidence of his consecration in due forn1 in diocesan registers, in con- temporary letters, in Machyn's Diary, in the diary of Parker hinlself, and in a MS. memorandum in the hand- \vriting of his own son. (4) The official records in the Registry of Canterbury, and MSS. given by Parker himself to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, attest his consecration in due forn1 at Lambeth (December 17, 1559) by Barlow (previously Bishop of Bath and Wells, and at that time elect to Chichester), assisted by Scory (late of Chichester), Coverdale (late of Exeter), and Hodgkins (suffragan of Bedford).2 The lie, for it is nothing else, concerning the mock ceremony at the Nag's He&d was nailed to the counter when it first appeared, and, finding that it ,vas hopelessly 1 Estcourt, The Question of Anglican O'rdinations disc'if,ssed, p. 154. 2 For the full refutation of the story reference may be maùe to Lingarrl, vol. vi. note DD; Haddan's Apostolical S'U.Cl'ession 'i.'n th Church of Ellghutd, p. 180 seq. ; amI Denny and Lacey, p. 211 seq. ARTICLE XXXVI 751 discredited, Rornan Catholic controversialists very S0011 changed their ground, and in 1616 impugned the validity of Parker's consecration by raising the question whether Barlow, the principal consecra.tor, had ever been himself consecrated. The facts with regard to Barlow are these. He was nonlinated first to the see of S. Asaph in Henry VIII.'S reign as early as 1536. In the sanle year to S. David's. In 1547 he ,vas translated to Bath and "V ells. In Mary's reign he ,vas deprived, and at :Elizabeth's accession appointed to Chichester. There are several docun1ents which speak of his "election" and " confirmation." But the registers nlake no n1ention of his consecration; and consequently it has been asserted that Barlow, whose views of the Episcopal office were certainly somewhat lax, had never subn1Ïtted to it, and therefore was never really a bishop at all. Now, it must be noticed that even if Barlo\v had never been really consecrated, it \vould not affect the validity of Parker's consecration, and therefore of orders derived through him, because we are expressly told that all the four bishops said the words of consecration and laid their hands on Parker's head. 1 But, as a matter of fact, there is really no sort of reason for questioning Barlow's due consecration. Once more a bare sumlnary of the argu- ment is all that can here be given. (1) The registrar during Cranmer's Episcopate has omitted eight other consecrations (which have never been doubted) out of a total of forty-five; and the records of consecrations have been omitted or lost in other Archi- episcopates as well, in particular in 'Varham's just before, and Pole's just after Cranmer's. These facts sho\v that the registers were very carelessly kept, and that there- fore no stress can be laid on the absence of the registra- tion in Barlow's case. I cr. Brightman in Cllureh Historical Societ1l L ctures, vol. i. p. 171. 752 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (2) By hnv, consecration was to follow confirmation \vithin t\venty days, under penalty of præmunire. For \vhat possible reason could Barlow have subjected hinl- self to the risk of incurring such a penalty? (3) There is abundant evidence that he was regarded as a bishop by his contenlporaries; even Gardiner styles him" bishop," and his" brother of S. David's." (4) He acted in various ways ,vhich of necessity pre- suppose consecration, e.g. he sat in the House of Lords and the Upper House of Convocation, assisted at the consecration of other bishops, and ad?ninistered his diocese JO')" years witho'lli a single person denl-urring to his j'll1 is- diction. (5) Not the smallest doubt ,vas thrown upon his con- secration until forty-eight years after his death (1616), when the Nag's Head fable had broken do\vn. 1 These are the only instances in which it has been possible for the most vigilant eyes to detect any possi- bility of doubting the succession of Anglican orders; and the attack seems only to have brought out the strength of our case. In the latest Roman Catholic utterance this seems tacitly admitted, for all such objections, ,vhich for more than two centuries and a half had been so persistently urged, are quietly ignored. Not a word is said of them in the Pa pal Bull, Apostolicæ Ouree (1896); and we Inay therefore hope that ,ve have heard the last of them. There remains the second class of objections previously referred, on which the whole case against our orders appears to be based at present, viz.- (b) Alleged insufficienc) of form, and lack of " inten- tion." In regard to the " form" of ordination, the grounds of complaint have varied from tinle to time. At one tittle it was asserted that Anglican orders were invalid because 1 See Deuny and Lacey, p. 26 Beg. ARTICLE XXXVI 753 of the disuse of the Cel'eifiOllY of the pOJ"J.ectio insl1 o umen- torum, or delivery of the sacred vessels to all \vho are consecrated to the priesthood.! It is well known that Pope Eugellius IV., in his decree to the ....t\.rnle 1 Iians (1439), made the "form" of the Sacralnen t of Orders consist in this ceremony; 2 and if the Pope ,vas right in this, there can be no question that not only Anglican orders are invalid, but also the orders of the \vhole Church, for it is absolutely certain that this ceremony did not exist till after lnany centuries of Christianity had elapsed. This is abundantly proved by 1Iorinus, who shows that the ceremony is wanting in all the older ordination services of the Church; 3 and consequently the objection at the present day takes a somewhat different shape. It is no longer said that the ceremony in itself is essential; but that the forin is inadequate and insufficient because everything \vbich implies the sacc1 o doti1tm, and the power of offering sacrifice, has been eliminated froill the rite. The special omissions ,vhich are said to establish this are two. Fi'fStly, fronl 1550 up to the last revision of the Ordinal in 1662 there was no special mention in the formula of ordination of the office for which the aid of the. Holy Ghost \vas sought. The forin was simply this: "Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost forgive," etc.; and for the consecra- tion of a bishop: "Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, \vhich is in thee, by 1 In the first reformed English Ordinal the ceremony was retained, though the words referring to the power of sacrificing were omitted. "The bishop shall deliver to everyone of them the Bible in the one hand, and the chaliet or C?lp 'With the bread Í/n the othe'l" Jumd, and say: Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the holy sacrament in this congregation." The words placed in italics were, how- ever, entirely omitted in 1552. 2 Labbe, CQ'}l,cilia, vol. ix. p. 434. 3 l\{orinus, Dc O'rd-in(1.tio'/ . Pars III. exercit. vii.; cr. Denny and Lacey, p. 107. 754 THE 'rHIRTY-NINE .. RTICLES imposition of hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and love, and of soberness." Not till 1662 were the words "for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Ï1nposition of our hands," and the corre- sponding words in the consecration of a bishop, "for the office and \vork of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee," etc., inserted. Secondly, when the English Ordinal was put forth in 1550, the ,vords \v hich definitely speak of the power of sacrificing were dropped: " Accipe potestatem offere sacrificium Deo tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis." It is said that these omissions involve an entire change in the whole conception of orders, and thus invalidate the form. In answer to this, it may be pointed out that the \vords onlitted are con- fessedly of late introduction, and therefore cannot be regarded as essential. 1 What \vas done in 1550 was to revert to a scriptural fO'J'nutla in each case, and to say that to do this invalidates the fornl is to prove too nluch. In the case of priests, the forlH used is the very one used by our Lord Hinlself, and therefore lllUSt be suffi- cient to confer whatever powers \vere conferred by it in the first instance; and \ve ask to confer no more. In the case of bishops, the ,vords of S. Paul referring to the consecration of Timothy (2 Tim. i. 7) are enlployed, and the whole context makes it perfectly clear that it is for the office and work of a bishop that the gift of the Holy Ghost is sought. Moreover, in this case the correspond- ing form in the Latin Pontifical is equally indeterminate, as there, too, there is no sþecific mention of the office and work of a bishop. :Further, ,vith regard to the omission of the \vords \vhich confer the power of sacri- ficing, it must be remembered that the formula of ordination as used in the Church of England includes, 1 See further, Denny antI Lacey, p. i2 srq. ARTICLE XXX.VI 755 and has always included, a commission to minister the sacraments; and this must necessarily include a commis- sion to "offer" the Eucharistic sacrifice, in whatever sense the Eucharist be a sacrifice. It has been truly said that" the sacrifice of the Eucharist is not something superadded to the sacrament. It cannot be more than is included in 'Do this in remembrance of me.' What- ever it is or is not, it cannot be more than is covered by 'the perpetual memory of that His precious death until His coming again.' In conferring the authority to cele- brate the Eucharist, the Church cannot help conferring the power of sacrifice, even if she would." 1 But, as ,vas sho,vn under Article XXXI., there is not the slightest ground for thinking that the Church of Eng- land ever ,vished to deny the Eucharistic sacrifice when rightly understood. " The Sacrifices of Masses," as often taught in the sixteenth century, she ,vas rightly con- cerned to deny. And in her desire to repudiate what ,vas false and heretical, it Inay be that she went further than was necessary in omitting reference to the Euchar- istic sacrifice. But this is the utn10st that can be fairly said; and it is a sÏ1nple matter of fact that the conlmis- sion to offer the Eucharist must be included in the "authority . . . to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation," which is given to every .Anglican priest at the time of his ordination. There relnains the objection that our orders are invalid through lack of " intention." It has been said that" the Church ùoes not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concern- ing it. When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effect- ing or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by the ) Brightman ill Chll1'ch Historical Society Lcct'ltrcs, vol. i. p. 189. 756 THE TI--lIRTY-NI E AI TICLES very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacraluent is truly conferred by the lninistry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed." 1 This utter- ance of the highest authority in the Roman Church relieves us froIn the necessity of considering the private opinions of Barlow or Crannler, or any others. If the due form be rightly and seriously made use of, that is all that is required. .1\. parody or unseemly jest ,vould not be a valid sacranlent, even if the proper nlatter and fornl of ,vords were used, because the lack of intention \yould be "externally manifest"; but where the cere- nlony is perfonned as a Oh1l1'ch Ce1"emony, there the intention of the Church is present, even if the minister be himself heretical. As Hooker puts it: "Inasmuch as sacraments are actions religious and mystical, which nature they have not unless they proceed froul a serious lueaning, and ,vhat every man's private nlÎnù is, as \ve cannot kno,v, so neither are \ve bound to examine; therefore in these cases the known intent of the Church generally cloth suffice, and where the contrary is not manifest, \ve lllay presume that he ,vhich out\vardly doth the ,york hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God." 2 That then with which ,ve are concerned is not the "private mind" of any of the Reformers, but the form of the rite as expressing the mind of the Church of England; and if it could be proved that the rite ,vas changed "\vith the nlanifest intention of introducing another rite not approved hy the Church, and of reject- ing \vhat the Church does, and \vhat by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament,3 then, 1 The Papal Bull, ApostoUcæ Cwræ. 2 Hooker's Ecclosiastical Polity, Bk. V. c. lviii. 3. 3 The Papal HuH, Apostolicæ C/-z{,ræ. ARTICLE XXXVI 757 indeed, it Inight be fairly held that defect of intention was established. But, as a matter of fact, the Church of England has been particularly careful to express her intention, and to roake it perfectly clear that it ,vas no new rite which she introduced in the sixteenth century, but that he')- intention was to continue the ancient orders of b'ishops, priests, a-nd deacons, which had conte to her f')90m tlw days of the Apostles t/wmselves. In witness to this, appeal may be made to the Preface, which since 1550 has stood in the forefront of the Ordinal.! It is there stated that" it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there hath been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church-bishops, priests, and deacons, ,vhich offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation, that no man by his own private authority might presunle to execute any of theln except he ,vere first called, tried, examined, and kno,vn to have such qualities as were requisite for the same; and also by public prayer, with inlposition of hands, approved and adInitted thereunto. And therefore, to the intent these orders should be continued, and reverently used and esteelned in the Church of England, it is req uis- ite that no Ulan (not being at this present bishop, priest, nor deacon) shall execute any of theIn, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted, according to the fornl hereafter following." It is hard to conceive what more could be asked for, since it would be difficult to frame words which should express ,vith greater clearness that the intention of the Church ,vas not to make a ne,v ministry, but to continue that which already existed. But if further proof of the mind of the Church be demanded, it may be found not only in the form of 1 A few verbal changes were introduced in 1662, as may be seen by comparing the Preface as it stands in a modern Prayer Book with the form here given in the text. 49 758 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES service used which throughout speaks of cc priests" and " bishops," but also in the fact that the Church of Eng- land recognises the priesthood of the Church of Rome; and while she takes the utmost care to guard her altars from unauthorised ministrations, yet \vhenever a ROll1an priest joins the Anglican Communion, he is recognised as a priest at once, and is in virtue of his ordination in the Church of Rome adn1Ïtted to celebrate the sacra- ments. This could not be, unless the office were intended to be the same as that which he had already received. We conclude, then, that the objection on the score of defect of intention fails, as the other objections previously enumerated have failed; and that there is nothing to n1ake us feel a shado\v of doubt as to the validity of our orders, or as to the statement of the Article, that the Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons . . . doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering . . . and therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book . . . all such [are] rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered. 1 1 It has ùcen impossible in the space available to give more than the briefest outline of the objections that have been raised against the validity of Anglican Orders, and of the answers returned to them. Fuller information must be sought in some of the many excellent treatises which exist upon t.he subject. Among older books, A. vr. Haddan's Apostolical Succession in the Church of England may be mentioned; and reference should also be made to Denny and Lacey, Dc Hierarchia A '1lglica71a, which brings the subject fully up to date, and considers the objections in the latest form in which they have been presented. See also The Bull Apostolicæ Ouræ and the Edwardin Ordinal, by F. ,v. Puller; and for the practice of the Roman Church as to the reordination in :Mary's reign of those who had been ordained according to the Edwardian Ordinal, see 'V. H. Frere, Tile },[arian Reaction in its relation to the English CZer[J1j. ARTICLE De civilibu.s ....Yagistratibus. Regia }[ajestas in hoc Angliæ regno ac 'eteris ejus dominiis sum- mam habet potestatem, ad quam omnium statuum hujus regni sive illi ecclesiastici sunt sive non, in omnibus causis suprema gubernatio pertinet, et nulli externæ jurisdic- tioni est subjecta, nec esse debet. Cum Regiæ Iajestati summam guberna tionem tribuimus, quibus titulis intelligimus a.nimos quorun- dam calumniatorum offendi: non damus Regibus nostris aut verbi Dei aut sacramentorum adminis- trationem, quod ctiam Injunc- tiones ab Elizabetha Regina nostra nuper æditæ, assertissime testantur : sed earn tan turn prærogativam, quam in saCl"is Scri pturi a Deo ipso omnibus piis principibus, vide- mus semper fuÏ::ise attributam, hoc est, ut omncs status atque ordines fidei suæ a De.o commissos, sivc illi ecclesiastici sint, sive civiles, in officio contineant, et contumaccs ac delinquentes, gladio civili co- ercean t. Rornanus Pontifex nullam habet jurisdictionem in hoc regno Angliæ. Leges civiles possunt Christianos propter capitalia et gravia crimina. rnorte punire. Christianis licet et ex mandato 759 XXXVII Of tl1-e Civil Magistrates. The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of Eng- land, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief gov'ernment of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction. 