The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England : explained with an introduction v.2

EX LIBRIS

Board of Women's Work
London Diocese

33 Bedford Square
WC1

May 1941.

Presented from the library of

The Rev. Prebendary Austin Thompson,

Chairman of the Board for 14 years.

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

OF THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND

THE

THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

OF THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND

EXPLAINED WITH AN INTRODUCTION

BY EDGAR C. S. GIBSON, D.D.

VICAR OF LEEDS AND PREBENDARY OF WELLS
SOMETIME PRINCIPAL OF WELLS THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL. II
ARTICLES IX-XXXIX

METHUEN & CO.

36 ESSEX STREET, W.C.

LONDON

1897

PREFACE

FOB some years there has been a widely-spread feeling,
among those whose work called them to lecture on the
XXXIX. Arricles, that there is room for another treatise
on the subject. Archdeacon Hard wick's invaluable work
is purely historical, and attempts no interpretation or
ptural proof of the Articles themselves. Bishop
Forbes1 Explanation is excellent as a theological
treatise, but, in spite of its title, it is scarcely an
" explanation " of the Articles. Dr. Boulbee's Theology
of the Church of England is clear and business-like, but
it is written from a party point of view. Of Bishop
Harold Browne's well-known Exposition it is sufficient to
say that the first edition was published in 1850, and
that a good deal of fresh light has been thrown upon the
Articles during the last forty-six years. But since the
Bish : was content to issue edition after edition without
making any change in it, or subjecting it to a much-
needed revision, the book, which has in the past been
of so much service to the Church, has become in many
parts (e.g. in all that concerns the history of the Creeds)
antiquated and out of date. Since the present work
was sent to the press, two other volumes on the
same subject have appeared, namely, an Introduction to
the XXXIX. Articles, by Dr. Maclear and Mr. Williams,
and The Thirty-nine Articles and the Age of the Btforma-

vi PREFACE

tion, by the Kev. E. Tyrrell Green, — a fact which affords
striking evidence of the feeling alluded to above, that
the text-books at present in use are not altogether
adequate. Mr. Green's work contains much illustrative
matter from contemporary documents, and that by Dr.
Maclear and Mr. Williams is excellent as a short text-
book. My own work is on a somewhat larger scale, and
may perhaps appear to be more ambitious, in aiming at
completeness as a commentary upon the Articles ; and I
trust that it may be found «that there is room for it as
well as for these others. My object throughout has
been to make the work correspond as closely as possible
to the title. It is not in any way intended to be a
complete system of theology. The subjects discussed
are strictly limited to those which are fairly suggested
by the text of the Articles. Nor is it a history of
doctrine. I have simply endeavoured to explain the
teaching of the Articles, assuming a general knowledge
of ecclesiastical history on the part of the reader, and
only tracing out the history of doctrine where it seemed
to be absolutely necessary in order to enable him to
understand the meaning of the text of the Articles and
the expressions used in it. My aim has always been to
discover and elucidate the " plain, literal, and gram-
matical sense" of the document on which I have
undertaken to comment. I can honestly say that I
have striven to be perfectly fair, and to avoid the
temptation to " read in " to the Articles meanings
which I am not convinced t<j be really there. How
far I have succeeded my readers must judge for
themselves.

One possible criticism I should like to meet before-
hand. It may perhaps be said that there is a lack of
proportion in the treatment of the Articles, since far
more space has been devoted to the first eight than to

PREFACE vii

the remaining thirty -one. My reply must be that the
fault, if it be a fault, has been deliberately committed, —
and for this reason. The first eight Articles practically
re-state, in an enlarged form, the rule of faith as con-
tained in the Church's Creed, and therefore stand on a
different footing from the others. In some works on
the Articles this seems to be regarded as a reason for
devoting but little space to them, it being presumably
taken for granted that the student will have previously
mastered Pearson's great work, or some other treatise on
the Creed. It has seemed to me wiser to adopt the
opposite course, and to make the commentary upon
them fuller than that on the remaining Articles, in
order to emphasize their importance, and to give them
their proper position. I trust, however, that the lack of
proportion is not really so great as might at first sight
appear. Many of the later Articles admit of very
slight treatment, and I hope that it will be found that
adequate attention has been paid to the really important
ones among them, especially to those on the Church, the
Sacraments, and the Ministry.

It only remains for me to express my thanks to
those who have assisted me in the work, especially to
the Kev. A. Pvobertson, D.D., Principal of Hatfield Hall,
Durham, who has kindly looked through the proof
sheets, and helped me by making many valuable
suggestions.

K C. S. G.

THE VICARAGE, LEEDS,

December 10, 1896.

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ARTICLE IX. — OF ORIGINAL on BIRTH SIN .... 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 JUSTIFICATION OF MAN .... 388

Justification : Its Meaning and Relation to Sanctification . 389

The Meritorious Cause of Justification 397

The Instrument or Formal Cause of Justification . . . 398

The " Homily of Justification" 407

ARTICLE XII. — OF GOOD WORKS 410

ARTICLE XIII. — OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION . . . 415
The Title as compared with the Article itself . . . .415
The Scholastic Theory of Congruous Merit . . . .418
The Teaching of the Article upon the Subject . . . .420

ARTICLE XIV. — OF WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION . . 424

The Name " Works of Supererogation " ..... 425

The History of the Growth of the System of Indulgences . . 426

The Theological Defence offered for them .... 433

ARTICLE XV. — OF CHRIST ALONE WITHOUT SIN . . . 439

Christ's Sinlessness . . . . . . . .441

ARTICLE XVI. — OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM 444

The fact that deadly Sin is not Unpardonable .... 446
The possibility of falling from Grace ..... 455

x CONTENTS

PAGE

ARTICLE XVII.— OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION . . 450

The Description of Predestination . ... 465

The Steps which accompany it 481

The Practical Effect of the Doctrine 182

Two Considerations calculated to guard the Doctrine from

Abuses 485

ARTICLE XVIII.— OF OBTAINING ETERNAL SALVATION ONLY BY

THE NAME OF CHRIST 488

ARTICLE XIX.— OF THE CHURCH 493

The Description of the Visible Church 496

The Statement that the Church of Rome hath erred in Matters

of Faith 506

ARTICLE XX. — OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH . . .511
The Legisla'ive Power of the Church with regard to Rites or

Ceremonies ......... 514

The Judicial Authority of the Church with regard to Doctrine . 520

The Office of the Church with regard to Holy Scripture . . 526

ARTICLE XXI. — OF THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS . 529
They may not be gathered together without the Consent of

Princes 532

They are liable to Err 534

As a Matter of History they actually have Erred . . . 53;".

ARTICLE XXII.— OF PURGATORY 537

Purgatory 542

Pardons ...... 554

Adoration of Images and Reliques 557

Invocation of Saints 564

ARTICLE XXIII. — OF MINISTERING :N THE CONGREGATION . 573

The Need of an External Call and Mission .... 575

The Description of those through whom the Call comes . . 578

ARTICLE XXIV.— OF SPKAKING IN THE CONGREGATION IN SUCH

A TONGUE AS THE PEOPLE UNDERSTANDETH . . .581

The Evidence of Scripture on this Subject .... 582

The Custom of the Primitive Church 583

CONTENTS xi

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 OF THE MINISTERS,

WHICH HINDERS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS 615

ARTICLE XXVII.— OF BAPTISM 620

The Description of Baptism and its Effects .... 621

Infant Baptism 634

ARTICLE XXVIII.— OF THE LORD'S SUPPER .... 641

The Description of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper . . 647

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation ...... 649

The Nature of the Presence, and the "Mean whereby it is

received " ......... 660

Certain Practices in connection with the Eucharist . . .664

ARTICLE XXIX. — OF THE WICKED WHICH DO NOT EAT THE

BODY OF CHRIST IN THE USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER . 668

ARTICLE XXX.— OF BOTH KINDS 676

The History of the Practice condemned in it . . . . 676

The Arguments by which it has been justified .... 683-

ARTICLE XXXI. — OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST FINISHED

UPON THE CROSS ........ 687

The Sufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Cross .... 688

The Condemnation of the " Sacrifices of Masses " . . . 691

ARTICLE XXXII. — OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS . . . 695
There is no Prohibition of the Marriage of the Clergy in

Scripture .......... 696

It is lawful for the Clergy to Marry if they think it advisable . 697

ARTICLE XXXIII. — OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS : How THEY

ARE TO BE AVOIDED 705

ARTICLE XXXIV.— OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH . . 716

ARTICLE XXXV.— OF HOMILIES 722

The History of the Homilies 723

The Nature of the Assent demanded to them . . 726

xii CONTENTS

PAGE

ARTICLE XXXVI.— OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS AND MINISTERS 729

The Objections of the Puritans 731

The Objections of the Romanists 748

ARTICLE XXX VII. -OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES 759

The Royal Supremacy

The Papal Claims

The Lawfulness of Capital Punishment . 780
The Lawfulness of War .... .781

ARTICLE XXXVIII.— OF CHRISTIAN MEN'S GOODS WHICH ARE

NOT COMMON . . .... 783

The Community of Goods - 784

The Duty of Almsgiving .. 786

ARTICLE XXXIX.— OF A CHRISTIAN MAN'S OATH . , 788

INDEX , - 793

ARTICLE IX

Of Original or Birth Sin.

Original sin standeth not in the
following of Adam (as the Pelagians
do vainly talk), but it is the fault
and corruption of the nature of
every man, that naturally is en-
gendered of the offspring of Adam,
whereby man is very far gone from
original righteousness, and is of his
own nature inclined to evil, so that
the flesh lusteth always contrary to
the spirit, and therefore in every
person born into this world, it
deserveth God's wrath and damna-
tion. And this infection of nature
doth remain, yea in them that are
regenerated, whereby the lust of
the flesh, called in Greek t^povrj^a
crapes, which some do expound the
wisdom, some sensuality, some the
affection, some the desire of the
flesh, is not subject to the law of
God. And although there is no
condemnation for them that believe
and are baptized, yet the apostle
doth confess that concupiscence and
lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

THE original object of this Article is shown very
definitely by the words which in the Article of 1553
followed the reference to the Pelagians : " which also the
Anabaptists do nowadays renew " (et hodie Anabaptist
repetunt). These words, omitted at the revision of 1563
(possibly because the danger was less pressing), prove
24

DC Pcccato Originali.

Peccatum originis non est (ut
fabulantur Pelagiani) in imita-
tione Adami situm, sed est vitiuni
et depravatio naturae cujuslibet
hominis ex Adamo naturaliter pro-
pagati, qua fit ut ab original!
justitia quam longissime distet, ad
malum sua natura propendeat, et
caro semper adversus spiritum con-
cupiscat. Unde in unoquoque
nascentium iram Dei atque damna-
tionem meretur. Manet etiam in
renatis hsec naturae depravatio,
qua fit ut atfectus carnis, Graece
(ppovr)fj.a (rapn6s (quod alii sapien-
tiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, alii
studium carnis interpretantur) legi
Dei non subjiciatur. Et quanquani
renatis et credentibus nulla propter
Christum est condemnatio, peccati
tamen in sese rationem habere
concupiscentiam fatetur Apostolus.

358 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

that it was designed at least primarily to meet the
revival of the Pelagian error on the subject of original
sin by the Anabaptists.1 A further object was probably
to state the view of the Church of England on the effect
of baptism in the removal of original sin, more particu-
larly with regard to " concupiscence," which all parties
admitted to remain in the regenerate, but concerning the
character and precise nature of which widely differing
views were advanced.

Except for the omission - of the words just noticed, the
Article has stood without substantial change since it was
first drawn up in 1553.2 It has been sometimes thought
that its language is based on that used in the Confession
of Augsburg ; but the resemblance is very slight.3 Nor
is it much cioser to the corresponding Article in the
Thirteen drawn up in 1538 by a joint committee of
Anglicans and Lutherans, which does little more than

1 The same error on the part of the Anabaptists is noticed in Hermann's
Consultation: " Fyrste they denie originally synne, and they wyll not
acknowledg howe greate filthynes, how greate impietie and even pestilent
corruption was broughte upon us all thorowe the fall of Adame." — English
translation of 1548, fol. cxlii.

2 Two slight changes in the English should be noticed. Where our
present Article uses the phrase "original righteousness," the Edwardian
Article had "his former righteousness, which he had at his creation" ;
and instead of "inclined to evil " it had "given to evil." The alterations
made at the revision of 1571 brought the English into closer conformity
with the Latin.

3 "Item docent quod post lapsum Adse omnes homines secundum
naturam propagati, nascantur cum peccato, hoc est sine metu Dei, sine
fiducia erga Deum, et cum concupis- entia, quodque hie morbus, seu
vitium originis vere sit peccatum, damnans et afferens nunc quoque
seternam mortem his, qui non renascuntur per baptismum et Spiritum
Sanctum. Damnant Pelagianos et alios qui vitium originis negant esse
peccatum, et ut extenuent gloriam meriti et beneficiorum Christi dis-
putant hominem propriis viribus rationis coram Deo justificari posse." —
Conf. August, art. II. It will be noticed that the Anglican Article
is far more guarded and cautious in its statements than this. See
below, p. 376.

ARTICLE IX 359

repeat the Lutheran formulary with the addition of
a reference to the loss of original righteousness.1 But
though the language of our Article cannot be traced to
any earlier source, the following passage from the
Rcformatio Legum illustrates its teaching, and points
even more distinctly to the revival of the Pelagian
heresy by a section of the Anabaptists : —

" In labe peccati ex ortu nostro contracta, quam vitium
originis appellamus, primum quidem Pelagianorum, deinde
etiam Anabaptistarum nobis vitandus et submovendus est
error, quorum in eo consensus contra veritatem sacrarum
Scripturarum est, quod peccatum originis in Adamo solo
haaserit, et non ad posteros transient, nee ullam afferat
naturae nostne perversitatern, 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
tan turn in libero arbitrio roboris et nervorum ponunt, ut
eo solo sine alia speciali Christi gratia recte ab hominibus
vivi posse constituant." 2

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

1. Original sin.

2. The effect of baptism in the removal of original sin.

3. The character of concupiscence.

I. Original Sin.

Under this head there are various points which
require elucidation —

(a) The phrase " original sin."

The Pelagian heresy, as showing what original sin

is not.

1 See Hardwick, Histcn^y of the, Art ides, p. 261.

2 Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, De Hceres, c.

360 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

(c) Original righteousness, as that from which man is
" very far gone."

(d) The effect of the Fall.

(a) The phrase " original sin " (Peccatum originale or
peccatum originis).1 This does not occur anywhere in
Holy Scripture, but is due to S. Augustine, who makes
use of it in one of his earlier works ; 2 and from his day
forward it is of frequent occurrence, being made current
coin through the Pelagian controversy. The phrase was
perhaps suggested to Augustine by the similar expression
" originis injuriam" which had been used by S. Ambrose ; 3
while still earlier S. Cyprian had said of a new-born
infant, "secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis
antiques prima nativitate contraxit."4

(b) The Pelagian heresy, as showing what original sin is
not.

This heresy originated early in the fifth century. Its
founder, Pelagius, was a monk of British extraction who
had settled at Rome. There he took offence at the well-
known saying of Augustine, "Give what Thou commandest,
and command what Thou wilt," which seemed to him to
exalt the Divine at the expense of the human in the
work of salvation.5 Subsequently he and his friend and
convert, Coelestius, elaborated the system which has since
borne his name. His character may be seen from the
charges which were brought against Coelestius at a
Council held in 412 at Carthage, whither the two friends

1 The two expressions are evidently regarded as convertible terms.
The latter is used in the text 01 the Article, the former in the
title.

2 Ad ftimplirianum, I. c. i. § 10.

3 Apol. Proph. David, i. § 56. Cf. Aug. Contra duas Epist. IV. § 29.
4Ep. Ixiv. Cf. Bright's Anti - Pelagian Treatises of S. Auguxf.inr,

p. ix.

" Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis," Coiif. X. c. xxix. Cf. DC dono
pcrscv. c. xx., where Augustine himself refers to this fact.

ARTICLE IX 361

had passed from Eome. The charges (to which Coelestius
returned evasive answers) were these: —

1. That Adam was created mortal, and would have
died even if he had not sinned.

2. That his sin injured himself alone, and not the
whole human race.

3. That infants at their birth are in the same condi-
tion in which Adam was before the Fall.

4. That unbaptized infants as well as others would
obtain eternal life.

5. That mankind neither died through Adam's death
or transgression, nor would rise again through Christ's
resurrection.

6. That the law had the same effect as the gospel
in leading men to the kingdom of heaven.

7. That even before Christ came there had been
sinless men.1

Of these tenets the second and third are the most
important, as being most intimately connected with the
whole system that was subsequently known as Pelagianism.
They amount to (a) a denial that the fall of Adam had
affected his descendants ; and (&) closely connected with
this " a denial of the necessity of supernatural and directly
assisting grace in order to any true service of God on
the part of man."2 This latter seems to have been in the
order of time prior to the first mentioned, which, however,
is its ground and basis. Admit in any true sense the
Fall, and Divine grace becomes a necessity. Deny the
Fall, and grace may perhaps be dispensed with and human
nature without supernatural assistance be found equal to
the conflict with sin.

1 See on the whole subject Bright's Anti-Pelagian Treatises, Introd.
p. xvi. seq., and SchafFs Histwy of the. Church, "Niceneand Post-Nicene
Christianity." vol. ii. p. 790 seq.

- Bright, p. ix.

362 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

There was, however, the fact of universal depravity to
be explained. What account could be given of the fact
that sin is found everywhere ? Pelagius could only
explain it by saying that it resulted from the universal
followiw) of Adam's example. Adam's fall, according to
him, had no effect on the nature of his descendants. But
by sinning he set an example which all, or almost all
(for Pelagius admitted exceptions), had followed. This
is the view of original sin which was revived by the
Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, and which is
condemned in the opening words of our Article. Original
sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as
the Pelagians do vainly talk. The meaning of

the English phrase is made clear by a reference to the
Latin, Peccat ;m originis non est in imitatione Adami situm.
" Standeth not " is equivalent to " does not consist ; " 1
" the following of Adam " is the imitation of him, or
sinning after his example.

In support of the assertion of the Article, and the
position taken up by the Church on this subject, it
appears to be sufficient to appeal to the teaching of
S. Paul in Eom. v. 12-15: "As through one man
sin entered into the world, and death through sin ; and
so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned : for
until the law sin was in the world : but sin is not
imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death
reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had
not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who
is a figure of Him that was tc come."

Universal depravity is recognised as a fact throughout
the Old Testament, but no explanation of it is offered.
There appear to be only two possible ones. Either, as
the Pelagians asserted, it results from the fact that all

1 Compare the similar use of "standeth" in the Second Collect at
Mattins : "in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life."

ARTICLE IX 363

men follow Adam's example, and sin " after the likeness
of his transgression," or there is a " fault " in the
inherited nature which makes sinning easy and natural.
Jewish writings outside the Canon show us that though
there was no consistent doctrine among the Jews on the
subject, yet some among them were feeling their way
towards the position laid down by S. Paul, and were inclined
to hold that universal sin was due to the fact that the fall of
Adam had permanently affected his descendants.1 And
on this point the teaching of the New Testament is quite
clear. The passage cited above is decisive as to the apostle's
view, and conclusive against the Pelagian theory, while the
whole line of argument in the early chapters of the Epistle
to the Eomans tends to establish the fact that Adam's sin
had a far-reaching effect upon mankind, that through it
sin gained an entrance into the world and that all his
descendants inherited a tendency to sin.2

1 See Wisd. ii. 23 seq. ; Ecclus. xxv. 24 [33] ; 4 Ezra iii. 7, 21 se.q. •
Apoc. Baruch xvii. 3, xxiii. 4 ; and cf. Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah,
vol. i. p. 165 seq., and Sanday and Headlam On the Eomans, p.
136 seq.

2 The question may be raised how far is the Church's doctrine on this
subject, and S. Paul's teaching in particular, affected by "critical" views
of the Old Testament, and the belief that in Gen. i.-iii. we have a
symbolical representation of spiritual truths rather than a literal history.
On this subject a valuable letter will be found in the Life and Letters of
F. J. A. ffort, vol. ii. p. 329, and reference may also be made to Sanday
and Headlam On the Romans, p. 146, where it is pointed out that the
narrative in Genesis is "the typical and summary representation of a
series of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half calcined
bones can ever reproduce for us. In some way or other, as far back as
history goes, and we may believe much further, there has been implanted
in the human race this mysterious seed of sin, which, like other character-
istics of the human race, is capable of transmission. The tendency to sin
is present in every man who is born into the world. But the tendency
does not become actual sin until it takes effect in defiance of an express
command, in deliberate disregard of a known distinction between right
and wrong. How men came to be possessed of such a command, by what
process they arrived at the conscious distinction of right and wrong, we can

364 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

It may be added, that the conclusion which has forced
itself upon the minds of theologians as an inference from
the statements of Holy Scripture, that there is a taint in
the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of
the offspring of Adam, is in remarkable accordance with
the teaching of secular philosophers and poets,1 and is
but the theological expression of the doctrine which has
been not discovered, but formulated by modern science
under the name of heredity.

(c) Original righteousness. — Having set aside the
Pelagian heresy, the Article proceeds with its account of
original sin, and lays down that it is " the fault and

corruption of the nature of every man that
naturally is engendered of the offspring of
Adam, whereby man is very far gone from

but vaguely speculate. Whatever it was, we may be sure that it could
not have been presented to the imagination of primitive peoples otherwise
than in such simple forms as the narrative assumes in the Book of
Genesis. The really essential truths all come out in that narrative— the
recognition of the Divine will, the act of disobedience to the will so
recognised, the perpetuation of the tendency to such disobedience, and we
may add, perhaps, though here we get into a region of surmises, the
connexion between moral evil and physical decay, for the surest pledge of
immortality is the relation of the highest part in us, the soul, through
righteousness to God. These salient principles, which may have been
due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods, are
naturally and inevitably summed up as a group of single incidents. Their
essential character is not altered, and in the interpretation of primitive
beliefs we may safely remember that "a thousand years in the sight of
God are but as one day." . . . It would be absurd to expect the language
of modern science in the prophet who first incorporated the traditions of
his race in the sacred books of the He Drews. He uses the only kind of
language available to his own intelligence and that of his contemporaries.
But if the language which he does use is from that point of view abund-
antly justified, then the application which S. Paul makes of it is equally
justified. He, too, expresses truth through symbols ; and in the days when
men can dispense with symbols his teaching may be obsolete, but not
before.

1 See the interesting lecture on this subject in Mozley's Lectures and
otJier Theological Papers, p. 148 seq.

ARTICLE IX 365

original righteousness." What, then, was this

" original righteousness " from which man is " very far
gone " ? Following out the indications on the subject
that may be gathered from Scripture, ancient writers
have generally described it as being partly natural,
partly supernatural, — natural in that it proceeded from
free will and the power of choice, supernatural in that
certain special gifts and graces in addition to free will
were required for its exercise.1 Adam could not have
had concupiscence or lust, i.e. the direct inclination to
evil which is now the incentive to sin in our nature,
for he was made " in the image of God," and was " very
good." On the other hand, as he was in a state of trial,
there must have been something in him which sin could
take hold of — a starting-point for temptation. To pro-
tect him from yielding, it is thought that he must have
" had by his created disposition a pleasure in goodness,
and that pleasure naturally preserved him in obedience
without the need of express effort." 2 This natural
pleasure in goodness, which is practically equivalent to
an implanted virtuous character, is what has been called

1 See the quotations in Bishop Bull's famous discourse "On the State
of Man before the Fall" (Works, ii. p. 52 seq.}. Bull concludes that
"the meaning of the question [whether the original righteousness of the
first man was supernatural], if it signify anything to any considerable
purpose, is clearly this, whether Adam in the state of integrity needed
a supernatural principle or power in order to the performing of such a
righteousness as through the gracious acceptance of God should have been
available to an eternal and celestial life and happiness. And the ques-
tion being thus stated, ought to be held in the affirmative, if the
consentient determination of the Church of God may be allowed its due
weight in the balance of our judgments." "There is a sense, indeed," he
adds, "wherein we may safely acknowledge the original righteousness or
the first man to have been natural, and it is this, that he received the
principle of that righteousness a nativitate sua, from his nativity, in his
very creation, and together with his nature" (Op. cit. p. 131). Reference
should also be made to S. Thomas, Summa Theotogicc, lma, Q. xciv. *eq.

2 Mozley, The Augustinian Theory of Predestination, p. 91.

366 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

by divines the donum supernaturale. It may be best
understood by regarding it as a supernatural bias
towards good, so that the natural tendency of man was
to do what was right in consequence of this Divinely
ordered inclination of his will in that direction. " This
implanted rectitude," it may be added, " or good habit it
was which made the first sin of man so heinous, and
caused that distinction between it and all the other
sins which have been committed in the world. For the
first sin was the only sin which was committed against
and in spite of a settled bias of nature towards good ;
all the other sins which have been committed since
have been committed in accordance with a natural bias
towards evil. There was therefore a perversity in the
first sin altogether peculiar to it, and such as made it a
sin sui generis." l

In view of modern theories of development, it may
be added that there is nothing whatever in Holy Scrip-
ture to make us think that man was in his unfallen
condition perfect. Innocent he is distinctly represented
as being. His state is one of primitive simplicity. But
this is all. Nor is there anything in the Biblical account
to lead us to imagine that he was in a high state of
civilisation or of intellectual greatness. Scripture gives
no countenance to the view that " an Aristotle was but
the rubbish of an Adam " ; and more than one of the
early Fathers denies that Adam was created " perfect "
(re'Xeto?).2

1 Mozley, The Augustinian Theory of Predestination, p. 91.

2 Thus Theophilus of Antioch (180) says that God placed Adam in
Paradise Sidovs ai/rw d$op/<o?j> TT/JOKOTTT}? STTWS av^dvcw Kal rAeios yevbuevos,
K.T.X., Ad Autohjc. ii. 24 ; while Clement of Alexandria directly raises
tlu> question whether Adam was formed perfect or incomplete (rAetos T)
dreXifr), and answers that he "was not made perfect in respect to his
constitution, but in a fit condition to receive virtue" (Stromata, VI.
xii. 96), "where," as Bishop Bull says, "he plainly enough teacheth that

ARTICLE IX 367

(d) The effect of the Fall. — If the condition of man
in his primitive condition before he had actually sinned
was as it has been described above, what, it will be
asked, was the effect of the Fall ? Concerning this
there have been various views held, differing in regard
to the extent of the depravity actually inherited by all
men.

(i.) The Greek Fathers generally, and the earlier Latin
ones as well, laid no great stress on the Fall, and the
most that can be said is that — so far as they have any
definite teaching on the subject at all — they hold that
it involved the loss of the supernatural bias of the will
towards good, but nothing more. Man was left with a
fundamentally sound nature, with no direct bias in one
direction or the other. Thus on this view "original
sin " is nothing more than a loss of higher goodness ; a
state of defect rather than of positive sin ; a privatio
rather than a depravatio natures.

(ii.) Augustine and his followers in the controversy
with the Pelagians dealt fully with the subject, and
drew out more thoroughly than had yet been done the
teaching of Scripture, showing therefrom that the Fall
involved something more than only the withdrawal of
the supernatural gifts, and left man with a corrupt
nature, a direct bias towards evil. " The will," says
Mozley, " according to the earlier school was not substan-
tially affected by the Fall. . . . But in Augustine's
scheme the will itself was disabled at the Fall ; and not
only certain impulses to it withdrawn, its power of

Adam was from the beginning not indeed made perfect, but yet endowed
with the capacity whereby he might arrive to perfect virtue. " See the
whole passage (Works, ii. p. 72), and cf. Lux AIundi, p. 535: "All
that we are led to believe is that the historical development of man has
not been the development simply as God meant it. It has been tainted
throughout its whole fabric by an element of moral disorder, of human
wilfulness."

368 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

choice was gone, and man was unable not only to rise
al.nve a defective goodness, but to avoid positive sin.
He was thenceforth, prior to the operation of grace, in
a state of necessity on the side of evil, a slave to the
devil and to his own inordinate lusts." ]

(iii.) In later days, many of the schoolmen, and after
them the Eoman divines of the sixteenth century, were
content to regard original sin in a somewhat milder
light than this, and to view it rather as a " privatio "
than as a state of positive defect. Aquinas, however,
after speaking of it as " quaedam privatio," " careiitia
originalis justitke," terms it " inordinata dispositio, languor
naturae," and freely admits that it is more than a mere
" privatio." 2 But the Council of Trent, following Scotus,
regards it mainly as " the loss of holiness and righteous-
ness " ; 3 and Bellarmine distinctly teaches that it is
only the result of the withdrawal of the supernatural
gift.4

(iv.) On the other hand, both Lutherans and Calvinists
have generally maintained an entire depravation of
human nature, so that man is only inclined to evil ; and
they have sometimes used such strong and exaggerated
language on the corruption of man's nature, as to sug-
gest that since the Fall the image of God is wholly

1 Op. cit. p. 125. For Augustine's teaching reference may be made to
the Enchiridion, § 10 ; De Natura et gratia, c. iii. ; and the treatise
De Gratia Christi et de Peccato originali.

- ' ' Habet privationem originalis justitia et cum hoc inordinatam dis-
positionem partium anima?, unde non est privatio pura sed et quredam
habitus corruptus," Summa, lma 2:e Q. Ixxxi.

3 Decree concerning original sin, Session V. (June 17, 1546).

"Corruptio naturae non ex alicujus doni carentia, neque ex alicujus
malce qualitatis accessu, sed ex sola doni supernaturalis ob Adse peccatum
;miissione profluxit," De gratia primi hominis, c. v. ; cf. c. i. ; and
Am inn. gratice, iii. 1. Modern Roman teaching is on just the same lines.
See Moehler's Symbolism, p. 43 seq. ; and Perrone, Prcrlectiones, vol. iii.
p. 122 .sw/.

ARTICLE IX 369

obliterated, and the nature of man no better than that
of the evil spirits. Thus the " Westminster Confession "
says of our first parents : " By this sin they fell from
their original righteousness and communion with God,
and so became dead in sin, and wholly 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 them by
ordinary generation. From this original corruption,
whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made
opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do
proceed all actual transgressions." l

To which of these views thus briefly enumerated, it
may be fairly asked, does the Anglican Article incline ?
It clearly takes a darker view than that of the Greek
Fathers, and of the Eoman Church as represented by the
Council of Trent. Original sin is more than a " privatio."
It is a "depravatio naturae." It "deserves God's
wrath and damnation." Such language can only
he used of something positive, not simply of a withdrawal
of supernatural grace. But, on the other hand, strong
as the language of the Article is, it falls very far short of
that of the " Westminster Confession," and of Calvinists
in general. " Quam longissime " in the Latin Article, if
pressed, might perhaps be taken to indicate agreement
with the Calvinist notion of a total loss of original

1 West. Conf. c. vi. So the Formula, Concordice (1577) says that
original sin "is so deep a corruption of human nature, that nothing
healthy or incorrupt in a man's soul or body, in inner or outward
powers," is left. Similar but even stronger language is used in the
Confessio Helvetica II. c. 8 : " Peccatum autem intelligimus esse nativam
illam hoininis corruptionem ex primis illis nostris parentibus in nos
omnes derivatam vel propagatam, qua concupiscentiis pravis immersi et
a bono aversi, ad omne vero malum propensi, pleni omni nequitia, diffi-
dentia, contemtu et odio Dei, nihil boni ex nobis ipsis facere, irno ne
cogitare quidem possumus."