'Vhere we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief govern- ment, by which titles we under- stand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended: we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's words or of sacra- ments, the which thing the Injunc- tions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify: But that only pre- rogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in holy Scriptures by God Himself; that is, that tIley should rule all estates and degrees committed to their cbarge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restra.in "ith the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers. The Bishop of nome hath no jurisdiction in this r al1l1 of Eng- land. The laws of the realm may 760 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Magistratlls arma portare et justa 1 punish Christian Illen with death, bells. administrare. for heinous and grievous otl'ences. It is lawful for Christia.n men, at the commandment of the .:\lagis- trate, to wear weapons and serve in the wars. VERY inlportant alterations were nlade in this Article in 1563, ,vhen the first paragraph ,vas entirely rewritten, and the second, referring to Elizabeth's Injunctions, intro- duced for the first time. Instead of the very careful and guarded stateluent of the Royal suprenlacy now contained in these t,vo paragraphs, the Edwardian Article had bluntly stated that c: the King of England is suprenle head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and Ireland." It also contained a clause (omitted in 1563) after that referring to the Bishop of Rome, stating in Scriptural language that "the civil magistrate is ordained and allowed of God: wherefore ,ve I1IUSt obey him, not only for fear of plmishment, but also for conscience' sake" (cf. Rom. xiii. 1, 5). The object of the Article is (1) to explain and justify the tenet of the Royal suprenlacy, (2) to assert formally the repudiation of the jurisdiction of the Pope, and (3) to condemn the attitude of the Anabaptists \vith regard to the obedience due to the magistrate, and the lawfulness of capital punishment and of serving in war. With regard to this last point it may be noted that so formidable ,vas the spread of the Anabaptists, that they \vere expressly excluded fronl the pardon granted by Henry VIII. in 1540; and among their errors the follo", ing are particularly mentioned: "That it is not la,vful for a Christian nlan to bear office or rule in the Common- 1 It is not easy to say why there ið nothing corresponding to this word in the English. In the series of 1553 "justa bell"," was represented by "lawful wars." I I I I I I ARTICLE XXXVII 761 \vealth," 1 and "that no man's laws ought to be obeyed." 2 The subjects brought before us ill this Article may best be treated of under the following heads:- 1. The Royal supreluacy. 2. The Papal claims. ;). The la\vfulness of capital punishnlent. 4. The la\vfulness of wal'. I. The Royal Sup1'en acy. The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other ller dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any fOl"eign jurisdiction. 1 Cf. the Reformatio Leg'll1n Ecclesiasticmoum, Dc Hæ1"es. c. 13. 2 32 Henr. YIII. c. 49, 11. ee 'Vilkins, COl/,cilia, vol. iii. p. 843, :tnd cf. the Confession of Augsburg, Art. XVI.: "Dc rebus cÍL'ilibus. De rebus civilibus docent, quoù legitimæ ordinationes civiles sillt bona opera Dei, quod Christianis liceat gerel'e magistratus, exercere judicia, judicare res ex imperatoriis, et aliis præsentibus legibus, supplicia jure coustituere, jure bellare, militare, lege contrahere, tenere proprium, jusjurandum postuJantibus magistratibus dare, ducere uxorem, nubere. Damnant Anabaptistas, qui interdicunt hæc civilia officia Christian is, " etc. To the sa.me effect, the twelfth of the Thirteen Articles of 1538: "Licet insuper Christianis ulliversis ut singuli quique pro suo gradu ac conditione juxta clivinas ac principumleges et honestas singularum regionulll consuetudines, talia munia atque oflìcia obeant et exerceant, quibus mortalis hæe vita vel illdiget, vel ornatur, vel conservatur. N empe ut victllm (luærant ex honestis artibus, llegocientur, faciallt contractus, possideant proprinm, res suas jure postulent, militent, copulentur Jegitimo matrimonio, præstent jusjurandum et hnjusmodi"; and in Hermann's Consultation, among the error3 of the Anabaptists the follo\\ iug is doted: "That to administre the cõmon weale, to exercise cõmon iugementes, to punishe yll doers, nc offices and workes contrarie to the preceptes of Christe, whiche a Christian man ought not to do. "-English transJation (1548), fo1. ex!. 762 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES In considering the history of the formal assertion of the Royal supremacy, it will be well to mark out clearly t\VO stages-(a) the recognition of the Sovereign as U Supreme Head," and (b) his recognition as" Supreme Governor." (a) The formal recognition of the Sovereign as "Supreme Head" begins in the year 1531. In this year Henry VII!., who was now bent upon obtaining his divorce, with a view to obtaining the ready submission of the clergy \vhen the question should be brought before then}, insisted on the introduction of a new forn} of the king's title into the prealnble of an Act of Convocation by which a grant of money was to be made to the Crown. As originally presented to the Convocation, the form of the title spoke of" the English Church and clergy, of \vhich the king alone is protector and supreme head." It was, however, only accepted by the clergy with the qualifying clause, " as far as the law of Christ perlnits." 1 The following year was nlarked by the" submission of the clergy," \vhereby the Convocation formally ackno\y- ledged that the I-:oyallicence \vas necessary for Convoca- tion to Ineet, and to make Canons, and also agreed tha.t the existing Canoll La,v should be revie,ved by a 00111- n1Ïssion appointed by the Crown. 2 leanwhile Parliament had begun to pass a series of I 'c Ecclesiæ, et cleri Anglicani, cujus singularem protectorem unicull1 et supremum dominum, et quantum per Christi legem licet, etiam supremum caput ipsius majestatem recognoscimus." For the l1istor,y of this see Dixon, History of the Church C!.f England, vol. i. p. 62 $eq. The text of this and the other formal Acts by which the Royal supremacy was recognised al'e conveniently collectpd together in the Report of the Ecclesi- l stical Cowì'ls C01/zmission, vol. i. p. 70. 2 Dixon, vol. i. p. 110, Eccl. Cowrts Cornmis..,iO'JI" p. 71. It was this agrecment that thc Canon Law should ùe reviewed which led to the appointment of the various Commissions from which t1w Reformatio Legzldn Ecclt.siastica'J'u1n cmana.ted. As, however, was mentioncY l'eBult is brought about, in the face of the absence of any directions in the New Testament to soldiers requiring them to forsake their calling, it can scarcely be maintained that it is not "lawful for Christian filen to wear weapons and serve in the wars." It Inay be added that the nUlllerOUS allusions to the nlilitary life as affording instructive lessons and analogies to the life of the Christian, appears not only to be based on the supposition that the life thus referred to is in itself a la\vful one, but also to indicate that it is especially favourable to the development of certain very essential moral qualities. 1 1 Reference should be made to the masterly sermon on "\Y ar" in }Iozley's UnÚ'ersity Sermons, No. Y., as well as to the late Aubrey Moore's })aper on the same subject in the Report of tlw Portsmouth Okurch Congress. ARTICLE De ülicita bmwrlt7n Communica- tione. Facultates et bona Christianorum non sunt C'ommunia quoad jus ct possessionem, nt quiùam Ana- baptistæ falso jactant. Debet tamen quisque de his quæ possidet, pro facultatum ratione, pauperibus eleemosynas benigne distribnere. XXXVIII Of Ch1'istian .J[en's Goods which are not common. The riches and good of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabapti ts ùo falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought of such things as he possesseth, liberaUy to give alms to the poor, according to his ability. THERE has been no alteration whatever in this Article ( except in the form of the title 1) since it ,vas first drawn up in 1553. The error of the Anabaptists condemned in it is described Inore fully in the Reformatío Legum Ecclesiasticarum, from ,vhich \ve learn that the opinion of the community of goods 'was in some cases pushed to such an extent that it was made to include and justify a comnlunity of wives. 2 1 Christianorum bona non sunt communia. Christian men's goods are not common. 1553 and 1563. 2 De Hæres. c. 14: "De comm'ltnitatc bmwrurn et 'ltxor.urn. Excludatur etiam ab eisdem Anabaptistis inducta bonorum et possessionum com- munitas, quam tantopere urgent, nt nemini quicquam. relinquant proprium et suum. In quo mirabiliter loquuntur, cum furta prohiberi divina Scriptura cernant, et eleemosynas in utroque Testamento laudnri viùeant, quas ex propriis facultatibus n08t is elargimur; quorum sane neutrum consistere posset, nisi Christiallis proprietas bonorum et possessionum suarum relinqueretur. Emergunt etiam ex Anabaptistarum lacunis quidam Nicolaitæ, inquinatissimi sane homines, qui fæminarum, imo et uxorum disputant usum per orunes promiscue pervagari debere. 183 784 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES The t,vo subjects of ,vhich the .A.rticle speaks are these- 1. The comulunity of goods. . The duty of alnlsgiving. I. The OOl1onunity of Goods. The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and pos- session of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. .. The notion of the Anabaptists here condemned probably originated in a misunderstanding of S. Luke's \vords in the ...4..cts of the Apostles. Two passages have often been cited in proof of the assertion that Con1- munism proper ,vas the system that originally prevailed in the Apostolic Church, and from them it has been concluded that the same system ought to be practised now, and that consequently the possession of private property by individuals is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. The passages in question are the follo,ving:- Acts ii. 44, 45 : " All that believed were together, and had all things COlnlllon; and they sold theÏl possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need." C. iv. 32 : "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of thelll said that aught of the things \vhich he possessed was his own; but they had all things conlnlon " ( v aÌrroÎs å7raVTa "otvá). Qnæ fæda illorum et cOllscelcrata libiùo primulll pieta.ti cOlltmria c::;t ct sacris literis, deinde cum universa civili honestate, et natura.li iUa. incorruptaque in mentibus nostris aeeensa luce vehementur pugnat." Cf. also the quotations givcn above on p. 761 ; and see Hermann's Cun- sllltrrtion (Eng. tr.), fo!' ex!. ARTICLE XXXVIII 785 These passages, ho\vever, do not stand alone; and a careful consideration of the whole account given by S. Luke of the early Church in Jerusalem, shows conclus- ively that \vhat he is here describing is not so much an institution as a telnper and spirit. }'fost certainly the rights of private property were not superseded. fary the mother of John Mark still retained her own house (Acts xii. 12); while the words of S. Peter to Ananias prove that no necessity \vas laid upon him to sell his property, "\Vhilst it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?" l\Ioreover, as \vill be sho\vn below, there are various injunctions to liberality in almsgiving in the Apostolic Epistles which are incompatible with Communism, for \vhere a strict system of this kind is practised, and the rights of property are superseded, personal almsgiving becollles an impossibility. There are no "rich" to be charged to be " ready to give and glad to distribute." It may be added, that while there there is no trace elsewhere of any system of Communism adopted by the Church, yet expressions are used by later \vriters 1 which afford striking parallels to those employed by S. Luke, and show us that no violence is done to his words if they are understood of the eager, enthusiastic spirit of love which so prevailed among the early Christians as to lead them to regard \vhatever they posseEsed as at the disposal 1 Thus in the j.LoaX7} TWV OWO Ka å7rOO"TÓ'J\.WV we read: "If thou have in thine hands, thou shalt give for ransom of thy sins. Thou shalt not hesitate to give, neither shalt thou grudge when thou givest: for thou shalt know who is the recompenser of the reward. Thou shalt not turn aside from him that needeth, but shalt slzare all tlt.-ings with thy brotlzer, and shalt 'iwt say that they arc thiM Ou;/ ; for if ye are fellow-sharers in that which is imperishable, how much morc in the things that are perish- able," c. iv. Tertullian also writes as follows: "One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things art) C0'1nI1Lú1t among us, but our wircs," ..1pol. xxxix. 786 THE 'fHIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of their brethren; and not of any forInal or sYtlteluatic plan of COlllmunisnl.I II. The Duty vi Al'rnsgivin!J. Every man ought of such things as he pos- sesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability. That almsgiving is a Christian duty scarcely needs formal proof. I t is sufficient to refer to- (1) Our Lord's words in the Sermon on the Mount, where He does not èOlnmalld it, but rather takes for granted that His followers will practise it, and gives directions concerning the manner of doing it, as He does also \vith regard to the t\VO other duties of prayer and fasting (S. J\Iatthew vi. 1 seq.; cf. also S. Luke xii. 3 3 ). (2) The directions concerning it in the Apostolic :Epistles,2 e.!J. " Charge them that are rich in this present \vorld . . . that they do good, that they be rich in good \vorks, that they be ready to distribute, willing to COlli- Inunicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed," 1 Tim. vi. 17-19. I On the position of some modern Communists, who affirm that Com- munism was the natural outcome of the Law of Equality implied in Christ's teaching, and maintain that "Jesus Christ Himself not ouly proclaimed, preached, and prescribed Communism as a consequence of fraternity, but practised it with Hi Apostles" (Cabet, Voyage en Icarie, p. 567); see Kaufmann's Socialis7n and Communism, c. i. ; and on tho relation between Religion anù Socialism, see Flint's Socialism, c. xi. 2 The Second Book of the Homilies contains a plain Homily on the subject of " almsdeeds and mercifulness towards the poor and ncedy," in which the Scriptural directions on the subjcct from the Old Testament (including the Apocrypha), as well as from the New, are collected to- gether, p. 406 (S.P.C.K.). ARTICLE XXXVIII 787 "To do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased," Heb. xiii. 16. Cf. also Rom. xii. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; 2 Cor. ix. 7; 1 John iii. 17, etc. ARTICLE XXXIX Dc Jl.lrejura1Ulo. Quemadmodum juramentum Ya- num et temerarium a Domino nostro Jesu Christo et Apostolo ejus Jacobo Christianis hominibus indictum esse fatemur: ita Christian am religi- onem minime prohibere censemus, quia jubente Jtlagistratu, in causa fidei et charitatis, jurare liceat, modo id fiat juxta Prophetæ doc- trinam, in justitia, in judicio, et veritate. Of a Christian 11[(tn's Oath. .As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lorù Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle: so we judge that Chrhtian religion doth not l)rohibit, but a man may swear when the magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the prophet's teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth. LIKE the one just consiJ.ered, this Article, \vhich has remained without change since 1553, is aimed against a tenet of the Anabaptists, \vhich is also condemned in the Reformatio Legum Eccles'iastica'rurn. "Præterea nec juramentorum Anabaptistt:e legitimum relinquunt usum, in quo contra Scripturarum sententiam et veteris Testamenti patrum exempla, Pauli etiam apos- toli, imo Christi, imo Dei Patris procedunt; quorum juramenta sæpe sunt in sacris literis repetita," etc. 1 There are t\VO passages of the New Testalnent \vhich have appeared to others besides the Anabaptists to forbid the taking of an oath In any case. 2 They are (a) our Lord's teaching in the Sermon on the l\lount, and (b) the very similar words of S. James. 1 De Hrcrcs. c. 15. De Jltra,I1W'I tis et parficipati01w dOllzl,ÛC((' Co.."íUf', and cf. the quotations given above under Art. XXXVII. p 761. ot only the Quakers of later days, but some among the Christian :Fathers took tbi view. 783 ARTICLE XXXIX 789 (a) S. l\latt. v. 33-37: "Ye have heard that it ,vas said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thy- self, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by the he ven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. N either shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair \vhite or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one." (b) S. James v. 12: "Above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay (or, 'let yours be the yea, yea, and the nay, nay,' R.V. marg.); that ye fall not under judgment." These are evidently the passages to which the Article alludes, when it says that we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by onr Lord Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle. And it is tolerably clear that in neither passage is the formal tendering of oaths in a law court under considera- tion. Such a solemn act is referred to in the Epistle to the Hebrews in terms which conclusively indicate that the writer of the Epistle saw nothing wrong in it. "Men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation" (Heb. vi. 16). So S. Paul, several tin1es in the course of his Epistles, makes a solemn appeal to God, which is a form of oath (2 Cor. i. 23, xi. 10, 31, xii. 19; Gal. i. 20; Phil. i. 8), and in one instance uses the expression v T V vJ1ÆTÉpav KavX1}u/;v, 1 Cor. xv. 31. And there are references to God as swearing by Himself, which it would be difficult to recon- cile with the idea that there is anything essentially wrong in a solemn asseveration or oath, in order to gain credence for a statement (Heb. iii. 11, vi. 16, 17). But, 51 790 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES further, what seems quite decisive is the fact that when our Lord was solemnly adjured by the high priest, i.e. put on His oath, He did not refuse to answer. See S. Matt. xxvi. 62-64, "And the high priest stood up, and said unto Him, Answerest Thou nothing? What is it which these witness against Thee? But Jesus held His peace. And the high priest said unto Him, I adjure Thee by the living God (ÈEop/l{ (J) CTE /laTa TOU BEOU TOV t'WVTOÇ) that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." In this case, as in others, our Lord's actions form the best conlmentary upon the meaning of His words, and prove decisively that the reference in the Sermon on the Mount is, as the Article takes it, to "vain and rash swearing." S. James' words are apparently directly founded on our Lord's,! and there is nothing in them to lead us to think that he is contemplating anything more than ordinary conversa- tion and the use of oaths in it. We conclude, therefore, that there is nothing in Holy Scripture which need raise any scruple in the minds of Christians as to the lawful- ness of acquiescing when solemnly put upon their oath. Whether the use of oaths by the Legislature is advisable is another matter, on which we are not called upon to offer an opinion. A man may regret the custom, and feel that it brings with it grave dangers of the profanation of sacred things, and encourages the false idea of a double standard of truthfulness, and yet hold that Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to 1 This is made very plain if the marginal rendering of the Revised Version be adopted. ARTICLE XXXIX 791 the prophet's teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth. The cc prophet," whose cc teaching" is here referred to, is the prophet Jeremiah, who says (iv. 2), "Thou shalt swear, As the Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness"; 1 and if judicial oaths are permissible at all, it can only be on these conditions. 1 "Et jurabis: Vivit Dominus in veritate, et in judicio, et in jus- titia" (Vulgate). The passage is quoted in the Homily cc Against Swearing and Perjury" (p. 73, S.P.C.K.), where the whole question of the lawfulness of oaths is also argued. INDEX -+-- Aristides, 140, 299. Arminianism, 470. Arnold, T., 490. Artemon, heresy of, 105. Arundel, Archbishop, Constitutions of, 561. Ascension of Christ, 189. Assembly of Divines, 370, 376. Athanasian Creed, not the work of Athanasius, 329; a Latin Creed, 329 ; origin of name, 330; con- troversy on date, 331; internal evidence of date, 332; external evidence, 333; ÞrISS. of, 336; contained in early collections of canons, 338; commentaries on, 339; used by early writers, 340 ; probable date of, 343; use made of, by the Church of England, 344 ; contents of, 345 ; objections to, 346 ; mistranslations in, 347 ; text of, 353. Athanasius, use of Hypostasis, 107; on the lrfonarchia, 116; on Homoousios, 126; on Sabell- ianism, 206; on the sufficiency of Scripture, 242; on the Canon of Scripture, 256; on blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 446; on the powers of the Church, 521; 276 ; on Councils, 534. Athenagoras, 105, 205. Atonement, doctrine of, 150 ; theories of, 154; reveals the Father's love, 154; a mystery, 157; complete and sufficient, 688. Cf. 439. Augsburg, Confession of. See Con. fessio-n. 435, 560, 598, Augustine, on the Trinity, 101, 111, 112; on eternal generation, ';93 AACHEN, Connci1 of, 222. Abbot, Archbishop, 48. Abelard, Ill. Addis and Arnold, 472, 553, 659. Admonition to Parliament, 53, 458, 747. Adoration, Eucharistic, 667. A Lasco, John, 28, 643. Albertus Magnus, 149, 435, 692. Alexander, Archbishop, 591. Alexander of Hales, 435. Alexandria, Church of, 507. Alexandria, Council of, 109. Alley, Bishop, on the descent into hell, 160 ; on the Old Testament, 281. Almsgiving, teaching of Scripture on, 786. Ambrose, 219, 314, 360, 426. Amphilochius, 249, 265. Anabaptists, 22, 24, 125, 282, 358, 386, 398, 441, 455, 574, 588, 616, 760, 783, 788. Ancyra, Council of, 700, 711. Andrewes, Bishop, 47, 554, 660, 663. Anselm, 155, 701. Antioch, Church of, 507; Council of, 769. Apiarius, the case of, 779. Apocrypha, 274; Jerome on, Hooker on, 278. A pollinaris, heresy of, 135. Apostles' Creed, history of, 305; origin of name, 313; text of, 315. Apostolical succession, 577, 740. .Apostolicæ C1træ, the Papal Bull, 752. Aquinas, 171, 406, 609, 670, 678. 794 INDEX 123; on the divinity of Christ, 129; on the descent into hell, 167, 171; on the presence of Christ as man, 196; on the Macedonians, 208; on the pro- cession of tIle Holy Spirit, 219 ; on the sufficiency of Scripture, 242; on the Canon of Scripture, 250, 256; on the Creed, 300; CÆSAREA, Baptismal Creed of, 316. coincidences with the Athanasian Cæsarius of Arles, 309, 342. Creed, 332, 345 ; on original sin, Cajetan, Cardinal, 572. 360, 371; on grace, 383; on Calvin, 385, 446, 474, 590. justification, 393; on good works, Canon of Scripture, meaning of the 410; on works before justifica- term, 248; method of determin- tion, 423; on l)redestination, ing, 250; difference between 478; on ceremonies, 517; on England and Rome on, 252; purgatory, 545; on miracles, evidence on which the Canon of 558; on invocation of saints, the New Testament rests, 261. 566; on sacraments, 596; on the Capital punishment, 780. Eucharist, 671. Carthage, Council of, 257, 699. Augustine of Canterbury, 518. Cassian, 304. Autun, Council of, 333. Celibacy of the clergy, history of, 696. BANCROFT, Bishop, 482. Ceremonial Law of Moses not bind- Baptism, effect of, in removing orig- ing on Christians, 294. inal sin, 373 ; lay, 505 ; Zwinglian Cerinthus, 711. and Anabaptist teaching on, 621; Chalcedon, Council of, 533. teaching of the Church on, 623; Charisius of Philadelphia, 225. blessings of, 623; relation to Charlemagne, 221, 313, 337. confirmation, 630; of infants, Charles the Bald, 337. Scriptural arguments for, 635; Cheke, Sir J., 13, 19, 654. patristic evidence for, 637. See Chrysostom, 192, 214, 471. also Regeneration. Church, use of the word in Scrip- Barlow, Bishop, consecration of, ture, 497; the visible, 498; 751. invisible, meaning of phrase, 499 ; Barnabas, Epistle of, 270. Scripture proof of visibility of, Basil, 206, 565, 566. 500; notes of, 502; legislative Baxter, R., 56. power of, 514 ; judicial power of, Bede, 171. 520; a witness and keeper of Bellarmine, 549, 613. Scripture, 526; particular or Bengel, 115, 147. national, 717. Beringar, 650. Church authority, in relation to Bigg, C., 108. private judgment, 525. Blackburne, Archdeacon, 63. Church, Dean, 371. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, Clarke, Dr. S., 111. 447. Clement of Alexandria, 171, 248, Bona, Cardinal, 677. 275, 366, 471, 544, 698, 741. Bonaventura, 435, 567. Clement of Rome, 104, 205, 248, Boniface VIII., 432. 270, 467, 578, 739. Boxley, Rood of, 561. Clermont, Council of, 430, 678. Braga, CouDcil of, 713. Clovesho, Council of, 567. Bramhall, Archbishop, 660, 746. Communicatio idiO'T1'Wttum, 138. Bright, W., 773, 776. Communion of Saints, 311. Brightman, F. E., 694, 755. Community of goods, 784. Browne, Bishop H., on the Articles, Concomitance, doctrine of, 683. 144, 172, 242, 244, 330, 465, 607, 632, 660. Bull, Bishop, 365, 413, 416. Burke, Edmund, 63. Burnet, Bishop, ]8, 47, 660. Butler, Bishop, on the Atonement, 157. INDEX 795 lectures of, 207, 300; on the Canon, 255, 265; on the term Apocryphal, 276; creed of, 321; on the administration of the Eucharist, 677. Cyril Lucar, Confession of, 259. Concupiscence, 375, 377. Cmfessio Basiliensis, 9. Cmfessío Belgica, 10. Cmfessio Gallicana, 10, 376. Cmfessio Helvetica, 10, 369. Confession of Augsburg, 8, 90, 120, 198, 232, 358, 388, 445, 493, 573, 587, 592, 616, 642, 680, 692, 761. Confession of vVürtemberg, 9, 120, 198, 232, 378, 388, 410, 513, 587. Confirmation, 604, 630. Constance, Council of, 431, 679. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 559. Constantinople, first Council of, 215, 533; second Council of, 533; third Council of, 533; seventh Council of, 559; eighth Council of, 559. Constantinople, Creed of, 324. Convocation, were the Forty-Two Articles submitted to it 15. Corpus Christi, Festival of, 666. Cosin, Bishop, 49. Councils. See General Councils. Counsels and precepts, 437. Cranmer, Archbishop, prepares the Forty-Two Al,ticles, 12; his ac- counts of the title to them, 17; on the Eucharist, 642-674; his marriage, 702; on the Royal Supremacy, 769. See also 5, 7, ELECTION, 466 seq. 28, 258. Elvira, Council of, 558, 698. Creeds, origin of, 297; indications Enoch, Book of, 164, 287. of, in K ew Testament, 297; early Ephesus, seventh canon of the forms of, 298 ; interrogative forms Council of, 225; ratifies the of, 300; introduced into the Creed of Nicæa, 324. Cf. 530, liturgy, 300; used as tests of 523. orthodoxy, 301; difference be- Ephraem the Syrian, 565. tween Eastern and 'Vestern, 302. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, on Creighton, Bishop, 435, 556. Montanism, 205 ; creeds given by, Cup, denial of, to the laity, 506; 319. Cf. 208, 215, 324, 557. condemned by early writers, 677; Episcopacy, history of, 731 ; how far gradual growth of the practice, necessal'y, 744. 679 ; rejected by the Church of Episcopal succession, Church of England, 680; grounds of the England, Roman objections to, rejection, 681. 748. Curteis, Canon, 68. Erasmus, 568. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 105, Estccnrt, 750. 307, 360, 427, 453, 555, 595, 639, Eternal generation of the Son, 123. 711, 778. Eucharist, changes in the Article Cyprian, Bishop of Toulon, 309. on, 644; teaching on, 647; adop- Cyril of Alexandria, 216. tion of, 667; elevation of, 666 j Cyril of J enlsalem, catechetical reservation of, 666. DALE, R. 'V., 147, 148. Decentius of Eugubium, 606. Deity, properties of, 139. Denebert, Bishop, 341. Denny and Lacey, 749. Descent into hell, change in the Article on, 160. See also Hell, descent into. Diaconate, origin of, 733. Diatessaro'lll of Tatian, 269. Diocesan System, origin of, 738. Diogenes of Cyzicus, 322. Dionysius of Alexandria, 107. Dionysius of Rome, 107. Dionysius the Areopagite, 597. Divinity of the Son, proved from Scripture, 127; of the Spirit, 199. Dixon, Canon R. W., 3, 5, 12, 13, 14, 17, 29, 561. Docetism, 145. Donatism, 779. Double procession, the doctrine of, 211 ; objections to, 224. Driver, Dr., 164, 286; 291, 292. 796 INDEX Eusebius of Cæsarea on the Canon of the New Testament, 266; on the Creed of Nicæa, 316. Eutyches, heresy of, 136. Excommunication, Jewish, 706 ; Christian, 707; Scriptural grounds of, 708; history of, 710; canons concerning, 713. Extreme Unction, 605. authority, 536; recognised by the Church of England, 536. Generaliter, meaning of the word, 486. Good works, 404; teaching of the Article on, 412; follow after justification, 413. Gore, C., 98, 103, 125, 130, 144, 473, 659, 732. Gottschale, 475. Goulbourn, Dean, 515, 527. Grace, teaching of the Articles OD, 380; teaching of Scripture on, 382; teaching of the Prayer Book on, 382; preventing and co-operat- ing, 382 ; de congruo and de con- digno, 418. Gregory the Great, 518, 547. Gregory VII., 70l. Gregory Nazianzen, 210, 256, 265, 565, 566. Gregory N yssen, 565. Gregory of Bergamo, 597. Guest, Bishop, share in the pre- paration of the Articles, 30; suggests further changes, 45; on Article XVII., 487; on Article XXYIII., 646, 662; 011 Article XXIX., 45, 669. FAITH, use of the word in Scripture, 899 ; why the instrument of justi- fication, 404. See also Justifica- tion. Fall, the, effect of, 367; Scripture proof of, 370. Farrar, Dean, 457. . Fides infirmis andformata, 406. Field, Dean, 570. Flesh and bones, meaning of the term, 188. Florence, Council of, 547, 598. Forbes, Bishop A., 481, 591. Forbes, Bishop 'V., 422, 568, 572. Formula Ooncordiæ, 369. Fortunatus, commentary of, on the Athanasian Creed, 334. Forty-Two Articles, history of their preparation, 12; had they the authority of Convocation, 15; their substance and object, 20; HADES, 163. See also Hell. not intended to be a permanent Hadrian I., 221, 337. test, 25; their sources, 26; how Hadrian II., 337. far dependent on the Confession Haimo of Halberstadt, 650. of Augsburg, 26; their test, 70. HaU, Bishop, 745. :Francis a Sancta Clara, 440, 617. Hamant, Matthew, 120, 490. Frankfort, Council of, 222, 560. Hampton Court Conference, 54, 482. Freeman, Archdeacon, 203. Hardwick on the Articles, 19, 25, Freeman, E. A., 701, 702. 31, 39, 46, 51, 281, 38G, 417,512, Freewill, teaching of the Article on, 717. 379; Council of Trent on, 380. Hatfield, Council of, 220. Fuller, Church History, 15, 750. Hebrews, Epistle to, hard passages Fust, Sir H. J., 728. in, 449. Future Hfe, doctrine of, in the Old Hefele, Bishop, 256, 258. Testament, 287. Hell, meaning of the word, 163. M ell, descent into, Scriptural grounds of doctrine, 166; object of, 169; early belief in, 175; history of the Article of the Creed on, 177 ; criticism of Pearson on, 179. Hermann, Archbishop, consultation of, 398, 575, 589, 761. Hermas, 205, 270. Heurtley, Professor, 177, 310, 322. GALLICAN additions to the creed,309. Gangra, Council of, 698. Gardiner, S. R., 48. Gascoigne, Libc'J. Veritat7tm, 433,702. Gclasius, 678. General Councils, may not be gathered together without the consent of princes, 532; mayerI', 534; have erred, 535; their INDEX 797 Heylin, 15. Hilary of ArIes, 332. Hilary of Poictiers, 110, 218, 256. Hildebert of Tours, 684. Hincmar, 650. Hippolytus, 108. Holy Communion. See Eucharist. Holy Ghost, addition of Article on, ICONOCLASTIC controversy, the, 558. 198; Divinity of, 199; distinct Ignatius, 104, 140, 175, 205, 210, personality of, 201; history of 270, 467, 738. the doctrine of, 204; procession Illingworth's BamptonLectltres, 103. of, 209; blasphemy against, 446 Images, adoration of, 557 seg. scq. Immaculate conception, the, 440. Holy Scripture, changes in the Imparted righteousness, 405. Article on, 231; sufficient for Incarnation, doctrine of, 137 seq. salvation, 234; decree of the Indefective grace, 457. Council of Trent on, 235; the Indulgences, 426 seq., 554 seg. Fathers on, 242; the Canon of, Infen and Inferna, 163. 248. Innocent I., 606, 70l. Holywood, 749. Innocent III., 652. Homilies, History of, 723; authors Institution of a Christian man, 5, of, 724, 726; nature of assent 372, 508, 599, 609. to, 726; on the doctrine of a Intention, doctrine of, 755 seg. future life, 293; on justification, Invocation of saints, the, 564 seq. 407; on the Church, 494; on Irenæus, 140, 153, 175, 241, 269, Councils, 536; on adoration of 275, 298, 303, 470, 557, 638, images, 561; on invocation of 777. saints, 568; on the sacraments, Irresistible grace, 477. 592, 600; on almsgiving, 786; on oaths, 791. JAMES, on justification, 401 ; bishop HomoO'ltsios, meaning of the term, of Jerusalem, 734. 125; adopted at Nicæa, 125; Jerome on the word hypostasis, 111 ; objections to, 126. on the Apocrypha, 232, 256; on Hooker, R., Ecclesiastical Polity of, the term Oanonical, 250, 275 ; on 47; on the Incarnation, 136, 143; the Creed, 307, 314; on worship, on the communicatio idiomat'ltm, 583. 138 ; on the gift of unction, 142 ; Jerusalem, Church of, 507. on the presence of Christ as man, Jesus Christ. See Son of God. 194; on the sufficiency of Scrip- Jewel, Bishop, 44, 195, 764, 766, ture, 251 ; on the Apocrypha, 278; 769. on preaching, 503 ; on the Church John VIII., 430. of Rome, 509; on the authority Josephus, 253. of the Church, 520; on Baptism, Judgment, the last, 196. 624 ; on the Eucharist, 659, 663 ; Julius, Pope, 534. on ceremonies, 720 ; on the minis- Justification, use of the word in try, 745; on the formula of 01'- Scripture, 390 ; meaning of, 392 ; dination, 747 ; on intention, 756. distinction from sanctification, Hooper, Bishop, on the Articles, 395; meritorious cause of, 397; 13; on the Anabaptists, 22, 145, instrument of, 398; by faith 441, 486, 490 ; on the descent into only, 400 ; works before, 415. hell, 162; on the Church, 499. Justin Martyr, 104, 140, 175, 204, Horsley, Bishop, 165, 173. 269, 271, 299, 470, 637, 677. Hort, F. J. A., on Genesis i.-iii., 363; on Article XIII., 422; on KAYE, Bishop, 246, 470. Article XXII., 553. Kirkpatrick, Professor, 289. Humanity of Christ, perfect, 141; sinless, 442. Humphrey, 41, 646. II ypostasis, history of the word, ]07. Hypostatic union, the, 137. 