370 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

righteousness ; but if so, the English " very far gone "
would appear strangely inadequate. Moreover, there is
ji significant silence about any imputation of Adam's sin
(a prominent feature in later Calvinistic teaching) ; and
that the Article is seriously defective from a Calvinistic
point of view, is conclusively shown by the suggested
emendations of the Assembly of Divines in 1643. They
were not satisfied with it as it stood, but wished to insert
a reference to the imputation of Adam's sin, and to
materially strengthen the language of the Article, substi-
tuting " wholly deprived of " for " very far gone from,"
and insisting that man " is of his own nature only
inclined to evil." l

This being so, we need have no hesitation in inter-
preting the Latin by the English, and may rest content
with the statement that man is " very far gone from
original righteousness." So much is clearly taught in
Holy Scripture. Not to lay too much stress on the
language of the Psalmist, " Behold I was shapen in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me "
(Ps. li. 5), or on the question of Job, " Who can bring a
clean thing out of an unclean ? " (Job xiv. 4), we notice
that all through Scripture man is regarded as by nature
corrupt. " The imagination of man's heart is evil from
his youth" (Gen. viii. 21); "every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart is only evil continually " (vi. 5) ;
" The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
sick" (Jer. xvii. 9). So also in the New Testament:
" I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no
good thing" (Rom. vii. 18). "The mind of the flesh is
enmity against God ; for it is not subject to the law of
God, neither indeed can it be ; and they that are in the
flesh cannot please God" (Rom. viii. 7). But, on the

1 See Real's History of the Puritans, vol. iii. p. 559, where the Article
is given as amended by the Divines.

ARTICLE IX 371

other hand, there are passages which no less clearly
indicate that, in spite of this universal depravity, the
" image of God," in which man was originally created,
still remains since the Fall, and therefore it cannot be
true to say that he is " wholly deprived of " his original
righteousness. Thus in Gen. ix. 6 the law, "Whoso
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed,"
is based on the fact that " in the image of God made
He man." In 1 Cor. xi. 7, S. Paul speaks of man as
" the image and glory of God," while S. James says that
men are " made after the likeness of God " (iii. 9).

It may then be fairly concluded that on this subject
the Church of England is in the main content to follow
the teaching of Augustine : only, however, in the main,
for there are statements which Augustine was led to
make in the course of the controversy with the Pelagians
to which we are most certainly not called upon to sub-
scribe. To mention one point only. Augustine asserted
that as a fact infants and others dying unbaptized meet
with the punishment of hell.1 Article IX. is careful only
to state that original sin " deserves God's wrath and
damnation," — a statement which follows naturally from
the view taken of it as something positive, involving a
real taint and disorder of the nature, but which falls
short of expressing any opinion on the further question
whether it actually meets with that which it deserves.2

1 De peccatorum merltis et remissione, I. xxi., II. c. iv. ; cf. Bright's
Anti-Pelagian Treatises, p. xiv, note 4.

2 See on this point a striking letter of the late Dean Church, Life and
Letters, p. 248. " The/a<rf of what is meant by original sin is as mysteri-
ous and inexplicable as the origin of evil, but it is obviously as much
a fact. There is a fault and vice in the race, which, given time, as surely
develops into actual sin as our physical constitution, given at birth, does
into sickness and physical death. It is of this inherited sin in our
nature, looked upon in the abstract and without reference to concrete
cases, that I suppose the Article speaks. How can we suppose that such
a nature looks in God's eyes according to the standard of perfect right-

372 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

As an illustration of this, reference may be made to the
careful reticence of the note at the end of the Baptismal
Service in the Book of Common Prayer. " It is certain
by God's word that children which are baptized, dying
before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved."
Nothing whatever is said of what happens in the case
of those who die uiibaptized, and the reticence is evidently
designed ; for the note in question was copied almost
verbatim from the "Institution of a Christian Man"
(1537), which proceeded to say " and else not"1 The

cousness which we also suppose to be God's standard and law. Does it
satisfy that standard ? Can He look with neutrality on its divergence
from His perfect standard? What is His moral judgment of it as a
subject for moral judgment ? What He may do to cure it, to pardon it,
to make allowance for it in known or unknown ways, is another matter,
about which His known attributes of mercy alone may reassure us ; but
the question is, How does He look upon this fact of our nature in itself,
that without exception it has this strong efficacious germ of evil within
it, of which He sees all the possibilities and all the consequences ? Can
He look on it, even in germ, with complacency or indifference ? Must
He not judge it and condemn it as in itself, because evil, deserving con-
demnation ? I cannot see what other answer can be given but one, and
this is what the Article says. But all this settles nothing about the
actual case of unbaptized infants, any more than the general necessity
of believing the gospel settles anything as to the actual case of heathens
who have never heard of the gospel. If, without fear, we leave them
to the merciful dispensations, un revealed to us, of Him who is their
Father, though they do not know Him, much more may we leave infants
who have never exercised will or reason. But in both cases we are
obliged by facts and Scripture to acknowledge sinfulness and sin. In
Christians, and those who may know of the gospel, this is cured,
relieved, taken away, by known means which He has given us. In those
who, by no fault of their own, are out of His family and Church, we
cannot doubt, both from what we know of Him and from what He has
told us, that He will provide what is necessary. But still there is
the sinfulness and the sin ; and as sin, qiid sin, we can only suppose
that He looks on it with displeasure, and condemns it. I don't see that
i In- Article, which is only treating of sin and sinfulness, and not of its
remedy or God's love, does more than express what must be God's judg-
ment on all sin, even in germ. How He deals with it is a separate
matter."

1 Formularies of Faith, p. 93.

ARTICLE IX 373

omission of these three words is highly significant ; and
it may be added that, though the work possesses no
authority, yet the Eeformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum
may be appealed to as an historical witness that by the
time of the reign of Edward vi. leading Anglican divines
had come to see that while salvation must be denied to
those who despise or reject baptism, yet in the case of
children (at least of Christian parents) dying unbaptized
through no fault of their own, there is room for good hope.1

II. The effect of Baptism in the removal of Original Sin.

In considering the effect of holy baptism in the
removal of original sin, it must be remembered that
there are two evils attaching to all sin, viz. the guilt,
which needs pardon and forgiveness, and the power,
which needs overcoming and driving out. On the view
taken by the English Church, that what we call " original
sin " is something more than a loss of higher goodness,
being a germ of real evil, this is true of it as of all other
sin. It has its guilt, which makes us " children of wrath " ;2

1 De Hceresibus, c. 18 : "Illorum etiam impia videri debet scrupulosa
superstitio, qui Dei gratiam et Spiritum Sanctum tantopere cum sacra-
mentorum elementis colligant, ut plane affirment nullum Christianornm
infantem seternam salutem esse consecuturum, qui prius a morte fuerit
occupatus, quam ad baptismum adduci potuerit : quod longe secus habere
judicamus. Salus enim illis solum adimitur, qui sacrum hunc baptismi
fontem contenmunt, aut superbia quadam ab eo, vel contumacia resiliunt ;
quse importunitas cum in puerorum setatem non cadat, nihil contra
salutem illorum authoritate Scripturarum decerni potest, immo contra
cum illos communis promissio pueros in se comprehendat, optima nobis
spes de illorum salute concipienda est." See also Hooker, Eccl. 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 wrath,
we are hereby made the children of grace." The expression "children of
wrath " is Biblical, and comes from Eph. ii. 3, T^KVO. opyrjs.

25

374 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

and it has its power, which, in the form of concupiscence,
draws us in the direction of evil. In baptism the guilt

is pardoned. There is no condemnation to them
that believe and are baptized (" Kenatis et creden-

tibus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio "),1 a state-
ment for which ample support may be found in Holy
Scripture (see Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16, etc.), and which will be
further illustrated under Article XXVII.2 But the power
of sin, that appetite for corrupt pleasure which is the
incentive to sin in us still remains.3 This infection

of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are
regenerate (etiam in renatis), whereby the lust of
the flesh, called in Greek ^pov^^a a-aptcos, which
some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality,
some the affection, some the desire of the flesh

1S 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 (f>povrjfj,a
(rap/cos, and the account given in the Article of this " lust
of the flesh," is based on Rom. viii. 6, 7 : " For the
mind of the flesh 4 (TO (frpowrjfjua TT)? <rapKos) is death ;

1 It should be noticed (1) that renatis in the Latin of the Article corre-
sponds to "are baptized " in the English, thus marking the close connec-
tion between regeneration and baptism ; and (2) that there is nothing in
the English corresponding to propter Christum in the Latin.

2 The statement of the Article may be further illustrated from the Bap-
tismal Offices in the Book of Common Prayer, in which remission of sins
is throughout regarded as one of the blessings granted in baptism to
infants as well as to those of riper years.

3 Compare Augustine, Depeccatorum meritls et remissione, Lib. II. c. iv. :
' Concupiscentia . . . cum parvulis nascitur, in parvulis baptizatis a reati

solvitur, ad agonem relinquitur."

4 The Vulgate translates this phrase by prudentia in ver. 6, and
sapientia carnis in ver. 7. The Geneva Version has " wisdom of the

ARTICLE IX 375

but the mind of the spirit is life and peace : because the
mind of the flesh is enmity against God ; for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be."

III. The Character of Concupiscence.

There remains the question, What is the character of
this concupiscence which, as all agree, remains even in the
regenerate ? Is it, before it positively breaks out into
definite acts of sin, to be regarded as itself " true and
proper sin," or is it merely to be reckoned as " an
incentive to sin, arising from sin and inclining to it " ?
The question was keenly debated in the sixteenth century,
the Church of Kome and the followers of Calvin return-
ing diametrically opposite answers to it. The Roman
view of concupiscence is given in the decrees of the
Council of Trent, at the fifth session of which the subject
was discussed, A.D. 1546, some years, therefore, before
the Anglican Article was drawn up. The Tridentine
divines in this decree maintain the following posi-
tions : —

(i.) In baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted,
and " all that has the true and proper nature of sin " is
taken away (totum id quod veram et propriam peccati
rationem habet).

(ii.) There remains concupiscence, or an incentive to
sin, which is left for us to strive against, but cannot
injure those who consent not.

(iii.) " This concupiscence, which the Apostle some-
times calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic
Church has never understood to be called sin, as being
truly and properly sin in the regenerate, but because it

flesh " ; but in the Bishops' Bible there is the following note: " <f>povoucri
and <t>povr)/j.a, Greek words, do not so much signify wisdom and prudence,
as affection, carefulness, and minding of anything."

3*76 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

is of sin and inclines to sin " (quia ex peccato est et ad
peccatum inclinat).1

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 baptism ";2 and in accordance with
this, when, in 1 543, the " Assembly of Divines" attempted
to revise the Thirty-nine Articles in the interests of
Calvinism, they proposed to substitute " is truly and
properly sin"3 for the milder statement of our own
Article, which, it must be confessed, is somewhat am-
biguous, and wanting in the precision of both the Roman
and the Calvinistic statements.

The apostle doth confess that concupiscence
and lust hath of itself the nature of sin (rationem

peccati). It is hard to say exactly what this means.
The Tridentine phrase " ratio peccati " is used, but there
is nothing about " true and proper nature " ; and the
Article leaves us uncertain whether it is intended that we
should regard concupiscence as truly sin or not. The
ambiguity is in all probability designed;4 nor need we
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 with sin, and that, if
unchecked, it issues in sin. This is the practical matter,

1 Canons of the Council of Trent, Session V. Decree on Original
Sin.

2 Niemayer, Collectio Confesxionum, p. 332 ; cf. Winer, Confessions oj
Christendom, p. 109.

3 Neal, History of the Puritans, 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
the form of expression employed in our own Article still more noticeable,

ARTICLE IX 377

and there, with wise moderation, those who drew up this
Article were content to leave it.

One other question remains, to which 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 what passage or passages
is allusion here made ? S. Paul, who is evidently meant
by " the Apostle," nowhere directly terms 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,
Eom. vi. 12, vii. 8 ; Gal. v. 16-24, in all of which lust
or concupiscence is spoken of as closely connected with
sin. Keference may also be made to the teaching of
S. James on the same subject : " Each man is tempted,
when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin :
and sin, when it is full grown, bringeth forth death "
(i. 14, 15).

AKTICLE X

DC Liber o A rbitrio. Of Free will.

Ea est hominis post lapsum Adse The condition of man after the

conditio, ut sese naturalibus suis fall of Adam is such, that he cau-

viribus et bonis operibus ad fidem not turn and prepare himself, by

et invocationem Dei convertere his own natural strength and good

ac praeparare non possit : Quare works, to faith, and calling upon

absque gratia Dei, quae per Chris- God : Wherefore we have no power

turn est, nos prseveniente, ut to do good works pleasant and

velimus, et co-opevante dum volu- acceptable to God, without the

nms, ad pietatis opera facienda, grace of God by Christ preventing

quse Deo grata sint et accepta, us, that we may have a good will,

nihil valemus. and working with us, when we

have that good will.

THE original Article of 1553 consisted only of the latter
part of our present Article, beginning with the words,
'' We have no power," etc.1 Its language was evidently
suggested by a passage in Augustine's work, On Grace
and Freewill, in which he says that " we have no power
to do good works without God working that we may
have a good will, and co-operating when we have that
good will."2

The clause which now stands first in the Article was
prefixed in 1563 by Archbishop Parker, being taken by
him from the Confession of Wiirtemberg.3 The object of

1 " Working icith us " was substituted for " working in us " as a trans-
lation of "co-operante" in 1571.

- l)c U ratio, et Libero Ai'litrio, xvii. : "Sine illo vel operantc
ut velimus vel co-operante cum volumus, ad bonse pietatis opera nihil
valemus."

3 "Quod autcni nonnulli affirmant homini post lapsum tan tarn animi
integritatem relictam, ut possit sese naturalibus 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 Reformatio Legum
ficclesiasticarum, in which, after a condemnation of the
revival of the Pelagian heresy of these fanatics, we read :
" 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." l But the clause added by
Parker from the Confession of Wlirtemberg 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. Freewill.

It will 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 some others, is not quite accurate, and a
more exact one would be " of the need of grace." 2
What is denied in the Article is the power and ability
to turn to God and do good works without the assistance
of God Himself : what is asserted is the absolute need of
grace preventing and co-operating : but of " Freewill " in
itself nothing whatever is directly said.

The statement of the first part of the Article follows

operibus, ad fidem et invocationem Dei convertere ac prseparare, haud
obscure pugnat cum apostolica doctrina et cum vero ecclesise Catholicse
consensu." — De Peccato. See Hard wick, p. 125.

1 De Hcereti. c. vii. 2 Cf. Forbes On the Articles, 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 naturae," a real corruption of our
nature, " whereby man is very far gone from original
righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil."
If this is true, it follows 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 will 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
Man" (1543), with which the Article is in substantial
agreement.

" Though there remain a certain freedom of the will 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 wounded and
decayed, hath need of a physician to heal it, and an
help to repair it." l

II. The need of Grace.

While the Article thus neither affirms nor denies the
freedom of the will in the abstract, its teaching on the
absolute necessity of Divine grace for the performance
of works that are "grata Deo" is clear and decisive.

1 See Formularies of Faith, p. 360. Of. also the Tridentine 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-XIIL),
that they are concerned with God's method of dealing
with 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
without ever having heard the gospel of Christ. Their
case is not contemplated. Such terms as " faith and
calling upon God/' " good works, 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 works " of the heathen, and the light in
which they are regarded by God. All that need be said
is that they are not what the Articles call " good works,
pleasant and acceptable to God " (Deo grata et accepta).
This phrase, which we meet with here for the first time,
is almost a technical one, used for the works of Chris-
tians done in a Christian spirit and from Christian
motives. Thus it is used in Article XII. of those good
works which " are the fruits of faith, and follow after
justification." These are said to be "grata Deo et
accepta in Christo " ; whereas, according to Article XIII.,
" works done before the grace of Christ and inspiration
of His Spirit " are " minime Deo grata." More will be
said on this subject when 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

states that twofold grace is needed — (1) preve7iting grace
(gratia pneveniens), inclining the will to choose the good ; l
and (2) co-operating grace (gratia co-operans), assisting
man to act, when the will has already been inclined to
choose the good. The technical phrase "gratia prse-
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. (Iviii.) 10 : " Deus meus
misericordia ejus prseveniet me," a text which he quotes
frequently. 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 will and to do of His good pleasure"; and
compare [S. Mark] 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.
For 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 Me, except the Father which sent Me, draw him,"

1 For scholastic teaching on grace and the divisions into gratia operans
and co-operans, as well as into gratia prseveniens and subsequens, see
Aquinas, Summa lmn 2X Q. cxi.

2 Serm. 176, § 5 ; De Nat. et Gratia, § 35 ; Contra duas Epist. II. § 21.
Cf. Bright's Anti-Pelagian Treatises, p. xix.

3 De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, c. xvii.

4 See the Collect for Easter Day : ' ' Almighty God ... we humbly
beseech Thee, that, as by Thy special grace preventing us Thou dost put
into our minds good desires, so by Thy continual help we may bring
the same to good effect." The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity:
"Lord, we pray Thee that Thy grace may always pi-event and follow
us, and make us continually to be given to all good works" ; and the
fourth Collect at the end of the Order of Holy Communion : " Prevent us,
0 Lord, in all our doings with Thy most gracious favour and further us
with Thy continual help. "

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 which were spoken by
God." While for co-operating grace reference may be
made to S. Paul's attribution of all that he did, not to
himself, but to " the grace of God which was with " him
(1 Cor. xv. 10; cf. Gal. ii. 20); and to our Lord's
teaching in S. John xv. 4, 5 : " Abide in Me, 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 Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches : he that
abideth in Me, and I in him, the same beareth much
fruit ; for apart from Me 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 " every good gift, and
every perfect boon" (S. James i. 17); yet, on the other
hand, it is equally necessary to insist, still in fullest
harmony with the teaching of Scripture, — which every-
where assumes man's responsibility and power of
responding to God's claim, — upon the freewill of man ;
for so only can any sense of human responsibility be
developed.1 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 them side by
side, as S. Paul himself does in the passage already
quoted. " Work out your own salvation with 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." — Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 21G.

2 Cf. Augustine, De peccatorum merit-is et remissionc, II. 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."

384 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

trembling " (there is man's freedom, for it is idle to tell
him to " work " 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 Kom. vii. shows more
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 man
has since the Fall been warped in the direction of evil,
and thus man finds himself, as it were, under two
different and incompatible laws. On the one hand, he
approves of the law of God, and acknowledges himself
bound to obey it. On the other, he feels that he is
under the dominion of another law which continually
leads him to sin. " To will (TO 6e\ew) l is present with
me ; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would (o 0e\o>) I do not : but the
evil which I would not, that I do. Now, if I do that
which I would 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 (TO) 6e\own e^ol Troieiv TO «a\oi/), evil is
present with me. For I delight in the law of God after
the inward man : but I see another law 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 "
(vers. 18—23). This double state or condition in which
man finds himself is recognised by heathen poets and
moralists.2 It has in its favour the testimony of facts,

1 It must be noticed that S. Paul does not use the word £ou\oyucu, which
"lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose and deliberation," but
only et\€ii>, the more emotional word. See Sanday and Headlam in If*:
- The lines of Ovid are well known —

' ' Video meliora proboque,
Deteriora sequor."
So Seneca asks : " What is it which, while we are going one way, drags

ARTICLE X 385

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. Man'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.1

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 ?
What is it that struggles with our soul and never permits us to do any-
thing ? We vacillate between two opinions : We will nothing freely,
nothing perfectly, nothing always." — Ep. lii.

1 Cf. Pascal, Penstes, arts, xviii.-xxii.

2 See the language from his treatise De Servo Arbitrio, quoted in
Bishop Browne On the Articles, p. 259 : " In his actings towards God, in
things pertaining to salvation or 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
or angel or any other creature."

386 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

grace." l Such views were still more effectually excluded
by the Tenth Article of 1553, which was headed "Of
Grace," and followed the one before us.

De Gratia. Of Grace.

Gratia Christi, seu Spiritus The grace of Christ, or the Holy
Sanctus qui per eundein datur, cor Ghost by Him given doth take
lapideum aufert, et dat cor carneum. away the stony heart, and giveth
Atque licet ex nolentibus quae recta an heart of flesh. And although,
sunt volentes faciat, et ex volenti- those that have no will to good
bus prava, nolentes reddat, volun- things, He maketh them to will,
tati nihilominus violeutiam nullafti and those that would evil things,
infert. Et nemo hac de causa cum He maketh them not to will the
peccaverit, seipsum excusare potest, same : yet nevertheless He en-
quasi nolens aut coactus peccaverit, forceth not the will. And therefore
ut earn ob causam accusari non no man when he sinneth can
mereatur aut damnari. excuse himself, as not worthy to be

blamed or condemned, by alleging
that he sinned unwillingly or by
compulsion.

This was 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
evil choice of man ascribed to a necessitating fiat of his
Maker."2 Its omission by Archbishop 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 Marian exiles, who had returned to England with
strong predilections in favour of Calvinism, and whom 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 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."

ARTICLE X 387

was desired to retain in the Church. The excision of the
Article would remove a stumbling-block from their path,
as there is nothing in our present Article to which they
could take exception, though from their point of view
they might consider that its statements required
supplementing.

ARTICLE XI

De Hominis Justifaatione. Of the Justification of Man.

Tantum propter meritum Domini We are accounted righteous before

ac servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, God, only for the merit of our Lord

per fidem, non propter opera at and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith,

merita nostra, justi coram Deo and not for our own works or de-

reputamur : quare sola fide nos servings : Wherefore, that we are

justificari, doctrina est saluberrima, justified by faith only is a most

ac consolationis plenissima : ut in wholesome doctrine, and very full

Homilia de justificatione hominis of comfort, as more largely is ex-

fusius explicatur. pressed in the Homily of Justi-
fication.

IN its present form 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 Wiirtemberg. In the latter of these documents we
find these words : " Homo enim fit Deo acceptus, et
reputatur coram eo Justus propter solum Filium Dei,
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, per fidem " ; l while
in the former we read as follows: "Item docent quod
homines non possunt justificari coram Deo propriis mribus,
meritis aut operibus, sed gratis justificentur propter
Christum, per fidem, cum credunt se in gratiam recipi,
et peccata remitti propter Christum, qui sua morte pro
nostris peccatis satisfecit. Hanc fidem imputat Deus

1 De Justificatione. See Hanhvick, p. 125.
388

ARTICLE XI 389

pro justitia coram ipso, Kom. iii. et iv." l And again :
" Ut hanc fidem consequamur, institutum est ministerium
docendi Evangelii et porrigendi sacramenta. Nam 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 merita, sed propter Christum
justificet hos, qui credunt se propter Christum in
gratiam recipi." Ci The expressions placed in italics in
these extracts will show how far the Article is indebted
to Lutheran sources. But while 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 when 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 Augsburg.

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 ecclesise," and which had unhappily
given occasion for some of the worst excesses and
extravagances of teaching which marked the course of
the Eeformation.

The subjects which 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. Augustana, art. iv. Sylloge Confcssionum, p. 124.

- Ib. art. v.

:J Forbes On the Articles, p. 182. What makes the omission the more
remarkable is the fact that the expression is actually contained in the
fourth Article "De Justificatione " agreed upon by the Conference of
Anglicans and Lutherans in 1538. See Hardwick, p. 263.
26

390 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

2. The meritorious cause of Justification.

3. The instrument or formal cause of Justification.

4. The " Homily of Justification."

I. Justification, its meaning and relation to Sancti/ication.

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 on
the language of Holy Scripture. The former is based
on Gen. xv. 6 : " Abraham believed God, and it was
accounted unto him for righteousness " (LXX. eV/crreucre
T&> Sew Kal eX&yiaOtj avra) et<? ^itcaioavvriv ; Vulg.
Credidit Deo et reputation est illi ad justitiam). From
this passage the phrase is adopted by S. Paul in the Epistle
to the Romans, c. iv., and throughout this chapter the
Greek \oyicr6fjvcu et? SiKaioo-vvrjv is always rendered by
the Vulgate "ad justitiam reputari" (see ver. 3, 5, 9, 11,
22, 23 ; and cf. Gal. iii. 6 ; S. James ii. 23). Justificari,
" to be justified," is also the invariable Latin equivalent
for Si/caiovcrOai,, — 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
SiKaiovv and SiKaiovaOat, are used in Scripture.

(a) In the Old Testament the active voice is used by
the LXX. as the translation of the Hebrew p*TOn 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. xxiii. 7 ; Deut. xxv. 1 ; 2 Sam. xv. 4 ; 1 Kings
viii. 32; 2 Chr. vi. 23; Ps. Ixxxii. (Ixxxi.) 3; Is.

ARTICLE XI 391

v. 23, 1. 8, liii. 11 ; Jer. iii. 11 ; Ezek. xvi. 51, 52);
in other words, its meaning is not to " make a person
righteous," but to " make him out righteous," or to
" treat him as righteous." 1 But in itself the word
indicates nothing as to whether 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. li. (1.)
5, cxliii. (cxlii.) 2 ; Is. xliii. 9, 26, xlv. 25).

(b) In the New Testament outside the Epistles of
S. Paul the word is not of frequent occurrence, but
wherever it is found (eleven times in all 2) its meaning
is just the same. " Wisdom is justified by her works "
(S. Matt. xi. 19; cf. S. Luke vri. 35), i.e. not "made
righteous," but vindicated, proved to be righteous. In
S. Matt. xii. 37 it is opposed to "condemned," and thus
is equivalent to " acquitted." " By thy words thou shalt
be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
The lawyer, willing to justify himself, says : " And who
is my neighbour ? " where the meaning evidently is to
vindicate himself, or make himself out to be righteous
(S. Luke x. 29 ; cf. xvi. 15). The publican "went down
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 Avord. " How
can diKaLovv possibly signify to make righteous? Verbs, indeed, of this
ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use, e.g. TV^OVV,
" to make blind." But when such words are derived from adjectives of
moral meaning, as di-tovv, oaiow, diKaiovv, they do by usage, and must
from the nature of things signify to deem, to account, to pi~ovc, or to
treat as worthy, holy, righteous." The Speaker's Commentary on 1 Cor.
vi. 11, quoted in Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 30.

2 S. Matt. xi. 19, xii. 37 ; S. Luke vii. 29, 35, x. 29, xvi. 15, xviii.
14 ; Acts xiii. 39 ; S. James ii. 21, 24, 25. In Rev. xxii. 11, which is
sometimes cited for the meaning of infusing righteousness, the reading is
really

392 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

establish the meaning of the word outside S. Paul's
writings. But as the phrase " to be justified by faith " is
due to him, it becomes necessary to examine further into
his usage of the word. It is employed in his Epistles
altogether twenty-five times;1 and while in some cases it
is unambiguous and must mean treat as righteous, and so
(in the case of the guilty) pardon and acquit, in no
single instance can the meaning of " make righteous " be
established for it. This statement is one that can
easily be verified, and therefore only a few examples
need be cited here. " To him that worketh, the reward
is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him
that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifietli the
ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness " (Kom.
iv. 4, 5). " All have sinned, and fall short of the glory
of God : being justified freely by His grace, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Kom. iii. 23, 24).
" With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged
of you, or of man's judgment ; yea, I judge not mine
own self. For I know nothing against myself ; yet am
I not hereby justified: but He that judgeth me is the
Lord" (1 Cor. iv. 3, 4). In 1 Tim. iii. 16 the word is
used of Christ, who was " manifested in the flesh, justified
in the spirit."

From these examples the meaning of the word may be
ascertained without difficulty. It is regularly employed
of the sentence or verdict pronounced on a man by God,
and does not in itself tell us whether the person over
whom the sentence is pronounced is really righteous or
not. When a man is justified he is "accounted righteous,"
or regarded as righteous.

This leads to the inquiry, when is a man "justified" ?

1 Rom. ii. 13, iii. 4, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, iv. 2, 5, v. 1, 9, vi. 7,
viii. 30, 33 ; 1 Cor. iv. 4, vi. 11 ; Gal. ii. 16, 17, iii. 8, 11, 24, v. 4 ;
1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Titus iii. 7.

ARTICLE XI 393

And this raises the whole question of the relation of
justification to sane tifi cation.

Sanctifico and sanctificatio are in the Vulgate the
regular equivalent of asyiatpiv and dyvt^eiv, and of
dylacrpos and dyiwcrvvri, words which are all directly
connected with the idea of making 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 man is first made righteous
(sanctified) by God, and then declared to be so (justified) ;
or whether God as it were anticipates 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, while 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 Spiritu 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, where these quotations are given ; De

394 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

schoolmen in the Middle Ages, and justification was
defined as not only forgiveness of sins, but also an
infusion of grace ; and thus it was practically made to
include sanctification,1 — a view which was finally endorsed
by the Council of Trent. The subject was considered at
the sixth session of the Council held in January 1547,
and justification was decreed to be " not merely the
remission 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 may be an heir
according to the hope of eternal life." It was 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 n.arciful God ; (3) the meritorious cause is
the Lord Jesus Christ, Who merited justification for us
by His Passion ; (4) the instrumental cause is the
sacrament of baptism, " which is the sacrament of
faith, without which justification never befell any man":
(T>) the formal cause is the righteousness (justitia) of God
with which we are endowed by Him.2 Further, the

Spiritu et Litera, § 18 : " Hsec est justitia Dei qiue in Testamento Veteri
velata, in Novo revelatur : qute ideo justitia Dei dicitur quod impcrtiendo
earn justos facit." Enarratio, § 6 : " Oedenti inquit in eum qui justificat
impium, deputatur fides ejus ad justitiam si justificatur impius ex impio
jit Justus."

1 See the Summa of Aquinas, lma 2re Q. cxiii. 2.

- " Justificatio . . . non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio
et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratine et
donorum. Unde homo ex injusto fit Justus, et ex inimico amicus, ut sit
hneres secundum spem vitae seternfe. Hujus justifications causre sunt,
finalis quidem, gloria Dei et Christi, ac vita seterna : efficiens vero
misericorda Deus, . . . meritoria autem dilectissimus unigenitns suus,
Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui cum essemus inimici proper nimiam
charitatem, qua dilexit nos, sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis
justificatiouein meruit, et pro nobis Deo satisfecit : instrumental item,
sacramentum Baptismi, quod est sacramentum fidei, sine qua ulli
nunquam coutigit Justificatio : demum unica formalis causa est justitia

ARTICLE XI 395

eleventh Canon passed at the same session anathematizes
" any who 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 them." l

Thus according to the Koman view justification
includes sanctification. On the other hand, as is well
known, Luther and the Eeformers 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, when 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 were right. The Apostle
certainly does distinguish between justification and
sanctification, and uses the former word, not for final
salvation, nor for infused holiness, but, as the Eeformers
insisted, for the initial blessing, when God accepts a man
and, pardoning him, or " not imputing 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" (Kom. iii. 23, 24; cf. iv. 5, where God is
said to justify TOP acreftri). To be justified, according to
him, is to be pardoned and accepted ; to be taken into

Dei, non qua Ipse Justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab
eo donati, renovanmr Spiritu mentis nostrse, et non modo reputamur, sed
vere justi nominamur, et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes."— Cone.
Trid., Sess. VI. c. vii.

1 "Si quis dixerit homines justificari, vel sola imputatione justitise
Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et charitate, quse
in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur, atque illis inhfiereat ;
aut etiam gratiam qua justificamur esse tan turn favorem Dei ; anathema
sit."— Ib. canon xi.

396 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

God's favour all sinful and unworthy as we 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 we
are to follow 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 wuhin us ; and so distinguishing them, must
hold that in the order of the Christian life justification
precedes sanctification. In the words of S. Chrysostom,
God " crowns us at the outset, making the contest light
to us." * 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 Horn, 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
SiKaiowdai is taken to imply, not the attribution of righteousness in idea,
but an imparting of actual righteousness. The facts of language, how-
ever, are inexorable : we have seen that diKcuovv, diKaiovffdai 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 follow
that the state described is (if we are pressed) a fiction, that God is

ARTICLE XI 397

when so much has been 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 the order of thought
justification precedes sanctificatiori. But together the
blessings stand or fall. If a man is justified we may be
sure that he is being sanctified, however 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 meritorious 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. We are accounted right-
eous before God only for the merits of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (propter meritum
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 when faith is
mentioned in connection with justification an entirely
different preposition, " by " (per), is employed. It is

regarded as dealing with men rather by the ideal standard of what they
may be than by the actual standard of what they are. What 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 have sinned," is enough.
The father does not wait to be gracious. He does not put him upon a
long term of probation, but reinstates him at once in the full privilege of
sonship. The justifying verdict is nothing more than the " best robe "
and the "ring" and the "fatted calf" of the parable (Luke xv. 22 f.)."
— Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 3C.

398 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

important to dwell on this, because it shows that the
real antithesis in the Article (as in Scripture) is not
between faith and works, but between the merit and
work of our Saviour and human merit and work, i.e.
between receiving salvation as God's free gift, and earning
it by our own 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 Eome 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
practically the medieval system did tend to make men
rely on their own merits as the cause of their justifi-
cation,1 and lea to the notion that they could earn it
by what they did ; while 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
consideration.

ITT. The Instrument or formal Cause of Justification.
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 and 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 remit sin, but only to stir and lift up
our minds unto God, by whom only our sins are forgiven." — Formularies
of Faith, p. 16.