798 Knox, A., 661. Knox, John, 14, 730. INDEX ltIilman, Dean, 483. Ministry, the threefold, 731 seq. Moberly, Bishop, 663. LACEY. See Denny. Moehler, 237. Lambeth Articles, the, 53, 457, lJlonarchia, doctrine of the, 115. 475. :I\Iontague, Bishop, 48, 49, 570, Lanfranc, 701. 727. Laodicaea, Council of, 256. Montanism, 205, 449. Laud, Archbishop, advises Charles Moral law binding on Christians, I. to prefix declaration to the 294. Articles, 49; on Canon V., 67; Mozley, J. B., 352, 478, 671, 693. on Article XX., 513. Muratori, 333. Leicester, Earl of, 64. Muratorian fragment on the Canon, Leo I., 677. 267. Leo Ill., 223. Leo the Armenian, 559. Liberius, Pope, 526. Liddon, H. P., 113, 117, 123, 125, 130, 144, 480. Lightfoot, Bishop, 270, 327, 400, 551, 733. Locus pænitentiæ, 452; veniæ, 454. Logos, doctrine of the, 122. Lord's Supper. See Eucharist. Luckock, Dean, 565. Lumby, J. R., 335. Luther on the Canon of the New Testament, 272; on the slavery of the will, 385 ; on justification by faith, 401; on good works, 411; on predestination, 484; on the effect of sacraments, 591. MACEDON IUS, heresy of, 207. :Marcellus of Ancyra, heresy of, 321 ; creed of, 306. Martensen, Bishop, 191. Mason, A. J., 604. Masses, the sacrifices of; meaning of the phrase, 691; medieval teaching on, 692. Matrimony, Holy, 605. Maurice, F. D., 292. Medd, P. G., 96. ltlediation of Christ, 152. Medieval errors condemned in the Articles, 21. Melancthon, 463, 590. Melchiades, 779. Meli to of Sardis, 255. Messianic hope in the Old Testa- ment, 285. Micronius, Martin, 23, 161. Mill, W. H., 246. Milligan, Professor, 189. N AO'S Head fable, the, 749. Neal, D., 55. Necessary doctrine and erudition for any Christian man, 5, 380, 641, 702. Neo-Cæsarea, Council of, 700, 711. N estorius, heresy of, 136. New Testament, Canon of, 261; MSS. of, 261; versions of, 263; catalogues of, 265; citations of, 268 ; language of Article VI. on, 271. Newdigate, Sir R., 63. Newman, J. H., 114, 237, 274. Nicæa, Council of, 124, 520, 533, 698. Nicæa, Second Council of, 533, 559. Nicene Creed, original form of, 316 ; enlarged form of, 318; date and objec.,t of the enlargement, 321; possibly sanctioned at Constanti- nople, 324; not noticed at Ephesus, 324; sanctioned at Chalcedon, 324; additions at Toledo, :215; Latin version of, 327 ; English translation of, 327. Nicholas I., Pope, 224. Nicholas III., Pope, 228. Norris, Archdeacon, 153, 155, 348. N ovatianism, 449. OATHS, Article on, 788; teaching of Scripture on, 789. Old Testament, Canon of the, 252 ; changes in the Article on, 280; not contrary to the New, 283. Ommanney, Preb., 339. Opus operatum, meaning of the phrase, 612. INDEX 799 Orders, Holy, 605. Ghost, 201 ; on the procession of Ordinal, objcctions of the Puritans the Holy Ghost, 21l. to, 731 ; objections of the Roman- Pelagianism, 360. ists to, 748; validity of the Penance, 604. Anglican, 753. Penitential discipline of the Church, Ordination, formula of, 746; objec- 71l. tions of the Puritans to, 747; Perichoresis, doctrine of the, 117. objections of the Romanists to, Perpetua, acts of, 543. 753. Perrone, 237, 659. Origen, his use of Ousia and Hy- Person, history of the term, 105; postasis, 107, 108; on eternal explanation of, 112. generation, 123; uses the term Peter, Gospel of, 176. Homoousios, 126; on 1 Pet. iii. Peter Damien, 652. 18, 171 ; on the term Canonical, Peter Lombard, 571, 597, 654. 249; on the Canon of Scripture, Philo, 254. 255; on predestination, 471; Philpot, Arc11deacon, his explana- wrongly quoted for invocation of tion of the title of the Articles, saints, 564 ; on worship, 583 ; on 17. the baptism of infants, 638. Photius, 224. Original sin, Artic1e on, 357; its Pirminius on the Creed, 3] O. object, 358 ; origin of the phrase, Pius IV., Pope, 11, 12. 360; Scriptural teaching on, Pliny, 594. 362. Plumptre, Dean, 171, 180, 436. Original righteousness, 364; teach- Pneumatomachi, the, 208. ing of the Fathers on, 366. Polycarp, 270; martyrdom of, 563. Ousia, history of the term, 107. Praxeas, 106. Oxenham, H. N., 155. Prayers for the departed not con- demned in the Articles, 537. PALMER, Sir W., 241, 242, 244, Predestination, Article on, 459; 536. based on Scripture, 463; Ecclesi- Papal claims, growth of, 776. astical theory of, 465 ; Arminian Papal jurisdiction) evidence of theory of, 470; Roman teaching Scripture concerning, 773. on, 471; Calvinistic theory of, Papias, 269. 474; Augustinian theory of, 477 ; Paradise, 166. how to be understood, 479; Pardons. See Indulgences. Scriptural teaching on, 479. Parker, Archbishop, prepares the Presence of Christ as Man, nature Thirty-Eight Articles, 30, 32; of the, 193. suggests clause in Art. XXVIII., PI'iesthood, origin of, 733. 36; change made by him, 120, Procession of the Holy Ghost, 160, 198, 259, 378; on the doctrine of the, 209. descent into hell, 161; on Art. Prophets in the New Testament, XXIX., 669; consecration of, 737. 748. Prosper, 475. Particular Redemption, 477, 487. Prynne, W., 49. Pascal II., 678. Puller, F. W., 777. Paschasius Radbert, 597, 650. Purgatory, history of the doctrine Paul of Sarnosata, 127, 769. of, 543; Romish doctrine of, Peal'son, Bishop, on the position of 548 ; teaching of the Greek the Articles, 39; on the unity of Chui.3h on, 548; evidence of God, 91; on the Trinity, 116; Scripture on, 548. on the Son of God, 121 ; on the Pusey, E. B., 218, 219, 234, 438. descent into hell, 169, 171, 189 ; on the Macedonian heresy, 199; RANSOM, Christ's death a, 155. on the Divinity of the Holy Ratramn, 642, 650. 800 INDEX Reccared, 215. Reconciliation of God to man, 146. Redditio Symboli, 300. Reformatio Legum Ecclcsiasticar'll7n, 28, 90, 120, 182, 198, 232, 259, 359, 373, 379, 424, 441, 445, 461, 488, 494, 511, 530, 533, 574, 589, 599, 616, 645, 783, 788. Regeneration, meaning of the word, 623; Greek words for, 623; blessings of, 624; distinction from conversion, 632. Regula fidei, 305. Relics, adoration of, 557. Reprobation, 477. Resurrection of Christ, evidence for the, 183. . Resurrection body, nature of the, 186. Resurrection of the flesh, 311. Reynolds, Dr., 54. Rhabanus :Maurus, 597. Ridley, Bishop, 642, 674, 719. Robertson, A., 779. Rogers on the Articles, 616. Roman Creed, early, 306. Rome, Church of, 506 scq. Roscellinus, 111. Row, Prebendary, 186. Royal Declaration prefixed to the Articles, 47. Royal Supremacy. See Supremacy. Rufinus on the Creed, 178, 304 seq., 314 ; on the Canon of Scriptul'e, 249, 256, 65, 275. Scarapsus, :31 O. Schoolmen, the, 368, 418. Session at the right hand of God, meaning of the expression, 192; evidence for, 192. Sheol, Hebrew conception of, 163. Sherlock, Dean, 111. Socrates, 177, 324, 518, 699. Son, meaning of ths term, 122. Son of God, eternal generation of, 122 seq. ; incarnation of, 135 seq.; union of two natures in one person, 137; atonement of, 145 seg. South, Dr., 111. Stephen of Autun, 652. Subscription to the Articles required by Parliament, 43; required by Convocation, 57; form of, modi- fied, 63; not required from the laity, 64; history of, at the universities, 64. Substance, history of the term, 107. Supererogation, works of, Article on, 424; history of the word, 425. Supremacy, Royal, history of, 761 seq. ; meaning of, 765 seq. Swainson, Professor, 335. Swete, Professor, 104, 177, 205, 208, 213, 310 seq. Sym.bolum, meaning of the term, 304. TARASIUS, Patriarch of Constanti- nople, 221. SABELLIANISM, 106, 206. Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, 242. Sacraments, Zwinglian views of, Ten Articles of 1536, the, 3. 588 ; teaching of the Article on, Tertullian, 105, 107, 108, 140, 166, 588: Anabaptist view of, 588; 176, 213, 241, 248, 269, 275, 298, Calvinistic view of, 590 ; number 303, 311, 453, 455, 543, 555, 557, of, 593; history of the word, 595, 638, 785. 594 ; teaching of the Greek Theodore of :Mopsuestia, 216, 225. Church on, 598; difference be- Theodore of Tarsus, 220. tween England and Rome on, Theodoret, 216, 324. 601. Theodotus, 105. Sacrifice, Christ's death a, 148. Theophilus of Antioch, 105, 204, Sacrifice of :M:asses. See :Alasses. 366. Salmon, Dr., 778. Thcotocos, title of, 136. Salvus, meaning of the word, 347. Thesa'ltr1ts ecclesiæ, 434. Sampson, 41. Thirlwall, Bishop, 659. Sanctification, meaning of, 393. Thirteen Articles of 1538, 7. Sanday, Professor, 148, 269, 271, Thirty-Eight Articles of 1563, his- 363, 396, 400, 469. tory of the, 30; compared with Sardica, Council of, 779. the Forty - Two Articles, 38; indebted to the Confession of UXCTION of the sick, history of, Würtemberg, 38; submitteù to 605. See also Extreme UnctÙ:m. Convocation, 30; changes intro- Unction, gift of, 142. duced by the Queen, 31. Usher, Archbishop, 333, 567. Thirty-Nine Articles, revision of Utrecht Psalter, the, 334. 1571, 42; their true character, 38, 52; Latin and English both authoritative, 46; Royal declara- tion prefixed to, 50; Puritan objections to, 51 seg.; subscrip- tion to. See Subscription. Toledo, third Council of, 215. Traditio Symboli, 300. Tradition and Scripture, 236 seq. Traditions, Article on, 717. Cf. 514 seq. Transubstantiation, history of the doctrine, 649; meaning of the word, 653; how far accepted by the Greeks, 653; why condemned, 656. Trench, Archbishop, 418. Trent, Council of, 10; on the authority of Scripture, 235; on the Canon of the Old Testament, 252; on original sin, 375; on justification, 394, 405; on good works, 411; on predestination, 487; on purgatory, 538; on pardons, 539; on adoration of images and relics, 540; on in- vocation of saints, 541; on the use of Latin in the }'Iass, 584; on sacraments, 598; on the sacrifice of the }'Iass, 693; on Extreme Unction, 608; on grace ex opere operato, 612; on transubstantia- tion, 655; on the Eucharist, 664, 674; on concomitance, 680; on clerical celibacy, 704. Trinity, the Holy, preparation for the doctrine in the Old Testa- ment, 93; revelation of, in the New Testament, 98; the doctrine agreeable to reason, 101; first occurrence of the word, 104; meaning of the doctrine, 114; priority of order in the, 116. Trullo, Council in, 699. INDEX 801 V ARIATIOXS in Church Services, 719. Vasquez, 685, 692. Vatican Counci1, the, 773. Vaughan, Dean, 134, 204. Venantius Fortunatus, 178, 334. Victor, Pope, 778. Vincent of Lerins, 242, 343. Virgin, Christ born of a, 140; immaculate conception of the, 440. 'V AKE:\IAN, H. 0., 764, 771. 'Val', lawfulness of, 781. 'Vaterland, D., on the Articles, 46 ; on subscription, 62; vindica- tion of the doctrine of the Trinity, Ill; on the A thanasian Creed, 331 seg.; on good works, 413 seq.; on blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 448. 'Vatson, Bishop, 676. 'Vestcott, Bishop, 97, 117, 122, 130, 134, 156, 169, 184, 185, 186, 188, 191, 211, 250, 256, 258, 302, 450 seg., 558, 676. 'Vestminster Assembly of Divines, 55, 376. \Vestminster Confession, the, 369. 'Yestminster, Council of, 701. \Yhitaker, Professor, 54. 'Vhitgift, Arch bishop, three Articles of, 58; subscription to them required by the Canons of 1604, 59. 'YiI1iam of Occam, 526. 'Yinchester, Council of, 70l. \Yiseman, Cardinal, 237. 'Yïtmund, 673. \V oolton, 422. 'VÜrtemberg, Cùnfession of. See Confession. Z081MUS, Pope, 507, 779. PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDISBURGH A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF METHUEN AND COMPANY PUBLISHERS LONDON 36 ESSEX STREET "VV.c. CONrrENTS FORTHCOMING BOOKS, POETRY, ENGLISH CLASSICS, ILLUSTRATED BOOKS, . HISTORY. . BIOGRAPHY, GENERAL LITERATURE, SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY, LEADERS OF RELIGION, FICTION, BOOKS FOR BOYS AND GIRLS. THE PEACOCK LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERIES, SOCIAL QUESTIONS OF TO-DAY, CLASSICAL TRANSLATIO S, EDUCATIONAL BOOKS, PAGE 2 9 10 II 12 14 15 IS 19 20 21 22 3I 3 2 3 2 34 35 3 6 OCTOBER 18 9 6 OCTOBER 1896. MESSRs. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS . Poetry RUDYARD KIPLING BALLADS. By RUDYARD KIPLING. Crown 8vo. 6s. 150 copies on hand-made paper. Demy 8vo. 2 IS. 30 copies on Japanese paper. Demy 8vo. 42S. The enormous success of ' Barrack Room Ballads' justifies the expectation tbat this volume, so long postponed, will have an equal, if not a greater, success. GEORGE WYNDHAM SHAKESPEARE'S POElVIS. Edited, with an Introduction and Notes, by GEORGE WYNDHA I, f. P. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. [Englisk Classics. w. E. HENLEY ENGLISH LYRICS. Selected and Edited by W. E. HENLEY. Crowl1, 8vo. Buckram. 6s. Also 15 copies on Japanese paper. Demy 8vo. 1:2,2S. Few announcements will be more welcome to lovers of English verse than the one that Mr. Henley is bringing together into one book the finest lyrics in our language. The volume will be produced with the same care that made 'Lyra Heroica' delightful to the hand and eye. 'Q' POEMS AND BALLADS. By' Q,' Author of 'Green Bays, etc. Crown 8vo. Buckram. 3s. 6d. 25 copies on Japanese paper. Demy 8vo. 2 IS. History, Biography, and Travel CAPTAIN HINDE THE FALL OF THE CONGO ARABS. By SIDNEY L. HINDE. With Portraits and Plans. Demy 8vo. 12S. 6d. This volume deals with the recent Belgian Expedition to the Upper Congo, which developed into a war between the St?te forces and the Arab slave-raiders in Central Africa. Two white men only returned alive from the three years' war- Commandant Dhanis and the writer of this book, Captain Hinde. During the greater part of the time spent by Captain Hinde in the Congo he was amongst cannibal races in little-known regions, and, owing to the peculiar circumstances of his position, was enabled to see a side of native history shown to few Europeans. The war terminated in the complete defeat of the Arabs, seventy thousand of whom perished during the struggle. MESSRS. ::\IETHUEN'S ANNOUNCE lENTS 3 s. BARING GOULD THE LIFE OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. By S. BARING GOULD. \Vith over 450 Illustrations in the Text and 13 Photo- gravure Plates. Large quarto. 36s. This study of the most extraordinary life in history is written rather for the general reader than for the military student, and while following the main lines of Napoleon's career, is concerned chiefly with the development of his character and his personal qualities. Special stress is laid on his early life-the period in which his mind and character took their definite shape and direction. The great feature of the book is its wealth of illustration. There are over 450 illustrations, large and small, in the text, and there are also more than a dozen full page photogravures. Every important incident of Napoleon's career has its illustration, while there are a large number of portraits of his contemporaries, reproductions of famous pictures, of contemporary caricatures, of his handwriting, etc. etc. It is not too much to say that no such magnificent book on :Sapoleon has ever been published. VICTOR HUGO THE LETTERS OF VICTOR HUGO. French by F. CLARKE, I.A. In Two 10S. 6d. each. Ý'õl. I. This is the first volume of one of the most interesting and important collection of letters ever published in France. The correspondence dates from Victor Hugo's boyhood to his death, and none of the letters have been published before. The arrangement is chiefly chronological, but where there is an interesting set of letters to one person these are arranged together. The first volume contains, among others, (I) Letters to his father; (2) to his young wife; (3) to his confessor, Lamennais; (4) a very important set of about fifty letters to Sainte-Beuve; (5) letters about his early books and plays. Translated from the Volumes. Demy 8vo. J. M. RIGG ST. ANSELl'iI OF CANTERBURY: A CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. By J. 1\1. RIGG, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. De1llY 8vo. 7s. 6d. This work gives for the first time in moderate compass a complete portrait of St. .\nselm, exhibiting him in his intimate and interior as well as in his public life. Thus, while the great ecclesiastico.political struggle in which he played so prominent a part is fully dealt with, unusual prominence is given to the profound and subtle speculations by which he permanently influenced theological and metaphysical thought; while it will be a surprise to most readers to find him also appearing as the author of some of the most exquisite religious poetry in the Latin language. EDWARD GIBBON THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROl\IAN El\IPIRE. By EDWARD GIBBON. A New Edition, edited with Notes, Appendices, and Maps by J. B. BURY, :M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. Ilt Seve1t Volumt.S. Demy 8vo, gilt top. 8s. 6d. each. Crow1t 8vo. 6s. each. Vol. II. 4 MESSRS. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE A HISTORY OF EGYPT, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY. Edited by W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, D.C.L., LL. D., Professor of Egyptology at University College. Fully illustrated. In Six Volumes. Crown 8vo. 6s. each. Vol. II. XVII.-XVIII. DYNASTIES. W. M. F. PETRIE. 'A history written in the spirit of scientific precision so worthily represented by Dr. Petrie and his school cannot but promote sound and accurate study, and supply a vacant place in the English literature of Egyptology.'-1'imes. J. WELLS A SHORT HISTORY OF ROl\1E. By J. WELLS, l'vI.A., Fellow and Tutor of Wadham ColI., Oxford. With 4 Maps. Crown 8vo. 3 s . 6d. 35 0 pp. This book is intended for the Middle and Upper Forms of Public Schools and for Pass Students at the Universities. It contains copious Tables, etc. H. DE B. GIBBINS THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH INDUSTRY. By H. DE B. GIBBINS, M.A. With 5 Maps. De1llY 8vo. 10S. 6d. Pp. 450. This book is written with the view of affording a clear view of the main facts of English Social and Industrial History placed in due perspective. Beginning with prehistoric times, it passes in review the growth and advance of industry up to the nineteenth century, showing its gradual development and progress. The author has endeavoured to place before his readers the history of industry as a connected whole in which all these developments have their proper place. The book is illustra ed by Maps, Diagrams, and Tables, and aided by copious Footnotes. MRS. OLIPHANT THOMAS CHALMERS. By l'vlrs. OLIPHANT. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. [Leaders oj Religion. Naval and Military DAVID HANNAY A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ROYAL NAVY, FROM EARLY TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY. By DAVID IIANKAY. Illustrated. Demy 8vo. 15s. This book aims at giving an account not o ly of the fighting we have done at sea, but of the growth of the service, of the part the Navy has played in the develop- ment of the Empire, and of its inner life. The author has endeavoured to avoid the mistake of sacrificing the earlier periods of naval history-the very interesting wars with Holland in the seventeenth ce!1tury, for instance, or the American War of 1779-1783-to the later struggle with Revolutionary and Imperial France. :\1 ESSRS. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCE IENTS 5 COL. COOPER KING A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BRITISH ARMY. By Lieut.- Colonel COOPER KING, of the Staff College, Camberley. Illustrated. Demy 8vo. 7 s. 6d. This volume aims at describing the nature of the different armies that have been formed in Great Britain, and how from the early and feudal levies the present standing army came to be. The changes in tactics, uniform, and armament are briefly touched upon, andJ the campaigns in which the army has shared have been so far followed as to explain the part played by British regiments in them. G. W. STEEVENS NAVAL POLICY: WITH A DESCRIPTION OF ENGLISH AND FOREIGN NAVIES. By G. \V. STEEVEXS. Demy 8vo. 6s. This book is a description of the British and other more important navies of the world, with a sketch of the lines on which our naval policy might possibly be developed. It describes our recent naval policy, and shows what our naval force really is. A detailed but non-technical account is given of the instruments of modern warfa.-e- guns, armour, engines, and the like-with a view to determine how far we are abreast of modern invention and modern requirements. An ideal policy is then sketched for the building and manning of our fleet; and the last chapter is devoted to docks, coaling-stations, and especially colonial defence. Theology F. B. JEVONS AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. By F. B. JEVONS, l\LA., Litt.D., Fellow of the University of Durham. Demy 8vo. 12S. 6d. This is the third number of the series of 'Theological Handbooks' edited by Dr. Robertson of Durham, in which have already appeared Dr. Gibson's 'XXXIX. Articles' and 1\1r. Ottley's' Incarnation.' 1\1r. F. B. J evons' 'Introduction to the History of Religion' treats of early religion, from the point of view of Anthropology and Folk-Ìore; and is the first attempt that has been made in any language to weave together the results of recent investigations into such topics as Sympathetic Magic, Taboo, Totemism, Fetishism, etc., so as to present a systematic account of the growth of primitive religion and the development of early religious institutions. W. YORKE FAUSSETT THE DE CATECHIZANDIS RUDIBUS OF ST. AUGUS. TINE. Edited, with Introduction, Notes, etc., by W. YORKE FAUSSETT, :l\1.A., late Scholar of Balliol ColI. Crowll 8vo. 3s. 6d. An edition of a Treatise on the Essentials of Christian Doctrine, and the best methods of impressing them on candidates for baptism. fhe editor bestows upon this patristic work the same care which a treatise of Cicero might claim. There is a general Introduction, a careful Analysis, a full Commentary, and other useful matter. No better introduction to the "'tudy of the Latin Fathers, their style and diction, could be found than this treatise, which also has no lack of modern interest. 6 MESSRS. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCE fENTS General Literature c. F. ANDREWS CHRISTIANITY AND THE LABOUR QUESTION. By C. F. AKDREWS, B.A. Crown 8vo. 2S. 6d. MAGNETISf\1: AND STEEL, :M.A., F.C.S. R. E. STEEL ELECTRICITY. With Illustrations. By R. ELLIOTT Crowll 8vo. 4s. 6d. G. LOWES DICKINSON THE GREEK VIE\V OF LIFE. By G. L. DICKINSON, Fellow of King's College, Can1bridge. Crown 8vo. 2S. 6d. [University Extensio1t Serles. J. A. HOBSON THE PROBLEM OF THE UNEMPLOYED. By]. A. HOBSON, B.A., Author of 'The Problems of Poverty.' C1-0W118vo. 2S. 6d. [Social QuesHolls Series. S. E. BALLY GERMAN COl\fMERCIAL CORRESPONDENCE. By S. E. BALL Y, Assistant l\laster at the 1\lanchester Grammar School. CrOW1l 8vo. 2S. [Co1Jl11lerdal Series. L. F. PRICE ECONOMIC ESSAYS. By L. F. PRICE, M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Crown 81'0. 6s. Thic; book consists of a number of Studies in Economics and Industrial and Social Problems. Fie tio n MARIE CaRELLI'S ROMANCES FIRST COMPLETE AND UNIFORM EDITIOK Large cro'zu1Z 8vo. 6s. MESSRS. METHUEN beg to announce that they have commenced the pub- lication of a New and Uniform Edition of MARIE CORELLI'S Romances. This Edition is revised by the Author, and contains new Prefaces. The volumes are being issued at short intervals in the following order :- I. A ROl\1:ANCE OF T\\1"O \VURLDS. 2. VENDETTA. 3. THELl\1A. 4. ARDATH. 5. THE SOUL OF LILITH. 6. WORMWOOD. 7. BARABBAS. 8. THE SORROWS OF SATAN. MESSRS. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCEl\IENTS ï BARING GOULD DARTl\100R IDYLLS. By S. BARING GOULD. Cr. 8vo. 6s. GUAVAS THE TINNER. By S. BARING GOULD, Author of ' lehalah,' 'The Broom Squire,' etc. Illustrated. Cro1tJ1Z 8vo. 6s. THE PENNYCOMEQUICKS. By S. BARING GOULD. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. A new edition, uniform with the Author's other novels. LUCAS MALET THE CARISSIMA. By LUCAS MALET, Author of' The Wages of Sin,' etc. Crown 8vo. 6s. This is the first novel which Lucas Malet has written since her very powerful' The Wages of Sin.' ARTHUR MORRISON A CHILD OF THE JAGO. By ARTHUR MORRISON. Author of 'Tales of Mean Streets.' Crown 8vo. 6s. This, the first long story which Mr. Morrison has written, is like his remarkable 'Tales of Mean Streets,' a realistic study of East End life. w. E. NORRIS CLARISSA FURIOSA. By \V. E. NORRIS, 'Author of 'The Rogue,' etc. Crol1m 8vo. 6s. L. COPE CORNFORD CAPTAIN JACOBUS: A ROMANCE OF HIGH\VAYl\IEN. By L. COPE COR FORD. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 6s. J. BLOUNDELLE BURTON DENOUNCED. By J. BLOUNDELLE BURTON, Author of 'In the Day of Adversity,' etc. Crown 8vo. 6s. J. MACLAREN COBBAN WILT THOU HAVE THIS WOl\1AN? By J. :rvl. COBBAN, Author of ' The King of Andaman.' Crown 8vo. 6s. J. F. BREWER THE SPECULATORS. By J. F. BREWER. Crown 8vo. 6s. A. BALFOUR BY STROKE OF SWORD. By ANDRE\V BALFOUR. Crown 8vo. 6s. 8 MESSRS. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCEl\ ENTS M. A. OWEN THE DAUGHTER OF ALOUETTE. By MARY A. O\VEN. Crowl/, 8vo. 6s. A story of life among the American Indians. RONALD ROSS THE SPIRIT OF STORM. By RONALD Ross, ..-\.uthor of 'The Child of Ocean.' Crown 8vo. 6s. A romance of tbe Sea. J. A. BARRY IN THE GREAT DEEP: TALES OF THE SEA. By J. A. BARRY. Author of 'Stev Brown's Bunyip.' Crown 8vo. 6s. JAMES GORDON THE VILLAGE AND THE DOCTOR. By JAMES GORDO . CrO'101Z 8vo. 6s. BERTRAM MITFORD THE SIGN OF THE SPIDER. By BERTRAM MITFORD. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. A story of South Africa. A. SHIELD THE SQUIRE OF WAND ALES. By A. SHIELD. Cro'wn8vo. 3s. 6d. G. W. STEEVENS MONOLOGUES OF THE DEAD. By G. \V. STEEVENS. Foolscap 8vo. 3s. 6d. A series of Soliloquies in which famous men of antiquity-Julius Cæsar, Nero, Alcibiades, etc., attempt to express themselves in the modes of thought and language of to-day. S. GORDON A HANDFUL OF EXOTICS. By S. GORDON. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. A volume of stories of Jewish life in Russia. P. NEUMANN THE SUPPLANTER. By P. NEUMANN. Crown 8vo. 3s.6d. EVELYN DICKINSON THE SIN OF ANGELS. By EVFLYN DICKINSON. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. H. A. KENNEDY A MAN WITH BLACK EYELASHES. By H. A. KENNEDY. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. A. LIST OF MESSRS. METHUEN'S PUBLICATIONS . Rudyard Kipling. Other Verses. By 8vo. 6s. I Mr. Kipling's verse is strong, vivid, full of character. . . . Unmistakable genius rings in every line.'-Ti11les. I II Barrack-Room Ballads" contains some of the best work that Mr. Kipling has ver done, which is saying a good deal. II Fuzzy-\Vuzzy," II Gunga Din," and "Tommy," are, in our opinion, altogether superior to anything of the kind that English literature has hitherto produced.'-Athenæu11l. I The ballads teem with imagination, they palpitate with emotion. \Ve read them with laughter and tears; the metres throb in our pulses, the cunningly ordered words tingle with life; and if this be not poetry, what is ?'-Pallilfall Gazette. Poetry BARRACK-ROOM BALLADS; RUDY ARD KIPLI G. Nillth Editio?'l. And Crow1t "Q." THE GOLDEN POMP: A Procession of English Lyrics from Surrey to Shirley, arranged by A. T. QUILLER COUCH. Crown 8vo. Buckram. 6s. , _-\ delightful volume: a really golden U Pomp." '-Sþeetator. "Q." GREEN BAYS: Verses and Parodies. By" Q.," Author of 'Dead :Man's Rock,' etc. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s.6d. I The verses display a rare and versatile gift of parody, great command of metre, and a very pretty turn of humour.'-Ti11les. H. C. Beeching. LYRA SACRA: An Anthology of Sacred Velse. Edited by H. C. BEECHING, 1\1. A. Crown 8vo. Buckram. 6s. I An anthology of high excellence.' -A thenæU11l. ".\ charming selection, which maintains a lofty standard of excellence.'-Times. W. B. Yeats. AN ANTHOLOGY OF IRISH VERSE. Edited by 'V. B. YEATS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. I An attractive and catholic selection.'-Ti11les. , It is edited by the most original and most accomplished of modern Irish poets, and against his editing but a single objection can be brought, namely, that it excludes from the collection his own delicate lyrics.'-Saturday Re'l,ic7L'. :E. Mackay.  SOKG OF THE SEA: l\IY LADY OF DREA:\lS, AND OTHER POEMS. By ERIC l\IACKAY, Author of 'The Love Letters of a Violinist.' Second Edition. Fcaþ. 8z l o, gilt top. 5s. e Everywhere Mr. Mackay displays himself the master of a style marked by all the characteristics of the best rhetoric. He has a keen sense of rhythm and of general balance; his verse is excellently sonorou .'-Globe. , Throughout the book the poetic workmanship is fme.' -Seo/smaIZ. ...\2 10 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST Ibsen. BRAND. A Drama by HENRIK IBSEN. Translated by WILLIAM \VILSON. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. I The greatest world-poem of the nineteenth century next to "Faust." It is in the same set with "Agamemnon," with "Lear, II with the literature that we now instinctively regard as high and holy.' -Dairy Chronicle. " A. G." VERSES TO ORDER. By" A. G." Cr. 8vo. 2s.6d. net. A small volume of verse by a writer whose initials are well known to Oxford men. 'A capital specimen of light academic poetry. These verses are very bright and engaging, easy and sufficiently wiuy.'-St. James's Gazette. F. Langbridge. BALLADS OF THE BRAVE: Poems of Chivalry, Enterprise, Courage, and Constancy, from the Earliest . Times to the Present Day. Edited, with Notes, by Rev. F. LANG- BRIDGE. Crow1Z 8vo. Buckram. 3s. 6d. School Edition. 2S. 6d. , A very happy conception happily carried out. These" Ballads of the Brave" are intended to suit the real tastes of boys, and will suit the taste of the great majority.' -Sþedator. 'The book is full of splendid things.'-World. Lang and Craigie. THE POEMS OF ROBERT BURNS. Edited by ANDREW LANG and 'V. A. CRAIGIE. With Portrait. Ðemy 8vo, gilt to}. 6s. This edition contains a carefully collated Text, numerous Notes, critical and textual, a critical and biographical Introduction, and a Glossary. 'Among the editions in one volume, Mr. Andrew Lang's will take the place of authority.' - Times. 'To the general public the beauty of its type, and the fair proportions of its pages, as well as the excellent chronological arrangement of the poems, should make it acceptable enough. Mr. Lang and his publishers have certainly succeeded in producin an attractive popubr edition of the poet, in which the brightly written biographIcal introduction is not the least nota. le feature.'-GlasgO'w Herald. English Classics Edited by W. E. HENLEY. 'Very dainty volumes are these; the paper, type, and light-green binding are all very agreeable to the eye. Simþle.x nttmditiis is the phrase that might be applied to them.'-Globe. 'The volumes are s[rongly bou!1d in green buckram, are of a convenient size, and pleasant to look upon, so that whether on the shelf, or on the table, or in the hand the possessor is thoroughly content with them. '-Guardian. I The paper, type, and binding of this edition are in excellent taste, and leave nothing to be desired by lovers ofliterature.'-Standard. THE LIFE AND OPINION -, OF TRISTRAM SHANDY. By LAWRENCE STERNE. 'Vith an Introduction by CHARLES WHIBLEY, and a Portrait. 2 vols. 7s. THE COMEDIES OF WILLIAM CONGREVE. With an Introduction by G. S. STREET, and a Portrait. 2 vols. 7s. MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST I I THE ADVENTURES OF HAJJI BABA OF ISPAHAN. By JA fES l\10RIER. 'Vithan Introduction by E. G. BROWNE) NLA., and a Portrait. 2 vols. 7 s. THE LIVES OF DONNE, \VOTTON, HOOKER, HER- BERT, AND SANDERSON. By IZAAK "VALTO . 'Yith an Introduction by VERNON BLACKBURN, and a Portrait. 3s. 6d. THE LIVES OF THE ENGLISH POETS. By SAl\IUEL J OHKSON, LL. D. \Vith an Introduction by J. H. l\IILLAR, and a Portrait. 3 vols. 10S. 6d. Illustrated Books Jane Barlow. THE BATTLE OF THE FROGS AND MICE, translated by JANE BARLOW, Author of 'Irish Idylls,' and pictured by F. D. BEDFORD. Small 4/0. 6s. uet. S. Baring Gould. A BOOK OF FAIRY TALES retold by S. BARING GOULD. 'Vith numerous illustrations and initial letters by ARTHUR J. GASKIN. Second Edt"tion. Crown 8vo. Buckram. 6s. 'Mr. Baring Gould has done a good deed, and is deserving of gratitude, in re-writing in honest, simple style the old stories that delighted the childhood of " our fathers and grandfathers." We do not think he has omitted any of our favourite stories, the stories that are commonly regarded as merely" old fashioned." As to the form of the book, and the printing, which is by l\1essrs. Constable, it were difficult Lo commend overmuch. -Saturday Re'Z!Ù'Zu. S. Baring Gould. OLD ENGLISH FAIRY TALES. Col- lected and edited by S. BARIKG GOULD. 'Vith Numerous Illustra- tions by F. D. BEDFORD. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. Buckram. 6s. 'A charming volume, which children will be sure to appreciate. The stories have been selected with great ingenuity from various old ballads and folk-tales, and, having been somewhat altered and readjusted, now stand forth, clothed in Mr. Baring Gould's delightful English, to enchant youthful readers. All the tales are good.' -Guardian. S. Baring Gould. A BOOK OF NURSERY SONGS AND RHYl\IES. Edited by S. BARIXG GOULD, and Illustrated by the Birmingham Art School. Buckram, gz"lt to}. Crown 8vo. 6s. , The volume is very complete in its way, as it contains nursery songs to the number of 77, game-rhymes, and jingles. To the student we commend the sensible intro- duction, and the explanatory Dotes. The volume is superbly printed on soft, thick paper, which it is a pleasure to touch; and the burders and pictures are, as we have said, among the very best specimen:. \ve have seen of the Gaskin school.' -Birmingham Gazette. 12 lVIESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST H. C. Bee ching. A BOOK OF CHRISTMAS VERSE. Edited by H. C. BEECHI!\G, :M.A., and Illustrated by ,V ALTER CRANE. Crown 8vo, gilt toþ. ss. A collection of the best verse inspired by the birth of Christ from the Middle Ages to the present day. A distinction of the book is the large number of poems it contains by modern amhors, a few of which are here printed for the first time. · _\n anthology which, from its unity of aim and high poetic excellence, bas a better right to exist than most of its fel!ows. '-Guardia?t. History Gibbon. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. By EDWARD GIBBON. A New Edition, Edited with Notes, Appendices, and l\laps, by J. B. BURY, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. In Seven Volumes. Dcmy 8vo. Cz.lt toþ. 8s. 6d. each. A Iso crown 8vo. 6s. caclt. VtJ!. I. 'Tbe time bas certainly arrived for a new edition of Gibbon's great work. . . . Pro- fessor Bury is the right man to undertake this task. His learning is amazing, both in extent and accuracy. The book is issued in a handy form, and at a moderate price, arid it is admirably printed.'-Ti1lles. , The edition is edited as a classic should be edited, removing nothing, yet indicating the value of the text, and bringing it up to date. It promises to be of the utmost value, and will be a welcome addition to many libraries.'