' ' They [the Anabaptists] boste themselues to be ryghtuous and to
please God, not purely and absolutely for Christes sake, but for theyr
owne mortification of themselues, for theyr owne good workes and
persecucion, if they suffre any."— Hermann's Consultation, fol. cxlii.
(English translation of 1548), quoted in Hardwick, p. 99.

ARTICLE XI 399

accounted righteous ... by1 faith (per fidem).
. . . Wherefore that we are justified by faith
only (sola fide) is a most wholesome doctrine,
and Yery full of comfort.

There are several matters here which require elucida-
tion—

(a) The meaning of " faith."

(b) The meaning of the expression " we are justified
by faith only."

(c) The reason why faith is the instrument of justifi-
cation.

(a) The meaning of "faith" — There is no Hebrew
word exactly answering to our term " faith." The verb
signifying to believe, to trust, is fP^J, which the LXX.
habitually render by Tnareveiv, from the important
passage, Gen. xv. 6, onwards: "Abraham believed
God, and it was counted to him for righteousness "
(LXX. teal eTricrTeva-ev 'Afipaa/ju T&> 6e&) Kal t\oyfo&q
avra} eh SiKaioGvvyv). This is one of the two great
passages on which 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 which relies upon another. The
nearest approach is found in nttOK, firmness or con-
stancy, which is variously rendered by the LXX. a
TTtcrrt?, or by an adjective, aKyOwos, Trtcrro?,
The word, however, is rather passive than active, signi-
fying trustworthiness, or the frame of mind that can
be relied on ; although in Hab. ii. 4 (S. Paul's other
great text) it seems to have a double or " transitional "

1 "By" in old English is ordinarily equivalent to "through." Cf.
Lightfoot On Precision, 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 (L-TTO), and 'by' the instrument or means (5id)."

400 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

sense. " The just shall live by faith " (LXX. 6 Se

IK TT/o-rew? f^Veim). Here it is hard to say whether
and Trio-ris represent " trustfulness " (active) or
" trustworthiness " (passive) : in fact, the two ideas seem
to be blended together. But when we pass from the Old
Testament to the New, we find Tricms definitely stamped
with the active sense, and as a Christian virtue it has the
meaning of trust or belief.1 Still it is employed with
considerable variations of meaning, from the bare sense
of " belief " or intellectual assent, as when S. James says
that " the devils believe (Tricrrevova-i) and tremble "
(S. James ii. 19), rising to that "faith which worketh
by love " (TTLO-TIS St,' aycnrfjs evepyovfievrj, Gal. v. 6), to
which all the achievements of the Old Testament saints
are attributed in Heb. xi. This last is the sense in
which 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 which 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
works.2

(b) The meaning of the expression " we are justified ly
faith only" — This faith the Article asserts to be the
instrument of our justification.

1 See Bishop Lightfoot On Gfalatians, p. 152 seq., "Excursus on the
Words denoting Faith," from which the above is mainly taken ; and cf.
Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 31 seq.

2 "The centre and mainspring of this higher form of faith is denned
more exactly as 'faith in Jesus Christ,' Rom. iii. 22, 26. This is the
crowning and characteristic sense with S. Paul ; 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 ff., v. 1, 2). We have seen that it is not -lerely
assent or adhesion, but enthusiastic, adhesion, personal adhesion : the
highest and most effective motive power of which human character is
capable." — Sanday and Headlam, iibi suytra.

ARTICLE XI 401

We are accounted righteous ... by faith

(per fidem). The expression is strictly Biblical, and is
drawn from Eom. iii. 28-30: "We reckon that a
man is justified by faith (Trwrret, Vulg. per fidem) apart
from the works of the law. ... He shall justify the
circumcision by faith (etc irLcnews) and the uncircumcision
through faith " (Sta rr}? 7rtWa>9, Vulg. per fidem) ; 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
was not always 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.1
In such language, it is perhaps needless to say, the
Church of England has never followed him.

But the Article is not content with assigning to faith
the position of an instrument ; it speaks of it as if it
were the sole instrument. "We are 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. iii. 28, where S. Paul speaks of men being
"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 " works."

On the other hand, S. James in his Epistle expressly
includes " works," and denies that man is justified by
" faith only " (e'/c 7rt<7Te&>? povov, Vulg. ex fide tantum),
c. ii. 14-26: "What doth it profit, my brethren, if
a man say he hath faith, but have not works ? can

1 See his Comment. 011 Gal. ii. 16, iii. U.

402 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

that faith save him ? If a brother or a sister be naked,
and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them,
Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled ; and yet ye give
them 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 man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have
works ; show me thy faith apart from 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 Abraham
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 works was his faith made perfect ;
and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham
believed God, and it was reckoned unto him 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. And
in like manner, was not Kahab the harlot justified by
works, in that she received the messengers, and sent
them out another way ? For as the body apart from the
spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works 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 Kom. 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 Eahab as well as of Abraham is praised.

But though the words are different, yet the teaching
of the two Apostles is identical. Their reconciliation
may be established by pointing out —

1. The different senses which they give to TT terns. — In
S. James it is merely intellectual assent, an affair of the
head, not of the heart. The devils " believe "
In S. Paul, on the contrary, it is

ARTICLE XI 403

evepyovfjuevrj, a "faith that worketh by love" (Gal. v. 6);
and according to him, "with the heart man believeth
(Trio-Teverai,) unto righteousness" (Rom. x. 10).

2. The different senses which they give to epya. — In
S. Paul's writings this word, standing without any quali-
fying adjective, is always used in a depreciatory sense.
When he would speak of works which are intrinsically
good, he adds the qualifying adjective Ka\d or d<ya6d
(see Eom. ii. 7, xiii. 3; 2 Cor. ix. 8; Eph. ii. 10,
etc.). It is, however, of such good works that S.
James is speaking, — works which are really included
in that faith which is defined as one which " worketh
by love."

3. Tlie different errors 'before the Apostles. — S. Paul, in
contending against a self-righteous Pharisaism, which
boasted of its " works," vehemently denies that such
" works " can aid in man's justification. S. James, on
the contrary, has before him the case of those who
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 ; while the teaching of S. Paul breaks down, once
for all, all human claim to a reward.1

Pieturning now to the subject of faith as the instru-
ment of justification, the question has to be asked : In

1 See, further, Liglitfoot On the Galatians, p. 162 ; Sanday and Headlam
Chi the Romans, p. 102 seq. ; and Mayor On S. James, p. Ixxxvii seq.,
and 204.

404 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

what sense is it the sole instrument of justification ? i.e.
does 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 that the exclusive term "alone," when
we 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
were 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 the channels through which
God conveys the blessing to the faithful soul that is able
to receive it.

With 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 them out. from the office of justifying. That
this is all that is intended is made perfectly clear by the
statements of the Homily, 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 obtaining justification. Similarly,
for a beneficial reception of the Holy Eucharist, charity
is a necessary qualification ; but " the means whereby the
Body of Christ is received is faith."

(c) The reason why faith is tJie instrument of justifi-
cation.— It may be said without irreverence that the
reason why, in God's method 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
way shut out. Further, it is faith which enables us
to realise the unseen. It 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 embraces.

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 with
the doctrine of justification by faith, which was keenly
disputed between the Eomans 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 l) that a man is justified if he believes himself to
be justified ; but besides this there are two important
matters on which 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 was keenly
debated at the time of the Eeformation. The school-

1 " If anyone shall say that a man is absolved from his sins and
justified because he assuredly believes himself to be absolved and
justified ; or that no one is truly justified save he who believes himself to
be justified ; and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are
perfected : let him be anathema." — Sess. VI. canon xiv.
27

406 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

men in their teaching on justification had drawn a
distinction between " fides informis," 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 informis " 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 " 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
commentary 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 " 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 word concerning it in our own Article,
there is no need to consider the subject further here.

1 See Aquinas, Summa, III. Q. xlix. art. 1: "Fides autem, per quara a
peccato mundatur, non est tides informis, quse potest esse etiam cum
peccato, sed est fides formata per charitatem, ut sic passis Christi nobis
applicatur, non solum quantum ad intellectum, sed etiam quantum ad
effectum. Et per hunc etiam modum peccata dimittuntur et virtute
passionis Christi." Cf. lma 2ae Q. cxiii. art. 4; and see Neander,
Church History, vol. viii. pp. 220, 221, and Moehler, Symbolism, p. 118.

2 Sess. VI. canon xi.

3 Commentary on Galatians, ii. 17.

ARTICLE XI 407

IV. T/ie Homily of Justification.

It only remains to say a word or two on the Homily
of Justification, to which the Article refers us for
fuller treatment of the subject. On turning to the
Books of the Homilies, however, we 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 ones " Of the True and lively Faith " and
" Of Good Works." In reading these the student is
especially recommended to notice the emphatic way in
which 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 few 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 man 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. Nor that faith also doth not
shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be
done afterward of duty towards 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
towards their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father, of

408 THE THIRTY-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, whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the
law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied."

Again : " This sentence, that we be justified by faith
only, is not so meant of them [namely, the ancient
writers, Greek and Latin] that the said justifying faith
is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity,
dread, and fear of God, at any time or season. Nor
when they say that we* be justified freely, they mean
not that we should or might afterward be idle, and that
nothing should be required on our parts afterward :
neither they mean not so to be justified without our
good works 'hat we should do no good works at all,
like as shall be more expressed at large hereafter. But
this saying, that we be justified by faith only, freely,
and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly
all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our
justification at God's hands ; and thereby most plainly
to express the weakness of man and the goodness of
God, the imperfectness of our own works, and the most
abundant grace of our Saviour Christ ; and thereby
wholly for to ascribe the merit and deserving of our
justification unto Christ only and his most precious
bloodshedding."

And once more : " The true understanding of this
doctrine — We be justified freely by faith without works,
or that we be justified by faith in Christ only — is not
that this our own act, to believe in Christ, or this our
faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us and
deserve our justification unto us ; for that were to
count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue
that is within ourselves. But the true understanding
and meaning thereof is, that, although we hear God's
word and believe it, although we have faith, hope,

ARTICLE XI 409

charity, repentance, dread, and fear of God within us,
and do never so many good works thereunto, yet we
must renounce the merit of all our said virtues of faith,
hope, charity, and all our other virtues and good deeds,
which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things
that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to
deserve remission of our sins and our justification ; and
therefore we must trust only in God's mercy, and in
that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ
Jesus, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the
cross, to obtain thereby God's £race, and remission, as
well of our original sin in baptism as of all actual sin
committed by us after our baptism if we truly repent
and turn unfeignedly to him again. So that, as
S. John Baptist, although he were never so virtuous
and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgiving of sin
he did put the people from him, and appointed them
unto Christ, saying thus unto them, Behold, yonder is the
Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world ;
even so, as great and as godly a virtue the lively faith
is, yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth or
appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by him
remission of our sins or justification. So that our faith
in Christ, as it were, saith unto us thus : It is not I
that take away your sins, but it is Christ only ; and to
him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein
all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and
only putting your trust in Christ."

AKTICLE XII

DC Bonis Operibus. Of Good Works.

Bona opera quse sunt fructus fidei Albeit that good works, which

etjustificatossequuntur, quanqitam are the fruits of faith, and follow

peccata nostra expiare et div^ni after justification, cannot put away

judiciiseveritatemferrenonpossunt, our sins, and endure the severity of

Deo taraen grata sunt et accepta in God's judgment ; yet are they

Christo, atque ex vera et viva fide pleasing and acceptable to God in

necessario profluunt, ut plane ex Christ, and do spring out necessarily

illis, seque fides viva cognosci of a true and lively faith, in so

possit, atque arbor ex fructu much that by them a lively faith

indicari. may 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) from the Confession of Wurtemberg,1

while the phrase " follow after justification " (justifi-

catos sequuntur) is due to S. Augustine, who uses it in
his treatise, De fide et operibus, 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 Koman teaching on
the one hand, and the exaggerations of Luther and of
some who professed to be his followers on the other.

1 ' ' Non est autem sentieudum quod iis bonis operibus, quse per nos
facimus, in judicio Dei ubi agitur de expiatione peccatorum et placatione
divinae irai ac merito seterme salutis confitendum est. Omnia enim bona
opera quse nos facimus suiit imperfects, nee possunt sever ita(e//t divini
judicii ferre." — De, bonis operibus. See Hardwick, p. 125.

410

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 view of justifica-
tion held by the Koman Church, and are very emphatic
in their assertion of the " merit " 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." l
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, " Omne
opus justi damnabile est et peccatum mortale, si judicio

1 " Nihil ipsis justificatis amplius deesse credendum est, quo minus plene
illis quidem operibus quae in Deo sunt facta, divinae legi pro hujus vitse
statu satisfecisse, et vitam seternam 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 merita ; aut ipsum justificatum
bonis operibus quse ab eo per Dei gratiam ec Jesu Christi meritum, cujus
vivuin membrum est, fiunt, non vere mereri augmentum gratiae, vitam
seternam, et ipsius vitae aeternee, si tamen in gratia decesserit, consecu-
tionem, atque etiam gloriae augmentum : anathema sit." — Ib. canon
xxxii.

412 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Dei judicetur."1 No wonder, then, that among his
followers a depreciation of the need of good works of
any kind was prevalent, and that Antinomianism and
Solifidianism were widely spread. It is probable that it
was even more in order to protect the Church against
these errors than to protest against the Koman teaching
that the Article was inserted,2 though it is so worded
as to guard against false views on either side.

The main statements of the Article may be summed up
as follows : —

1. Good works are the fruits and result of faith, and
the evidence of it.

2. They " follow after justification."

3. They have no merit in themselves, and cannot
endure the se^ erity of God's judgment.

4. Yet they are 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 " good work " there are two factors, a human and a
Divine. In so far as the doer of the work is following
the leadings of grace, it is good ; in so far as he is not,
there is an element of sinfulness in the work. The main
points laid down in the Article seem to follow so natur-

1 Assert, omn. art. Ojjera, torn. ii. fol. 3256, quoted in Moehler's
Symbolism, p. 158. The Council of T"ent met these assertions by the
twenty-fifth canon of the Sixth Session: "Si quis in quolibet bono
opere justum saltern venialiter peccare dixerit, aut quod intolerabilius est,
mortaliter. atque ideo poenas seternas mereri, tantumque ob id non
damnari, quia Deus ea opera non imputet ad damnationen : anathema
sit."

2 Parker writes in 1559, "They say that the realm is full of Anabaptists,
Arians, Libertines, Freewill men," etc. Parker's Correspondence (Parker
Society), p. 61.

ARTICLE XII 413

ally from the teaching of Article XL on justification by
faith, that they require but little explanation and no formal
Scriptural proof. It may, however, be well to point out
that in the statement that good works . . . follow

after justification, the " good works " of which this
Article is speaking are clearly external works, or that
actual obedience which produces a course of actions.
Kepentance, which from one point of view might certainly
be termed a " good work," cannot possibly be referred
to, because it precedes and does not " follow after justi-
fication."1 The phrase, as we have seen, is due to
S. Augustine, and, as Waterland says, by it Augustine
" meant no more than that men must be incorporated
in Christ, must be Christians, and good Christians (for
such only are justified), before they could practise
Christian works or righteousness, strictly so called : for
such works only have an eminent right and title to the
name of good works, as they only are salutary within the
covenant, and have a claim upon the promise. Works
before justification, i.e. before salutary baptism, are not,
in his account, within the promise." - The expression in
the Article must be understood in the same way, and not
pressed so as to make it imply that nothing good can

1 " Bona opera " had apparently come to have almost a technical sense
for definite Christian works. Gardiner in his Declaration (fol. xxxviii. )
distinguishes carefully between " bona opera " which follow after justifica-
tion, and " opera poenitentise " which precede it. See Hardwick, p. 401 ;
and the Tridentine decrees seem carefully to avoid speaking of "good
works " as done before justification, while anathematising the view that
" all works which are done before justification are truly sins." — Sess.
VI. canon vii.

-Summary View of the Doctrine of Justification, Works, vol. vi. p. 21 ; cf.
Bp. Bull, Harmony of Justification, p. 55. " Augustine is certainly not
to be understood of every work, but of a long continuance of works, so
that his meaning may be this : the works which precede justification are
less and fewer than those which follow it. Without some explanation of
this kind, that maxim, so often used, will with difficulty be freed from an
evident falsehood."

414 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

possibly precede justification, — a position which, as will be
shown under the following article, could not be established
from Scripture, and one to which the Church of England
is certainly not committed. That, then, to which this
Article is intended to bind us is this, namely, that, as
justification comes at the beginning of the Christian life,
" good works " properly so called must be subsequent to
it. and that they are the natural and necessary outcome
of that faith by which a man is justified.

Waterland's conclusion on the whole subject which has
been considered in these two Articles (XL and XII.) is
worth quoting : " Take we due care so to maintain the
doctrine of faith as not to exclude the necessity of good
works, and so to maintain good works as not to exclude
the necessity of Christ's atonement, or the free grace of
God. Take we care to perform all evangelical duties to
the utmost of our power, aided by God's Spirit ; and
when we have so done, say that we are unprofitable
servants, having no strict claim to a reward, but yet
looking for one and accepting it as a favour, not
challenging it as due in any right of our own : due
only upon free promise, and that promise made, not
in consideration of any deserts of ours, but in and
through the alone merits, active and passive, of Jesus
Christ our Lord."1

1 Summary I'iew, etc., p. 38.

AETICLE XIII

Opera, ante, Justificaiionem. Of Works before Justification.

Opera quse fiunt ante gratiam Works done before the grace of
Cliristi, et Spiritus ejus afflatum, Christ, and the inspiration of His
cum ex fide Jesu Christi non pro- Spirit, are not pleasant to God,
deant, minirue Deo grata sunt : forasmuch as they spring not of
neque gratiam (ut multi vocant) de faith in Jesu Christ, neither do
congruo merentur : Imo cum non they make men meet to receive
sint facta ut Deus ilia fieri voluit et grace, or (as the school authors say)
prsecepit, peccati rationem habere deserve grace of congraity : yea,
non dubitamus. 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.

THIS Article has remained unchanged since the publica-
tion of the Edwardian Series in 1553. There is nothing
corresponding to it in the Augsburg Confession, nor has
its language been traced to any earlier source. Its object
is evidently to condemn the scholastic theory of con-
gruous merit.

The subjects which require consideration in connection
with it are these —

1. The title as compared with the Article itself.

2. The scholastic theory of congruous merit.

3. The teaching of the Article upon the subject.

I. The Title as compared with the Article itself.
It will be noticed that whereas the title speaks of

works before justification, in the body of the Article

415

416 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

the phrase is not repeated, but a different one takes its
place. Works done before the grace of Christ
and the inspiration of His Spirit. The question

then at once arises, Are these two expressions strictly
convertible terms ? The answer to this must depend
on the reply given to another question, Is grace ever
given before justification ? If not, the two expressions,
" works before justification," and " works before grace,"
may be regarded as convertible ; but if it should appear
that grace is sometimes given before justification, then it
will be evident that the title of the Article is too wide,
and must be limited by the expression actually used in
the Article itself. The question as to the relation of
grace to justification is one which must be decided strictly
by the testimony of Holy Scripture, and it is believed
that there is ample evidence to establish the fact that
grace may be given before justification. As Bishop Bull
says : " The truth is that no work really good can pre-
cede the grace of God, since without that grace it cannot
be performed. But good works may precede justifica-
tion, and actually do precede it ; for grace is given before
justification, that we may perform those things by which
we arrive at justification."1 For proof of this it is
sufficient to refer to two representative instances : (a) On
the day of Pentecost, after the address of the Apostle
Peter to the multitude, we read, " They were pricked in
their heart (/caTevvyrjaav TIJV tcapBlav), and said unto
Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall
we do " (Acts ii. 37)? Here, without doubt, was the
grace of God at work. The grace of compunction was
granted ; but the reply of S. Peter shows equally clearly
that even so those who had thus received grace were not
yet justified. " Eepent ye, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your

1 Harmony of Justification, p. 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 justified for three days after his " conversion " ;
for when Ananias came to him his words were these,
" And now, why tarriest thou ? Arise and be baptized,
and wash away 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 Westminster
Assembly of Divines, who suggested as an emendation
that the Article itself should run as follows : " Works
done before justification by Christ and regeneration by His
Spirit, are not pleasing unto God," etc.1 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, which speaks not of all, but
only of some " works before justification," viz. those which
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 was mentioned in the Introduction,2 there
still exists in the Eecord Office a MS. copy of the Articles,
signed by the six royal chaplains, to whom they were
submitted before their final revision and publication, and

1 See Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. iii. p. 561. The Assembly
also suggested a change in the closing words of the Article, substituting
"they are sinful" for the far milder phrase, "We doubt not that they
have the nature of sin."

2 See vol. i. p. 13.

418 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

in this we find that in the Article itself we have the
expression : " Opera quae fiunt ante justificationem cum
ex fide Jesu Christi non prodeant," etc.1 It is evident
that Cranmer and those working 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, " Works before the grace
of Christ," etc., although the old title was still allowed
to remain, inexact though it was.

II. The Scholastic Theory of Congruous Merit.

The object of the Article, as has been already stated,
is to repudiate the erroneous teaching of some of the
school-authors 2 on the subject of grace. The school-
authors, or schoolmen here referred to, are the divines
of the centuries immediately preceding the Keformation :
S. Bernard (1115) being generally reckoned as the "last
of the Fathers," and S. Anselm (1109) or Peter
Lombard, the "Master of the Sentences" (1164), the
first of the schoolmen.3 We are here concerned, how-

J See Hardwick, p. 281.

2 The Latin of the Article has merely " ut multi vocaiit." The regular
name for the schoolmen in Latin is "scholastic! " (cf. Art. XXIII. of
1553, doctrina Scholasticorum), a name which tells us nothing about the
men themselves, except that they belonged to the "schools," either as
teachers or learners.

3 The change of name is significant. The Fathers, "Patres," as Arch-
bishop Trench points out, wore productive, bringing out of their treasure
things new and old. The schoolmen, on the contrary, were content
simply to vindicate and 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 not found the inclination or
the leisure for a deliberate oversight of the whole field of theology ;
they had not mapped it out as it demanded to be mapped out. It was
to this that the schoolmen addressed themselves — to the organising after
a true scientific method the rude undigested mass which lay before

ARTICLE XIII 419

ever, not with the men, nor with the scholastic system
as a whole, but simply with 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 which is, to say the least, seriously tainted with
semi-Pelagianism ; for they maintained that man might
be entitled to receive initial grace as the reward of
actions done in his own strength without the aid of
God's Holy Spirit. Starting from the view that the Fall
only involved the loss of the donum super naturals, and
left man with 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 was received, the work done in dependence on the
aid of the Holy Spirit was really good, and this God was
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 which they made
their appeal was the case of Cornelius (Acts x.), whose
" 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 "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 which
had first been received by faith," explaining the " how" and the "why"
of the Church's teaching, and vindicating the rational character of
supernatural truth. See Trench's Medieval Church History, Lect. xiv.

420 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

salvation his own act. Moreover, it brought back into
the Church the conception of earning a reward, against
which S. Paul's whole teaching on grace was directed.1
The scholastic opinions and distinctions, however, on this
subject have never been formally adopted by the Church
of Kome. The idea of congruous merit was rightly con-
demned as bordering on Pelagianism by some of the
Tridentine divines, and the decrees of the Council
avoided altogether the phrases meritum de congruo and
de condigno ; and while, an the one hand, they guarded
against Pelagianism by anathematising anyone who
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 it^y be conferred upon him," 2 on the other
hand they condemned the assertion that " all works done
before justification, in what manner soever they be done,
are truly sins, or deserve the hatred of God." 3

III. The Teaching of the Article upon the Subject.

In considering what the teaching of the Article really
is, it is important to remember the exact phrase to
which attention has been previously drawn, " Works
done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of
His Spirit," and also to bear in mind the fact already

1 The illustration commonly given to explain the scholastic distinction
brings this out very clearly. A servant, it is said, deserves his wages
de condigno : he may deserve support in sickness or old age de congruo.

2 " Si quis dixerit, sine prseveniente Spiritus Sancti inspiratione, atque
ejus adjutorio, hominem credere, sperare, diligere, aut poanitere posse,
sicut oportet, ut ei juslificationis gratia conferatur : anathema sit." — Cone.
Trid. Sess. VI. canon iii.

:s "Si quis dixerit opera omnia quse ante justificationem fiunt, qua-
cumque ratione facta sint, vere esse peccata, vel odium Dei mereri, aut
quanto vehementius quis nititur se disponere ad gratiam, tanto eum
graving peccare : 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 way depreciates the
good works of those who, 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 own 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 work of salvation
rests with 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, and 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 men 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.1 Thus in the case of Cornelius, to which
the upholders of the doctrine of congruous merit made
their appeal, we may fearlessly assert that his " prayers
and alms " were " pleasant and acceptable to God "
(grata Deo), for so much is involved in the statement
that they " came up for a memorial before God " (Acts
x. 4). But we deny that they were due to "his own
natural strength." We deny also that they " deserved

all others, greatly err ; since 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. More rightly, therefore, do
other Protestants, who are more sound and moderate, willingly concede
that various dispo ing and preparing acts, produced in us through the Holy
Ghost assisting, and not by the sole powers of our freewill, are required
before justification, though most of them deny to these acts any power of
justifying." — Bp. W. Forbes, Consider at tones Modesto;, vol. i. p. 25.

1 Hardwick (Articles, p. 402) quotes in illustration of this the following
from Bishop Wool ton's Christian Manual, p. 43 (Ed. Parker Society) :
" Albeit the works of heathen men are not to be compared with the good
works of faithful men 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 principle
underlying Article XIII. seems to me to be this, that there are not two
totally different modes of access to God for men, 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, that
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 Christians for that matter) is not
in the strict sense "faith in Jesus Christ"; and therefore I wish the
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. Practically the principle of the Article
teaches us to regard all the good there is in the world as what one may
call imperfect Christianity, not as something essentially different, requir-
ing, so to speak, to be dealt with by God in a wholly different manner."

ARTICLE XIII 423

grace of congruity," for we maintain that they were
actually done by the aid of Divine grace, and that thus,
although they were done " before justification," they can-
not truly be described as " works done before the grace
of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit " ; for, as
Augustine says, " Whatever of good works Cornelius
performed as well before he believed in Christ as when
he believed, and after he had believed, are all to be
ascribed to God." l

1 De Prrpdext. Sawf-nrum , r. vii.

AKTICLE XIV

De Operibus Supererogationis. Of Works of Supererogation.

Opera quce supererogationis ap- Voluntary works besides, over

pellant, non possunt sine arrogantia and above God's commandments,
et impietate prsedicari. Nam illis which they call works of superero-
declannt homines non tantum se gation, cannot be taught without
Deo reddere quse tenentur, sed plus arrogancy and impiety. For by
in ejus gratiam facere quam de- them men do declare that they do
berent: cum aperta Christus dicat: not only render unto God as much
Cum feceritis omnia quaecunque as they are bound to do, but that
praecepta sunt vobis, dicite : Servi they do more for His sake than of
inutiles sunms. bounden duty is required : whereas

Christ saith plainly, "When ye have
done all that are commanded to
you, say, We be unprofitable ser-
vants.

THIS Article dates from 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." ]

Its object is, of course, to condemn the Komish teach-
ing on " works of supererogation." The same teaching
is also condemned in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasti-
carum, in a passage which admirably illustrates the
article : " Turn et illorum arrogantia comprimenda est,
et authoritate legum domanda, qui supererogationis opera
qusedam importaverunt, quibus existimant non solum
cumulate Dei legibus, et explete satisfied, sed aliquid
etiam in illis amplius superesse quam Dei mandata

1 In 1553 and 1563 the title was "Opera Supererogationis." The
change to its present form was made in 1571.

424

ARTICLE XIV 425

postulent, unde et sibi mereri et aliis merifca applicari
possint." 1

The subjects which require consideration in explana-
tion of the Article are these —

1. The name "works of supererogation."

2. The history of the growth of the system of
indulgences.

3. The theological defence offered for them, involving
works of supererogation, and the teaching of Scripture
on the subject.

I. The Name " Works of Supererogation"

The word supererogation comes directly from the
Latin. Starting with the simple verb " rogare," we
note that in classical writers it is used, sometimes with
" legem " or " populum " after it, sometimes absolutely, in
a technical sense, meaning " to ask the people about a
law," and so simply to " propose a bill," or " introduce a
law." Hence the compound verb " erogare " was used
in connection with a money bill, and came to mean " to
pay out money from the public treasury, after asking
the consent of the people," and so more generally,
beyond the sphere of public law, to " expend " or " dis-
burse money." - From this the double compound " super-
erogare " was formed with the meaning, to " pay over
and above," equivalent to the Greek TrpocrSaTravav. As
such its earliest occurrence is in the Latin versions of
the New Testament, where it appears in S. Luke x. 35
in the parable of the Good Samaritan, " Whatsoever
thou spendest more " : Quodcunque supererogaveris. This
rendering was current before the days of S. Jerome,

1 De Hcere s. c. 8 : " De perfectione justificatorum, et de operibus super-
erogationis."

- Thus in the Latin of Codex Beza? " erogasset " stands for oa.Travri<?di>Tos
in S. Luke xv. 14.

426 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

being found in the writings of S. Ambrose,1 as well as
in some MSS. of the " Old Latin " ; 2 but it was its adop-
tion in the Vulgate that made it the common property
of Western Christendom.3 From it in later times the
substantive " supererogatio " was formed, and the phrase
"opera supererogationis " was adopted by ecclesiastical
writers as the technical name for the " excess of
merit " attributed to the saints, and for what the

Article calls voluntary works besides, over and
above God's commandments. In this sense it
was used not infrequently by writers of the thirteenth
century, such as Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus,
and Thomas Aquinas ; but until this period it is
doubtful whether the phrase is ever found, or whether
the verb occurs except in direct connection with S.
Luke x. 35.

II. The History of the Groirth of the System of
Indulgences.

It was the open sale of indulgences, which was closely
connected with 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 grew up very gradually, step by step, with
no perception on the part of anyone of what the ulti-
mate outcome of it all would be. The starting-point, in
tracing out its history, may be found in very early days,

1 S. Ambrose, Horn. vii. in Lucam.

2 Sabatier gives it as found in Codd. Veron. and £rix. Cod. Verccllensis
has "amplius erogaveris," which is the rendering found in Augustine,
Eiuirr. in, Ps. cxxv. 15, although in Qucest. Ecanyel. II. xix. lie lias suj>fr-
crogare.

3 The " Rhemish New Testament " (1st ed. 1582) attempted to Anglicise
the verb, and rendered S. Luke x. 35 : "Whatsoever thou dost superero-
gute " ; but it was found impossible to naturalise the clumsy Latinism,
and it was withdrawn in the Douay version (1609). which is content with
the natural rendering, "spend over and above."

ARTICLE XIV 427

in the regard for (1) martyrdom, and (2) virginity, felt
by the primitive Church.

1. It was only natural that the memory of those
who 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 were
many " 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, what we can only call
the first form of indulgences. During this persecution,
which raged so fiercely at Carthage in the middle of the
third century, while there were many noble instances of
men confessing their faith bravely, and enduring whatever
was inflicted upon them rather than deny their Master,
yet there were also many cases of grievous apostasy.
Some 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 (thurificati) ; others obtained tickets (libelli),
declaring that they had thus cleared themselves from
the crime of Christianity (libellatici). With these different
cases the Church was called upon to deal ; and under
the wise guidance of S. Cyprian she determined that the
peace of the Church might be granted to those who
through weakness had lapsed, but that a time of peni-
tential discipline must first be passed by them to test
and prove their sorrow. Some, however, of the lapsed
were impatient, and could ill brook the delay of com-
munion. They therefore persuaded the Confessors to
intercede for them, and ask for their readmission to the
sacraments of the Church. It will easily be seen that
it was 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 with 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 pads,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 was in itself nothing beyond the power
of the Church in granting this. The claim of the Con-
fessors to grant it in their own right was steadily
resisted by Cyprian ; but the Church, which had imposed
the penance, and to which the power of " binding and
loosing " had been granted by Christ Himself,2 was
within her rights in shortening the time, and readmit-
ting to communion those of whose true repentance she
was 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 shown,
these claimed to be far wider reaching than anything
which had ever entered the minds of the Confessors
who granted the original " libelli."

2. The special reverence with which the early
Church regarded virginity is well known. It is based on
the teaching of S. Paul in 1 Cor. vii., in which, 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. xv. See on the whole subject Archbishop Benson's
article "Libelli" in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. ii.
p. 981.