-Scots1Ilan. 'This edition, so far as one may judge from the first instalment, is a marvel of erudition and critical skill, and it is the very minimum of praise to predict that the seven volumes of it will supersede Dean Milman's as the standard edition of our great historical classic.'-Glasgow Herald. 'The beau-ideal Gibbon has arrived at last.'-Sl..etck. , At last there is an adequate modern edition of Gibbon. . . . The best edition the nineteenth century could produce.'-lIIanc1lestcr Guard,a1Z. Flinders Petrie. A HISTORY OF EGYPT, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY. Edited by 'V. 1\1. FLINDERS I)ETRIE, D.C.L., LL.D., Professor of Egyptology at University College. Pully illustrated. I1z. Six Volumes. Crown 8vo. 6s. each. Vol. I. PREHISTORIC TIMES TO XVI. DYNASTY. W. 11. F. Petrie. Secolld Editiotz.. · A history written in the spirit of scientific precision so worthily represented by Dr. Petrie and his school cannot but promote sound and accurate study, and supply a vacant place in the English literature of Egyptology.'-Tinzes. Flinders Petrie. EGYPTIAN TALES. Edited by \V. M. ] LINDERS PETRIE. Illustrated by TRISTRAM ELLIS. In Two Þólumes. Drown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each. · A valuable addition to the literature of comparative folk-lore. The drawings are really illustrations in the literal sense of the word.' -Globe. 'It has a scientific value to the student of history and archæology.'-Scots1llan. · Irlvaluable as a picture of life in Palestine and Egypt.'-Dairy News. 1\1ESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 13 Flinders Petrie. EGYPTIAN DECORATIVE ART. By w. IV!. FLI DERS PETRIE, D.C.L. 'Vith 120 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. · Professor Flinders Petrie is not only a profound Egyptologist, but an accomplished student of comparative archæology. In these lectures, delivered at the Royal Institution, he displays both qualifications with rare skill in elucidating the development of decorative art in Egypt, and in tracing its influence on the art of Ðther countries. Few experts can speak with higher authority and wider knowledge than the Professor himself, and in any case his treatment of his sub- ject is full of learning and insight.'-Times. s. Baring Gould. THE TRAGEDY OF THE CÆSARS. The Emperors of the Julian and Claudian Lines. \Vith numerous Illustrations from Busts, Gems, Cameos, etc. By S. BARING GOULD, Author of' lVlehalah,' etc. Third Edition. Royal8vo. 15s. · A most splendid and fascina.ting book on a subject of undying interest. The great feature of the book is the use the author has made of the existing portraits of the Caesars, and the admirable critical subtlety he has exhibited in dealing with this line of research. I t is brilliantly writtf!n, and the illustrations are supplied on a scale of profuse magnificence.'-Daily Chronicle. · The volumes will in no sense disappoint the general reader. Indeed, in their way, there is nothing in any sense so good in English. . . . Mr. Baring Gould has presented his narrative in such a way as not to make one dull page.'-A tlzenæum. A. Clark. THE COLLEGES OF OXFORD: Their History, their Traditions. By Members of the University. Edited by A. CLARK, IV1.A., Fellow and Tutor of Lincoln College. 8vo. 12S. 6d. · A work which will certainly be appealed to for many years as the standard book on the Colleges of Oxford.'-Athe1tæum. Perrens. THE HISTORY OF FLOREJ\"CE FRO}.I 1434 TO 1492. By F. T. PERRENS. Translated by HANNAH LYNCH. 8vo. 12S. 6d. A history of Florence under the domination of Cosimo, Piero, and Lorenzo de Medicis. , This is a standard book by an honest and intelligent historian, who has deserved well of all who are interested in Italian history.'-Manchester Guardian. E. L. S. Horsburgh. THE CAMPAIGN OF \VATERLOO. By E. L. S. HORSBURGH, B.A. With Plans. Crow1l Svo. 5s. 'A brilliant essay-simple, sound, and thorough.'-Daity Chronicle. , A study, the most concise, the most lucid, the most critical that has been produced.' -Birmingham lI:fercury, , A careful and precise study, a fair and impartial criticism, and an eminently read. able book.'-Admiralty and Horse Guards Gazette. H. B. George. BATTLES OF ENGLISH HISTORY. ByH. B. GEORGE, J\I.A., Fellow of ew College, Oxford. rVith 1lumerotes Plans. Third Edt"tioll. Crow1l 8vo. 6s. , Mr. George has undertaken a very useful task-that of making military affairs in. telIigible and instructive to non-military readers-and has executed it with laud- able intelligence and industry, and with a large measure of success.'-Ti11les. 'This book is almost a revelation; and we heartily congratulate the author on his work and on the prospect of the reward he has well deserved for so much con- scientious and sustained labour.'-DaÙy Clzronicle. 14 l\lESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST o. Browning. A SHORT HISTORY OF MEDIÆVAL ITALY, A.D. 1250-1530. By OSCAR BROWNING, Fellow and Tutor of King.s College, Cambridge. Second Edition. III Two Volumes. C1'OW1Z 8vo. 5s. each. VOL. I. 1250-1409.-Guelphs and Ghibellines. VOL. II. 1409- 1 530. -The Age of the Condottieri. , A vivid picture of mediævalltaly.'-Sta1ldard. 'Mr. Browning is to be congratulated on the production of a work of immense labour and learning. '-UTestminster Gazette. O'Grady. THE STORY OF IRELAND. By STANDISH O'GRADY, Author of ' Finn and his Companions.' Cr. 8vo. 2s.6d. 'Most delightful, most stimulating. Its racy humour, its original imaginings, make it one of the freshest, breeziest volumes.'-llfethodist Times. 'A survey at once graphic, acute, and quaintly written.'-Times. Biography R. L. Stevenson. V AILIMA LETTERS. By ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. With an Etched Portrait by 'VILLIAM STRANG, and other Illustrations. Second Edz.tioll. Crown 8vo. Buckram. 7s.6d. 'The Vailima Letters are rich in all the varieties of that charm which have secured for Stevenson the affection of many others besides" journalists, fellow-novelists, and boys." '-TIle Times. C Few publications have in our time been more eagerly awaited than these" Vailima Letters," giving the first fruits of the correspondence of Robert Louis Stevenson. But, high as the tide of expectation has run, no reader can possibly be disappointed in the result.'-St. James's Gazette. C For the student of English literature these letters indeed are a treasure. They are more like "Scott's] ournal " in kind than any other literary autobiography.' -National Observer. F. W. Joyce. THE LIFE OF SIR FREDERICK GORE OUSELEY. By F. W. JOYCE, 1\f.A. 'Vith Portraits and Illustra- tions. Crow1Z 8vo. 7s. 6d. C All the materials have been well digested, and the book gives us a complete picture of the life of one who will ever be held in loving remembrance by his personal friends, and who in the history of music in this country will always occupy a prominent position on account of the many services he rendered to the art.'- Musical News. 'This book has been undertaken in quite the right spirit, and written with sympathy, insight, and considerable literary skiIl.'-Times. W. G. Collingwood. THE LIFE OF JOHN RUSKIN. \v. G. COLLINGWOOD, M.A., Editor of Mr. Ruskin's Poems. numerous Portraits, and 13 Drawings by 1:1r. Ruskin. Editio1l. 2 vols. 8vo. 32S. · No more magnificent volumes have been published for a long time.'-Times. , It is long since we had a biography with such delight.. of substance and of form. Such a book is a pleasure for the day, and a joy for ever.'-Daily Chronicle. , A noble monument of a noble subject. One of the most beautiful books about one of tbe noblest lives of our century. '-Glasgow Herald. By 'Vith Secolzd l\IESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 15 c. Waldstein. JOHN RUSKIN: a Study. By CHARLES 'VALDSTEIN, :M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. With a Photogravure Portrait after Professor HERKOMER. Post 8vt. 5s. 'A thoughtful, impartial, well-written criticism of Ruskin's teaching, intended to separate what the author regards as valuable and permanent from what is transient and erroneous in the great master's writing.'-Dairy Chronicle. w. H. Hutton. THE LIFE OF SIR THOMAS MORE. By 'v. H. HUTTON, 'I.A., Author of' William Laud.' With Portraits. Crown 8vo. 5s. , The book lays good claim to high rank among our biographies. It is excellently, even lovingly, written.'-Scotsman. 'An excellent monograph.'-Times. 'A most complete presentation.'-Dairy Chronicle. M. Kaufmann. CHARLES KINGSLE-r. By M. KAUF:\IANN, l\-I.A. Crown 8vo. Buckram. 5s. A biography of Kingsley, especially dealing with his achievements in social reform. 'The author has certainly gone about his work withcoascientiousness and industry. - She/lield Dairy Telegraþh. A. F. Robbins. THE EARLY LIFE OF \VILLIAl\I EWART GLADSTONE. By A. F. ROBBINS. lVith Portraits. Crown 8vo. 6s. 'Considerable labour and much skill of presentation have not Deen unworthily expended on this interesting work.' - Times. Clark Russell. THE LIFE OF ADl\lIRAL LORD COL- LING'YOOD. By 'V. CLARK RUSSELL, Author of 'The 'Vreck of the Grosvenor.' 'Vith Illustrations by F. BRAN GWYN. Third Edt"tioll. Crown 8vo. 6s. , A most excellent and wholesome book, which we should like to see in the hands of every boy in the country.'-St. James's Gazette. 'A really good book.'-Saturday Review. Southey. ENGLISH SEAl\IEN (Howard, Clifford, Hawkins, Drake, Cavendish). By ROBERT SOUTHEY. Edited, with an Introduction, by DAVID HANNAY. Second Editi01t. Crown 8vo. 6s. 'Admirable and well-told stories of our naval history.'-Army and Navy Gazette. , A brave, inspiriting book. '-Black and White. 'The work of a master of style, and delightful all through.'-Dai0' Chronicle. General Literature s. Baring Gould. OLD COUNTRY LIFE. By S. BARING GOULD, Author of ' l\'Iehalah,' etc. 'Vith Sixty-seven Illustrations by 'V. PARKINSO , F. D. BEDFORD, and F. "\1ASEY. Large Crown 8vo. 10S. 6d. Fifth and Cheaþer Edition. 6s. "Old Country Life," as healthy wholesome reading, full of breezy life and move- ment, full of quaint stories vigorously told, will not be excelled by any book to be published throughout the year. Sound, hearty, and English to thecore.'-W01"/d. 16 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST s. Baring Gould. HISTORIC ODDITIES AND STRANGE EVENTS. By S. BARING GOULD. Third Edition. Crow1l8vo. 6s. , A collection of exciting and entertaining chapters. The whole volume is delightful reading.' - Times. S. Baring Gould. FREAKS OF FANATICISM. By S. BARING GOULD. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 'Mr. Baring Gould has a keen eye for colour and effect, and the subjects he has chosen give ample scope to his descriptive and analytic faculties. A perfectly fascinating book.'-Scottish Leader. S. Baring Gould. A GARLAND OF COUNTRY SONG: English Folk Songs with their Traditional :l\Ie1odies. Collected and arranged by S. BARING GOULD and H. FLEETWOOD SHEPPARD. Demy 4/0. 6s. .. s. Baring Gould. SONGS OF THE 'VEST: Traditional Ballads and Songs of the \Vest of England, with their Traditional Melodies. Collected by S. BARING GOULD, :M.A., and H. FLEET- WOOD SHEPPARD, M.A. Arranged for Voice and Piano. In 4 Parts (containing 25 Songs each), Parts I., I/., III., 3s. each. Part lV., 5s. /n one Vol., French morocco, 15s. , A rich collection of humour, pathos, grace, and poetic fancy.' -Saturday Revie1J). S. Baring Gould. YORKSHIRE ODDITIES AND STRANGE EVENTS. Fourth Ed#ion. Crown 8vo. 6s. S. Baring Gould. STRANGE SURVIVALS AND SUPER- STITIONS. With Illustrations. By S. BARIKG GOULD. Crown 8liO. Second Edz.tion. 6s. 'We have read Mr. Baring Gould's book from beginning to end. It is full of quaint and various information, and there is not a dull page in it. '-Notes alzd Queries. S. Baring Gould. THE DESERTS OF SOUTHERN FRANCE. By S. BARING, GOULD. With numerous Illustrations by F. D. BEDFORD, S. HUTTON, etc. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 32S. This book is the first serious attempt to describe the great barren tableland that extends to the south of Limousin in the Department of Aveyron, Lot, etc., a country of dolomite cliffs, and cañons, and subterranean rivers. The region is full of prehistoric and historic interest, relics of cave-dwellers, of mediæval robbers, and of the English domination and the Hundred Years' War. 'His two richly-illustrated volumes are full of matter of interest to the geologist, the archæologist, and the student of history and manners. '--Scotsman. 'It deals with its subject in a manner which rarely fails to arrest attention.'-Ti11les. R. S. Baden-Powell. THE DOWNFALL OF PREMPEH. A Diary of Life with the Native Levy in Ashanti, 1895. By Lieut.-Co!. BADEN-POWELL. 'Vïth 21 lllust'ations, a l\'[ap, and a Special Chapter on the Political and Commercial Position of Ashanti by Sir GEORGE BADEN-POWELL, K.C.M:.G., M.P. Demy 8vo. IOS. 6d. 'A compact, faithful, most readable record of the campaign.'-DailJ' Ne'ws. 'A bluff and vigorous narrative.'--GlasgO'Zu Herald. 'A really interesting book.'-Yorkshire Post. MESSRS. METHUEN'S I.JIST 17 W. E. Gladstone. THE SPEECHES AND PUBLIC DRESSES OF THE RT. HON. \V. E. GLADSTO:N'E, Edited by A. \V. HUTTON, M.A., and II. J. COHEN, 1\LA. Portraits. 8vo. Vols. IX. and X. 12S. 6d. each. AD- 1\1. P. "Vith Henley and Whibley. A BOOK OF ENGLISH PROSE. Collected by \V. E. HENLEY and CHARLES "VHIBLEY. Cr.8vo. 6s. , A unique volume of extracts-an art gallery of early prose.' -Birmingham Post. 'An admirable companion to l\Ir. Henley's" Lyra Heroica.'''-Saturday Review. 'Quite delightful. The choice made has been excellent, and the volume has been most admirably printed by Messrs. Constable. A greater treat for those not well acquainted with pre-Restoration prose could not be imagined.'-Athenæunz. J. Wells. OXFORD AND OXFORD LIFE. By Members of the University. Edited by J. \VELLS, lVLA., Fellow and Tutor of \Vadham College. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. This work contains an account oflife at Oxfonl-intellectual, social, and religious- a careful estimate of necessary expenses, a review of recent changes, a statement of the present position of the University, and chapters on Women's Education, aids to study, and University Extension. '\Ve congratulate Mr. Wells on the production of a readable and intelligent account of Oxford as it is at the present time, written by persons who are possessed of a close acquaintance with the system and life of the University.'-Atllenæum. W. M. Dixon. A PRIMER OF TENNYSON. By W. M. DIXON, :M.A., Professor of English Literature at l\Iason College. Crown 8vo. 2S. 6d. , 1\1 uch sound and well-expressed criticism and acute literary judgments. The biblio- graphy is a boon.'-Sþeaker. 'No better estimate of the late Laureate's work has yet been published. His sketch of Tennyson's life contains everything essential; his bibliography is full and con- cise: his literary criticism is most interesting.'-GlasgO'Zv Herald. W. A. Craigie. A PRIMER OF BURNS. By W. A. CRAIGIE. Crown 8vo. 2S. 6d. Ti1Ís book is planned on a method similar to the' Primer of Tennyson.' It has also a glossary. C A valuable addition to the literature of the poet.'-Times. C An excellent short account.'-Pall flfall Gazette. , An admirable il1troductiol1.'-Globe. L. Whibley. GREEK OLIGARCHIES: THEIR ORGANISA- TION AND CHARACTER. By L. WHIBLEY, l\I.A., Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 6s. 'An exceedingly useful handbook: a careful and well-arranged study of an obscure subject.' - Times. 'Mr. \Vhibley is never tedious or pedantic.'-Pall fl:lall Gazette. W. B. Worsfold. SOUTH AFRICA: Its History and its Future. By W. BASIL WORSFOLD, M.A. With a hIaþ. Crown 8vo. 6s. , An intensely interesting book. '-Daily Chronicle. 'A monumental work compressed into a very moderate compass.'-JVorld. A3 18 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST C. H. Pearson. ESSAYS AND CRITICAL REVIEWS. By C. H. PEARSON, l\LA., Author of 'National Life and Character.' Edited, with a Biographical Sketch, by H. A. STRONG, M. A., LL. D. With a Portrait. Demy 8vo. 10S. 6d. 'These fine essays illustrate the great breadth of his historical and literary sym- pathies and the remarkable variety of his intellectual interests.' -Glasgow Herald. 'Remarkable for careful handling, breadth of view, and thorougb knowledge:-Scots- 11lan, 'Charming essays, '-Sþectator. Ouida. VIEWS AND OPINIONS. By OUIDA. Crown 8vo. Second Edition. 6s. e Ouida is outspoken, and the reader of this book will not have a dulI moment. The book is full of variety, and sparkles with entertaining matter.'-Sþeaker. , J. S. Shedlock. THE PIANOFORTE SONATA: Its Origin and Development. By J. S. SHEDLOCK. CrOW1t 8vo. 5s. , This work should be in the possession of every musician and amateur, for it not only embodies a concise and lucid history ot the origin of one of the most im- portant forms of musical composition, but, by reason of the painstaking research and accuracy of the author's statements, it is a very valuable work for reference.' -A tlzenæum. E.M. Bowden. THE EXAMPLE OF BUDDHA: Being Quota- tions from Buddhist Literature for each Day in the Year. Compiled by E. M. BOWDEN. With Preface by Sir EDWIN ARNOLD. Third E'dz"tion. 16mo. 2S. 6d. J. Beever. PRACTICAL FLY-FISHING. Founderl on Nature, by JOHN BEEVER, late of the Thwaite H use, Coniston. A New Edition, with a :Memoir of the Author by 'V. G. COLLINGWOOD, M. A. Crown 8vo. 3S. 6d. A little book on Fly-Fishing by an old friend of Mr. Ruskin. Science Freudenreich. DAIRY BACTERIOLOGY. A Short Manual for the Use of Students. By Dr. ED. VON FREUDENREICH. Translated from the German by J. R. AINSWORTH DAVIS, B.A., F.C.P. Crown 8vo. 2s.6d. Chalmers Mitchell. OUTLINES OF BIOLOGY. By P. CHALMERS l\IITCHELL, M.A., F.Z.S. Fully Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 6s. A text-book designed to cover the new Schedule issued by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. G. Massee. A MONOGRAPH OF THE MYXOGASTRES. By GEORGE MASSEE. With 12 Coloured Plates. Royal8vo. 18s. Izet. e A work much in advance of any book in the language treating of this group of organisms. It is indispensable to every student of the Myxogastres, The coloured plates deserve high praise for their accuracy and execution.'-Nature. MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 19 Philosophy L. T. Hobhouse. THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE. By L. T. HOB HOUSE, Fellow and Tutor of Corpus College, Oxford. DC1llY 8vo. 21S. t The most important contribution to English philosophy since the publication of ::\Ir. Bradley's II Appearance and Reality." Full of brilliant criticism and of positive theories which are models oflucid statement.'-GlasgO"'c.V Herald. An elaborate and often brilliantly written volume. The treatment is one of great freshness, and the illustrations are particularly numerous and apt.'-Times. w. H. Fairbrother. THE PHILOSOPHY OF T. H. GREEN. By \V. H. FAIRBROTHER, M. A., Lecturer at Lincoln College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. This volume is expository, not critical, and is intended for senior students at the Universities and others, as a statement of Green's teaching, and an introduction to the study of Idealist Philosophy. C In every way an admirable book. As an introduction to the writings of perhaps the most remarkable speculative thinker whom England has produced in the present century, nothing could be better than Mr. Fairbrother's exposition and criticism.'- Glasgow Herald. F. W. Bussell. THE SCHOOL OF PLATO: its Origin and its Revival under the Roman Empire. By F. 'V. BUSSELL, l\LA., Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. DCIIlY 8vo. Two volumes. 7s. 6d. each. Vol. I. e A highly valuable contribution to the history of ancient thought.' -Glasg'O'w Herald. I A clever and stimulating book, provocative of thought and deserving careful reading.' -l1fanchester Guardian. F. S. Granger. THE WORSHIP OF THE ROIVIANS. By F. S. GRA GER, J\LA., Litt.D., Professor of Philosophy at Univer. sity College, Nottingham. Crown 8vo. 6s. The author has attempted to delineate that group of beliefs which stood in close con- nection with the Roman religion, and among the subjects treated are Dreams, Nature 'Vorship, Roman Magic, Divination, Holy Places, Victims, etc. Thus the book is, apart from its immediate subject, a contribution to folk-lore and com- parative psychology. C A scholarly analysis of the religious ceremonies, beliefs, and superstitions of ancient Rome, conducted in the new instructive light of comparativE' anthropology.'- Times. 20 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST Theology E. C. S. Gibson. THE XXXIX. ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Edited with an Introduction by E. C. S. GIBSON, D.D., Vicar of Leeds, late Principal of Wells Theological College. In Two Volumes. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. each. Vol. I. Articles I.- VIII. , The tone maintained throughout is not that of tbe partial advocate. but the faithful exponent. '-Scotsman. , There are ample proofs of clearness of expression, sobriety of judgment, and breadth of view. . . . The book will be welcome to all students of the subject, and its sound, definite, and loyal theology ought to be of great service:-NationalObserver. 'So far from repelling the general reader, its orderly arrangement, lucid treatment, and felicity of diction invite and encourage his attention.'-Vorkshire Post. R. L. Ottley. THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION. By R. L. OTTLEY, M. A., late fellow of I\-Iagdalen College, Oxon., Principal of Pusey House. In Two Volumes. Demy 8vo. 15s. 'Learned and reverent: lucid and well arranged.'-Record. 'Accurate, well ordered, and judicious.'-National Observer. 'A clear and remarkably full account of the main currents of speculation. Scholarly precision . . . enuine tolerance . . . intense interest in his subject-are Mr. Ottley's merits. -Guardian. S. R. Driver. SERMONS ON SUBTECTS CONNECTED 'VITH THE OLD TESTAI\-fENT. By S. R. DRIVER, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the U ni- versity of Oxford. Crown 8vo. 6s. , A welcome companion to the author's famous' Introduction.' No man can read these discourses without feelin that Dr. Driver is fully alive to the deeper teaching of the Old Testament.'-Guardian. T. K. Cheyne. FOUNDERS OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITI- CISM: Biographical, Descriptive, and Critical Studies. By T. K. CHEYNE, D.D., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scrip- ture at Oxford. Large crown 8vo. 7 s. 6d. This impcrtant book i" a historical sketch of O. T. Criticism in the form of biographi- cal studies from the days of Eichhorn to those of Driver and Robertson Smith. It is the only book of its kind in English. 'A very learned and instructive work.'-Times. C. H. Prior. CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. Edited by C. H. PRIOR, 1\i.A., Fellow and Tutor of Pembroke College. Crow1t 8vo. 6s. A volume of sermons preached before the University of Cambridge by various preachers, including the .Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop'Vestcott. 'A representative collection. Bishop \Vestc')tt's is a noble sermon.'-Guaniian. H. C. Beeching. SERMONS TO SCHOOLBOYS. By H. C. BEECHING, 1\1. A., Rector of Yattendon, Berks. 'Vith a Preface by Canon SCOTT HOLLAND. Crown 8vo. 2s.6d. Seven sermons preached before the boys of Bradfield College. MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 21 E. B. Layard. RELIGION IN BOYHOOD. Notes on the Religious Training of Boys. \Vith a Preface by J. R. ILLING- WORTH. By E. B. LAYARD, M.A. I8mo. IS. BDtÎ1otíonal 2ßoohØ. With Full-þage Illustrations. Feaþ. 8vo. Buckram. 3s. 6d. Padded morocco, 5s. THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. By THOMAS À KEMPIS. \Vith an Introduction by DEAN FARRAR. Illustrated by C. 11. GERE, and printed in black and red. Second Edition. 'Amongst all the innumerable English editions of the" Imitation," there can have been few which were prettier than this one, printed in strong and handsome type by Messrs. Constable, with all the glory of red initials, and the comfort of buckram binding.' -Glasgow Herald. THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. By JOHN KEELE. With an Intro- duction and Notes by \V. LoCK, M.A., Sub- \Varden of Keble College, Ireland Professor at Oxford, Author of the 'Life of John Keble.' Illustrated by R. ANNING BELL. , The present edition is annotated with all the care and insight to be expected from Mr. Lock. The progress and circumstances of its composition are detailed in the Introduction. There is an interesting Appendix on the MSS. of the" Christian Year," and another giving the order in which the p(!)ems were written. A" Short Analysis of the Thought" is prefixed to each, and any difficulty in the text is ex- plained in a note.-Guardian. , The most acceptable edition of this ever-popular work. '-Globe. Leaders of Religioll Edited by H. C. BEECH lNG, :M:.A. With Portraits, crown 8vo. A series of short biographies of the most prominent leaders 3/ 6 of religious life and thought of all ages and countries. The following are ready- CARDINAL NEWrviAN. By R. H. HUTTON. JOHN WESLEY. By J. H. OVERTON, M.A. BISHOP \VILBERFORCE. By G. VV. DANIEL, M.A. CARDINAL rviANNING. By A. W. HUTTON, M.A. CHARLES SIMEON. By H. C. G. MaULE, M.A. JOHN KEELE. By \VALTER LOCK, M.A. THOl\IAS CHALMERS. By Mrs. OLIPHANT. LANCELOT AN DREWES. By R. L. OTTLEY, lYLA. 22 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY. By E. L. CUTTS, D.D. WILLIAM LAUD. By W. H. HUTTON, M.A. JOHN KNOX. By F. M'CUNN. JOHN HOWE. By R. F. HORTON, D.D. BISHOP KEN. By F. A. CLARKE, M.A. GEORGE FOX, THE QUAKER. By T. HODGKIN, D.C.L. Other volumes will be announced in due course. Fiction SIX SHILLING NOVELS Marie Carelli's Novels Crown 8vo. 6s. eack. A ROMANCE OF TWO WORLDS. Fourteenth Edition. VENDETTA. Elevelzth Editz'on. THELMA. Fourteenth Editz'on. ARDATH. Tenth Edition. THE SOUL OF LILITH. Ninth Edition. WORMWOOD. Eighth Edition. BARABBAS: A DREAM OF THE WORLD'S TRAGEDY. Twenty-fifth Edz"tz'01Z. 'The tender reverence of the treatment and the imaginative beauty of the writing have reconciled us to the daring of the conception, and the conviction is forced on us that even so exalted a subject cannol be made too familiar to us, provided it be presented in the true spirit of Christian faith. The amplifications of the Scripture narrative are often conceived with high poetic insight, and this U Dream of the World's Tragedy" is, despite some trifling incongruities, a lofty and not inade- quate paraphrase of the supreme climax of the inspired narrative.' -Dublin Review. THE SORROWS OF SATAN. Twenty-1zÙzth Edition. , A very powerful piece of work. . . . The conception is magnificent, and is likely to win an abiding place within the mern'Jry of man. . . . The author has immense command of language, and a limitless audacity. . . . This interesting and re- markable romance will live long after much of the ephemeral literature of the day is forgotten. . . . A literary phenomenon. . . novel, and even sublime.'-\V. T. STEAD in the R e'l'iew of" Reviews. MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 23 Anthony Hope's Novels Crown 8vo. 6s. each. THE GOD IN THE CAR. Seventh Edition. 'A very remarkable book, deserving of critical analysis impossible within our limit; brilliant, but not superficial; well considered, but not elaborated; constructed with the proverbial art that conceals, but yet allows itself to be enjoyed by readers to whom fine literary method is a keen pleasure; true without cynicism, subtle without affectation, humorous without strain, witty without offence, inevitably sad, with an unmorose simplicity.'- The World. A CHANGE OF AIR. Fourth Edition. 'A graceful, vivacious comedy, true to human nature. The characters are traced with a masterly hand.'-Ti11les. A MAN OF MARK. Third Edition. 'Of all Mr. Hope's books, "A Man of Mark" is the one which best compares with "The Prisoner of Zenda." The two romances are unmistakably the work of the same writer, and he possesses a style of narrative peculiarly seductive, piquant, comprehensive. and-his own.'-National Observer. THE CHRONICLES OF COUNT ANTONIO. Third Edition. 'It is a perfectly enchanting story of love and chivalry, and pure romance. The outlawed Count is the most constant, desperate, and withal modest and tender of lovers, a peerless gentleman, an intrepid fighter, a very faithful friend, and a most magnanimous foe. In short, he is an altogether admirable, lovable, and delight- ful hero. There is not a word in the volume that can give offence to the most fastidious taste of man or woman, and there is not, either, a dull paragraph in it. The book is everywhere instinct with the most exhilarating spirit of adventure, and delicately perfumed with the sentiment of all heroic and honourable deeds of history and romance.'-Guardian. s. Baring Gould's Novels Crown 8vo. 6s. each. I To say that a book is by the author of "l\Iehalah" is to imply that it contains a story cast on strong lines, containing dramatic possibilities, vivid and sympathetic descriptions of Nature, and a wealth of ingenious imagery.'-Sþeaker. I That whatever Mr. Baring Gould writes is well worth reading, is a conclusion that may be very generally accepted. His views of life are fresh and vigorous, his language pointed and characteristic, the incidents of which he makes use are striking and original, his characters are life-like, and though somewhat excep- tional people, are drawn and coloured with artistic force. Add to this that his descriptions of scenes and scenery are painted with the loving eyes and skilled hands of a master of his art, that he is always fresh and never dull, and under such conditions it is no wonder that readers have gained confidence both in his power of amusing and satisfying them, and that year by year his popularity widens.'-Court Circular. ARM I NELL: A Social Romance. Fourth Editioll. URITH : A Story of Dartmoor. Fourth Editlon. 'The author is at his best.'-Times. 'He has nearly reached the high water-mark of" Mehalah." '-National Observer. 24 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST IN THE ROAR OF THE SEA. Fifth Editioll. 'One of the best imagined and most enthralling stories the author has produced.' -Saturday Review. MRS. CURGENVEN OF CURGENVEN. Fourth Editio11. , A novel of vigorous humour and sustained power.'-Graþhic. 'The swing of the narrative is splendid.'-Sussex Daily News CHEAP JACK ZIT A. Third Editio1t. 'A powerful drama of human passion.'-Westminster Gazette. 'A story worthy the author.'-NationaIObseY'ller. THE QUEEN OF LOVE. Fourth Edition. 'The scenery is admirable, and the dramatic incidents are most striking.'-Glasgow Herald. , Strong, interesting, and clever.'-West11linster Gazette. 'You cannot put it down until you have finished it:-PU11Ch. , Can be heartily recommended to all who care for cleanly, energetic, and interesting fiction:-Sussex Daily News. KITTY ALONE. Fourth Edition. · A strong and original story, teeming with graphic description, stirring incident, and, above all, with vivid and enthralling human interest.'-Daily Telegraþk. · Brisk, clever, keen, healthy, humorous, and interesting.'-National Observer. , Full of quaint and delightful studies of character.'-Bristollilercury. NOÉMI: A Romance of the Cave-Dwellers. R. CATON WOODVILLE. Third EdÜiolt. C " N oémi II is as excellent a tale of fighting and adventure as one may wish to meet. All the characters that interfere in this exciting tale are marked with properties of their own. The narrative also runs clear and sharp as the Loire itself.'- PaUlifall Gazette. · Mr. Baring Gould's powerful story is full of the strong lights and shadows and vivid colouring to which he has accustomed us.'-Standard. Illustrated by THE BROOM-SQUIRE. Tkird Edition. , A strain of tenderness is woven through the web of his tragic tale, and its atmosphere is sweetened by the nobility and sweetness of the heroine's character.' -Daily N nus. , A story of exceptional interest that seems to us to be better than anything he has written of late.'-Sþeaker. · A powerful and striking story:-Guardian. 'A powerful piece of work:-Black and W/zite. Illustrated by FRANK DADD. Gilbert Parker's Novels Crown 8vo. 6s. each. PIERRE AND HIS PEOPLE. Third Edition. · Stories happily conceived and finely executed. There is strength and genius in !\fr. Parker's style.'-DaiÒJ Telegraþk. MESSRS. l\IETHUEN'S LIST 25 MRS. FALCHION. Third Edition. I A splendid study ofcharacter.'-Athellll'um. I But little behind anything that has been done by any "Titer of our ti.ne. '-Pall Mall Gazette. , A very striking and admirable novel:-St. James's Gazette. THE TRANSLATION OF A SAVAGE. 'The plot is original and one difficult to work out; but Mr. Parker has done it with great skill and delicacy. The reader who is not interested in this original, fresh, and well-told tale must be a dull person indeed.'-Daily Chronicle. I A strong and successful piece of workmanship. The portrait of Lali, strong, dignified, and pure, is exceptionally well drawn.'-llfanclzester Guardia?l. THE TRAIL OF THE S\VORD. Fourth Edition. 'Everybody with a soul for romance will thoroughly enjoy .. The Trail of the Sword." '-St. James's Ga::ctte. I A rousing and dramatic tale. A book like this, in which swords flash, great sur- prises are undertaken, and daring deeds done, in which men and women live and love in the old straightforward passionate way, is a joy inexpressible to the re- viewer, brain-weary of the domestic tragedies and psychological puzzles of every- day fiction; and we cannot but believe that to the reader it will bring refreshment as welcome and as keen.'-Dailr Chrtmicle. WHEN VALMOND CA lE TO PONTIAC: The Story of a Lost Napoleon. Third Edition. I Here we find romance-real, breathing, living romance, but it runs flush with our own times, level with our own feelings. :r\ot here can we complain of lack of inevitableness or homogeneity. The character of Valmond is drawn unerringly; his career, brief as it is, is placed before us as convincingly as history itself. The book must be read, we may say re-read! for anyone thoroughly to appreciate Mr. Parker's delicate touch and innate sympathy with humanity.'-Pall .!rIall Gazette. · The one work of genius which 1895 has as yet produced.' -l't?cw Age. AN ADVENTURER OF THE NORTH: The Last Adven- tures of ' Pretty Pierre.' I The present book is full of fine and moving stories of the great North, and it will add to Mr. Parker's already high reputation.'-Glasgow Herald. I The new book is very romantic and very entertaining-full of that peculiarly elegant spirit of adventure which is so characteristic of Mr. Parker, and of that poetic thrill which has given him warmer, if less numerous, admirers than even his romantic story-telling gift has done.'