2 S. Matt, xviii. 18.

ARTICLE XIV 429

(prceceptum) of the Lord," but he gives his " judgment "
(consilium)* and advises that such remain single. From
these words grew the distinction subsequently drawn
between " precepts," which all were bound to obey, and
" counsels," which it was not necessary for a person to
follow. From this it was only a step to teach that by
following the " counsels " it was possible for a Chris-
tian to do more than was required 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
within the Church, the one for ordinary Christians mix-
ing in the world, in which men are permitted to marry,
and to engage in the ordinary business of life, though
strictly bound to keep the " commandments " of God ;
the other, which is above the ordinary life of men, in
which the " counsels of perfection" are carried out, those
who are thus aiming at being " perfect " selling all their
possessions (cf. S. Matt. xix. 21), abstaining from mar-
riage, and devoting themselves entirely to the service of
God.2

These facts require to be borne in mind, although their
full significance and the use that might be made of them
did not appear for several centuries. The system of a
commutation of penance for money, which was introduced
about the seventh century through the " Penitentials,"
cannot have failed to be seriously injurious to the moral
sense of Christendom, however innocent may have been

1 Cf. also 2 Cor. viii. 8 and 10, where consilium occurs again. The
distinction is recognised by S. Augustine, and is used by him to illus-
trate S. Luke x. 35; Quasi. Evangel. II. xix., and Enarr. in Ps.
cxxv. 15.

2 Cf. Chec'tham'.s Church Hixlonj ; p. 349.

430 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

its original intention.1 But the system of " Indulgences "
proper is scarcely found before the eleventh century and
the time 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 new departure
was taken at the Council of Clermont (1095), when
Urban II. declared that to those who would take up arms
against the Infidel, he remitted the penance due to their
sins, and promised to those who should die in the combat
the pardon of their sins and life eternal ;3 and when the
Council formulated their decision in these words —

" Whosoever shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the
Church of God out of pure devotion, and not for the
purpose of obtaining honour or money, let the journey bo
counted in hiru of all penance." 4

From this time may be said to date the medieval
system, whereby an " Indulgence " or remission of
penance, and of some or all of the temporal penalties
attached to sin, was granted in return for certain acts of
devotion whereby the Church profited. Such indulgences
were granted, not only to those who " took the Cross,"
but to those who 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 money was a very

1 On the Penitential System and the Commutation of reliance see
Strong's Bampton Lectures, pp. 314 and 342, where the good and evil of
the system are both frankly recognised.

2 There are, however, indications of something like it in the ninth
century, when John vni. (882) said that those who had been killed in war
against the heathen, fighting for the Church, received life eternal ; and
that he gave them, absolution, as much as he had power to do. See L£picier,
History of Indulgences, p. 189.

8 Synodalis Concio Urbani IL, Mansi, xx. p. 821.

4 ' ' Quicunque pro sola devotione, non pro honoris vel pecunue adep-
tione ad liberandum Ecclesiam Dei Jerusalem profeetus i'uerit, iter illud
pro oinni prenitentia reputetur." — Ib. p. 816.

ARTICLE XIV 431

thin one, and not easy to discern. Originally the idea
may have been only of the remission of canonical
penance ; but it very soon came to mean a great deal
more than this. The canonical penance did not exhaust
the temporal, as distinct from the eternal, penalties of
sin ; l and since " purgatory " was a part of the temporal
penalty, the indulgence was supposed to avail for a
remission of a part or all of the pains to be there under-
gone. Moreover, the indulgence could be used for others
than the person who 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
since it was called indiscriminately " remissio," " relaxa-
tio," and " venia peccatorum," and was said to be granted
a cidpa et a venia.3 the door was opened to the notion that

1 It is necessary to remember carefully this distinction. According to
the theory which underlies the granting of indulgences, even after the sin
is forgiven and its guilt (culpa) pardoned, there always remains a certain
amount of temporal penalty (pcena) still to be paid either here or in
purgatory. The beginning of this is seen in Albertus Magnus : " Delet
gratia tinalis peccatum veniale in ipsa dissolutione corporis et aninue, etc. :
Hoc ab antiquis dictum est ; sed nunc communiter tenetur, quod peccatum
veniale cum hinc deferatur a multis, etiam quantum ad culpam, in
purgatoria purgatur." — In Compend. ThcoL Verit. iii. 13, quoted in
Usher, Answer to a, Jesuit, p. 165. Still more definite is the statement of
the Council of Trent: "Si quis post acceptam justificationis gratiam
cuilibet peccatori poenitenti ita culpam remitti et reatum seternoj pcense
deleri dixerit, ut nullus remaneat reatus pcena} temporalis exsolvendae vel
in hoc sseculo vel in futuro in purgatorio, aiitequam ad regna cceloruni
aditus patere possit : anathema sit." — Cone. Trid., Sessio vi. canon 30.

2 According to the formal theory of the Church of Rome, as laid down
by Sixtus iv. in a Constitution of 1477, indulgences for the departed only
avail per modum sujf'ragii, i.e. "the Church has no direct power over the
souls of the departed. She can but humbly entreat God to accept the
merits of Christ, and, having respect to them, mercifully to remit the
whole or a portion of the pains due to the souls suffering in purgatory "
(Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary, p. 485). If this is all, it is-
impossible for the person who procures the indulgence to know whether it
has been 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 vm.
offered " the fullest forgiveness of sins " to all those who
for fifteen days should devoutly visit the churches of
S. Peter and S. Paul in Home.1 This naturally drew a
vast crowd of pilgrims to the city, and greatly enriched
the Church ; consequently, instead of being held at the
expiration of every hundred years, as was originally
intended, the period was shortened, first to fifty years by
Clement vi. by his famous Bull " Unigenitus," in which
he boldly expounded 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 n. to twenty-five (1470). Naturally, protests were
raised from time to time,3 but in spite of them the system
which evoked the scorn of devout Churchmen like Dante,4

were revoked and annulled ; and Benedict xiv. (De Syn. Diac. 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 words of the Bull are these : " Non solum plenam et largiorem,
imo plenissimain suorum concedimus veniam peccatorum. " On the Jubilee
see Robertson, Church History, vol. vi. p. 326 seq.

" Of. Neander, Church History, vol. ix. p. 59 (Eng. tr.).

3 See an account of some of the earlier and less known protests in
Neander, Church History, vol. vii. p. 437. The later denunciations of the
whole system by "VViclif, and Huss, and Jerome of Prague are well known.
See Creighton's History of the Papacy, vol. i. p. 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 il cappuccio, e piu non si richiede,
Ma tale uccel nel becchetto s' annida,
Che se '1 vulgo il vedesse, vederebbe
La perdonanza, di che si confida.

ARTICLE XIV 433

as well as of Chaucer1 and Langland,2 grew into
the scandal of the open sale of indulgences by Tetzel and
the " quaes tores." At the beginning of the sixteenth
century, in the words of the Eoman 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 we may credit the interested
declamation of their adversary, that every contributor, if
he paid on his own 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. The Theological Defence offered for Indulgences, in-
volving Works of Supererogation, and the Teaching
of Scripture on the Subject.

It has been necessary to give this brief sketch of the
growth of the practical system of indulgences, because it

Per cui tanta stoltezza in terra crebbe,
Che sanza pruova d' alcun testimonio
Ad ogne promession si converrebbe.
Xow is our preaching done with jestings slight
And raockings, 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
What 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 crowds will flow."

— Plumptre's Translation.

1 See the description of the "Pardonere," " That streit was comen 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 hole."
- Piers the Plowman, Passus I. 1. 66 seq. Pass. X. 1. 316 seq.
3 Lingard, History of England, vol. iv. c. vii. Cf. for the state of things
in England at a somewhat earlier period, Gascoyne's Liber Veritatum,
p. 123.

434 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

is only in connection with them that the notion of
" works of supererogation " came into prominence.
Nothing is more certain from history than the fact
of the gradual growth of the system, bit by bit, without
any clear conception being formed by anyone of what it
really meant, or very much serious thought being
bestowed upon it. But when the custom of granting
indulgences had made its way and was adopted into the
regular system of the Church, it was impossible to avoid
awkward questions being raised. Explanations of its
meaning were asked for, and a theological defence of it
was required. This was supplied by the schoolmen, and
in it " works of supererogation " play an important part.
The original system, whereby canonical penance
imposed by the Church was removed by the same
authority, was naturally and properly defended as the
exercising of the power of " binding and loosing "
which the Church possessed by Christ's own gift. But
when the indulgence was something more than this,
when it could be transferred to the benefit of others,
and availed for the dead and mitigated the pains of
purgatory, something more was needed. Even the
doctrine of the union of the faithful in the one Body,
together with the power of intercessory prayer, was
totally inadequate to bear the superstructure of the
popular system. Accordingly the schoolmen of the
thirteenth century took up a phrase that had been
used some time earlier, and elaborated the doctrine of
the " thesaurus ecclesiae." A /ailing themselves of the
old distinction between " counsels " and " precepts," they

taught that the voluntary works over and above

God's commandments, which had been performed
by the saints, and which were not needed to " merit "
their own salvation, were not lost or wasted, but went
into the treasury of the Church ; and that, together
with the infinite merits of Christ, these works of

ARTICLE XIV 43f»

supererogation formed 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 sins, which they might
still owe to God.

This was the theological defence of the system,
which assumed consistency in the hands of the great
schoolmen of the thirteenth century, Alexander of
Hales (1245), Albertus Magnus (1280), Bonaventura
(1274), and S. Thomas Aquinas (1270).1 The lan-
guage of the last, if the Supplement may be quoted
as his, is especially instructive. It betrays a certain
amount of uneasiness, and it is clear that Aquinas felt
that his task was a difficult one ; erroneous opinions
on the subject were common, 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 Eeclesiae," and that it is more
than a mere relaxation of canonical penance (Sumnia, pars iv. 9. 23,
art. 1, and see art. 2). c ' Indulgentife et relaxationes fiunt de meritis
supererogationis membrorum Christi, qure stint spiritalis thesaurus
ecclesiae. Hunc autem thesaurum non est omnium dispensare, sed
tantum eoram, qui praecipue vicem Christi gerunt." " Pneexistente
pcena debit® et sufficients contritionis, potest summits pontiftx totam
2)ienam debitam peccatori pwnitenti dimittere." ' ' Probabiliter et veris-
sime prsesumitur, quod illis qui sunt in purgatorio potest pontifex
facere indulgentias. Nota tameu, quod plura requiruntur ad hoc, quod
debito modo fiat indulgentia : scil. potestas clavium 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 relaxationes secundum conditiones prsedictas per modum
suftragii sive irnpetrationis, non per modum judiciariae absolutionis sive
comrautationis." These and other quotations are given in Gieseler's
Church History, vol. iii. p. 373, where see also the teaching of Albertus
Magnus, In Sent., Lib. IV. dist. 20, arts. 16 and 17 ; and for the teaching
of Aquinas see the Summa Suppl., Pars iii. Q. 25-27.

2 Cf. Creigh ton's History of the Papacy, vol. v. p. 60 : " The starting-
point of both these theologians [Bonaventura and Aquinas] was prevailing

436 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

But although a defence was 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 ecclesiae," and of good works that
can thus be arbitrarily transferred from one to another,
rests on a wholly 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," l can claim no support
whatever from Scripture ; the notion that men 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 which the
maintainers of it have relied. They are mainly two —
(1) the incident of the rich young ruler, (2) the

practice. Indulgences existed, and therefore were right. It was their
business to give a rational explanation of what the Church had thought
fit to do." See Bonaventnra, In IV. Sent., dist. 20: "Universalis
ecclesia has relaxationes acceptat ; sed constat quod ipsa non errat, ergo
vere fiunt."

1 Plumptre's Spirits in Prison, p. 307. If it be said, as it is sometimes,
it is a very difficult thing to obtain a real and valid indulgence, for that
it is of no avail unless you have "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
loquitur, 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. Matt. xix. 16-22. It is
argued by Bellarmine, who adduces it, that as the
young man had " kept the commandments," he had
done all that was necessary to obtain eternal life, and
that therefore the words, " 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 " work of supererogation " would have been
performed. To this it has been fairly replied that
since the charge was given in answer to the question,
" What lack I yet ? " it is obvious that something was
still wanting, and that there is no room for the notion
of works of supererogation here. It is clear from the
young man's previous answer that he had formed a very
inadequate conception of his duty to God, and of the
real range of the claim which God had upon him. It
was in order to help him to realise this that the
further direction was given, and the conclusion of the
narrative shows that there was indeed something
" lacking " to him, for " when the young man heard
that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great
possessions."

2. The teaching of S. Paul on virginity in 1 Cor. vii.
lias been already referred to, with its implied distinc-
tion between " precepts " and " counsels." Our Lord's
words, in which He speaks of some who 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 who follow the
" counsel " lay up a superabundant store of good works
which can " satisfy " for others, as they are not needed

29

438 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

for those who perform them. Now it may be freely
admitted that a distinction may be rightly drawn
between " precepts " and " counsels." There are some
things which are duties for all alike, which are com-
manded to all men generally, and can therefore be put
in the form of universal " precepts." There are other
things to which 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 words of Holy Scripture on the
virgin state, or the command to " sell all thou hast,"
come with an imperative voice ; and they feel constrained
to obey. To them the counsel has become a precept.
By obeying tbsy perform no " works 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. Matt. xix. 12).1

If, then, the admission of a distinction between
precepts and counsels does not involve the theory of
works of supererogation, the whole scriptural foundation
for them breaks down, and we 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 commanded you, say, We are
unprofitable servants ; we have done that which it was
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 Truth of the Office of the English Church, p. 215.

AIITICLE XV

Nemo 2))'&lcr Christum cst si/ic
pcccato.

Christus in nostrfe naturae veri-
tate per omnia siniilis factus est
nobis, excepto peccato, a quo
prorsus erat immunis, turn in
came turn in spiritu. Venit, ut
Agnus absque macula esset, qui
inundi peccata per immolationem
sui semel factam tolleret : et
peccatum (ut inquit Johannes) in
eo non erat. Seel nos reliqui,
etiam baptizati, et in Christo
regenerati, in multis tamen offendi-
mus omnes: et si dixerimus quia
peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos
seducimus, et veritas in nobis non
est.

Of Christ alone without
Sin.

Christ in the truth of our nature
was made like unto us in all things,
sin only except, from which He
was clearly void, both in His flesh,
and in His spirit. He came to be
the Lamb without spot, Who, by
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 truth is not in us.

THIS Article dates from 1553, since which time 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.

2. His atonement.

3. Our sinfulness.

Since all these subjects have been previously con-
sidered in the Articles (1 and 2 in Article II., and 3
in Articles IX. and X.), it is not altogether easy to see
the exact object with which the one before us was
added to the series. Hard wick l and Bishop Harold
1 Pp. 100, 402.

440 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Browne l both appear to hold that it was aimed against
the belief in the immaculate conception of the Blessed
Virgin. This does not, however, appear probable for the
following reasons :• —

1. The Blessed Virgin is not mentioned in the Article.
As a rule the Articles are perfectly direct and plain
spoken in their condemnation of erroneous views, and if
their compilers had had this doctrine in view it is most
unlikely that they would have contented themselves
with so indirect a condensation of it.

2. Much of the Article is on this hypothesis un-
necessary. Why was it needful to say so much about
Christ's perfect humanity and atonement in order to
condemn the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ?

3. The expi ession in the Article is, " all we the rest,
although baptized and born again in Christ," etc., and it
would be perfectly open to a Komanist to hold that the
Blessed Virgin was never baptized, and that, therefore,
her case is not considered in the Article at all ! 2

4. At the time when the Articles were drawn up
there was no need to condemn the doctrine, as it was not
held de fide in the Koman Church.3

A far more probable view is that this Article (like the
following one) was aimed against the errors of some

1 Articles, p. 347.

- Tliis is actually the view taken by Francis a Sancta Clara (Davenport),
a Franciscan, who wrote a Commentary on the Articles in 1633, endeavour-
ing to reconcile them with the Tridentine decrees. See his Paraphrastica
Eji-positio, p. 20.

3 The doctrine was fir.st definitely discussed by the schoolmen, the
Franciscans upholding it, the Dominicans (including Aquinas) denying
it (see Hagenbach, Jlislori/ <>f Dodr'uics, vol. ii. p. 260). The Council of
Trent managed to remain neutral and to avoid a condemnation of cither
party, merely stating that it was not intended to include the Blessed
Virgin in the decree on original sin (Session V.). It was reserved for
Pope Pius ix. to declare the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to be
an article of faith by his Bull of December 9, 1854.

ARTICLE XV 441

among the Anabaptists. On this hypothesis every word
in it tells, for among these fanatics were some who
revived docetic notions of our Lord's humanity, some
who denied His atonement and asserted His sinfulness,
and others who had the hardihood to maintain that the
regenerate could not sin. Nowhere do we find a clearer
statement of their errors, or a better commentary on
this and the following Article, than in the letter of
Bishop Hooper, which has been already quoted in the
first volume of this work.1 Similarly, in the Eeformatio
Legum Ucclesiasticarum we meet with a condemnation of
the very same errors.2 And in the light of these
passages we may safely conclude that the real object of
the Article was to condemn in plain and direct terms
the heresies of those who denied our Lord's true
humanity, sinlessness, and atonement, while maintaining
their own entire freedom from sin.

Since the doctrines of our Lord's human nature and
of His atonement were considered under Article II., and
that of human depravity came before us in connection

1 See vol. i. p. 22.

- De Hceres. cap. 5. "De duabus naturis Christ!. . . . Alii cum sic
Deum judicant ut hominem non agnoscant, et de corpore migantur de
coelo divinitus assumpto, et in virginis uterum lapso, quod tanquam in
transitu per Mariam quasi per Canalem aut fistulam prseterfluxerit.

"Cap. 8. De perfectionejustincatorum, et de operibus supererogationis.
Illorum etiam superbia legibus nostris est frangenda, qui tantam vitre
perfectionem hominibus justificatis attribuunt, quantara nee imbecillitas
nostwe naturae fert, nee quisquam sibi prseter Christum sumere potest ;
nimirum ut omnis peccati sint expertes, si mentem ad recte pieque
vivendum instituerint. Et hanc volunt absolutam inorum perfectionem
in hanc praesentem vitam cadere, cum debilis ipsa sit, et fragilis, et ad
ornnes virtutis et officii ruinas pra&ceps, etc.

"Cap. 9. De casu justificatorum et peccato in Spiritum Sanctum.
Etiam illi de justificatis perverse sentiunt, qui credunt illos, postquam
justi semel facti sunt, in peccatum non posse incidere, aut si forte quic-
quam eorum faciunt, qiue Dei legibus probibentur, ea Deum pro peccati s
non accipere."

442 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

with Article IX., and will require to be noticed under
Article XVI., it is unnecessary to say more upon them
here. The only point touched on in this Article on
which nothing has so far been said directly, is that of
our Lord's sinlessness. On this matter the evidence of
Scripture is clear and precise, (a) Not only is there no
hint or indication of sin in any word or action attributed
to Him, but His challenge to the Jews, " Which of you
convinceth Me of sin ? " (S. John viii. 46), and His
declaration on the eve of His Passion, " the prince of
this world cometh and hath nothing in Me " (S. John
xiv. 30), are clearly the utterances of one who was
absolutely free from all taint of sin.1 (&) Keference
should also be made to the definite statements of the
apostles. S. Peter, S. Paul, S. John, and the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews all agree in directly assert-
ing His sinlessness.

" Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His
mouth," 1 Pet. ii. 22. "Him who knew no sin, He
made to be sin on our behalf," 2 Cor. v. 2 1.2 " He was
manifested to take away sins, and in Him is no sin,"
1 John iii. 5. " One that hath been in all points
tempted 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 own sins, and then for
the sins of the people : for this He did once for all, when
He offered up Himself," Heb. vii. 26, 27.

Such passages as these are amply sufficient to justify

1 Cf. Liddon's Bampton Lectures, p. 23.

2 Cf. Rom. viii. 3 : tv o/ioiw^art crap/cdj d/Ltaprt'as. " The flesh of Christ
is ' like ' ours inasmuch as it is flesh: 'like,' and only 'like,' because it
is not sinful : Ostendit nos quidem habere carnem peccati, Filium vero Dei
similitudimm habuisse carnis peccati, non carncm pecrati (Orig.-lat.)."
— Sanday anil IToadlam in loc.

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
clearly1 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 clensed clereliche and wasshen
of her sinnes in my prisoun purgatorie " (B. xviii. 389), and later in
Fitzherbert's 'Surveyinge' (A.D. 1525): " Lette a man make a castell,
towre, or any maner of newe buildings and finysshe it clerely." Other
instances of a similar use of the word are given in Murray's New English
Dictionary, s.v.

2 On the subject of our Lord's absolute sinlessness (the "non posse
peccare" as well as "posse ncn peccare"), and its compatibility with
liability to real temptation, see an article on "Our Lord's Human
Example " in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xvi. p. 282 ; Gore's
Bampton Lectures, p. 165 ; Liddon's Bampton Lectures, Appendix ; Mill's
Sermons on the Temptation, p. 24 ; and R. L. Ottley's Doctrine of the
Incarnation vol. ii. p. 293.

ARTICLE XVI

De peccato post Baptismum.

Non omne peccatum raortale
post baptismum voluntarie per-
petratum, est peccatum in Spiritum
Sanctum et irremissibile. Proinde
lapsis a baptismo in pecoata locus
pcenitentise non est negandus.
Post acceptum Spiritum Sanctum
possumus a gratia data recedere
atque peccare, demi' que per gratiam
Dei resurgere ac resipiscere. Ideoque
illi damnandi sunt qui se quamdiu
hie vivant, amplius non posse
peccare affirmant, aut vere resipis-
centibus veniae locum denegant.

Of Sin after Baptism.

Not every deadly sin willingly
committed after baptism is sin
against the Holy Ghost, and un-
pardonable. Wherefore 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 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, 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 Spiritum 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
Baptismum." In two other expressions in the body of
the Article slight changes have also been made. " Locus
poenitentise " was 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 which time "locus Venice" in the
last sentence was substituted for " locus pcenitenticc"

444

ARTICLE XVI 445

(In 1553 this had been rendered, as at its first occurrence
in the Article, " place for penitentes," for which " place of
forgiveness" had been inserted in 1563.)

There is a general resemblance between this Article
and the twelfth of the Confession of Augsburg, but the
verbal similarity is not sufficiently close to justify us in
saying that the last-mentioned document was the source
of our own Article.1 The two are aimed against the
same errors, which consisted in a revival of the views of
some 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 man,
they say, who is thus regenerate cannot sin. They add
that all hope of pardon is taken away from those who,
after having received the Holy Ghost, fall into sin " ; 2
and further evidence of their existence at the time
when the Article was drawn up may be found in the
Rcformatio Legum Ecdesiast'icarum? as well as in the
following passage from Calvin's Institutes.

1 " De pcenitentia. De pcenitentia decent quod lapsis post baptismum
eontingere possit remissio peccatorum, quoeunque tempore cum conver-
tuntur. Et quod ecclesia talibus redeuntibus ad prenitentiam
absolutionem impertiri debeat. Constat autem pcenitentia proprie his
duabus partibus : altera est contritio seu terrores incussi conscientiae
agnito peccato. Altera est fides, quaj concipitur ex evangelic seu
absolutione, et credit propter Christum remitti peccata, et consolatur
conscientiam et ex terroribus liberat. Deinde sequi debent bona opera,
qua> sunt fructus poenitentiae. Damnant Anabaptistas qui negant semel
justificatos posse amittere Spiritum Sanctum. Item, qui contendunt
quibusdani tantain perfectionem in hac vita eontingere ut peccare non
possint. Damnantur et Kovatiani qui nolebant absolvere lapsos post
haptismuiu redeuutes ad pcenitentiam. Rejiciuntur et isti qui non
decent remissionem peccatorum per fidem eontingere, sed jubent nos
niereri gratia m per satisfactiones nostras."

2 See vol. i. p. 22.

3 Ref. Leg. Eccl., De ffares. cap. 9 : " Etiam illi de justificatis perverse

446 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

" Our age also has some of the Anabaptists not very
unlike the Novatians. For they pretend that the people
of God are regenerated in baptism into a pure and
angelical life. . . . But if any man fail after baptism,
they leave nothing to him but the inexorable judgment
of God." l

Two main subjects appear to require consideration in
this Article.

1. The fact that deadly sin is not unpardonable.

2. The possibility of Sailing 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

sentiunt, qui credunt illos postquam justi semel facti sunt, in pecca-
tum non posse incidere, aut si forte quicquam eorum faciunt, qu?e
Dei legibus prohibentur, ea Deum pro peccatis non accipere. Quibus
opinione contrarii, sed impietate pares sunt, qui quodcunque peccatum
mortale, quod post baptismum a nobis susceptum voluntate nostra
committitur, illud omne contra Spiritum Sanctum affirmant gestura esse
et remitti non posse."

1 Institutes, IV. i. 23.

2 See Athanasius, Ep. ad. Serap. iv. § 10, where this view (which he
also attributes to Theognostus) is considered and rejected. The view of
Athanasius himself appears to be that whereas "blasphemy against
the Son of Man " was to blaspheme against Him before the full revelation
of His Divinity was made, "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is to
"ascribe the deeds of the Word to the devil," i.e. to blaspheme against
Him after His eternal Godhead has been manifested. Cf. Orat tones
contra Arianos, I. § 50.

ARTICLE XVI 447

show that whatever may be the precise nature of the
irremissible sin, there is certainly no ground for main-
taining that all deadly sin willingly committed after
baptism should be regarded as unpardonable.

The passages to be considered fall into two groups :
(1) those in the Gospel in which our Lord speaks of
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ; (2) certain pas-
sages in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle
of S. John.

1. In regard to the first class of passages (S. Matt,
xii. 31-37; S. Mark iii. 28-30; S. Luke xii. 10), it
must be noticed that our Lord never speaks in general
terms of " sin against the Holy Ghost " as unpardonable.
Of one sin, which He terms " the blasphemy against the
Spirit," He says, " it shall not be forgiven," and that
the man who commits it " is guilty of an eternal sin "
(eVo^o? ea-riv alcaviov a/iapT^aro?).1 Now the fact
that this sin is thus spoken of as " blasphemy " at once
marks it out as a sin of a particular class, belonging to
sins of the tongue, involving outward expression ; while
the occasion on which our Lord warned His hearers
against it (" because they said He had an unclean
spirit ") throws light on its character. Whether the
Pharisees had been actually guilty of it our Lord does not
say, but they were clearly in danger of committing it ;
and what they were doing was to ascribe manifestly
Divine works to Satanic agency. To do this was in a
very real sense to " blaspheme against the Holy Spirit,"
by whose agency the works were done. And it is quite
clear that, whatever be the precise nature of the irre-

1 That this is the true reading in S. Mark iii. 30 is undoubted. The
text-us receptm has uplffcut for apapTri/jaTos. The amended reading has
an important bearing on the question of the justice of eternal punish-
ment. If the punishment is "eternal," is it not because the sin is
"eternal" ?

448 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

rnissible sin of which our Lord speaks,1 no support
whatever can be drawn from His words for the general
proposition that deadly sin willingly committed after
baptism is unpardonable. It may be 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 blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, but
proceeded in an additional Article (XVI.) to define its
nature more precisely. The Article ran as follows :—

Blasphemy ay&inst the Holy Ghost.

" Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is, when a man,
of malice and stubbornness of mind, doth rail upon the
truth of God's word manifestly perceived, and being
enemy thereunto persecuteth the same. And because
such be guilty of God's curse, they entangle themselves
with a most grievous and heinous crime, whereupon
this kind of sin is called and affirmed of the Lord un-
pardonable."

The Article was omitted by Parker in the revision of
1563, probably from an unwillingness to define the
nature of this sin, 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 with a purely negative position, denying an
erroneous view, but stating nothing positively concerning
the character of this " blasphemy," there is no need to
enter further upon the subject here. Eeference may,
however, be made in passing to Waterland's able and
convincing sermon upon S. Matt. xii. 31, 32, where

1 Bishop Ellicott (Lectures on Hit Life of our Lord, p. 187, note 1)
defines 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 depends, "not on the refusal of grace, but on the now lost ability
of fulfilling the conditions required for forgiveness."

ARTICLE XVI 449

the reader will find a full discussion of " the precise
nature of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." l

2. There remain for consideration certain hard
passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First
Epistle of S. John, on which Origen and Theognostus
based their views, and which 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 was urged by the advocates of
strictness that it was contrary to the teaching of these
Epistles for the Church to grant reconciliation and pardon
to those who had fallen into deadly sin after baptism.2
The passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews are three in
number: chs. vi. 4-6, x. 26-29, xii. 15-17.

Ch. vi. 4— 6 : " For as touching those who were
once enlightened (a?raf </>am<7#eWa?) and tasted (yevaa-
/jievovs) of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers
of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God,
and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away
(TrapaTrecrovTas), it is impossible to renew them again
unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the
Son of God afresh (or, " the while they crucify," etc.,
R.V. marg. avacnavpovvras), and put Him to an open
shame (TrapaSe^ar/foi/Ta?)."

With regard to this passage it is very important to

1 "Waterland, Works, vol. v. Sermon xxviii. See also Muller, The
Christian Doctrine of Sin, Bk. V. vol. ii. p. 475 (Eng. tr.).

2 It has not been thought necessary to give in the text any account of
these controversies, the principal of which were those with the Montanists
and Novatianists and (in later times) the Donatists. The Montanists
taught the impossibility of a second repentance, and refused to restore to
communion those who had been guilty of deadly sin. The Xovatianists
appear to have admitted the possibility of final pardon for such sinnors
(and possibly the Montanists did not actually deny this), but they denied
to the Church the power to grant peace and reconciliation to them. For
some account of these controversies, see Schaff's History of tlit C7«»//W/.
" Ante-Nicene Christianity," pp. 196 and 425.

450 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

notice the exact words used by the apostolic writer.
Those of whom he is speaking (whether or no
<po)Tia-0evTa<; be taken definitely of baptism 1) had
been thoroughly Christianised, and had subsequently
apostatised (" and then fell they "). They are regarded
as still opposing themselves 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 whatever is
said of an " impossibility " should they cease their opposi-
tion to the gospel. Hence, as Bishop Westcott has
pointed out, " the apostasy described is marked, not only
by a decisive act, but also by a continuous present
attitude, a hostile relation to Christ Himself and to
belief in Christ ; and thus there is no question of the
abstract efficacy 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." '

Ch. x. 26-29: "For if we sin wilfully 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 Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word
of two or three witnesses : of how much surer punishment,
think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden
under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood
of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy
thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ? "

' and ^wrtoyio's were commonly applied to baptism from the
time of Justin (Apol. i. 61, 65 ; ef. Dial. c. 122) downwards. And the
Syrian versions give tins sense here." — Westcott, The Epistle to tht
Hebrews, p. 148.

- The Epistle to the Hebrews, additional note on vi. 1-3, p. 165.

ARTICLE XVI 451

Here again it will be sufficient to note that the tense
is present. " It must be observed that the sacrifice of
Christ is finally rejected, and sin persisted in (apapra-
vovrcov). The writer does not set limits to the efficacy
of Christ's work for the penitent." ]

Ch. xii. 15-17: "Looking carefully lest there be
any man that falleth short of the grace of God ; lest
any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and
thereby the many be defiled ; lest there be any fornica-
tor, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of
meat sold his own birthright. For ye know that even
when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he
was rejected (for he found no place of repentance), though
he sought it diligently with tears."

It will be observed that the difficulty of this passage
is far less when rendered (as above) as it is in the
Eevised Version. Eeaders of the Authorised Version
might naturally think that the writer denied that Esau
found repentance, or a place of repentance. A reference
to the Greek makes it clear that what Esau sought was
not a " place of repentance " (TOTTOV yLteraz/otW), for the
pronoun " it " is feminine (avrtfv). Grammatically it
may refer either to " repentance " (/-terazWa?) or to " the
blessing " (ev\ojLav) ; but there can be little room for
doubt that the Eevisers are right in referring it to the
latter (cf. Gen. xxvii. 38). If this is so there is no
ground for maintaining, on the strength of this passage,
that a man may seek diligently to find repentance and
fail to obtain it. Moreover, it must not be forgotten
that when Esau " sought the blessing diligently with
tears," his probation, so far as his birthright was con-
cerned, was already over, for the award had been made,
and the blessing actually given to another. His " repent-
ance," therefore, is parallel to nothing on this side of the

1 \Vestcott, The Epistle to (he Hebrews, p. 327.

452 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

grave. Thus, while all these passages are full of solemn
warning on the terrible consequences of sin, and the
danger of putting off repentance too late, it will be seen
that when carefully considered they give no countenance
to the opinion which is condemned in the Article as to
the irremissible character of deadly sin willingly com-
mitted after baptism.

The same is true of the remaining passage in the First
Epistle of S. John (1 John v. 16, 17): "If any man
see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask,
and God will give him life for them that sin not unto
death. There is a sin unto death : not concerning this
do I say that he should make request. All unrighteous-
ness is sin : there is a sin not unto death."

On this passage is based the distinction ordinarily
drawn in the Church between " deadly " and " venial "
sins. It will be noticed, however, that S. John does not
define " sin unto death," nor, indeed, does he absolutely
forbid intercession for it. He is dealing, as Bishop
Westcott points out, with the prayers of Christians for
Christians ; and after pointing out the efficacy of their
prayers for one another, he indicates that there is a
sin, the natural issue of which is death (717)09 Odvarov).
This excludes men from the Christian society, and he
cannot enjoin prayer for it.1 But there is no reason
whatever for maintaining that the Apostle denies the
possibility of forgiveness for such deadly sin, if the sin is
forsaken and repented of.

(b) Wherefore the grant of repentance (loot*
i)omitentice) is not to be denied to such as fall

into Sin after baptism. The statement of the
Article would seem to follow naturally from the position
just maintained. And it may be supported by a refer-

1 See Bishop Westcotfa "additional note" in The Eju'sffcs of X. Jnfr/t.
. 199.

ARTICLE XVI 453

ence to S. Paul's treatment of the incestuous man at
Corinth. Here was a man who had been guilty of a
most deadly sin, and who had been by the Apostle's
direction excluded from the fellowship of the faithful,
and " delivered unto Satan " (1 Cor. v. 4, 5). But this
" deliverance unto Satan " did not necessarily involve his
final condemnation. On the contrary, its object is
described as " the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit
may le saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Moreover,
if 2 Cor. ii. 5—11 refers (as is commonly thought) to
the same case, then the Apostle distinctly contemplates
the restoration of the offender upon his repentance to
the communion of the Church, and charges the Cor-
inthians to forgive him and reinstate him. And if for
such a sinner a " locus pcenitentise " was allowed, it is
difficult to think that in other cases the Church would
be right in refusing it. Consequently the Church has
always resisted the demands made by some in the
interests of purity that those who have fallen into a
grievous sin should be excluded from communion for
the remainder of their lives, and has never shrunk
from proclaiming God's forgiveness to all penitent
sinners. In some of the early controversies in regard
to penitential discipline a distinction was drawn be-
tween these two things, namely, God's willingness finally
to forgive those who have been guilty of deadly sin
after baptism, and the power of the Church to grant
" pardon " to such. It was sometimes urged, as by
the Novatianists,1 that though God might in His

1 That this was the position maintained by Novatian seems to be shown
by the words of S. Cyprian in Ep. Iv. § 28 (al. li.), where he describes him
as urging the lapsed to weep and mourn, and do all that is necessary for
peace, though "peace " was refused them. Eusebius speaks as if all hope
of salvation was denied to them (H. E. VI. xliiu). In this, however, he
was probably mistaken as regards Novatian and his followers, though the
statement would perhaps be true of the Montanists. See Tertullian, De

3°

454 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

infinite mercy forgive such at the last, yet the Church
had no commission from Him to declare His forgive-
ness, and therefore could hold out no "locus pceni-
tentise" to the lapsed, although she might urge them
to pray that they might finally receive pardon, and find
a " place of forgiveness " (locus veniae). It would appear
that this distinction was present to the Elizabethan
revisers of the Articles (if not to their original compilers),
for after saying that " the grant of repentance (locus
pcenitentise) is not to be denied to such as fall into sin
after baptism," the Article adds at the close the state-
ment that

(c) They are to be condemned which . . .
deny the place of forgiveness (locus veni«) to

SUCh as truly repent. — That some distinction of
meaning between the two phrases locus pcenitentiae and
locus veniae (and their English equivalents) is intended, is
shown by the fact already noted, that originally the same
phrase stood in both clauses of the Article.1 The diversity
of phraseology subsequently introduced must have had
some definite intention, and it was in all probability that
which has just been indicated. Thus the Article as a
whole implies, not only that God is willing to forgive
penitent sinners, but, further, that the Church has a
commission to declare His pardon, and to grant recon-
ciliation where there is true repentance.

The phrase " locus poenitentiae " is almost a technical

Pudicitia, c. xix., where he says that there are some sins which admit of
no pardon, namely, murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy,
adultery, and fornication. "For these Christ will no longer plead"
(Horum ultra exorator non erit Christus). He says, however, in the same
chapter, of a grievous sinner: "Let her indeed repent, but in order to
put an end to her adultery, not, however, in prospect of restoration to
communion. For this will be a repentance (poenitentia) which we too
acknowledge to be due much more than you do ; but concerning pardon
(venia), we reserve it to God."
1 See above, p. 444.

ARTICLE XVI 455

one for an opportunity of changing a former decision, so
that the consequences no longer follow. It occurs in
Latin writers, e.g. 4 Esdr. ix. 12, as well as the Jurists l
and others, being used in Pliny's famous letter to Trajan
on the Christians, where he expresses a hope of their
improvement if a " locus pocnitentiai " is granted to them.2
The Greek equivalent, TOTTO? fjueTavoias, is also found in
Wisd. xii. 10, as well as in early Christian writers,3
by whom it was probably taken from Heb. xii. 17, where
the Vulgate renders it by " locus poenitentiae." " Locus
venise " does not seem to be of such frequent occurrence.
It is used, however, by Tertullian in DC Pudicitia, c. xviii.

II. The Possibility of Falling from Grace.

On this subject the teaching of the Article is clear and
decided. After we have received the Holy Ghost
we may depart from grace given and fall into
sin, and by the grace of God we may arise
again and amend our lives. And therefore
they are to be condemned which say they
can no more sin as long as they live here.
These statements are primarily aimed against the teach-
ing of the Anabaptists, who maintained that a man who
is regenerate cannot sin. Such teaching is contrary
to the whole tenor of Scripture. The Lord's Prayer,
which was surely meant to be a prayer to be used by all
men, recognises the need of forgiveness for all ; and the
language of the Apostles addressed to believers through-
out the Epistles assumes that all have sinned and come

1 Bishop Westcott (on Heb. xii. 17) quotes Ulpian, ap. Corp. J. C., Dig.
XL. tit. vii. 3, § 13.

- Pliny, Epp. x. 97.

3 E.g. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. I. vii.; Tatian, c. Gh'ffc. xv. ; Const.
Apost. II. xxxviii., V. xix.

456 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

short of the glory of God. There are, however, some
words in the First Epistle of S. John to which the
Anabaptists and others who maintained a theory of per-
fection could point in support of the statement that the
regenerate cannot sin, namely, 1 John iii. 6,9: " Who-
soever abideth in Him sinneth not : whosoever sinneth
hath not seen Him, neither knoweth Him. . . . Whoso-
ever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because His seed
abideth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is
begotten of God " (cf . also c. v. 18: " Whosoever is
begotten of God sinneth' not "). Strong as these words
are, it must be remembered that the writer who uses
them has already in an earlier passage of the same
Epistle said emphatically : " If we say that we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us ; but
if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all un-
righteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we
make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." These
words are perfectly general, and seem quite incompatible
with the notion that S. John teaches that any man can
claim total immunity from sin and the possibility of
sinning here on earth. How, then, is the later passage,
previously cited, to be understood ? It must certainly
be qualified by what has already been said by the writer,
and therefore we need feel no hesitation in pressing the
present tenses, OVK a^aprdvei, ckpaprtav ov Troiei, ov
Svvarai apaprdvew, and saying that they refer to a habit
and practice rather than to isolated acts. It is true that
the believer often falls into sin, yet sin is not the ruling
principle of his life, and in so far as he is really born of
God and abides in Him, " he sinneth not." If it be
urged that thus to interpret the words is to explain
away the language of Scripture, it may fairly be replied
that " the only possible escape from such modification is

ARTICLE XVI 457

by asserting the possibility of sinlessness, which contra-
dicts i. 8, or else by asserting that none of us have seen
God, and none of us are children of God, which contradicts
the 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 we may depart from grace given and fall
into sin," and that " they are to be condemned which say
they can no more sin so long as they live here."

It will be noticed that after laying down that we may
depart from grace, the Article says further, "We may
arise again and amend our lives." It is important to
notice that the word is may, not must, for herein lies a
marked difference between the teaching of the Church of
England and the Calvinistic tenet of " indefectible grace " ;
for Calvin and his followers, while rejecting the Ana-
baptist notion that the " regenerate " cannot sin, never-
theless taught that those who were once made Christ's
own, though they might fall away for a time, could not
permanently and finally lose His grace.2 Thus the state-
ment of our Article has always been a stumbling-block to
them. So early as 1572 the authors of the Second

1 Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 434. See also West-
cott, Epistles of S. John, p. 101. " Sinneth not. The commentary 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 assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins, and his
eternal salvation through Christ."

458 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Admonition to Parliament were forced to admit that
" the book of the articles of Christian religion speaketh
very dangerously of falling from grace, which is to be
reformed because it savoureth too much of error." And
at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 a suggestion
was made that after the statement that we " may depart
from grace given," there should be added the qualifying
words, "yet neither totally nor finally."1 Happily no
notice was taken of these criticisms, and the sober state-
ment of the Article remained unqualified. The whole
tenor of Scripture implies the possibility of falling from
grace ; and if S. Paul had reason to fear lest, when he
had preached to others, he himself " should be rejected "
or "become reprobate" (aSo/a/u-o?), 1 Cor. ix. 27, it is
hard to understand how men can be found to deny the
same possibility in the case of others. The subject is
closely connected with the whole doctrine of Predestina-
tion, and will therefore come before us again in connec-
tion with the Seventeenth Article, where something will
be said on the Calvinistic system in general. It is
therefore unnecessary to consider the matter more fully
here.

1 See vol. i. p. 53 scq.

ARTICLE XVII

DC Predestination f, ct Election*.

Praedestinatio ad vitam, est aeter-
num Dei propositum, quo ante
jacta mundi fundamenta, suo con-
silio, nobis quidem occulto, con-
stanter decrevit, eos quos in Christo
elegit ex hominum genere, a male-
dicto et exitio liberare, atque ut
vasa in honorem efficta, per Chris-
tum ad aeternam salutem adducere :
Unde qui tarn praeclaro Dei bene-
ficio sunt donati, illi spiritu ejus
opportune tempore operante, secun-
dum propositura ejus vocantur :
vocationi per gratiam parent : jus-
tificantur gratis : adoptantur in
filios : unigeniti Jesu Christi ima-
gini efficiuntur conformes : in bonis
operibus sancte ambulant : et de-
mum ex Dei misericordia pertingunt
ad sempiternam felicitatem.

Quemadmodum Prsedestinationis
et Electionis nostra in Christo pia
consideratio, dulcis suavis et inef-
fabilis consolationis plena est vere
piis et his qui sentiunt in se vim
Spiritus Christi, facta carnis et
membra quaj adhuc sunt super
terram mortiticantem, animumque
ad ccelestia et superna rapientem,
turn quia fidem nostram de cetera a
salute consequenda per Christum
plurimum stabilit atque confirmat,
turn quia amorem nostrum in Deum
vehementer acceridit : ita homiui-

•1,39

Of Predestination and Election.

Predestination to life is the ever-
lasting purpose of God, whereby
(before the foundations of the world
were laid) He hath constantly
decreed by His counsel secret to us,
to deliver from curse and damna-
tion those whom He hath chosen
in Christ out of mankind, and to
bring them by Christ to everlasting
salvation, as vessels made to honour.
Wherefore they which be endued
with so excellent a benefit of God
be called according to God's pur-
pose by His Spirit working in due
season : they through grace obey
the calling : they be justified freely :
they be made sons of God by adop-
tion : they be made like the image
of His only - begotten Son Jesus
Christ : they walk religiously in
good works, and at length, by God's
mercy, they attain to everlasting
felicity.

As the godly consideration of
Predestination, and our election in
Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant,
and unspeakable comfort to godly
persons, and such as feel in them-
selves the working of the Spirit of
Chriat, mortifying the works of the
flesh and their earthly members,
and drawing up their mind to high
and heavenly things, as well because
it doth greatly establish and con-

460 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

bus curiosis, carnalibus, et Spiritu firm their faith of eternal salvation
Christi destitutis, ob oculos per- to be enjoyed through Christ, as
petuo versari Prredestinationis Dei because it doth fervently kindle
sententiam, perniciosissimum est their love towards God : so, for
pnecipitium, unde illos Diabolus curious and carnal persons, lacking
protrudit, vel in desperationem, the Spirit of Christ, to have con-
vel in aeque perniciosam impuris- tinually before their eyes the sen-
simae vitse securitatem. tence of God's Predestination, is a

Deinde promissiones divinas sic most dangerous downfall, whereby
amplecti oportet, ut nobis in sacris the devil doth thrust them either
literis generaliter propositse sunt : into desperation, or into wretch-
et Dei voluntas in nostris actioni- lessness of most unclean living, no
bus ea sequenda est, quain in verbo less perilous than desperation.
Dei habemus diserte revelatam. Furthermore, we must receive

God's promises in such wise, as
they be generally set forth to us in
Holy Scripture : and in our doings
that will of God is to be followed
which we have expressly declared
unto us in the Word of God.

THE changes which this Article has undergone since
1553 are very slight ; the words "in Christ "were added
in the first paragraph in 1563, and at the same time
" although the decrees of Predestination are unknown to
us" were omitted at the commencement of paragraph
the third.

The object of the Article was evidently to allay the
angry strifes on the subject of predestination, and while
speaking in cautious terms on what was felt to be a deep
mystery, to guard against the excesses and extravagances
to which the doctrine had led. Thus, after describing
what predestination is in the first paragraph, the whole of
the rest of the Article is devoted to the practical conse-
quences which follow from the doctrine, and to laying
down rules which, when rightly understood, are distinctly
aimed against that limitation of God's love and God's
promises, which has been characteristic of so much pre-
destinarian teaching. The need for such an Article as
this is pointedly shown in the language of the section

ARTICLE XVII 461

" De Predestinations " in the Eeformatio Legum, which
begins by calling attention to the terrible consequences,
shown in the lives of many, springing from what can only
be called a reckless and monstrous fatalism. The section
is one which deserves careful study, and will be seen to
throw not a little light on the meaning of the Article
now under consideration.

"Ad extremum in Ecclesia multi feris et dissolutis
moribus vivunt, qui cum re ipsa curiosi sint, differ ti
luxu, et a Christi spiritu prorsus alieni, semper prse-
destinationem et rejectionem, vel, ut usitate loquuntur,
reprobationem in sermone jactant, ut cum seterno con-
silio Deus vel de salute vel de interitu aliquid certi
constituent, inde latebram suis maleficiis et sceleribus,
et omnis generis perversitati quadrant. Et cum pastores
dissipatam illorum et flagitiosam vitarn coarguunt, in
voluntatem Dei criminum suorum culpam conferunt, et
hac defensione protiigatas admonitorum reprehensiones
existimant : ac ita tandem, duce diabolo, vel in despera-
tionis puteum abjiciuntur preecipites, vel ad solutam
quandam et mollem vitse securitatem, sine aut poeni-
tentia aut scelerum conscientia dilabuntur. Quae duo
mala disparern naturam, sed finem videntur eundem
habere. Nos vero sacris Scripturis eruditi, talem in hac
re doctrinam ponimus, quod diligens et accurata cogitatio
de pnedestinatione nostra et electione suscepta (de quibus
Dei voluntate determinatum fuit antequam mundi funda-
menta jacerentur) ; haec itaque diligens et seria, quam
diximus, his de rebus cogitatio, piorum hominum animos
Spiritu Christi afflatos, et carnis et membroruui subjec-
tionem persentiscentes, et ad coelestia sursum tendentes,
dulcissima quadam et jucundissima consolatione per-
mulcet, quoniam fidem nostram de perpetua salute per
Christum ad nos perventura confirmat, vehementissimas
charitatis in Deum flammas accendit, mirabiliter ad gratias

462 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

agendas exsuscitat, ad bona nos opera propinquissime
adducit, et a peccatis longissime abducit, quoniam a Deo
sumus electi, et filii ejus instituti. Quse singularis et
eximia conditio summam a nobis salubritatem morum, et
excellentissimam virtutis perfectionem requirit : denique
nobis arrogantiam minuit, ne viribus nostris geri credamus,
quae gratuita Dei beneficentia et infinita bonitate indul-
gentur. Praeterea neminem ex hoc loco purgationem
censemus vitiorum suorum afferre posse ; quia Deus
nihil ulla in re injuste constituit, nee ad peccata volun-
tates nostras unquam invitas trudit. Quapropter omnes
nobis admonendi sunt, ut in actionibus suscipiendis ad
decreta pra^destinationis se non referant, sed universam
vitae suas rationem ad Dei leges accommodent ; cum et
promissiones bonis et minas malis, in sacris Scriptuils
generaliter propositas contemplentur. Debemus enim
ad Dei cultum viis illis ingredi, et in ilia Dei voluntate
commorari, quam in sacris Scripturis patefactam esse
videinus." l

This section, it will be noticed, guards still more
strongly than does the Article against the abuses of the
doctrine, and points out very precisely the dangers then
existing. It is also valuable as indicating with certainty
the true interpretation of the last clause of the Article,
which says that God's promises are to be received " in
such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy
Scripture," — a subject on which something must be said
later on.

The sources of the Article, and of the section just
quoted from the Reformatio Legum, are thought to lie to
some extent in the writings of Luther, including both his
letters and the Preface to the Epistle to the Romans ; 2

1 Reformatio Legum Ecd., De Hares, c. xxii.

2 See Bp. Short's History of the Church of England, c. x. App. C,
where this is pointed out ; and see below, p. 485.

ARTICLE XVII 463

and the language of the last paragraph has been traced
by Archbishop Laurence to Melaucthon.1 Still more
important, however, is it to notice that the description
of predestination given in the first paragraph is to a
very great extent couched in the actual words of Holy
Scripture. The chief passages on which it is based are
Rom. viii. and ix. and Eph. 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 with every spiritual blessing in the
heavenly places in Christ : even as He chose us in Him
before the foundation of the world (sicut elegit nos in ipso
ante mundi constitutionem), that we should be holy and
without blemish before Him in love : having foreordained
us unto adoption as sons, through Jesus Christ unto
Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will (qui
prsedestinavit nos in adoption em filiorum per Jesuni
Christum in ipsum secundum propositum voluntatis suse),
to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely
bestowed on us in the Beloved ... in whom also we
were made a heritage, having been foreordained according
to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the
counsel of His will (pnedestinati secundum propositum
ejus, qui operatur omnia secundum consilium voluntatis
suse)," Eph. i. 3-11. Elsewhere he speaks of "vessels
made to honour " (cf. " vasa in honorem efficta " with " an
non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eadem massa facere
aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam ? "
Kom. ix. 21), while in Eom. viii. 28-30, he tells us
that " to them that love God all things work together
for good, even to them that are called according to His
purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained
to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be
the firstborn among many brethren : and whom He fore-

1 See Archbp. Laurence, Bainpton Lectures, p. 179.

464 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

ordained, them He also called : and whom He called, them
He also justified : and whom He justified, them He also
glorified" (Scimus autem quoniam diligentibus Deum
omnia co-operantur in bonum, iis qui secundum propositum
vocati sunt sancti : Nain quos prrescivit, et praedestinavit
conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus
in multis fratribus. Quos autem praedestinavit, hos et
vocavit, et quos vocavit, hos et justificavit ; quos autem
justificavit, illos et glorificavit). If these passages are
carefully compared witlj the Article, it will easily be
seen how closely it follows them : and hence it results
that to one who has previously accepted Scripture as
containing the word of God, the positive statements of
the Article present no further difficulty.1 They are
evidently meant to be simply a reflection of the language
of Scripture, and therefore whatever interpretation we
are justified in putting upon the language of Scripture,
the same we shall be justified in putting upon the
corresponding language of the Article. This principle,
when fully grasped, will be found to remove much of
the difficulty which is sometimes felt in regard to sub-
scription to this Seventeenth Article. It is only in the
first and last paragraphs that any difficulty is found.
The second paragraph, dealing with the practical con-
sequences of the doctrine, contains nothing to which
exception can be taken. The third paragraph will be
explained and justified later on ; and if this first
paragraph be taken, as it is surely meant to be taken,
as a summary of Scripture statements rather than a
definite interpretation of them, no difficulty whatever
need be felt as to its acceptance. Coming now to the
substance of the Article, the subjects treated of in it are
the following : —

1 Of. the passage from Mozley's Lectures and other Theological Papers
(p. 220), quoted in vol. i. p. 352.

ARTICLE XVII 465

1. The description of predestination.

2. The steps which accompany it.

3. The practical effect of the doctrine.

4. Two considerations calculated to guard the doctrine
from abuses.

I. The Description of Predestination.

Predestination to life is the everlasting pur-
pose of God, whereby (before the foundations
of the world were laid) He hath constantly
decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver
from curse and damnation those whom He hath
chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring
them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as
vessels made to honour.

There have been from time to time various theories
held with regard to predestination, and various schemes
and systems have been formed by Christians. Of these,
the most important are the following, which it will be
convenient to consider in the order in which they are
here enumerated, rather than in accordance with a more
strictly chronological arrangement : —

(a) Ecclesiastical predestination.

(&) The Arminian theory.

(c) The Calvinistic theory.

(d) The Augustinian theory.

(a) Ecclesiastical Predestination. — According to this,
predestination is not necessarily to life, but to privilege,
i.e. to the opportunity of obtaining eternal life in the
way of God's covenant. On this view, the " elect " are
to be identified with the " called," and include all
baptized persons. As Bishop Harold Browne puts it :
" Some have held that as the Jews of old were God's
chosen people, so now is the Christian Church ; that

466 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

every baptized member of the Church is one of God's
elect, and that this election is from God's irrespective
and unsearchable decree. Here, therefore, election is to
be baptismal privileges, not to final glory ; the elect are
identical with the baptized, and the election constitutes
the Church." x

That this doctrine is taught in Holy Scripture admits
of no doubt whatever. Throughout the Old Testament
God is said to have " chosen " the whole people of the
Jews, and not a select few out of their number.2 The
" children of Jacob " were His " chosen ones " or " elect "
(Ps. cv. 6).3 And when we pass from the Old Testament
to the New, we find that the members of the Christian
Church are regarded as having succeeded to the privileges
of the Jews, and that the language used of the Israelites
is applied by the Apostles to them.4 So S. Paul, in
writing to different Churches, addresses his readers
indiscriminately as " called " (/cX^rot) ; 5 and S. Peter
in a similar way writes to the " elect " (eK\efcroi) who
are " sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,

1 On the Articles, p. 393.

- 'E/t\<?7eu> is used frequently of this "choice." See, «.</., Deut. iv. 37,
vii. 7, x. 15 ; xiv. 2, Ps. cxxxiv. (cxxxv.) 4, etc.

2 'E/c\e/cr6s is used very widely in the LXX., and represents no fewer
than twenty different Hebrew words. This is of itself significant, and
should prevent us from attempting to fix too hard and fast a meaning
upon it in the New Testament. It is used of the whole nation in
Ps. civ. (cv.) G, 43, cv. (cvi.) 5, and elsewhere; but also of individuals,
as Moses, Ps. cv. (cvi.) 23 ; Joshua ; Num. xi. 28 ; and David, Ps.
Ixxxviii. (Ixxxix.), 19.

4 With Ex. xix. 5, tcrtff&t ftoi Xads TJ epiownos airb irdvTuv T
tfjiT) ydp ion iroiffa TJ 777, u/xets 8£ ?<T€(r6<: /J.OL fiafflXetov iepdrevfut
tLytov, cf. Tit. ii. 14 (Xads TTf/jioiViot) and 1 Pet. ii. 9 : 7&ros
pa<rl\fiov lfpdT€Vfj.a, ^voj dyiov, Xa6s e/s Trep<.Troli)<rii> (this last phrase is the

LXX rendering of the same phrase n?3D in Mai. iii. 17) ; and cf. also
Eph. i. 14 : eis diroXiTpttxriv rrjs TrepiTroi^o-ews.
6 Rom. i. 6, 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; cf. S. Jude, ver. 1.

ARTICLE XVII 467

Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," * and elsewhere charges
them to " make 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
who 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 same 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 members could

1 1 Pet. i. 1. Cf. ii. 9 (e/cXe/croK 7^05), v. 13 (cri^e/cXe/cri?), and Col.
iii. 12 ; and note that it was of an election to privilege that our Lord
spoke when He said, " Have I not chosen (e'£eXe£d/A77v) you twelve, and one
of you is a devil " ? S. John vi. 70.

2 See Clement of Rome, c. Ixiv., where he speaks of God as having
elected our Lord Jesus Christ, and us by Him, to eJs \abv irrpiofoiov.
<?/cXe*r6s is a "favourite word" with Clement (Lightfoot). It occurs at
least eight times in his Epistle (see cc. i. ii. vi. xlvi. xlix. Iii. 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\rjTfa. See the salutation : 'H lKK\t]ffLa rov Geou i] TrapoiKov<ra 'Pti/iT/v TTJ
tKK\7i<riq. TOU 0eoO TT; TrapoiKova-ij K6piv6ov, AcXT/rots, /c.r.X. But it is possible
that ^<Xf/cT6s sometimes slides into a further meaning, e.g. in ii. : ets rb
(T&feffdaL /J.CTCL S^ous Kctl ffvveid'fjo'eus rbv dpidfj.bv r&v £K\€KTWI> avrov ; xlix. :
iv TT) aydirr) ^re^iud-rjffav irdvres ol £K\€KTOI rov 0eoO ; lix. : luevlav irotov-
/xej/ot #7rws rbv api.diJ.bv rbv KaTtjpidfj.Tjfj.^voi' rCjv ^/cXe/cruJ^ avrov . . . Sia-
<t>v\t£r]. Ignatius of Antioch certainly uses (?/eXe*cT6j in the sense of eccle-
siastical election. See the salutation to the Epistle to the Trallians :
tKK\i)<ri<f. ayiq. TTJ ofay tv TpdXXetriv TT?S 'A<r/aj, tK\€KTr/ xa.1 dt-iodty, K.T.\.
Cf. also the salutation to his Epistle to the Ephesians (^/cXeXfy/^vT/j/).
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 Irenseus says that " the Word of
God, which formerly elected the patriarchs, has now elected us" (Adv.
har. IV. Iviii.).

468 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

rightly be addressed as " elect." And there can be no
doubt that this view 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 word " 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 remain in the number of His faithful
and elect children," — an expression which implies the
possibility that he may fail and lose his election.1 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 seems to be that something
further is intended here, and in the Article before us,

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 whom He hath chosen in Christ out of
mankind, and to bring them 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 " point also to some-
thing beyond it as well, it would appear that in this
they faithfully reflect the teaching of Holy Scripture.
For while, as we have 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, " Many are called (/cX^rot), but few
are chosen " (&Xe#rol), they are expressly distinguished.
Moreover, while it is admitted that S. Paul's language
in Eom. viii. and ix. is primarily intended 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 words "prepared
unto glory," "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." l 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, and the language of ix. 22, 23, 'fitted unto destruction,' 'prepared
unto glory,' cannot be limited to a mere earthly destiny."

31

470 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

(b) The Arminian theory of Predestination. — The view
which is generally associated with the name of Arminius
is that God foresaw from all eternity who among men
would make a good use of the grace which is freely
offered to all, and that therefore, i.e. because He foresaw
their future merits, He predestined some to final glory.
This is sometimes called predestinatio ex prccvisis meritis,
and its leading characteristic is that it does away with
the mystery of the doctrine, and makes predestination
to life a consequence of God 's foreknowledge. Since Van
Harmen or Arminius x 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
with him and his followers. It is therefore quite
unnecessary to enter into the history of the Dutch
" Kemonstrants " and the Synod of Dort.2 But there
were Arminians before Arminius, and the view of pre-
destination which he and his followers developed and
worked into their system was held in a loose and
informal way by many before him. Indeed, so far as
the Fathers before Augustine can be said to have 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 view have been found in
the writings of Justin Martyr 3 and Irenseus.4 Still

1 Born in Holland in 1560 ; professor at Leyden, 1604 ; and died in
1609.

2 See Mosheim, vol. iii. p. 354 (ed. Stubbs) ; and cf. Hardwick, History
of the Articles, c. ix.

3 'AXX' €ifj,apfji£vr)v <pa[j.£v airapaftarcv Ta^rtjv flvat rots ra Ka\a £K\€yofj.tvots
TO, #£ta ^TriTtytua* /cat rots 6/uo£a>s ra evavria ra #£ta ^Tr^eipa, Apol. I. c. xliii. ;
cf. Kaye's Justin Martyr, p. 81: "If Justin held the doctrine of pre-
destination at all, it must have been in the Arminian sense — ex prcevisis
mentis. "

4"Deus his quidem qui non credunt, sed nullificant cum, infert
excitateni ... Si igitur et mine, quotquot scit non crcdituros Dcus, cum

ARTICLE XVII 471

more clearly is it seen in the teaching of the great
Alexandrians, Clement1 and Origen.2 Among later
writers it is taught by Chrysostom,3 whose influence
became predominant in the East ; and although in the
West the system of Augustine in the main held the
field, yet there are traces of something approaching to
the earlier view among some of the schoolmen,4 and it
has never wanted its defenders in the Church of Home.5

sit omnium praecognitor tradidit eos infidelitati eoruni, et avertit faciem
ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in tenebris, quas ipsi sibi elegerunt ; quid
mirum si et tune nunquam crediturum Pharaonem, cum his qui cum co
erant, tradidit eos su« infidelitati." — Adv. Hccr. IV. xlv. "Nee enim
lumen deficit propter eos qui semetipsos excaecaverunt, sed illo perse-
verante quale et est excaecati per suam culpam in caligine constituuntur.
Neque lumen cum magna necessitate subjiciet sibi quemquam : neque
Deus coget eum, qui nolit continere ejus artem. Qui igitur abstitenint a
paterno lumine et transgressi sunt legem libertatis, per suam abstitenint
culpam, liberi arbitrii et suae potestatis facti. Deus autem omnia prse-
sciens, utrisque aptas praeparavit habitationes." — IV. Ixiv.

1 OOs TT pott) pur ev 6 0eos, diKaiovs effo/j-evovs irpb /cara/SoX^s /cocr/xoi/ eyvuKws,
Strom. VII. xvii. 107. MeraXa/i/Mvei 8£ TTJS evirotias Macros T?/AWJ> rpbs
o jSouXercu eirel TT]V dia<popdv TT}? €K\oyijs al-ia yevo/nevT] i/'i'X^s cdpfffis re
Kal (rvvdffKijffis TreiroiijKev, ib. V. xiv. 141 ; cf. Kaye's Clement of Alex-
andria, p. 434.

2 See especially Philocalia, xxv. p. 227 (ed. Robinson) : 'Avwrepw 5e

eCTTt TOU 7T pOOpiff JJ.OV TJ TTpoyvUffLS' oOs y&p TTpO€yv<j}} 07JO"t, Kai TTpOUpifffV (TVfJt,-

[ji.bp<f>ovs TT}S et'/copos rou viov avrov' irpoevaTcviffa? otiv 6 Qebs TU dp/jut) TWV
icro/J^vuv, Kal KaTavorja'as poirijv rov ^0' TJ/JUV T&vftt rwuv cirl evfftjSetav Kal
bpn,rjv eirl To.i.rrr\v /zero, TT]V poTTyy, Kal tos 6'Xot eaurous €iri5u(rov(rt rq> K<XT'
aperrjv {fjv, Trpoeyvu auroi)s, yivuo-Kuv yttev ra friard/JLeva irpoyiv&ffKuv 5e ra
jj£\\ovTa' Kal oOs ovria irpoeyvw, irpow purer, K.T.\. ; cf. Ad Rom. vii. 17.
It is interesting to notice that Calvin frankly owns that Origen and
S. Ambrose and S. Jerome were all "Arminians," and "were of opinion
that God dispenses His grace among men according to the use which He
foresees that each will make of it," List. III. xxii. 8.