-SJ..etcll.. THE SEATS OF THE MIGHTY. Illustrated. Fourth Edition. I The best thing he has done; one of the best things that anyone has done lately.'- St. James's Gazette. I :Mr. Parker seems to become stronger and easier with every serious novel that he attempts. . . . In Ie The Seats of the Mighty" he shows the matured power which his former novels have led us to expect, and has produced a really fine historical novel. . . . The great creation of the book is Doltaire. .. His character is drawn with quite masterly strokes, for he is a villain who is not altogether a villain, and who attracts the reader, as he did the other characters, by the extraordinary brilliance of his gifts, and by the almost unconscious acts of nobility which he performs. . . . 1\Iost sincerely is Mr. P....-' er to be congratulated on the finest novel he has yet written.'-A thenll'fU1z. 26 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 'Mr. Parker's latest book places him in the front rank of living novelists. "The Seats of the Mighty" is a great book.' -Black a1ui White. lOne of the strongest stories of historical interest and adventure that we have read for many a day. . . . Through all Mr. Parker moves with an assured step, whilst in his treatment of his subject there is that happy blending of the poetical with the prosaic which has characterised all his writings. A notable and successful book.' -Sþcaker. 'The story is very finely and dramatically told. . . . In none of his books has his imaginative faculty appeared to such splendid purpose as here. Captain l\Ioray, Alixe, Gabord, Vauban-above all, Doltaire-and, indeed, every person who takes part in the action of the story are clearly conceived and finely drawn and indivi- dualised. -Scotsman. , An admirable romance. The glory of a romance is its plot, and this plot is crowded with fine sensations, which have no rest until the fall of the famous old city and the final restitution of love. '-Pallillall Gazette. Conan Doyle. ROUND THE RED LAMP. By A. CONAN DOYLE, Author of 'The White Company,' 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,' etc. Fourth Editt:on. Crown 8vo. 6s. 'The book is, indeed, composed of leaves from life, and is far and away the best view that has been vouchsafed us behind the scenes of the consulting-room. It is very su perior to ., The Diary of a late Physician.'" -Illustrated London News. Stanley Weyman. UNDER THE RED ROBE. By STANLEY WEYMAN, Author of' A Gentleman of France.' With Twelve Illus- trations by R. Caton \Voodville. Eighth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. I A book of which we have read every word for the sheer pleasure of reading. and which we put down with a pang that we cannot forget it all and start again.'- Westminster Gazette. , Everyone who reads books at all must read this thrilling romance, from the first page of which to the last the breathless reader is haled along. An inspiration of "manliness and courage."-Daily Chronicle. 'A delightful tale of chivalry and adventure, vivid and dramatic, with a wholesome modesty and reverence for the highest.'-Globe. Mrs. Clifford. A FLASH OF SUMMER. By MRS. W. K. CLIFFORD, Author of 'Aunt Anne,' etc. S(cond Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. , The story is a very sad and a very beautiful one, exquisitely told, and enriched with many subtle touches of wise and tender insight. It will, undoubtedly, add to its author's reputation-already high-in the ranks of novelists.' -Sþeaker. , \Ve must congratulate Mrs. Clifford upon a very successful and interesting story, told throughout with finish and a delicate sense of proportion, qualities which, indeed, have always distinguished the best work of this very able writer.'- M ancltester Guardian. Emily Lawless. HURRISH. By the Honble. EMILY LA\V- LESS, Author of · l\1aelcho,' etc. Fifth Editz"on. Crown 8vo. 6s. A reissue of Miss Lawless' most popular novel, uniform with' :Maelcho.' Emily Lawless. MAELCHO: a Sixteenth Century Romance. By the Honble. EMILY LAWLESS, Author of 'Grania,' 'Hurrish,' etc. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 'A really great book.'-Sþectator. 'There is no keener pleasure in life than the recognition of genius. Good work is commoner than it used to be, but the best is as rare as ever. All the more gladly, therefore, do we welcome in " Maelcho " a piece of work of the first order, which we do not hesitate to describe as one of the most remarkable literary achievements of this generation. Miss Lawless is possessed of the very essence of historical genius.' -,kl anchester Guardian. MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 27 J. H. Findlater. THE GREEN GRAVES OF BALGOWRIE. By JANE.H. FINDLATER. Third Edition. Cro'wn 8vo. 6s. (A powerful and vivid story.'-Standard. · A beautiful story, sad and strang as truth itself.'-Vanity Fair. · A work of remarkable interest and originality.'-National Observer. ( A really original novel.'-Journal OJ Education. (_-\ very charming and pathetic tale.'-Pall Mall Gazette. (A singularly original, clever, and beautiful story.'-Guardian. '" The Green Graves of Balgowrie" reveals to us a new Scotch writer of undoubted faculty and reserve force.'-Sþectator. ( An exquisite idyll, delicate, affecting, and beautiful.' -Black and TVhite. ( Permeated with high and noble purpose. It is one caf the most wholesome stories we have met with, and cannot fail to leave a deep and lasting impression.'- Ne'1t.Jsagent. E. F. Benson. DODO: A DETAIL OF THE DAY. By E. F. BENSON. Sixteenth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. (A delightfully witty sketch ofsociely.'-Sþectator. ( _\ perpetual feast of epigram and paradox.'-Sþeaker. , By a writer of quite exceptional ability.' -A thenæum. ( Brilliantly written.'-World. E. F. Benson. THE RUBICON. By E. F. BENSON, Author of , Dodo.' Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. I 'Veil written, stimulating, unconventional, and, in a word, characteristic.'- Birmingham Post. I An exceptiona.l achievement; a notable advance on his previous work.'-Nationai Observer. M. M. Dowie. GALLIA. By MÉNIE MURIEL DOWIE, Author of' A Girl in the Carpathians.' Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. (The style is generally admirable, the dialogue not seldom brilliant, the situations surprising in their freshness and originality, while the subsidiary as well as the principal characters live and move, and the story itself is readable from title-page to colophon.'-Saturday Review. · A very notable book; a very sympathetically, at times delightfully written book. -Daily Graþhic. Mrs. Oliphant. SIR ROBERT'S FORTUNE. By MRS. OLIPHANT. Crown 8vo. 6s. ( Full of her own peculiar charm of style and simple, subtle character-painting come her new gift, the delightful story before us. The scene mostly lies in the moors, and at the touch of the authoress a Scotch moor becomes a living thing, strong tender, beautiful, and changeful.'-Pall Mall Gazette. MrS. Oliphant. THE TWO 1\iARYS. By l\IRS. OLIPHANT. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. W. E. Norris. MATTHEW AUSTIN. By W. E. NORRIS, Author of ' :Mademoiselle de Mersac,' etc. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. , "Matthew Austin" may safely be pronounced one of the most intellectually satis- factory and morally bracing novels of the current year.'-Daily Telegraþll. W. E. Norris. HIS GRACE. Bv W. E. NORRIS. Third Editz"01l. Crown 8vo. 6s. - 'Mr. Norris has drawn a really fine character in the Duke of Hurstbourne, at once unconventional and very true to the conventionalities of life, weak and strong in a breath, capable of inane follies and h.: öic decisions, yet not so definitely por- trayed as to relieve a reader of the necessity of study.'-A thC1UZU11l. 28 l\1:ESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST W. E. Norris. THE DESPOTIC LADY AND OTHERS. By 'V. E. NORRIS. Crown 8vo. 6s. , A budget of good fiction of which no one will tire. '-Scotsman. I An extremely entertaining volume-the sprightliest of holiday companions.'- Daily Telegraþh H. G. Wells. THE STOLEN BACILLUS, and other Stories. By H. G. \VELLS, Author of 'The Time I\Iachine.' Crown 8vo. 6s. , The ordinary reader of fiction may be glad to know that these stories are eminently readable from one cover to the other, but they are more than that; they are the impressions of a very striking imagination, which, it would seem, has a great deal within its reach.'-Saturday Revie'W. Arthur Morrison. TALES OF MEAN STREETS. By ARTHUR MORRISON. Fourth Edz"tz"on Drown Svo. 6s. 'Told with consummate art and extraordinary detail. He tells a plain, unvarnished tale, and the very truth of it makes for beauty. In the true humanity of the book lies its justification, the permanence ofits interest, and its indubitable triumph.'- A thenæu11l. , A great book. The author's method is amazingly effective, and produces a thrilling sense of reality. The writer lays upon us a master hand. The book is simply appalling and irresistible in its interest. It is humorous also; without humour it would not make the mark it is certain to make.'-lVorld. J. Maclaren Cobban. THE KING OF ANDAMAN: A Saviour of Society. By J. M"ACLAREN COBBAN, Author of 'The Red Sultan,' etc. Crown 8vo. 6s. , An unquestionably interesting book. I t would not surprise us if it turns out to be the most interesting novel of the season, for it contains one character, at least, who has in him the root of immortality, and the book itself is ever exhaling the sweet savour of the unexpected. . . . Plot is forgotten and incident fades, and only the really human endures, and throughout this book there stands out in bold and beautiful relief its high-souled and chivalric protagonist, James the Master of Hutcheon, the King of Andaman himself.'-Pall Mall Gazette. 'A most original and refreshing story. James Hutcheon is a personage whom it is good to know and impossible to forget. He is beautiful within and without, whichever way we take him. '-Sþectator. , U The King of Andaman," is a book which does credit not less to the heart than the head of its author.'-AtlU'næum. I The fact that Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to gracefuJJy express to the author of > "", ',';.',', ',',',',', """".,...... '...... ','.', "..."", ','.', ..,.... '..... '.' ,','. ','. '..,.,.....,... " " '.'. '.... , ,' ..',\'. ' "" "';"""'" ""';."",, .,'.', ','..', .",';.,.. ','. ',',',', '. ',\ '.'. '.',', """,. ',''', ....',',.. .... '.',..... ',',', "..".... '.'.' . - ',',.,....\','"",0:.', ,:,', , , ',',to '. .,',',.,.,'",.,0;".",.",'.'.'.','.'....,.. ','. " ' """\ '. '.',', ....';.'.:.'. '.". .... ..... ,,'.,','.....' "'.'. ,'. - '......-..,\'..',.;. " 'l'. ""':4 .',..', ','.',', '. .",.,.....",.,.. o."".., '. '....... ',',"', ,','," '."','. '... '(". '':. ',,, '\', ',',-',' ,"'..'... ,. '('." ..""".""..,."", ", """ ',' ,'..', ',',',','l'. ',',to ','.',', , ", ','.',' ,',', ',',',',', "...., ',', '. ". ... . ç".,...." "" '. '. '. ',' ',.,', "..,.,' ,'f... ,','.', ',',',',',',',',',',',',',', """."." ',., ',',',',',', '..,.... ',',','. ','.'. "'. t. '.', ',' , \'",'. '. , ",' \ '.', '.'..' ,',','..!:, ',', ',Ç.', 'l', "'"", ,,,,,, "" ',',', '",...."", ",.".', ',"', '. """ ',', '. ',", '... ,.""" "'f '.','.','. '. '. '.",', ",', ','.'. '.'... ,.....,. ' :: ::::::::::::::::::::,::::S::':: :::::::::::::$::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::$::: :': :::::::: :::::::::::::$$::::t . "" """.'. ',',',\',',','. '""" """,,, """""""" ',','.. '. ',', '. "",...",.. ',"'. ...,.,....', " ,, \\',' ,','.'.', ,.......4'... "" ",,.. ',to ',',', ", """", ',',',", "', ',',', '.',',', ',',', '. .,..,...... ',', 'c',', "",.., '. '. ','.'. c. , ,.. '. .,'".'"",....,.........., ",. "", · """"' "" ' """" """" """"'" ',', """" """"' """" , , ..',.,.... .,'(t',',' '. ".... 'c'. .,..... .('.... co, ":':':':':"""':':':':' :':" ':':':':':':':':' ':':' :':':':':"': ':':':':' :''':':''': ': ':':':':':' :':':':' :.:': · '", ',:..:, ":':"':':':':':':':':":' ':':':':':':':'. ':':':':':': ":<<':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':-:"':':':':': ,- " - ',', '-'-',',','-',',',','.','.','.','.',',',',',\*A ','."',",',',',','.',' o."',' '.'..,.'i'.....'.. " -.. ,', ,,',', , , ,', ,:, , , , , , , , , , ,:. " , ,;0;. , , ' ,:, , , . , ,', . .l', . . . , , , , " ',','- " ',',',"'-''' c,-""""""""", ',','," '.f.;.' , ", "..""""\",,,.,.,I..'.' ".., ,', · - , , ...., , , ,', , , , , , , , , ,', , , C '" .-:. ,:. ,', , , . . , , . , , .\ , . . -",' '."\9 " """,.,.",,.,,., ','.' " , t, ",;,;""""""""".,If.'.\',...,. · , " ,'. ,',','.'c' ",' " . ','.';.4,;.;.',.c'....,',','.c,',..' .'.' · .',' ,'-:",'.' " ' ,..--.."".',. ,t:J.,'..,',',...t'. .... , ,.,.",.4';:',',',','"",,, .. ' "l< ,\'"",l..." .",.',, ..','.' ' ':':':':'''' '," , " ", . :., , . :,:..:,:.,':':':'::: 4' :' :c:'" :- :':':':':"':':':':':':':":':':':': . ' , ,,' . ','. ,f. , , ,', '. """b--" ,.....,4.""'V!,'."""" ,,, " ", """"" " ""':(" , "," .,' ,'.., ."" """""""""f""""" ""'f"""' ""'''' , "";.4 2..""",",'.''''', ,.".", .,...... ',',.... .'.',','.....,. ... · .. ""......',','l'.,'....' ,', ,',','.',' ,',' ':4',l'.'.',',',.,.,., '. ,C ", :':': :::'::: , ::::::::::::: ::::: :::: : ::::: ", "", , ,'.' ,'C'.',',.,',','..,'.'.',',', "....,.., " ' ',','.s, . C','.',','.\','.',... ,. ',.,',',' , " " ,',to', .',' ,',',',',',',',,,,,, " ", "" ,to' . ::: : :':': :;:;, "":,::, ','*:+ :' ': ...': ': ' :<. ' , ,:,' , C\' '.',',".f1,'c .......",..C?'j."" " ',',',','';,',5.',',',', 4' '" ' oo t-." ,, ',', A.','.'l\ .',"' " ", :.c.,'.';",' " " """""4';'Ç,', --"6c;." ,',,"-,', "'."'C,,, """"'C "'4Y)44'..""'c;.'"r...".4""" ,. , " 4"""""""",c;., ",41 l' "\ _ " c. ':', :':': ' ': :':':': ' :.:'}:':':''':'''C':':' " " C '.""""""""'...'tC," ','.',ç'4','.' , C,,,,,,,:, :,: , :,:,:,:,:,:, :, ,:, :,: ,,, , ' " ":':":.:"':':':':':' : ':'<<:':t:.:,: , I l "" ':':C:,:,: ,:.:,:' t}:. "C:':"' .':' ',', , , '.','14"'l ,'l'., 'ì.'''''''l..',' ''. '''' , " · ", "" """4'CC ,, ., 'A' , , ' :':"'''''':.:C:':':':': ' .:' . . .. c;.';.4 . ' ,"' l""fl . 1'. ,. ".,.""..",44'l'. ,',', ,:" ,',4 "(""',,,,fj',""""" ,'.t, .. , f. AI C:':4:':':':':':':':',,:.:.:,:,:,. ,:,' " "f" """"""" C ' , l(':' ':':':':',, :,:,:,:( ; ,:,:, ,' """"";t"""" """' "'I)" .' A., ':':':':':':':':' :4:":':':':'" ,,, ,,:,' " ('I.:': ':":;':':':' :':':':-:':4:':':':"':':':':': / "' : ': "': ':':"':':': ':':':' : :':':':':' ',:, ,:,:,' ,:l .: :C-":':':':': :':':':':'.':':'" ." """' .c;.'+"'.',l.,..."'" ",..",, ,,,,,, ',':' ',:,:,:,:,:,:.:.:,:,:,:. :,:,:,:,:.:,:(,:.: .:. .." ' ' """' ', """"""I' '"''I''' '.'. ,':' :':':':':':':':':',',':':':':":':':'.':':':':':.. .. , ...,'.',','.','.','......' ,'. ,,',',ç. ,"(..'..,...C'. , l" .,:,:,:,:,:,:,C"':': ':':' C:"':':':':': ': ":':' ' ,'l "l.""""' .'. " "c,.'"""", l, .-!C"i,...,.... .:':' ":':':.:;':':':':'4'N':':':'N:':':': ':4:':' :':':':': ':' C','.' 4'(4,',',4"""...'t"""...,."" 4,'. t......,'.'.".'.'..l ..:, ' ':::::: ::::::::::: :::f:::::::::: :::: :::: ::::: : ':: ..... " "II "/ /"/ III . ' ' ' ' 'I.... , Itl. l' ' :':':':':': ':':':':':' ':':':':':':':':' .. :':':C . :' . :. . :' . :': :.: :':':'. ..,',',',.,', ,'..,'....,.,...'; << . '44.:....,... ..... . .. ....,....'.. ., .,..:4,....... .:0 'i'. ..... .. ..'.'.'.'.' ,'.. ...,...4','.'",...,'................ ..,.;,.... ..... 4 .'. , '. . . .. . . . ,'t'I;:, ' ','Il"'lc'".. '.....',.e'....I. ........ ............,.... A" ..: , .:<.i:.:.:':.:'..:.:.:' :C:.:.X.:,:/..:.:. .:.:::.: :::.:::: : ::' · ... ...'.....',.....'."I........X.../'.'...',}....,.l... ..... .'.".. · , , , .: .:.: .:'..: .:...i:.. : ":.:'. ,.:.:.: .:.:.:I,.:.:. .:.:.: , ",,, ,,, I;.' '. ..' ,'.....',.... ...I...'.."1.....4. ....I...'... t ... .. f:"'" .."..... ..".. ..,.... ..... '.... <.'. :. :... ':",:,., " : ':"':':"' ':':.:.:.::': , :::.:..::,:". :./ . ....,'.1...44,..:-...1.... .',í.', :c: ........ .. ." .. · ,".4 . ..' .. I. .'.. å:"" :.:.:.å :.:44,.:.å:.:.å.t:...:.: '..::::::: :::.:::::::::: ::: I ..,' · 'I';l"I,'.t. i'-,.Ill. 9.'....... ..... · . . .. .. ..., 1/ . ..... .'. '.',". ....n ....I. : I.: (.:.:....:.:.:.:.:.:..':.:.:.:.:.: " . " .. ....'.',. ............ .',.4 r.. . . I. . . . . ... . . . . . . , 4:' ../...//..1.... ..l.:.:...:.: .:.:.iíZ.:.'.:.:.:.. .:'::ï.:.:.:': " .:' ... ..:.:,. : .:':... ..:....... ..A....... ...1,. . 1. ...:' . .:...:.:.:.' : , . I... . .."'''''4'''''' ........................-......,...'...1. ....... . .... " / ......'........'.'................................,..(. ....... .................. .' · I .. .. .1.............. .................. .... 1'....;,.. ......ov...,......,'. . '1 · ,. · · · · · · .. .............. '.C.. .'" t.. ....... ,.". ,.. . 4:'. ,4 t . ......f4f.......,4..4...'.,....4...,.........4 ,...,........,.'.4..-" 4 , · # *. t · Æ44 ........,. C"".if' f 14' ',',f" f'l fl .'. .','l".',' .... .. ..r ,l','"I',: l ..": "",,,: :" .. ...:,:::.:...:......,:.:...:...\..t...../...... o1.'" .. " .'it.' '. ',", ............... '.4 .... <<,...t.... ........., ..................ð .. I 4 .'e' .,', ....,'... ...........'I.('.('.1.'ll. ....Il. ..... ............l. l. ............. l.:. .'. .' 'f'.:'" ':. ::::.::';:::: .::::;:;::.: :l::::::::: ::::::.:::::: :::.::: ::::. . · ,If.... ....,...... ,I..... ....l '.'.'I.44,f.'....l.'.....{'............. ... '. 4'.. ". ,. ..'...... ...... ........ ....... ".,...,........./ ..,.. ..... 1.-"., . f. ..4. ' 4 4 :'. ',":l :.:,:,:.:..',:,,:.:. ,'i:..: /'.:,'.:'.4:t.:.i.' .. ) )- " , , . ' Ü ,. " . . .., " " " 'Þi ' ., '''t > . ., .., 'þ ., \. \. " " 'C' '.: ' .., ' ' ',I \ "* . , , , " I y " I I " " ,l " l .,....: . .c,'l ,c ,',' , f " I