3 '0 peifav 8ov\ev<T€i T$ e\dff<rovi. llvos otiv 'eveKfv TOVTO el-nrev 6 0c6s ;
on OVK dva/j,evei, Kaddirep avdpuiros dirb TOU reXoPs ru>v Trpayfidruv iSflv rbv
dya6bv, Kal rbv ov TOIOVTOV, dXXa irpb TOVTUV olSe rts yuev 6 Trovijpbs, rt's 5e 6
pi] TotoGros. — Chrysost. In Ep. ad Rom., Horn. xvi. (on Rom. ix. 16).

4 See the summary of their teaching in Hagenbach, History of Doctrine,
vol. ii. p. 299 ; and Laurence, Bampton Lectures, p. 148.

5 "A large number of Jesuits e.g. Toletus, Maldonatus, Lcssius, Vas-

472 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Turning now to the consideration of the evidence of
Scripture, we note that the only passage to which an
appeal can with any show of reason be made by the
upholders of this theory is Bom. viii. 28, 29: "We
know that to them that love God all things work
together for good, even to them that are called according
to His purpose (rot? Kara Trp66e<Tiv K\r)Tols). For whom
He foreknew, He also foreordained (Trpocopio-e) to be con-
formed to the image of His Son," etc.1 Here the Greek
commentators generally have taken Kara irpoOecnv of
the mans free choice,— a view which is undoubtedly
false, as the expression must refer to God's purpose (cf.
ix. 11: rj rear efc\oyrjv TTpoOeo-^ rov Oeov) ; and Trpoeyvw
has been interpreted of foreknowledge of character and
fitness. This is plausible ; but a careful examination of
those passages of Scripture where God's " knowledge " of
individuals or nations is spoken of shows that it cannot
be maintained. The word yiyvwcrKco, 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 Trpoeyvco only throws back this ' taking note '
from the historic act in time to the eternal counsel which
it expresses and executes."2 But if the solitary passage
which might have seemed to favour the Arminian theory
breaks down, there is, on the other hand, a mass of scrip-
tural evidence against it. The language of both Old
and New Testament alike is quite decisive that God's

quez, Valentin, and Suarez (while he taught at Rome), admit that
predestination to grace, but deny that predestination to glory, is irrespec-
tive of merit foreseen. God decrees, they say, to give grace 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.

1 Cf. 1 Pet. i. 1, 2 : ttcXeKTots . . . Kara irp6yvuxnv Qeov irarphs.

2 Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 217, where reference is made
to Ps. i. 6, cxliv. (cxliii.) 3 ; Hos. xiii. 5 ; Amos iii. 2 ; S. Matt. vii. 23,
for yiyvibo-Keiv. To these may be added Gen. xviii. 19 : "I have known
him, to the end that he may command his children," etc.

ARTICLE XVII 473

election of Israel was not a consequence of foreseen
faith or good works. Again and again it is stated that
it was " not for their righteousness, for the uprightness
of their heart, that they went in to possess the land " ; l
and S. Paul appeals to the history of Jacob and Esau
in Rom. ix. 10-13 as exhibiting "the perfectly free
character of the Divine action, that purpose of God in
the world which works on a principle of selection not
dependent on any form of human merits or any conven-
tion of human birth, but simply on the Divine will as
revealed in the Divine call." 2 And although this election
was 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 away with the mystery
of the doctrine, whereas S. Paul insists that it is mysteri-
ous and unfathomable. According 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 might stand,
not of works, lut of Him that calleth, it was 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 from 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
Arminians lies in connecting the two assertions by a

1 Deut. ix. 5, 6 ; cf. x. 15 ; 1 Sam. xii. 22 ; Jer. xxxi. 1-3 ; Mai. i.
2, 3, etc.

2 Sanday and Headlam, p. 239.

8 Gore in Studia Biblica, iii. p. 40.

474 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

" therefore," and thus making the one a consequence of
the other. This introduces an idea of time, a " before "
and " after," into the Divine life, whereas the foreknow-
ledge of God and His predestination, both being from
all eternity, are (if the word may be permitted) syn-
chronous, neither being dependent upon the other.

(c) The Calvinistic 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 what Augustine suggested in the
fifth century, that Calvin said plainly in the sixteenth ; *
and what was left indefinite in the earlier system, was
filled up and completed in the later.

Like Arminianism, Calvinism holds that predestination
is to life and not only to privilege ; but, unlike that
system (which arose as a reaction from it), it teaches that
it is " arbitrary," springing from God's good pleasure,
from motives unknown to us. The " five points " of the
whole scheme are these —

1. Predestination, including (a) predestination to life,
and (b) reprobation or predestination to condemnation.

2. Particular redemption, or the doctrine that Christ
died, not for all men, but only for the " elect," i.e. those
predestined to life.

3. Total ruin, or the doctrine that at the Fall man
was wholly deprived of original righteousness.

4. Irresistible grace or effectual calling.

1 Calvin's Institutes were first published in 1536, so that his views had
been made public some time before the English Articles were drawn up.
But the great discussion on predestination at Geneva, and the publication
of his book De Predestinationc, 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 Articles, 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 drawing, 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.1 A clear
view of the whole 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.

" 2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination to life
is not the prevision of faith, or of perseverance, or of good
works, 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 number which can neither be diminished nor increased.

" 4. They who are not predestinated to salvation will 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 have taught reproba-
tion (Ep. ad Rufinum, c. xiv. ; App. ad Op. August, x. p. 168), and both
it and particular redemption were maintained by Gottschalc in tho ninth
century. See Neander's Church History, vol. vi. p. 180 seq., and Hageu-
bach's History of Doctrine, vol ii. p. 293 seq., with the references there
given.

2 Cf. vol. i. p. 53. See Perry's English Church History, part ii. p. 351 seq.

476 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

" 6. A truly faithful man, that is, one endowed with
justifying faith, is certain by the full 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 all men, 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 men are not
drawn by the Father that they may come unto the Son.

" 9. It is not placed in the will or power of every man
to be saved." 1

No words are needed to point out how alien is the
whole tone and temper of this narrow and harsh dogma-
tism from the wise moderation with which the Seventeenth
Article is framed. A comparison of the two documents

1 " 1. Deus ab aeterno prsedestinavit quosdam ad vitam et quosdam ad
mortem reprobavit.

4<2. Causa moveus aut efficieus praedestinationis ad vitam non est
praevisio fidei aut perse verantiae, aut bonorum operum aut ullius rei
quae insit in personis praedestinatis, sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei.

' ' 3. Praedestinatorum praefinitus et certus est numerus qui nee augeri nee
minui potest.

"4. Qui non sunt prsedestinati ad salutem, necessario propter peccata
sua damnabuntur.

"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 prseditus, certus est plero-
phoria fidei, de remissione peccatorum suorum et salute sempiterna sua
per Christum.

" 7. Gratia salutaris non tribuitur, non communicatur universis homini-
bus, qua servari possint, si voluerint.

" 8. Nemo potest venire ad Christum nisi datum ei fuerit, et nisi Pater
eum traxerit. Et omnes homines non trahuntur a Patre ut veniant ad
filium.

: c 9. Non est positum in arbitrio aut potestate uniuscuj usque hominis
servari."

Specimens of various Calvinistic Confessions drawn up on the Continent
may be found in Winer's Confessions of Christendom, p. 162 seq.

ARTICLE XVII 477

is sufficient to show that the Article is not favourable to
the Calvinistic theory, which, indeed, is directly contrary
to Scripture in its limitation of Divine grace to a few ; l
and assertion of its irresistible character 2 in those few, to
say nothing of the dreadful dogma of reprobation, which
was 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 scheme will be found in the
remarks offered above on Articles IX. and XVI. ; 4 and
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 Aityustinian theory. — The teaching of Augus-
tine on the subject of predestination has exercised pro-
found influence over the whole Western 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,

* Particular redemption is directly 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 may fall, and in which they are therefore exhorted to
continue.

3 The word " reprobate " (dSo'/ct/ioj, 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. In Rom. ix. 22, S. Paul purposely
uses an indefinite form Ka.TTipTifffj.tva. eiy dirciXeta^, whereas, when he speaks
of the vessels of honour, he says expressly that God irporjToi/j.acrep. See on
the whole passage Sanday and Headlam, p. 261.

4 Cf. vol. i. p. 51 seq. "

478 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

DC Doiw Perseverantice and De Prcedestiiiatione Sanctorum.
In these he takes up the position (1) that predestination
is to life, and not merely to privilege ; (2) that it is
" arbitrary," i.e. that the reason why one is predestinated
to life and another is not, is unknown to us ; and thus
(3) the reason is not foreseen faith ; (4) only those
endowed with the gift of final perseverance can be saved ;
but why this gift is granted to one and withheld from
another, lies in the inscrutable will of God. His teaching
has been made the subject of an admirable study by
Professor Mozley, and the conclusion at which he arrives
is, that while Augustine is right in recognising fully that
Scripture does speak of predestination to life, yet he is
wrong 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, when laid before them ; nor
would any plain man receive any other impression from
its language than that the moral 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 makes no assertion, or has no
definite doctrine on this subject." l " The characteristic
of S. Augustine's doctrine compared with the scriptural
one is, that it is a definite and absolute doctrine. Scrip-
ture, as a whole, as has been 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 makes no
consistent statement of it, but asserts contrary truths,
counterbalancing those passages which convey the pre-
destinarian doctrine by passages as plain the other way :

1 Augustinian Theory of Predestination, p. 38.

ARTICLE XVII 479

but S. Augustine makes predestinarian statements, and
does not balance them by contrary ones. Rather he
endeavours to explain away those contrary statements of
Scripture. Thus he evades the natural force of the text
that God would have all men to be saved, by supposing
that it only means that no man is saved except through
the will of God, or that " all men " means not all men,
but some out of all classes and ranks of men." l The
criticism then to be offered upon the Augustinian scheme
is, that it is a onesided development of scriptural truth.
What 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 given 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
any one of them entirely satisfactory. How then, if all
these are rejected, is the Seventeenth Article to be under-
stood ? In exactly the same way as these 2^ssagcs of Scrip-
ture which speak of predestination, 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
man'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 freewill." •
The fact is, that the Bible lays down apparently contrary
truths, both of which have yet to be held by one who
would hold the whole truth. Freewill and predestina-
tion are both taught in the Bible ; and though we cannot

1 Augustinian Theory of Predestination, p. 155. 2 Mozley, op. cit. p. 333.

480 THE THIRTY-NINE 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 them, we shall find ourselves involved
in errors and difficulties from which there is no escape.
For the present we must be content to hold both as
parts of the truth, remembering that we know but
" in part," and leaving their complete reconciliation to
the time when we " shall know, even as we are
known."

Some words of Dr. Ljddon'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,"
he says —

" 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 were otherwise, 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 man is literally a free
agent ; his freedom is the very ground of his moral
and religious responsibility. Are these two truths
hopelessly incompatible 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 from sacrificing man's
freedom to God's sovereignty, with Calvin, we can only
express a wise ignorance by saying, that to us they
seem like parallel lines which must meet at a point in
eternity, far beyond our present range of view. We do
know, however, that being both true, they cannot
really contradict each other ; and that in some manner,
which we cannot formulate, the Divine sovereignty must

ARTICLE XVII 481

not merely be compatible with, but must even imply, the
perfect freedom of created wills." l

II. The Steps which accompany Predestination.

After having described in scriptural terms what is
meant 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 follows : — (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 which 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 we cannot, with Arminius, say that
foreseen good works are the ground of such predestina-
tion, yet we can say that they are involved in it ; and
that where there is predestination to eternal felicity,

1 Liddon's Elements of Relig-ion, p. 191. Cf. Sanday and Headlam
On the Romans, p. 348.
" Bishop Forbes On tlw Articles, p. 252.

482 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

there is also predestination to obedience and to con-
formity to the image of our Lord. This was fully
brought out by Bishop Bancroft at the Hampton Court
Conference, as the subjoined extract will show.

" The Bishop of London took occasion to signifie to
His Majesty, how 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 should reason rather ascendendo than descendendo,
thus, ' I live in obedience to God, in love with my
neighbour, I follow my vocation, etc. ; therefore I trust
that God hath elected me, and predestinated me to
salvation'; not thus, which 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.' " l

III. The practical Effect 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-
ferenec " at Hampton Court. Card well's Conferences, p. 180.

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 (impurissimse vitae 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. It acts
upon them as the sense of a lofty destiny often acts
upon men, encouraging them 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 where
there is little or no sense of God's power carrying out
His purposes with 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 Milman has, in a striking passage, pointed
out the weakness of Pelagianism : " No Pelagian ever
has, or ever will, work a religious revolution. He who
is destined for such a work must have a full conviction
that God is acting directly, immediately, consciously,
and therefore with irresistible power, 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 maintain, 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 whom God is not manifestly, sensibly,
avowedly, working out His pre-established designs, will
never be saint or reformer." l

(b) For those whom the Article calls " curious
(i.e. inquisitive) and carnal persons " it is most dangerous
and perilous to dwell on the mystery, as it exposes
them to a twofold 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 are so
predestined it leads them into recklessness and Anti-
nomianism.

Both dangers were terribly apparent during the
period of the Beformation, when this subject exercised
so strong a fascination over men's minds. Many 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 Kandall, of Christ's
College, Cambridge, who destroyed himself in a fit of
religious desperation : " 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 Milman's Latin Christianity, vol. i. p. 150.

3 It was evidently because of this danger that the clergy were exhorted
in the "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 goodness of Almighty God towards all penitent and believ-
ing persons," in order that " the vice of damnable despair may be clearly
taken a\vay." Cardwell's Documentary Annals, vol. ii. p. 218.

ARTICLE XVII 485

passage on predestination " ; L and both the dangers are
alluded to in a passage in one of Luther's letters, which
bears a striking resemblance to the language of our
own Article.

" Men 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 remedy 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 guard the Doctrine
from Abuses.

The last paragraph of the Article gives two rules
which seem more particularly intended to guard against
the Calvinistic tenet of particular redemption. 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.

(&) 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, No. 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 not curious in unnecessary
matters"), (2) " wretchlessness " (Latin, sccuritas) is only another form
of the word "recklessness." It occurs with various forms of spelling.
In modern editions it invariably appears as " wretchlessness," but in the
edition of 1553 it is spelt "rechielesnesse " ; in 1571, " reehelessnesse. "

486 THE 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
promises as applying to all men, and not, as the
Calvinistic party asserted, only to a particular class
consisting of a few favourites of Heaven. This inter-
pretation is rendered certain by the corresponding
passage in the Reformatio Legum, which has been already
quoted, where God's promises to the good, and threats
to the evil, are spoken of as generaliter propositce in Holy
Scripture. The same interpretation was pointed out by
Baro in his Concio ad Clerum in 1595, in the con-
troversy when the Lambeth Articles were first pro-
jected ; : 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 equally clear against the
doctrine of reprobation. " In our doings that will of God
is to be followed 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 WTiitgift, p. 466.

2 Cardwell's History of Conferences, p. 181. For this meaning of the
word, cf. the Catechism, 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 " generally " in the Authorised Version,
in 2 Sam. xvii. 11 ; Jer. xlvii. 48.

3 With the expression "generaliter propositae" cf. the language
of Article VII., which says that in Scripture "seterna vita humano
generi est proposita" ; cf. Latimer's Sermons, p. 182, ed. 1584. "The
promises of Christ our Saviour be general ; they pertain to all mankind.
. . . The promises of Christ which be general and pertain to the whole,
world."

ARTICLE XVII 487

Anabaptists, which spoke of a secret will of God opposed
to His revealed will; so Hooper, afterwards Bishop of
Gloucester, writes in 1549 of the Anabaptists: "They
maintain a fatal necessity, and that beyond and besides
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." l Such teaching as
this is at once condemned in our Article, which refers
us exclusively to the revealed will of God.2

It only remains, for the sake of completeness of treat-
ment, to point out — (1) that there was no Article on
the subject of predestination in the Confession of
Augsburg ; and (2) that at the Council of Trent much
perplexity was felt on the subject, and finally a decree
was drawn up in most guarded terms so that everyone
might agree to it : " No one, so long as he exists in
this mortal state, ought so far to presume concerning
the secret mystery of Divine predestination as to
determine 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
known whom God hath chosen to Himself." 3

1 Original Letters, 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
have expressly declared to us in the word of God." See his letter to
Cecil among the State Papers ("Domestic" Elizabeth, vol. Ixxviii.
No. 37) referred to in vol. i. p. 45.

3 Sess. VI. c. xii.

AETICLE XVIII

Dt spcranda cetcrna salute tantum Of obtaining eternal Salvation, only
in nomine Christ i. by the NOAM of Christ.

Sunt ct illi anathematizandi qui They also are to be had accursed,
diccre aiident, unumquemque in that presume to say, that every
lege aut secta quam profitetur, esse man shall be saved by the law or
servandum, modo juxta illam et sect which he professeth, so that
lumen naturae accurate vixerit : he be diligent to frame his life
cum sacne liters tantum Jesu according to that law, and the
Christi nomen pnedicent, in quo light of nature. For Holy Scrip-
salvos fieri homines oporteat. ture doth set out unto us only the

name of Jesus Christ, whereby men

must be saved.

THIS Article now 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 "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 damnandi 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
Rcformatio Legum Ecclcsiasticarum which affords a close
parallel to it.

1 In 1553 and 1563 the title was as follows: "Tantum in nomine
Christi speranda est teterna salus": "We must trust to obtain eternal
salvation only by the name of Christ." The change of construction in
1571 brought it into harmony with the titles of the other Articles,
almost all of which now begin in the same way.

488

ARTICLE XVIII 489

" Horribilis est et immanis illorum audacia, qui
contendunt in omni religione vel secta, quam homines
professi fuerint, salutem illis esse sperandam, si tantum
ad innocentiam et integritatem vitae pro viribus enitantur
juxta lumen quod illis praelucet a natura infusum.
Authoritate vero sacrarum literarum confixa5 sunt
hujusmodi pestes. Solum euini et unicum ibi Jesu
Christi nomen nobis commendatum est, ut omnis ex eo
salus ad nos perveniat." 1

This section and the Article before us are evidently
intended to rebuke the same error; and it has some-
times been thought that the opinion condemned is that
which maintains a possibility of salvation for the
heathen, and those who have never heard the name of
Christ. On a careless reading of the Article such a
view may seem probable. But there are two considera-
tions which make strongly against it: (1) The title in
the Latin is " De speranda seterna salute," etc. ; strictly,
" of hoping for eternal salvation." Such a phrase could
only be used if the case contemplated was that of those
within sound of the gospel, knowing " the name of
Christ " and able to " trust to obtain salvation by it."
(2) From the fact that the Article begins with a
definite anathema of certain people, and couples the
opinion denounced with that condemned in Article XVI.,
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 was 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 was a matter of
indifference, but also that the deliberate rejection of the
Saviour of the world would not be attended with loss, it

1 Reformat-to Leg-urn Ecfl., De Ifores. c. xi.

490 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

is almost certain that it is against them that this
Article is directed.1 " There are such libertines and
wretches/' writes 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 fellow, and deceiver of the
world."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,
but a mere man, a sinful. man, and an abominable idol."
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
world," 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 also 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 Of. Hard wick, p. 101. 2 See vol. i. p. 23.

a " I hold it to be a most certain rule of interpreting Scripture 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 without" (1 Cor. v. 12, 13),
but even to enable us to have a good hope concerning
them. God is " the Saviour of all men" but " especially
of believers " (1 Tim. iv. 10), — an expression which 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. Matt. 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 know 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 before the word was
spoken, and in whose land it was never preached, are dead to the word ;
it concerns them not at all : but the moment it can reach them it is
theirs, and for them." — Dr. Arnold'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. With the third, the Sheep and the Goats, the
case is different. (1) It is spoken of irdvra TO. Wv-t], 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
ever seen Christ or ministered to Him on earth. Apparently, then, they
had not known Him in this life ; and (3) the 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 "the
work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness
therewith."

492 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

grace may be theirs here, or glory be granted to them
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 ministered,
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 which
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 [S. Mark] xvi. 1 6 ; 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 man, 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 was
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 will be found in vol. i. p. 78, and cf. p. 233.

AKTICLE XIX

De Ecclesia. Of the Church.

Ecclesia Christ! visibilis est coetiis The visible Church of Christ is
fidelium, in quo verbum Dei purum a congregation of faithful men, in
prsedicatur et sacramenta, quoad the which the pure word of God
ea quse necessario exiguntur, is preached and the sacraments
juxta Christi institutum recte ad- be duly ministered according to
ministrantur. Sicut erravit ecclesia Christ's ordinance in all those
Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina et things that of necessity are requisite
Antiochena : ita et erravit Ecclesia to the same.

Romana, non solum quoad agenda As the Church of Hierusalem,
et cseremoniarum ritus, verum in Alexandria, and Antioch have
his etiam qu?e credenda sunt. erred : so also the Church of Rome

hath erred, not only in their living
and manner of ceremonies, but also
in matters of faith.

THIS Article has remained practically l unchanged since
the original edition of 1553. It was possibly suggested
by the words in the corresponding Article in the Con-
fession of Augsburg : " Est autem ecclesia congregatio
sanctorum, in qua evangelium recte docetur, et recte
administrautur sacramenta." But the Anglican Article
is more precise and guarded, and has nothing answer-
ing to the next words found in the Lutheran Confession:
" Et ad veram unitatem Ecclesiae satis est consentire de
doctrina evangelii et adrninistratione sacramentorum." 2

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

2 Confessio August ana, e. vii., De ecclesia.

493

494 THE 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 Koman Church to be
the only true Church, while not embracing under the
terms of the definition the various sects of Anabaptists
and others then springing up; and (2) to deny the claim
of the Eoman Church to infallibility.

That some such polemical object was intended by those
who framed the description in the first part of the Article
appears from the following passage in the Eeformatio
Legum Ecclesiasticarum, 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 proferri,
partim in his quibus vita nostra debet informari, partim
etiam in his quibus fides debet institui. Quapropter
illorum etiam intolerabilis est error, qui totius Christiani
orbis universam ecclesiam solius episcopi Romani
principatu contineri volunt. Nos enim earn quse cerni
potest ecclesiam sic definimus ut omnium coetus sit
fidelium hominum, in quo sacra Scriptura sincere
docetur, et sacramenta (saltern his eorum partibus
quae necessariae sunt) juxta Christi prcnescriptum
administrantur." 1

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

" But now herein standeth the controversy, whether

1 De ffccres. c. xxi., De Romana Ecclesia et potestate Romani pontificis.

ARTICLE XIX 495

all men do justly arrogate to themselves the Holy
Ghost, or no. The Bishops of Kome have for a long
time made a sore challenge thereunto, reasoning for
themselves after this sort. The Holy Ghost, say they,
was promised to the Church, and never forsaketh the
Church : but we are the chief heads and the principal
part of the Church : therefore we have the Holy Ghost
for ever ; and whatsoever things we decree are undoubted
verities and oracles of the Holy Ghost. That ye may
perceive the weakness of this argument, it is needful to
teach you first what the true Church of Christ is, and
then to confer the Church of Eome therewith, to discern
how 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 head corner-stone. And it hath always
three notes or marks whereby it is known : pure and
sound doctrine, the sacraments ministered according to
Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical
discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable
both to the Scriptures of God and also to the doctrine
of the ancient Fathers, so that none may justly find
fault therewith."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 amplification of that
given in the Article. The chief difference is that the
Homily adds a third note to the two given in the
Article, namely, "the right use of ecclesiastical 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.).

2 This "note or mark " is also added in the "Short Catechism " issued
together with the Articles in 1553 (see Dixon's History of the Church of

496 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

this is 110 substantial addition, because it is really
included in the right administration of the sacraments,
which must involve their administration by properly
qualified persons, and to those only who are properly
qualified to receive them.1

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

1. The description of the visible Church.

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

I. The Description of the visible Church.

The visible Church of Christ is a 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.

England, vol. iii. p. 528), where it is said that "the marks of this Church
are : first, pure preaching of the gospel ; then, brotherly love, out of
which, as members of all one body, springeth goodwill of each to other ;
thirdly, upright and uncorrupted use of the Lord's sacraments, according
to the ordinance of the gospel ; last of all, brotherly correction and ex-
communication, 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, published in 1570, that the
" marks of the visible Church are the sincere preaching of the gospel, that
is to say, of the benefits of Christ, invocation and administration of the
sacraments," and it is added that "in the same Church, if it be well
ordered, there shall be seen to be observed a certain order and manner
of government, and such a form of ecclesiastical discipline," etc. See
Nowell's Catechism (Parker Society), pp. 56, 175 ; cf. also Ridley's J1rorks
(Parker Society), p. 123.

1 Cf. Bp. Browne, EspnxiHon of tin- Thii'ttj-N'me Article, p. 452.

ARTICLE XIX 497

(a) The visible Church. The word "Church"1
is the English equivalent for the Greek €KK\rjaia, which
has passed through three stages of meaning. (1) In its
classical sense it is not a religious word at all, but simply
stands for the assembly of the citizens of Athens and
(later) of other free Greek cities, called together for the
discussion of public business. In this sense it occurs once
in the New Testament of the " lawful assembly " (77 eWo/-to<?
€KK\7]a-ia) at Ephesus, Acts xix. 39. (2) It obtains a
religious connotation first in the Septuagint version of
the Old Testament, where it is frequently used as the
translation of the Hebrew ?yp, for the assembly of the
Israelites, especially when gathered for sacred purposes.2
In this sense it is found twice in the New Testament,
viz. in Acts vii. 38, where S. Stephen speaks of
" the Church in the wilderness," and in Heb. ii. 1 2 in
a quotation from the LXX. of Ps. xxii. 22. (3) This
Old Testament use of the term prepared the way for the
third stage in its usage, in which it is adopted by our
Lord as the name of the Society which He came to found
on earth. It is so used on two occasions by Him in the
Gospels, namely in S. Matt. xvi. 18 (to be noted as its
earliest occurrence), " Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My Church " (ol/coSofjLijcra) /AOV TTJV
€Kfc\7)alav), and S. Matt, xviii. 18, where it is said of
the erring brother, " If he refuse to hear thee, tell it to
the Church ; and if he refuse to hear the Church also,

1 The English word "Church "is ordinarily said to come from the
Greek Kvpiaxr). But see the Dictionary 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 rny for which o-wwywyij is the regular
equivalent. This word is also used regularly in the first four books of the
Pentateuch for pnjj; but from Deuteronomy onwards, though ffwaywyrj
is still occasionally used for it, ^/cXTjcrfa is more usually employed. See
Deut. iv. 10, ix. 10, xviii. 16, etc.; and on the history of the word in
general, see Trench's Synonyms of the Xctc Testament, p. 1.

498 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican."
Owing probably to its use in this sense by our Lord
Himself, we find on turning to the Acts and Epistles
that it is the familiar designation of the Christian
Society, used sometimes for the Society as a whole,
throughout the world, 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. i. 22 ;*
Phil. iii. 6, etc.; sometimes for the Church in a particular
place, as " the Church which was in Jerusalem," Acts
viii. 1 ; " the Church of God which is at Corinth," 1 Cor.
i. 2 ; " the Church of the Thessalonians," 1 Thess. i. 1 ; or
" the Church in Ephesus," Kev. ii. 1 ; sometimes even
for a particular congregation gathered together in some
house. So we read of Prisca and Aquila, and " the
Church that is in their house " (Kom. xvi. 5 ; 1 Cor.
xvi. 19), and of Philemon, and the Church in his house
(Philem. 2, and cf. Col. iv. 15).2 This varying usage of
the word in its Christian sense is faithfully reflected in
the language of our own Articles, which speak sometimes
of " the Church " (Art. XX.), or " the visible Church "
(Art. XIX.) as a whole, sometimes of " every particular
or national Church" (Art. XXXIV.), such as "the
Church of Jerusalem," of " Alexandria and Antioch,"
as well as " the Church of Kome " (Art. XIX.).

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

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

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

ARTICLE XIX 499

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

At the time when the Articles were drawn up there
was in some quarters a tendency to attach little import-
ance to the notion of a " visible Church," and to speak
much of an "invisible Church/' consisting of true
believers known only to God, wherever they might be
found, outside and independent of all external organisa-
tion.1 That God does know who are really His, in
whatever society or body they may be found, is of
course perfectly true, and what no Christian can deny.
But when this is said, there is really nothing more that
can be said of an "invisible Church." Its existence

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

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

500 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

does not practically concern us ; for to say of any
particular individuals that they belong to the true
(invisible) Church, and of others that they belong only to
the visible body, involves a serious confusion of thought,
since the very act of pointing out any members of this
" invisible Church " makes it at once a " visible " one ;
and for man to say who does or who does not belong to
it is to claim the prerogatives of God, and to assume the
power to see into the hearts of men. Thus the phrase
" the invisible Church " was mischievous and misleading,
and led men to attach little importance to the Divinely
appointed external organisation of the historical Church
founded by our Lord ; and we may be thankful that those
who are responsible for the Article ignored it altogether
and spoke only of that body or society of which Scripture
speaks, namely, " the visible Church of Christ." 1

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

1 This silence about any "invisible Church " is all the more noteworthy
because the Thirteen Articles drafted in 1538 had distinctly recognised
two senses of the word Church: "unam, qua Ecclesia acciptur pro
congregatione omnium sanctorum et vere fidelium, qui Christo capiti vere
credunt et sanctificantur Spiritu ejus. Haec autem vivum est et vere
sanctum Christi corpus mysticum, sed soli Deo cognitum, qui hominum
corda solus intuetur. Altera acceptio est qua Ecclesia acciptur pro
congregatione omnium hominum qui baptizati sunt in Christi," etc. —
Art. V. See Hardwick, p. 2ti3.

ARTICLE XIX 501

and the Society which was to be established on earth.

That this " kingdom," though " not of this world "

(S. John xviii. 36), was nevertheless intended to be a

" visible " one, embracing good and bad alike, is indicated

in more than one parable ; c.y. that of the Tares (S.

Matt. xiii. 24-30), the Draw-net (vers. 47-50), and

the Wedding Garment (xxii. 1—14). It is intended to

embrace all nations of the earth (xxviii. 19). The rite

of baptism is appointed as the method of admission to it

(ib., cf. S. John iii. 3-5) ; a visible rite is instituted as

the means of supporting the life of its members (S. Matt.

xxvi. 26 ; S. John vi. 51), and men are commissioned

and " sent " with power to remit and retain sins (S. John

xx. 21—23). All this implies a definite, ascertainable

body with an outward organisation, a body, or society,

which can be described as a " visible " one. And when

we turn to the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles

we find abundant evidence that the actual existing

eictc\7)<ria was such. Throughout the Acts baptism is

the rite of admission to it (Acts ii. 38, 41, viii. 12,

xvi. 15, etc.); "continuing steadfastly in the breaking of

the bread " is one of the characteristics of believers

(ii. 42, cf. ii. 46 and xx. 7) ; and " elders " are

"appointed in every Church" (xiv. 23); and it may be

safely said that wherever the " Church " is mentioned,

the language used is only capable of being applied to a

visible body. Thus a " persecution arose against the

Church " (viii. 1), the Church was "gathered together"

(xiv. 27), "saluted" (xviii. 22), "confirmed" (xvi. 5).

The same is true in regard to the Epistles. In every

case S. Paul writes to members of a definite society,

consisting, as his letters only too plainly show, of

professed believers, some of whom were guilty of grievous

sins, — a mixed body, in which the evil are mingled with

the good ; and if further proof be required that this is

33

502 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

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

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

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

1 Goulbourn's Holy Catholic Church, p. 9.

ARTICLE XIX 503

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

the Church the pure word of God is preached.

That we are right in regarding this as one of the neces-
sary notes or marks of the Church may fairly be inferred
from many passages of Scripture. Our Lord's charge to
Mis Apostles after the resurrection was to " make dis-
ciples of all nations," not only " baptizing them," but
also " teaching them to observe all things " that He had
commanded (S. Matt, xxviii. 19). The Church of the
first days is described by S. Luke as continuing " stead-
fast in the apostles' teaching," as well as in " the fellow-
ship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers " (Acts ii. 42).
S. Paul was sent to "preach the gospel" (1 Cor. i. 17).
He charges Timothy to " preach the word " (2 Tim. iv. 2),
to " hold fast the form of sound words " which he has
heard (2 Tim. i. 13); and generally, throughout the
Apostolic Epistles, it is assumed that there is a definite
body of teaching to be handed on by the Church and her
ministers.1 That definite body of teaching, so far as
necessary doctrine is concerned, we believe (as was shown
under Article VI.) to be contained in Holy Scripture.
" Preaching," as Hooker reminds us, is the " open publi-
cation of heavenly mysteries." 2 Thus the " pure word
of God is preached " wherever the main doctrines of the
gospel are openly taught and proclaimed. And since
the main doctrines are summarised in those Creeds to
which the Church of England expressly adheres, and
which she declares " ought thoroughly to be received and
believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants
of Holy Scripture," 3 it may reasonably be concluded that
all who are in possession of the Creeds of the Church, and
proclaim the doctrine contained in them, are so far forth

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

- Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V. c. xviii. 3 Article VIII,

504 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

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

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

following words: The sacraments be duly minis-
tered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all
those things that of necessity are requisite to

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

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

ARTICLE XIX 505

been held that the action of a rightly ordained minister
is required.1 Unless these various conditions were satis-
fied, it would be impossible to maintain that the sacra-
ments were " duly (recte) 2 ministered according to Christ's

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

2 The difference between "recte " and "rite " as used in the Articles is
not very great, both words being capable of being rendered by the same
English word "duly." But "rite" includes a wider reference to due
ecclesiastical order than "recte" does, as may be seen by a comparison of
the following passages: Art. XIX. "Sacraments be duly (recte) minis-
tered." XXV. Sacraments were ordained "that we should duly (rite)
use them." XXVII. "They that receive baptism rightly (recte) are
grafted into the Church." XXVIII. "To such as rigidly (rite),

506 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

ordinance in all those things that of necessity arc requisite
to the same."1

II. The Statement that the Church of Rome hath erred
in Matters of Faith.

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.

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

worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread," etc. XXXII.
' ' That person which is rightly (rite) cut off, " etc. XXXVI. " We decree
all such to be rightly (rite) and orderly consecrated." Thus the sacra-
ments may be duly ministered (recte), i.e. they may be valid, and yet
something wanting for what Hooker calls their "ecclesiastical perfection"
(Bk. V. Ixii. 15).

1 A question is sometimes raised here concerning the Church of Home,
in consequence of the denial of the cup to the laity. Can it be said that
the sacraments are duly ministered where this practice is followed ? And
if not, what about the claims of the Church of Rome to be regarded as a
branch of Christ's Church at all ? As is shown below, there is really no
sort of question that the Church of England does recognise the Church of
Home as a true branch of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, and therefore
this c-lause of the Article cannot have been intended to exclude her. And
since where the cup is denied to the laity the sacrament, though mutilated
in the administration, is yet valid, both parts being duly consecrated, it
may be said that the sacraments "be duly (recte) administered," etc.

ARTICLE XIX 507

has also " erred." No particular errors are specified in
any case ; but it is not difficult to point to periods during
the great Arian controversy when each of the three
Eastern Churches mentioned in the Article fell into
serious errors. Thus the Church of Antioch went wrong
at the Council of the Dedication in 341, when a defective
creed acceptable to the Arians was accepted in lieu of
the Nicene faith.1 The Church of Alexandria certainly
" erred " when Athanasius was in banishment, and Gregory
or George of Cappadocia ruling the See.2 The Church of
Jerusalem was also infected with Arianism for a con-
siderable time.3 In the same way the Article states
that the Church of Kome has erred in the past. She
erred when her Bishop Liberius accepted an Arian
creed ; 4 when Zosimus vindicated Pelagius ; 5 and when
Honorius accepted the Monothelite heresy.6 Later
examples of errors might easily be given, but it is prob-
able that those who compiled the Articles were thinking
of these earlier ones, and pointing to well-known and
admitted facts of history as establishing the general
statement that the Church of Rome was liable to error,
and as sufficient to justify them for not accepting as
necessarily correct the decisions of the Council of Trent.
In view of this Council, and any possible decisions that
might emanate from it, it was important that the Church
of England should make her own position clear, and state
beforehand the grounds which she felt would justify her
in declining (if necessary) to submit when Rome had
formally spoken. The Council, it will be remembered, was

1 See Blight's History of the Church, p. 47. - ft*, pp. 48, 79.

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

4 Bright, op. cit. p. ST. r> Ib. p. 287.

tj See Salmon's Infallibility oj lite Church, p. 427 seq.

508 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

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

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

ARTICLE XIX 509

sometime resident." 1 But an even more convincing
proof than language such as this is to be found in the
fact that the English Church accepts the Orders of the
Church of Kome, and has never denied the priesthood of,
or attempted to reordain, any Eoman priests who have
sought admission to her Communion. If the Church of
Home were regarded as apostate, her ordinations could
never be accepted as conveying a valid commission. The
fact, then, that they are so accepted in the English
Church is conclusive on this point, and further argument
is needless. Some words of Hooker may, however, be
cited in conclusion, as summing up the whole matter
with clearness and fairness.

" The Church of Christ, which was from the 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 Eome
was famous ; Corinth many ways reproved ; they of
Galatia much more out of square. In S. John's time
Ephesus and Smyrna in far better state than Thyatira
and Pergamus were. We hope, therefore, that to reform
ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to
sever ourselves from the Church we were of before. In
the Church we. were, and we are so still. Other
differences between our estate before and now we know
none, but only such as we see in Judah ; which having
sometime been idolatrous became afterwards more

1 Formularies of Faith, p. f>f>. In the Necessary Dodrwie and Erudition,
for any Christian Man (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 Church
in God." "The Church of Rome, being but a several Church, challenging
that name of Catholic above all other, doeth great wrong to all other
Churches . . . for that Church hath no more right to that name than
the Church of France, Spain, England, or Portugal," etc.— Op. cit.
p. 247.

510 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

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

"Notwithstanding, so far as lawfully we may, we
have held and do hold fellowship with them. For even
as the Apostle doth say of Israel that they are in one
respect enemies, but in another beloved of God, in like
sort with Eome 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 will) so
yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distrac-
tion remain in anything, but that we ' all may with one
heart and one mouth glorify God, the Father of our
Lord and Saviour,' whose Church we are."
1 Eccl. Polity, Bk. III. ch. i. § 10.

ARTICLE XX

Itc Eccksut Au/oritate.

Habct Ecclcisia ritus statuendi
jus et in fidei controversiis an tori -
tatem, quamvis Ecclesise non licet
quicquam instituere, quod verbo
Dei scripto adversetur, nee unum
Scriptures locum sic exponerepotest,
ut alteri contradicat. Quare licet
Ecclesia sit divinorum librorum
testis et conservatrix, attamen ut
adversus eos nihil decernere, ita
praeter illos nihil credendum de
necessitate salutis debet obtrudere.

Of (he Authority of the Church.

The Church hath power to decree
rites or ceremonies, and authority
in controversies of faith : and yet
it is not lawful for the Church to
ordain anything that is contrary
to God's word written, neither may
it so expound one place of Scripture,
that it be repugnant to another.
Wherefore, although the Church
be a witness and a keeper of holy
Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree
anything against the same, so
besides the same ought it not to
enforce anything to be believed for
necessity of salvation.

THIS Article, with the exception of the first or affirmative
clause (The Church . . . controversies of faith), dates
from 1553, and is almost identical with a passage in
the Ecformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum.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 JRef. Leg. Eccl., De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, c. xi. : " Quam-
obrem non licet ecclesia! quicquam constituere, quod verbo Dei scripto
adversetur, neque potest sic unum locum exponere ut alteri contradicat.
Quanquam ergo divinorum librorum testis sit et "custos et conservatrix
Ecclesia, hive tameu prerogative ei minime concedi debet, ut contra hos
libros vel quicquam decernat. vel absque horum librorum testimoniis
ullos tidei articulos condat, cosque populo Christiano credendos obtrudat."

511

512 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

and authority. It is not found in the Parker MS. signed
by the members of the Upper House of Convocation on
Jan. 29, 1563. Nor is it contained in an English
" minute " of the Articles among the Elizabethan State
Papers, dated January 31, 1563.1 On the other hand,
it is found in an undated Latin MS. in the State Papers,
in which it has evidently been introduced after the
original draft was made.2 This is probably the earliest
document to contain it, and Hardwick's theory 3 is
likely to be true, that this is the actual MS. from which
the first edition of the Elizabethan Articles was printed,
viz. that published by Wolfe, the royal printer, under
the direct authority of the Queen herself. Anyhow, this
edition contains the clause in question ; 4 and though it
is just possible that it was added by the Lower House of
Convocation, to which the Articles were submitted after
acceptance by the Upper House, yet there is a strong
probability that it was inserted by the Queen herself in
the exercise of her royal prerogative. However, it was
undoubtedly deficient in full sy nodical authority, and,
consequently, some MS. copies of the Articles, as well as
some printed editions, omit it.5 Of these the most
important is the English edition printed by Jugge and
Cawood in 1563, to which the Act of Parliament of
1571, requiring subscription to the Articles, made

1 ''Domestic," vol. xxvii. 40.

- Ib. 41 A. "The disputed clause in Article XX., filling just one line
and somewhat overcrowding the page, was clearly introduced in the same
hand after the first draft was made." — Hard wick, p. 140.

3 Articles, p. 140. 4 Of. vol. i. p. 31.

5 E.g. it is omitted (1) in an English draft of the Articles among the
State Papers (" Domestic," 41), endorsed, "Articles of Religion agreed on,
1562, in the Convocation hous " ; (2) in an English MS. signed by the
bishops in the Convocation of 1571 ; (3) in the English edition of Jugge
and Cawood of 1563 alluded to in the text ; and (4) in one Latin and
one English edition of Jugge and Cawood in lf»7l. See Hardwirk,
p. 142.

ARTICLE XX fil.°,

reference.1 It would appear certain, however, that at
the final revision of 1571, if not earlier, the clause was
ratified by Convocation ; 2 for when the charge was raised
against Archbishop Laud at his trial, that he had
himself added the clause to the Articles without the
slightest authority, a transcript attested "by a notary public
from the original records of Convocation was produced
containing the words in question? The records of Con-
vocation unfortunately perished in the great fire of
London in 1666; but there is no possible room for
doubting that this Article as found in them did contain
the clause. As Hardwick says, " the testimony of that
record was produced upon the trial of Archbishop Laud,
in the most open and explicit manner, at a time when it
was perfectly accessible to his accusers, or was rather in
the hands of his infuriated enemies, and yet * not one of
them ever ventured to question the truth of the asser-
tion, or attempted to invalidate the proofs on which his
defence had rested.' " 4

The words of the disputed clause, it might be added,
are (like so many of the additions of 1563) probably
suggested by similar language used in the Confession of
Wiirtemberg : " Credimus et confitemur quod . . . hsec
ecclesia habeat jus judicandi de omnibus doctrinis."5

The object of the clause, and indeed of the whole
Article, is to state definitely the powers and offices of
the Church, with special reference to (a) the errors of

1 Of. vol. i. p. 43.

- At his trial Archbishop Laud stated publicly that ' ' 'tis plain that
after the stir about subscription in the year 1571 the Articles were settled
and subscribed unto at last, as in the year 1562, with this clause in them
for the Church : for looking further into the records which are in mine
own hands, I have found the book of 1563 subscribed by all the Lower
House of Convocation in this very year of contradiction, 1571." — Laud's
Works, vol. vi. p. 68 (A. C. Lib.).

:! Laud, op. cit. p. 66. 4 Articles, p. 144,

5 De EccUsia.

514 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

the Puritan party, who were inclined to deny to the
Church any right to enforce rites or ceremonies beyond
those for which " Scripture proof " might be alleged ;
and (b) the exaggerated view of the authority of the
Church in doctrinal matters held by the Komanists, who
denied that in the promulgation of necessary doctrine the
Church was limited to what was contained in Scripture,
or might be proved thereby.

Three main subjects are brought before us in the
Article, and require separate consideration —

1. The legislative power of the Church with regard to
rites or ceremonies.

2. The judicial authority of the Church with regard
to doctrine.

3. The office of the Church with regard to Holy
Scripture.

I. The Legislative Power of the Church with regard 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, which make new
laws and abolish old ones. It was noticed under the
last Article that the word " Church " was somewhat
ambiguous, being sometimes used for the Church
universal and sometimes for any particular or national
Church ; and the question may be raised in which of
these two senses is it here employed. The answer is
found by a reference to the last clause of Article
XXXIV., which (like the clause before us) was added

ARTICLE XX 515

in 1563: " Every particular or national Church hath
authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or
rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority,
so that all things be done to edifying." This merely
amplifies the clause now under consideration, and makes
it clear that we are to understand it as referring to the
power of national or particular Churches, and vindicating
the right of the Church of England to such action as
was taken from time to time in the revision of the
services of the Church. As historical instances, then, of
the exercise of this power, we may point to (a) the
renewal of the baptismal vow prefixed to Confirmation,
a new rite decreed for the first time in 1662; (b) the
retention of the sign of the Cross, in face of much
opposition, in 1604; and (c) the abolition of the
" chrisom," or white vesture, given to the newly baptized
in token of the innocency granted to them in baptism.
This was retained in the first English Prayer Book in
1549, but dropped at the next revision in 1552. In
each of these cases the local or national Church exercised
the power inherently belonging to it. But the power is
not unlimited ; and after stating what the power is, the
Article proceeds to add two restraining clauses, keeping
it within certain well-defined limits.

(a) It is not lawful for the Church to ordain
anything that is contrary to God's word written.

(l) It ought not to decree anything against
the same.

It will be noticed that the rites or ceremonies decreed
need not receive any positive support from Scripture.
All that is required is that there should be nothing in
them that is opposed to or condemned by Scripture.
An illustration may make this clear ; and a convenient
one is furnished by Dean Goulbourn. The Church, in
the exercise of her legislative power, might add to the

516 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Book of Common Prayer a new office of thanksgiving on
the occasion of the harvest. No scriptural authority
need be asked for. But if into such an office " it were
proposed to insert some words of adoration to the holy
angels as being very possibly the ministers of natural
blessings to mankind, this would be a flagrant stretch of
the Church's prerogative, since S. Paul condemns the
worshipping of angels ; and when S. John fell down to
worship at the feet of an angel, the being to whom the
homage was offered replied, * See thou do it not : for I
am thy fellow-servant.' " 1 It was here that the Puritans
went wrong, as they objected to many of the ceremonies
of the Church, not because they were contrary to Scrip-
ture, but simply because they were not based upon
Scripture. To demand " Scripture proof," however, in
such matters is seriously to mistake the purpose and
object of the Scriptures. They were given " for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in
righteousness" (2 Tim. iii. 16), i.e. for moral and
doctrinal purposes, not as a guide or directory in matters
of ritual. In these the Church possesses the power
which is conceded to every society to make rules for the
guidance of its own members. The existence of such a
power is assumed throughout Scripture. It obviously
belonged to the Jewish Church. Although there was an
elaborate ritual and ceremonial law with stated feasts
ordained by God Himself, yet the Jewish Church claimed
and exercised the power to add other feasts, such as
Purim and Dedication, to those of Divine appointment.
Our Lord's words, " The scribes and Pharisees sit on
Moses' seat : all things therefore whatsoever they bid
you, these do and observe " (S. Matt, xxiii. 2,3), imply
that power to make regulations still remained with the
authorities ; and we see from the Acfcs and the Epistles

1 Goulbourn's Holy Catholic Church, p. 212.

ARTICLE XX 517

that when the Christian Church was established, such
powers were exercised from the first in it as occasion re-
quired. Thus we find S. Paul incidentally laying down
definite regulations in his Epistles on various details, e.g.
that men are to worship with the head uncovered, women
with the head covered (1 Cor. xi.); on the conduct of public
worship by the prophets (1 Cor. xiv. 27); that women are
to keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. xiv. 34 ; cf . 1 Tim.
ii. 12). He lays down the general principle, "Let all
things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. xiv. 40),
and appeals to the " custom " of the Churches as if it were
final and decisive, and individuals ought to conform to it.
" If any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such
custom, neither the Churches of God" (1 Cor. xi. 16).

These passages are sufficient to prove that it was
understood from the first that such legislative power was
vested in the Church ; and it would be superfluous to
prove at length that it has in all ages been exercised by
national Churches, and that different customs have been
followed in different places. Three quotations may, how-
ever, be appended in order to show how the matter was
regarded in early times.

In his famous " letter to Januarius," Augustine, after
speaking of the sacraments, and some things " which we
hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition,
and which are observed throughout the whole world," e.g.
Good Friday, Easter Day, etc., proceeds as follows : —

" There are other things, however, which are different
in different places and countries, e.g. some fast on Satur-
day, others do not ; some partake daily of the Body and
Blood of Christ, others receive it on stated days ; in some
places no day passes without the sacrifice being offered,
in others it is only on Saturday and Sunday, or it may
be only on Sunday. In regard to these and all other
variable observances which may be met anywhere, one is
34

518 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

at liberty to comply with them or not as he chooses ; and
there is no better rule for the wise and serious Christian
in this matter than to conform to the practice which he
finds prevailing in the Church to which it may be his lot
to come. For such a custom, if it is clearly not contrary
to the faith nor to sound morality, is to be held as a thing
indifferent, and ought to be observed for the sake of fellow-
ship with those among whom we live." He then goes on
to describe his mother's perplexity when she first came to
Milan and found that the Church there did not fast on
Saturday ; and gives the advice of S. Ambrose, which, he
says, " I have always esteemed, as if I had received it by
an oracle from heaven " : " When I visit Eome I fast on
Saturday ; when I am here I do not fast. On the same
principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in whatever
Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offence
by your conduct nor to find cause of offence in another's." 1

Eather later than this the ecclesiastical historian
Socrates set himself to catalogue as far as possible " the
diversity of customs in the Churches," with regard not
only to the Lenten fast, but also to the great " variation
in the services performed in church," and other matters ;
remarking in conclusion that " it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to give a complete catalogue of all the various
customs and ceremonial observances in use throughout
every city and country." -

Lastly, in answer to the question of Augustine of
Canterbury, " Whereas the faith is one and the same, are
there different customs in different Churches, and is one
custom of Masses observed in the holy Eoman Church and
another in the Gallican Church ? " Pope Gregory the
Great replied as follows : " You know, my brother, the
custom of the Eoman Church, in which you remember you

1 Ad inquisitiones Januarii, Ep. liv,

2 Socrates, H. E. V. c. xxii.

ARTICLE XX 519

were bred up. But it pleases me, that if you have found
anything either in the Roman or in the Gallican or in
any other Church, which may be more acceptable to
Almighty God, you carefully make choice of the same,
and sedulously teach the Church of the English, which is
as yet new in the faith, whatsoever you can gather from
the several Churches. For things are not to be loved
for the sake of places, but places for the sake of good
things. Choose, therefore, from eacli Church those
things that are pious, religious, and correct, and when
you have, as it were, made them up into one body, let
the minds of the English be accustomed thereto." ]

It is clear from these citations that the English
Church is in complete harmony with the Church of
earlier days when she not only asserts that " the Church
hath power to decree rites or ceremonies," but further
maintains that " every particular or national Church
hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies
or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority,
so that all things be done to edifying." -

1 Breda, II. E. I. c. xxvii.

2 The theory, as stated in the Article, is perfectly clear, and represents
the position from which the Church has never swerved. It is to the,
I'Jmrclii not to the civil power, Parliament or Crown, that this "power"
belongs. But in a Church by law established, it cannot be denied that
there are grave practical difficulties in the wray of exercising it. The
Book of Common Prayer having been actually attached to an Act of
Parliament, of which it forms a part, it is plain that, as a matter of fact,
it cannot be in any way altered without the consent of that authority which
gave coercive power to enforce its use. But it is equally clear that this
authority, viz. Parliament, has no sort of moral right to attempt to alter
it, except at the wish of the Church which first prepared and accepted it,
and then presented it to Parliament to be attached to the Act of
Uniformity ; and the constitutional method of proceeding in the case of
any "rites or ceremonies" to be decreed, is very clearly laid down in
"the Royal Declaration" still prefixed to the Articles. "If any differ-
ence arise about the external policy concerning the Injunctions, Canons,
and other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy in their
Convocation is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under

520 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

II. The judicial Authority of the Church with regard to
Doctrine.

The Church . . . hath authority in contro-
versies of faith.

(a) This "authority" is altogether distinct in kind
from the " power " which has just been considered. The
" power " is legislative, and includes the right to make
new ceremonies, to change and abolish old ones. The
" authority " is judicial. It is the right not to make a
single new Article of faith, but simply authority in a
doctrinal controversy to pronounce what the true doctrine is.1
And since, in the words of Article VI., " Holy Scripture
contains all things necessary to salvation ; so that what-
soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby,
is not to be required of any man, that it should be be-
lieved as an Article of the faith, or be thought requisite
necessary to salvation," it is clear that the words mean
that to the Church belongs the function of interpreting
the Scripture, and deciding what the true meaning of it
may be. This is strictly " judicial " authority, analogous
to the power vested in the judges of interpreting the
laws of the country. While the laws are made by the
Crown with assent of Parliament, yet, when once a law
has been placed on the Statute Book, Parliament has no
power whatever to say what it means. Indeed, the
legislators may have intended one thing, but if they have

our Broad Seal so to do ; and we approving their said Ordinances and
Constitutions, providing that none be made contrary to the laws and
customs of the land."

1 Of. Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V. c. viii. § 2: "The Church
hath authority to establish that for an order at one time which at
another time it may abolish, and in both may do well. But that which
in doctrine the Church doth now deliver as a truth, no man will say that
it may hereafter recall, and as rightly avouch the contrary. Laws touch-
ing matter of order are changeable by the power of the Church ; Articles
concerning doctrine not so. '

ARTICLE XX 521

expressed their meaning badly, it may turn out that they
have passed something quite different, for to the judges
alone belongs the power of interpreting the words of the
statute and saying what they really involve. Just so,
in the matter of necessary doctrine, the laws, so to speak,
are contained in the written Scriptures ; but, as human
language is never quite free from ambiguity, an inter-
preter of them is required, and this is provided for us in
" the Church," which " hath authority in controversies of
faith." Instances of the exercise of this judicial authority
are to be found in the dogmatic decisions of the General
Councils defining the faith of the Church ; and no better
example can be given to illustrate how the authority
differs from the legislative power than wThat occurred at
Nicsea. Two questions came before the assembled Fathers
for decision: (1) the faith of the Church in our Lord's
Divinity, and (2) the time for the celebration of the
Easter festival. In regard to the former they simply
claimed to lay down what the faith as contained in the
Scriptures really was. They did not make a new
doctrine. In regard to the latter, they laid down a new
rule to govern the Church for the future. The distinction
is pointed out by Athanasius himself in a well-known
passage. " Without prefixing consulate, month, and day,
they wrote concerning Easter : ' It seemed good as fol-
lows ' ; for it did then seem good that there should be a
genera] compliance in this matter. But concerning the
faith they wrote not ' It seemed good,' but ' Thus the
Catholic Church believes ' ; and thereupon they confessed
how they believed, in order to show that their own senti-
ments were not novel but apostolical ; and what they
wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but the same as
was taught by the apostles."1

(&) That this authority belongs to the Church would

1 Athanasius, De. Synodis, § 5.

522 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

seem to follow of necessity from many passages of
Scripture. Unless the Church possesses it, it would be
impossible for her to exercise properly the function of
teaching which is distinctly laid upon her. She is " the
pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15). The
power of " binding and loosing " l was granted to her by
the Lord Himself (S. Matt, xviii. 18). It was exercised
at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.), when the question
was raised whether circumcision was to be enforced upon
Gentile converts, and the decision was arrived at under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit (" it seemed good to the
Holy Ghost and to us," ver. 28) that there was no
necessity for it. S. Paul charges Timothy to " hold the
pattern of sound words " which he had received from
him (2 Tim. i. 13); to "present himself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, hand-
ling aright the word of truth" (ii. 15); to "shun vain
babblings " : to " charge others that they strive not about
words, to no profit, to the subverting of them that hear
them " (ib.) ; to " refuse ignorant and foolish questions "
(ver. 23) ; to " reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffer-
ing and teaching, for the time will come when they will
not endure sound doctrine " (iv. 2). To Titus he writes
that the bishop is to " hold the faithful word which is
according to the teaching, that he may be able both to
exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convince the gain-
layers " (i. 9) ; vain talkers are to be " reproved sharply,
that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to
Jewish fables and commandments of men " (ver. 13); he
is to " shun foolish questionings and genealogies " (iii.

1 J. Lightfoot (Horce Hebraic^ on S. Matt. xvi. 19) shows very fully
that to "bind" and "loose" were familiar Jewish expressions for to for-
bid and allow. It is perhaps scarcely necessary to add that this power,
given first to S. IVtt-r in xvi. 19, but extended to the Church generally in
xviii. 18, is entirely different from the power of retaining and remitting
sins given in S. John xx. 23.

ARTICLE XX 523

10), and to "reject a man that is heretical after the first
and second admonition " (ib.). All such language as this
plainly implies a power of discrimination, and authority
to judge and decide between the truth and falsehood.
Unless the Church and her representatives possess such
authority, who is to say what is " the sound doctrine "
which is to be taught ? or who can tell which is " the
man that is heretical," and which the man that is
orthodox ?

(c) It was shown above that the " power to decree
rites or ceremonies " might be exercised by national
Churches, and that it is not necessary that ceremonies
should be everywhere the same. With regard to this
" authority in controversies of faith," the case is obviously
different. Although " particular and national Churches "
have frequently exercised this authority, yet it has
always been subject to the judgment of the whole
Church, and liable to revision by this. To the whole
Church it is that the presence of Christ is pledged
(S. Matt, xxviii. 19); and to this alone is the promise
made that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it "
(S. Matt. xvi. 18). Thus, while on various matters of
doctrine the decision was made by local or provincial
Councils, before ever the whole Church had an oppor-
tunity of expressing her mind,1 yet only so far as these
local decisions have subsequently been found to be in
accordance with the mind of the universal Church have

1 Thus the Council of Constantinople (381), which condemned Apol-
linarianiam and Macedonianism, was not apparently summoned as ;i
General oue, but has only come to be so regarded in consequence of its
subsequent acceptance by the whole Church. Local Councils were
naturally summoned to condemn Montanisin (Eusebius, H. JS. V. xvi.) ;
for in the second century no others were possible. But even after the
age of General Councils had begun, local ones frequently considered and
decided on doctrinal questions, e.g., in the casr- of Pelagianism, it was
at once condemned by the Council of Carthage, 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 matter in dispute ; but it must always be
remembered that while the English Eeformers in the
sixteenth century claimed and exercised this " authority,"
as is shown by the promulgation of the Articles, yet they
did this subject to their appeal to a free General Council,
which Cranmer and his colleagues never entirely lost
sight of.1

(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 down 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 show 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 Legislative Power. 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 anything contrary (2a) neither may it so expound one
to God's word written ; place of Scripture that it be

repugnant to another.
Wherefore

although the Church be a witness and a keeper
of Holy Writ,

yet as

(li) it ought not to decree any- (26) 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 which 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 whether 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 points the Article is silent.
They raise the whole subject of the relation of Church
authority to private judgment. Obviously there is no
other body or society on earth with the right of review-
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 few, 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 was a time when " the world groaned and found
itself Arian," and when Athanasius stood contra mundum ;
and what has occurred once may occur again. With 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
which his deliberate conviction tells him is false. While
he will rightly and naturally give the greatest weight to
the judgment thus expressed, feeling that it is far more
probable that he should be mistaken than that the whole
Church should be wrong, yet in the last resort he
himself must be the judge. He must be true to his
conscientious and candid convictions. The right of

526 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

private judgment is inalienable. He cannot divest him-
self of it.1 " To his own master he standeth or falleth."
He will feel in his inmost heart with Liberius before his
fall, when taunted with the fact that he was the sole
Western champion of the Catholic faith, that " the cause
of the faith is none the worse because he happens to be
left alone,"2 and " with a sorrowful heart" will " refer all
to God."3 And, if the future may be prophesied from
the past, it will always be found that the error is of no
long duration, and that the truth which has been kept
alive by the few faithful ones in a period of general
falling away, will presently be accepted by the Church
at large, and recognised as " the faith which was once for
all delivered to the saints."

III. The Office of the Church with rcyard to Holy
Scripture.

There is one clause of the Article on which nothing
has yet been said, viz. that which states that the
Church is a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ.

A twofold office is here assigned to her. She is (a) a
'witness, as testifying to us what books are to be regarded
as Scripture, for " in the name of Holy Scripture we do
understand those Canonical books of the Old Testament
of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church "
(Article VI.), and also as declaring to us what is the
meaning of Scripture ; for, as we have already seen, she
" hath authority in controversies of faith." Besides this,
she is (b) a keeper of holy writ ; for just as to the Jews of

1 Cf. Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, p. 46 seq.

* Theoctoret, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. II. c. xvi.

3 Cf. William of Occam, Dial, Bk. V. par. i. c. 28. I owe this and
rhe previous reference to The Chi/rrh Historical ,So>-i> ft/ ZxtV^/v-^, Series
ii. p. 78, a valuable lecture on the :: Teaching Power of the Church," )»\
Professor W. E. Collins.

ARTICLE XX 527

old " were committed the oracles of God " (Korn. iii. 2),
so now that there is a " New Testament " as well as an
" Old," the completed Canon is to be regarded as a treasure
committed to the custody of the Church, who is respon-
sible for preserving it entire, and free from admixture
with other books, as well as for transmitting it and
proclaiming it to each generation in turn. It is in these
ways that the Church fulfils her office as " a witness and
a keeper of holy writ," and from what has now been said
the respective offices of the Church and Holy Scripture
may be clearly seen. The Church is the ordained teacher
of truth ; Holy Scripture is the criterion of truth by
which the doctrines of the Church are proved and tested.
To make Scripture, in the first instance, the teacher, is
entirely to mistake its true office and function. The
Gospels were written, not to convert unbelievers, but that
those who had been already orally instructed (i.e. who
had received the teaching of the Church) might know
the certainty of those things which they had been
taught.1 So also the Epistles were addressed to
regularly organised Churches, and were written to
confirm those who had previously received apostolic
teaching. Indeed, it is everywhere the case that " the
Bible assumes the existence of a living instructor in the
truth, who will indoctrinate us into the rudiments of it,
and refer us to the Scriptures themselves for the proof
of what he teaches. If the instructor is dispensed with,
and the disciple thrown back merely on the Bible and
his natural faculties, he will be very liable to stumble,
uud almost certain to do so as regards those more
recondite definitions of doctrine which the Church's
experience of heresies has shown her to be necessary,
and has taught her to make." 2 These offices of " the

1 Sec S. Luke i. 1-4.

- Ooulbourn'a Holy Catholic (Jhi<.i-ch, p. -U4.

528 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Church to teach, the Bible to prove," may be illustrated
from the incident recorded in Acts viii. 26-40. The
Ethiopian eunuch was " sitting in his chariot, and was
reading the prophet Isaiah." He was, then, in posses-
sion of the Scriptures, and, according to the rather foolish
saying, " the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of
Protestants," these ought to have been sufficient for him.
But plainly they were not; for in answer to Philip's
question, " Understandest thou what thou readest ? " the
answer is returned, " How can I, except someone should
guide me ? " and this is followed by the further question,
" Of whom speaketh the prophet this ? Of himself, or
of some other ? " Something more was needed than the
possession of the Scriptures, and that something was
supplied by Philip, the representative of the ecclesia
docens, who " opened his mouth, and beginning from this
scripture preached unto him Jesus." Here we see the
Church at work, and the right method to be followed, as
it is seen throughout the Acts of the Apostles, where we
everywhere find them stating the facts, and teaching with
authority, while they prove their statements from the
Scriptures, and refer their hearers to these as confirming
them.1 And if this method was employed when only the
Old Testament was in existence, it seems natural to
suppose that much more should it be followed now, when
the fuller revelation is also committed to writing.2

1 See Acts ii. 14-36, iii. 12-26, xiii. 16-42, xvii. 2, 3, 11, xviii. 28.

2 See on this subject Gore's Roman Catholic Claims, c. iii. and iv.

AETICLE XXI

De autoritate Conciliorum
Generalium.

Generalia Concilia sine jussu et
vohmtate principum congregari non
possunt, et ubi conveuerint, quia
ex hominibus constant, qui non
omnes spiritu et verbo Dei reguntur,
et errare possunt, et interdum
errarunt, etiam in his quoe ad
normam pietatis pertinent : ideo
qufe ab illis constituuntur, ut ad
salutem necessaria, neque robur
habent, neque autoritatem, nisi
ostendi possint e sacris literis
esse desumpta.

Of the authority of General
Councils.

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.
Wherefore things ordained by
them as necessary to salvation
have neither strength nor autho-
rity, unless it may be declared
that they be taken out of Holy
Scripture.

SINCE the Forty-two Articles were first published in
1553 this Article has remained practically unchanged.1
But before publication a clause had been wisely omitted
from the close of it, which, as we find from the MS. signed
by the six royal chaplains,2 had stood in the original
draft : " Possunt reges et pii magistratus, non expectata
conciliorum generalium sententia aut convocatione, in

1 In the English edition of 1553 " not only in worldly matters, but also "
stood before " in things pertaining unto God." There was nothing corre-
sponding to these words in the Latin, and they were accordingly omitted
in 1563. In the Latin " verbis Dei " stood in 1553 and 1563, being
altered to the singular " verbo " in 1571.

2 State Papers, "Domestic," Edward VI. vol. xv. No. 28. Cf. vol. i.
p. 14, and Hardwick, p. 283.

529

530 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

republica sua juxta Dei verbum de rebus religion is
constituere." The gravest objection might have been
taken to such a clause, and we may be thankful that
it was withdrawn before the Articles were published.

Perhaps no Article gains more than this from being
read in the light of the history of the time when it was
drawn up, and from being illustrated by contemporary
documents. Had we nothing but the bare letter
of the Article itself to consider, it might be plausibly
maintained that by saying that " General Councils
have erred," it condemns those Councils which the
whole Church has ever reverenced as truly general,
and expressing her mind, such as Nicaea (325),
Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon
(451). Nothing, however, is more certain than the
fact that no such sweeping condemnation is intended,
for contemporary with the Forty-two Articles, and
drawn up to a great extent by the very same men who
are responsible for them, is the Rcformatio Lcyum Ecclesi-
asticarum ; x and in this there is a remarkable section
which runs parallel with the Article, amplifying its
statements, and affording a practical exposition of
it, and commentary upon its meaning. It runs as
follows : —

" De conciliis quid sentiendum.

" Jam vero conciliis, potissimum generalibus, tametsi
ingentem honorem libenter deferimus, ea tamen longe
omnia infra Scripturarum canonicarum dignitatem ponenda
judicamus : sed et inter ipsa concilia magnum discrimen
ponimus. Nam quaedam illorum, qualia sunt praecipua
ilia quatuor, Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum primum,
Ephesinum, et Chalcedonense, magna cum reverentia
amplectimur et suscipimus. Quod quidem judicium de

1 See vol. i. p. 28 seq.

ARTICLE XXI 531

multis aliis qure postea celebrata sunt ferimus, in quibup
videmus et confitemur sauctissirnos patres de bcata et
summa Trinitate, de Jesu Christo Domino et servatore
nostro, et humana redemptione per eum procurata, juxta
Scripturas divinas multa gravissime et perquam sancte
constituisse. Quibus tamen non aliter fid cm nostram
obligandam esse censemus, nisi quatcnus ex Scripturis
sanctis confirmari possint. Nam concilia nonnulla
interdum errasse, et contraria inter sese definivisse,
partim in actionibus juris, partim etiam in fide,
manifestum est. Itaque legantur concilia quidem cum
honore atque Christiana reverentia, sed interim ad
Scripturarum piam certain rectamque regulam examin-
entur." l

The Article must beyond question be interpreted by
this longer statement. It is certain, therefore, that it
does not intend to cast any slur upon those Councils
which are received " magna cum reverentia," but that
it uses the term "General Councils" in a loose and
popular way, of Councils which claimed to be " general,"
as well as of those which are truly representative of the
mind of the whole Church. The necessity for such an
Article is seen in the circumstances of the time. From
the early days of Luther, the Eeformers, both on the
Continent and in England, had persistently appealed to a
free General Council, and finally the Pope (Paul III.)
had been driven, in 1545, to summon a "General Council."
But (1) it was called by the Pope alone, who claimed the
right to cite to it, in person or by proxy, the king of
England among other Christian princes ; 2 and (2) it
consisted only of bishops of the Roman obedience. It
was therefore not such a Council as the Eeformers could
regard as truly " general," or feel themselves compelled

1 Kef. Legum Eceles., De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, c. xiv.
'-' Of. Dixon's History of the Church of England, vol. i. p. 425.

532 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

to accept. But in view of the fact that it was actually
being held when the Articles were drawn up, and that
its decrees were certain to be appealed to as authorita-
tive by the opponents of the Keformation, it was import-
ant that in the Anglican formulary a statement should
be found, asserting, in terms such as would justify a
refusal to be bound by the decisions of Trent, the
abstract position maintained with regard to " the authority
of General Councils."

Three principal statements are made concerning
them —

1. They may not be gathered together without the
consent of princes.

2. They are liable to err.

3. As a matter of history they actually have erred.

I. They may not be gathered together without the
consent of Princes.

General Councils may not (non possunt) be
gathered together without the commandment
and will of princes. It is sometimes inferred from
the Latin " non possunt " that what is here meant is
that as a matter of fact they cannot be so gathered
together. This appears doubtful, for it is more probable
that " non possunt " means " cannot lawfully," i.e. " may
not." l But, however this may be, either statement
is true, for princes alone have it in their power to
compel or to prohibit the attendance of their subjects,
and therefore obviously have the right not only to be
consulted as a matter of courtesy, but also to say

1 Cf. Article XX., where "nee exponere potest" is equivalent to
"neither may it so expound," and XXXVIL, where "Leges civiles
possunt," etc. can only mean as the English renders it, " the laws of the
realm may punish," etc.

ARTICLE XXI 533

whether a Council shall or shall not be held.1 As a
matter of history there is no question that all the
early General Councils were summoned by the Emperor
and not by the Pope.2 Indeed, the idea of a General
Council seems to have originated, not with the Church,
but with the Emperor ; 3 and although, after the decline
of the Empire and the division of Europe into several
kingdoms, since there was no longer any one supreme
power, capable of commanding and enforcing the attend-
ance of bishops from various countries, it was natural
that the Pope, whose power was steadily growing, should
not only preside at the Council when summoned, but
actually issue the invitations to it ; yet it stands to
reason that even so this could only be properly done
with " the consent of princes." 4

1 As a matter of fact, even so late as 1870 the various Governments of
modern Europe played an important part in determining whether or no
the " Vatican Council " should he held. Sec Pnrcell's Life of Archbishop
Manning, vol. ii. c. xvi.

a That of Nicjea by Constantino I. ; Constantinople by Theodosius I. ;
Ephesus by Theodosius II. ; Chalcedon, at the request and inst-igiUion of
Pope Leo I., by Mareian. So the second Council of Constantinople (553)
was summoned by the Emperor Justinian, and the third (G80) by Con-
stantine Pogonatus ; so also the Synod of Nicaea (787), regarded by both
the Greeks and Latins as the seventh General Council, was summoned
by the Empress Irene. Thus every Council which has any fair claim to
represent the undivided Church was called together "with the command-
ment and will of princes."

''• The conception of a General Council did not give rise to Nicaa, but
vice versa," Robertson's Afhan-ayiiis, p. Ixxv., and there can be little doubt
that the idea of the Council was due to Constantiiic himself. Cf. Church
Historical Lectures, Series '2, p. 1C4.

4 So early as 1533 the question was raised in England in consequence of
Hmry VIII. 's appeal from the Pope to a General Council, and a declara-
tion was put forth signed by nine bishops and four other divines to the effect
that though in old times Councils were "called and gathered together by
the Emperor's commandment. . . . Yet now, forasmuch that the empire
of Rome and the monarchy of the same has no such general dominion, but
that many princes have absolute power in their own realms, and a whole
entire monarchy, no other prince may by his authority call a General
35

534 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

II. General Councils are liable to err.

When they be gathered together (forasmuch
as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be
not governed with the spirit and word of God)

they may err. On this matter the verdict of history
is conclusive. Had we not the experience of the past
to teach us, it might have seemed, a priori, probable that
God would not have allowed a body that is summoned as
representative of the whole Church to err. But as it
is, there can be no question on the subject. The record
of Councils, summoned as " General " ones and con-
ducted with proper forms, is often a painful one to
read ; and the exhibitions of human passion and pre-
judice sometimes exhibited in them have certainly
shown that all their members are not necessarily
" governed by the spirit of God." Moreover, they have
always been treated by the Church as liable to err,1
for many of them have been reviewed by later Councils,
and sometimes their verdicts have been reversed.2

Council " (Collier, Hecords, xxxviii.). Three years later a more authorita-
tive "judgment concerning General Councils " was put forth by Convoca-
tion, in which the divines of both houses gave their opinion that " neither
the Bishop of Rome ne any one prince, of what estate, degree, or pre-
eminence soever he be, may, by his own authority, call, indict, or summon
any General Council, without the express consent, assent, and agreement
of the residue of Christian princes, and especially such as have within
their own realms and seignories imperium mernm, that is to say, of such
as have the whole, entire, and supreme government and authority over all
their subjects, without knowledging or recognising of any other supreme
power or authority," Bnrnet, I. ii. p. 301 soy.

1 See the letter of Pope Julius in Athanasius, Apologia contra
Arianos, § 20-25. In this Julius says that it is unreasonable that
what has been established by Councils should be set aside by "a few
individuals," but treats the decision of Councils as liable to be reviewed
by others, referring to the Council of Nictea as having decided that this
should be done (see Robertson's note, in loc. and p. Ixxvi.).

2 Thus the " Latrocinium " was summoned as a General Council, but
its decisions were reversed by the Council of Chalcedon, 451. So also in

ARTICLE XXI 535

Thus the Article is perfectly justified, not only in ita
second statement, but also in its third.

III. As a matter of History, General Councils have erred.

That they sometime have erred, even in things

pertaining unto God (etiam in his qua? ad normam
pietatis pertinent), is a matter which can easily be shown
when it is remembered that the Article is referring to any
Councils which claimed to be General. Thus Ariminum
and Seleucia were summoned as General Councils
representative of the whole Christian world, but they
went fatally wrong " even in things pertaining to God."
The same is true of many later Councils ; and if the
position taken up in Articles VI. and XX. with regard
to Holy Scripture is sound, there can be no doubt that
the closing words of the Article now under consideration

are justified, and that things ordained by them as
necessary to salvation have neither strength
nor authority, unless it may be declared that
they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

The language of the Article itself and all that has
here been said in the commentary upon it, is, of course,
only om side of the whole truth about Councils, and
that the least pleasant to dwell upon. It must never
be forgotten that there is another side, and that the
Church owes very much to the work of Councils which
were truly " General " and representative. Nor has the
Church of England been slow to acknowledge this. The
language of the Rcformatio Legum Ecdesiasticarum has

the Iconoclastic Controversy, the seventh Council of Constantinople (7:14)
condemned image-worship ; but its decrees were reversed by the .second
Council of Nic-iea, which sanctioned the practice in 787. Frankfort
(794) condemned the practice, but the eighth of Constantinople (869)
sanctioned it.

536 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

been already cited. The Homily " Against peril of
Idolatry " speaks of the six Councils which were allowed
and received of all men ; and it may be added that by
an Act of Parliament passed in the first year of
Elizabeth's reign it was determined that " nothing is to
be adjudged heresy, but that which heretofore has been so
adjudged by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures,
or the first four General Councils, or some other General
Council, wherein the same has been declared heresy by
the express word of Scripture." l

The question remains, How is it to be known whether
a Council is truly " General " and representative of the
mind of the whole Church ? To this it is believed that
no answer can be returned at the moment. However
large may be the number of the bishops present, no
guarantee is thereby afforded that they faithfully
represent the mind of the universal Church. That
which alone can show this, is the after-reception of the
decisions of the Council ly the different parts of the
Church. Where the decisions win their way to uni-
versal acceptance, there we have the needful guarantee
that the Council has faithfully reflected the mind of the
universal Church, and we may well be content to believe
that the Council has not erred. But " the inerrancy of
a Council can never be guaranteed at the moment. The
test of the value of a Council is its after-reception by
the Church."2

1 1 Eli/, cap. 1. Some Anglican divines, as Hooker and Andrews,
seem to recognise but four General Councils ; others, as Field and
Hammond, recognise sis. See 1 'aimer's 7'/v<//.sv ,,n l]n: ('/////•<'/<. part IV.
c. ix.

- Bishop Forbes On Hit Artlch'S, p. 298. On this, which is some-
tiiiK-s c;illrd the Galilean theory of the i-^t of the authority of General
Councils, see Sir W. Palmer's 7'/>w//.s' u/i //</• Uhui'di, part IV. c. vii. :
U. L. Ottley, JJodritie of the Incarnation, vol. i. p. 021 .w/. ; and
Historical Society Lecture*, .series 2, p. 147 s>'fj.

AKTICLE XXII

He. Purgatorio. Of Purgatory.

Doctrina Romanensium do Pur- The Romish doctrine concerning

gatorio, do indulgentiis, de venera- Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping,

tiono et adoratione turn imaginum and Adoration, as well of Images

turn reliquiarnm, nee non de invo- as of Reliques, and also invocation

catione sanctorum, res est futilis, of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly

inaniter coniicta, et nullis Scrip- invented, and grounded upon no

turarum testimoniis innititur, inio warranty of Scripture, but rather

verbo Dei l contradicit. repugnant to the word of God.

THIS Article differs in one important point from the
original one as first published in 1553, for in that the
teaching condemned was termed " the doctrine of school-
authors " (doctrina scholasticorum). The effect of the
substitution of " the Eomish doctrine " (doctrina Koman-
ensium) for this is to make the Article condemn a
2)resent current form of teaching rather than the formal
system of doctors whose day was past.2

There is another matter in the history of the Article
which deserves to be noticed, viz. that in the Article
as originally drafted was included a condemnation of the
scholastic doctrine de precatione pro defunctis. These words
are found in the MS. signed by the six royal chaplains,3

1 The edition of 1553 has " perniciose contradicit" ; but the adverb was
struck out in 1563, there being nothing corresponding to it in the English
Article.

- "The words 'Romanenses' and ' Romanistaj ' were already used as far
back as 1520 by Luther and Ulrich von Hutten, to designate the extreme
medieval party." — Hardwick, p. 410.

3 See above, p. 529, and vol. i. p. 13.

537

538 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

but they disappeared before the Article was published, — a
fact which is highly significant, as it shows that the Church
of England deliberately abstained from seeming to express
any condemnation of the practice of praying for the
departed, and that it is impossible to strain the words of
this Article on Purgatory to indicate such a condemnation.1

With regard to the doctrines here condemned, it is
important to bear in mind that when the Article was
originally drawn up, and even when it was revised and
republished in 1563, none of them had been considered
by the Council of Trent. The Article cannot, then, have
been deliberately aimed at the formal decrees of that
Council ; and, as a matter of fact, the decrees on these
particular subjects, which were published during the last
session of the Council in December 1563, were drawn up
with studied moderation, and some of the strong language
of our Article could hardly be truthfully said to apply to
the doctrine as stated in them, though it certainly was
not one whit too strong in its condemnation of the
current practice and teaching which the Reformers had
before them. It will be convenient at this point to
quote so much of the Tridentine decree as bears on the
subject before us, as the language used in it bears striking
testimony to the existence of the errors which called
forth the vigorous protest of our own Reformers.

On Purgatory the decree simply lays down that " there
is a Purgatory, and that the souls there retained are
relieved by the suffrages of the faithful, but chiefly by
the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." It then proceeds :
" Among the uneducated vulgar, let the more difficult
and subtle questions, and those which tend not to edifi-

1 It follows from this that the subject of prayer for the departed does
not come before us for consideration here. Reference may, however, be
made to an article on "the Church of England and Prayers for the
Departed" in the Church Quarterly Jlerieic, vol. x. p. 1.

ARTICLE XXIT 539

cation, and seldom contribute aught towards piety, be
kept back from popular discourses. Neither let them
suffer the public mention and treatment of uncertain
points, or such as look like falsehood. But those things
which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition,
or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as
scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful." ]

With regard to Pardons, it was stated that as the
power of granting indulgences was granted by Christ to
His Church, the use of them was to be retained ; and
those were to be anathematised who either assert that
they are useless, or who deny that there is in the Church
the power of granting them. " In granting them, how-
ever, it desires that, according to the ancient and
approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed,
lest by excessive facility ecclesiastical discipline be
enervated. And desiring the amendment and correction
of the abuses which have crept into these matters, and
by occasion of which this excellent name of indulgences
is blasphemed by heretics, it ordains generally by this
decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining of them,
whence a most abundant cause of abuses among Christian
people has been derived, be utterly abolished. But as
regards other matters which have proceeded from super-
stition, ignorance, irreverence, or from any other cause,

1 ' ' Cum Catholica Ecclesia . . . docuerit Purgatorium esse, animasque
ibi detentas, fidelium suffrages, potissimum vero acceptabili altaris sacri-
ficio juvari ; praecipit sancta Synodus Episcopis ut sanam de Purgatorio
doctrinam, a sanctis Patribus et sacris Conciliis traditam, a Christ! fidelibus
credi, teneri, doceri, et ubique praedicari, diligenter studeant. Apud
rudem vero plebem difficiliores ac subtiliores qusestiones, quteque ad sedifi-
cationem non faciunt, et ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio,
a popularibus concionibus secludantur. incerta item, vel quse specie falsi
laborant, evulgari, ac tractari non permittant. Ea vero, quse ad curiosi-
tatem quamdam, aut superstition em spectant, vel turpe lucrum sapiant,
tanquani scandala, et fidelium offendicula prohibeant."— Cone. Trid.,
Sess. xxv., Decretum de Purgatorin.

540 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the
places and provinces where the said abuses are com-
mitted, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited ;
it commands all bishops diligently to collect all abuses
of this nature, and report them in the first provincial
synod," etc.1

On the adoration of images and relics it says that due
honour and veneration is to be awarded to the images of
Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints, " not that any
virtue or divinity is believed to be in them, on account
of which they are to be worshipped ; or that anything is
to be asked of them ; or that confidence is to be reposed
in images, as was done of old by the heathen, who placed
their hope in idols ; but because the honour which is
shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they
represent; so that by the images which we kiss, and
before which we uncover the head and prostrate our-
selves, we adore Christ, and venerate the saints whose
similitude they bear. . . . And if any abuses have crept
in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy

1 "Cum potestas conferendi Indulgcntias a Christo ecclesire concessa sit,
atque hujusmodi potestate, divinitus sibi tradita, antiqui.ssimis etiara
temporibus ilia usa fuerit ; sacrosancta Synodus indulgentiarum usuni,
Christiano populo maxime salutarem et sacrorum Concilioruni auctoritatc
probatum, in ecclesia retinendum essc docct, et praecipit, eosque anathe-
mate damnat, qui aut inutiles esse assenmt, vel cas concedcndi in eecli'sin
potestatem csse negant. In his tamen concedendis moderation em juxta
veterem et probatam in ecclesia consuetudinem adhiberi cupit ; ne nimia
facilitate ecclesiastica disciplina enervetur. Abusus vero, qui in his irrep-
serunt, quorum occasione insigne hoc Indulgentiarum nomen ab hneretiei.s
blasphcmatur, emcndatos et correctos cupiens, prresenti decreto generaliter
atatuit pravos qusestus omnes pro his consequendis, undo plnrima in
Christiano populo abusuum causa fiuxit, omnino obolendos esse. Cajteros
vero, qui ex superstitione, ignorantia, irrevcrentia, aut aliunde quomodo-
cumque provenerunt, cum ob multiplices locorum et provinciarum, apud
quas hi committuntur, corruptelas commode nequeant specialiter prohiberi ;
mandat omnibus Episcopis, ut diligenter quisque hujusmodi abusus eccle-
sise suae colligat, eosque in prima synodo provinciali referat," etc.- -Con-
tinvatio Stssionis xxv., Decrctum dt

ARTICLE XXII 541

Synod earnestly desires that they be utterly abolished :
in such wise that uo images conducive to false doctrine,
and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the unedu-
cated, be set up. . . . Moreover, in the invocation of
saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of
images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy
lucre be abolished, finally all lasciviousness be avoided ;
in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned
with a wantonness of beauty, nor shall men pervert the
celebration of the saints and the visitation of relics into
revellings and drunkenness ; as if festivals were cele-
brated to the honour of saints by luxury and wanton-

ness.

" i

So on the subject of invocation of saints the Council
enjoins that the people be taught " that the saints reign-
ing with Christ offer their prayers for men to God, and
that it is good and useful to invoke them as suppliants,
and to resort to their prayers, aid, and help for obtain-
ing benefits from God through His Son Jesus Christ our
Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour ; and that

1 " Imaginibus Chvisti, Deipane Yirgiuis, ct aliorum sanctorum in
templis pnesertim habendas et retinendas, cisque debitum honorem et
venerationem impertieudam, non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis
Divinifcis, vel virtus, propter quam sint colendse : vel quod ab eis sit
aliquid petendum ; vel quod liducia in imaginibus sit ligenda, veluti olim
h'ebat a gcntibus, qua; in idolis spein suam collocabant; sed quoniani lionos
qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, qua' ilia1 reprsesentant : ita ut per
imagines qure osculamur, et coram quibus i-aput aperimus et procum-
binius, Christum adoremus, et sanctos. quorum illre similitudinem gerunt
veneremur. ... In has autcm sanctas et salutares observationes, si qui
abusus irrepsr.rint, eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus vehementer cupit,
ita ut nulljc falsi dogmatis imagines, et rudibus periculosi erroris occa-
sionem pra'bentes, statuantur. . . . Omnis ])orro superstitio in sanctorum
invocatione, Reliquianuu vcneratione, et imaginum sacro usu tollatur,
omnis turpis qiifestus climinetur, omnis denique lascivia vitetur, ita ut
procaci venustate imagines non pingantur, nee ornentur, et sanctorum
celebratione, et reliquiarum visitatioue homines ad comessationes atque
ebrietates non abutantur. quasi festi dies in honorem sanctorum per
luxum, ac lasciviam agantur."— Sess. xxv. De Invocatione, etc.

542 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

they think impiously who deny that the saints, who enjoy
eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked ; or who
assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the
invocation of them to pray for each of us in particular
is idolatry ; or that it is repugnant to the word of God,
and is opposed to the honour of the one Mediator
between God and men, Christ Jesus ; or that it is a fond
thing to supplicate orally or inwardly those who reign in
heaven."1

It is impossible to read these extracts without feeling
how gross must have been the abuses which called forth
such language, and it would be unfair to neglect to take
into account the fact that our own Article was drawn
up prior to these definitions and the practical reforms
which the Council of Trent endeavoured to bring about.
We proceed now to the consideration of the " Romish
doctrines " condemned in the Article. Four of them are
specified.

1. Purgatory.

2. Pardons.

3. Adoration of images and relics.

4. Invocation of saints.

I. Purgatory.

The Romish doctrine of Purgatory ... is a

1 .". . " Docentes eos, sanctos una cum Christo regnantes, orationes
snas pro hominibus Deo otterre : bonurn atque utile esse suppliciter cos
invocare, et ob benelieia impetranda a Deo per filium ejus Jesurn Christum
Dominum nostrum, qui solus noster Redemptor, et Salvator est, ad
eorum orationes, opem, auxiliimique confugere : illos vero, qui negant
sanctos aeterna felicitate in coelo fruentes, invocandos esse ; aut qui
asserunt, vel illos pro hominibus non orare, vel eorum, ut pro nobis etiam
singulis orent, invocationem esse idolatriam, vel pugnare cum verbo Dei,
adversarique honori unius rnediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi ; vel
stultum esse, in coelo regnantibus voce vel mente supplicare, impie sentire,"
etc.— Ib.

ARTICLE XXII 543

fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon
no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant

to the word of God. It will be convenient to con-
sider this subject under the two following heads : (a) the
history of the doctrine ; (b) the scriptural arguments on
the. subject.

(a) The History of the Doctrine. — During the first,
three centuries there are only to be found a few traces
of a belief in anything like a purgatory between death
and judgment. Three indications of such a belief are all
that can fairly be claimed during this period, two of
which come to us from the same quarter and from a
Montanistic source.

Tertullian in his treatise De Anima, written after he
had joined the Montanists, says that in Hades (penes
inferos) there are rewards and punishments, as may be
learnt from the parable of Dives and Lazarus ; and as he
interprets the words, " Thou shalt not come out thence
till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing," to mean that
" small offences must be expiated by delay of resurrec-
tion," it is probable that he looked on the punishments
as, at any rate, to some extent purgatorial.1

To the same period belong the Acts of the martyr
Perpetua and her companions, and in one of Perpetua's
visions we have what is generally taken to be an
indication of a belief in something like a purgatory.
Perpetua in her vision sees her brother Dinocrates, who
had died early from a gangrene in the face, in a dark
place, hot and thirsty, dirty and pale, with the wound
still in his face. He is trying in vain to get at the

1 De Anima, e. Iviii. : "In siininia, cum carcerem ilium, quern
evangelium demonstrat, inferos intellegimus, et novissinmm quadrantem
modicum quoque dclictum mora resurrectionis illic luendum interpre-
tamur, nemo dubitabit animam aliquid pensare penes inferos salva
resurrectionis plenitudine per carnem quoque." Cf. c. xxxv.

544 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

water in a " piscina," the rim of which is above his head.
Perpetua, grieving for her brother, prays much for him,
and in a subsequent vision she sees him cleansed, well
clothed, and refreshed. Only the scar remains where the
wound was. The rim of the piscina is lowered to his
waist ; he drinks out of a golden goblet that never fails,
and departs .to play after the manner of children with
glee. " Then," she adds, " I understood that he was
released from punishment." l

This certainly looks very much like a belief in a
purgatory, and it is so" understood by Augustine.2 But
this interpretation of the vision is not unquestioned, as
some take it to mean that Dinocrates had died un-
baptized, and was therefore in a place of torment.3 If,
however, we admit what appears the more probable view,
that it does refer to a purgatory, a vision such as this
must be allowed to be a very precarious ground on
which to base the doctrine.

The third passage is in the writings of Clement of
Alexandria (200), where, in speaking of Hades, he says
that " the punishments of God are saving and reformatory,
and lead to repentance." 4

Beyond these it is thought that no passage can fairly
be quoted as implying a belief in a purgatory between
death and judgment till we come to the fourth century.
For though Origen undoubtedly believed in temporary
chastisements after death, and in a cleansing by fire, yet
this does not seem to have been placed by him before
the judgment. Eather, it is the judgment, through
which men have to pass, and by which those in need of

1 Pussio S. Perpctucc, us. vii. viii. " DcAnimaad Rauitum, I. x.

:! It is so taken by Prof. J. Armitage Robinson, Texts and Studies,
I. p. 29.

4 Stromatds, VI. C. vi. § 46 : eVa crurripioi KO.L iraidevTiKai ai K0\dffets
rov Oeot; ets €Tri<rTpo<priv Ayovffai.

ARTICLE XXII 545

purification are at once both chastened and healed.1
But there can be no doubt, (1) that the whole Church
from the very first practised and encouraged prayers for
the departed; and (2) that the judgment day was
commonly regarded as a fiery ordeal, such as that spoken
of by S. Paul in 1 Cor. iii. 13, through which all
would have to pass, some passing through the fire
unharmed, others suffering loss, but none failing who
were built on the right foundation. This, however, is
very different from purgatory. Not only is it placed at
the judgment, whereas the purgatorial fire is regarded as
cleansing those subjected to it before the final award is
made at the judgment day, but, further, it is an ordeal
through which all, the greatest saints and the greatest
sinners, will have to pass, while purgatory is not for the
saints, who are supposed to pass straight to the beatific
vision, nor for those who die out of a state of grace,
whose final condemnation is assured, but only for those
who die in grace, but in a state of imperfect sanctification.

Nor does prayer for the departed by any means
involve of necessity a belief in purgatory. Indeed,
many of the prayers of the early Christians are quite
inconsistent with it, for they include petitions for the
Blessed Virgin and other great saints, whom no one
would venture to maintain were in purgatory.

Passing on to the fourth century we still find but few
traces of a belief in the doctrine in question, nor is there
anything authoritative laid down concerning it. Indeed,
the hesitating and varying language employed by S.
Augustine early in the fifth century shows clearly that
he did not regard it as u formal doctrine of the Church,
but only at best as a " pious opinion." Thus in his
Eiieheiridion, published in 41G, he speaks of it as "not

1 See Dp. Westcotl in thf ])i<-lionarii of Chrtxt'uin. nioyrapJitj, vol. iv.
p. 138.

546 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

incredible." l But in his great work, De Civitatc Dei,
issued a few years later (426), he speaks more strongly
in favour of it, though even here his language is not
altogether consistent. In Book xxi. c. xiii., after
speaking of the opinion of some who "would have all
punishments after death to be purgatorial," he says
definitely that " temporary punishments are suffered by
some in this life only, by others after death, by others
both now and then : but all of them before the last and
strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary
punishments after death, all are not doomed to those
everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment ;
for to some, as we have already said, what is not
remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is,
they are not punished with the eternal judgment of the
world to come." • But after speaking thus positively he
elsewhere utters a note of hesitation on the subject, for
in c. xxvi. of the same book he writes as follows :
" If it be said that in the interval of time between the
death of this body and that last day of judgment and
retribution which shall follow the resurrection, the
spirits of the dead shall be exposed to a fire of such a
nature that it shall not affect those who have not in
this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall
be consumed like wood, hay, stubble, but shall affect
those others who have carried with them structures of
that kind — if it be said that such worldliness, being
venial, shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation here

1 Eiicliciridion ail. LanwiiL c. Ixix.

- "Sod temporarias jMi-iias alii in hac vita tautnm, alii post mortem,
alii t-1 mine et tune, verumtamen ante judicium ill ml severissimum novis-
siimimque patiuntur. Non autein omiR-s veniunt in Bemptternaa pn-nas,
quiu post illud judicium sunt lutune, qni post mortem siiNtim-m
ternporales. Xam quilmsdam. quodin isto non remittitur, remitti in
t'uturo steculo, id est, ne futuri sieculi seteruo supplicio puniantur, jam
supra diximus." — DC Cicitatc Del, XXI. c. xiii.

ARTICLE XXII 547

only, or here and hereafter both, or here that it may not
be hereafter, I do not argue against it, for perhaps it
is true." l Plainly there was no formal doctrine of the
Church on the subject when a Father of the weight and
learning of Augustine could write in this way ; and
not till a century and a half after his death do we find
anything approaching to an assertion with any claim to
authority. At the close of the sixth century Gregory
the Great, in his " Dialogues," lays down distinctly that
" a purgatorial fire before the judgment for lighter faults
is to be believed."2 But even so this is only a passing
statement by a single writer, however great his authority,
and it would seem that there is nothing which can be
regarded as in any way a judgment of the Church upon
the subject till we come to the Council of Florence in
1439. At this Council the representatives of the
Greeks were persuaded to admit that " the middle sort
of souls were in a place of torment, but whether that
were fire or darkness and tempest, or something else,
they would not contend," 3 and accordingly, when the
decree of union was drawn up, it was asserted in it that
" if such as be truly penitent die in the grace of God
before they have made satisfaction for their sins by

"Post istius sane corporis mortem, donee ad ilium veniatur, qui post
resurrectionem corporum futurus est damuationis et remimerationis
ultimus dies, si hoc temporis intervallo spiritus defunctorum ejusinodi
ignein dicuntur perpcti, quern non sentiant illi qui nou habuerunt tales
mores et amores in hujus corporis vita, ut eorum ligua, fcenum, stipula
eonsumatur, alii vero sentiant qui ejusinodi secum sedificia portaverunt,
sive ibi tantum, sive et hie et ibi, sive ideo hie ut non ibi, sacularia, quam-
vis a damnations venalia, concremantem ignem transitoria? tribulationis
inveniant, non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est." — Op. df. e. xxvi.

l( Sed tamen de qnibnsdam levibus c-ulpis essf anlf judicium purga-
torius ignis credendus est. Sed tarnen hoc de parvis minimisque peccatis
fieri posse ereclendum est ; sicut est assiduus otiosus sernio, imnioderatus
risus," etc. — Dial. IV. c. xxxix.

"At d£ fjdva.1 virdpxovfft ptv et> pao-avicrTrjpiy Kal ei're Trvp carlv, eire
£o0os Kal 6ve\\a, eire n erepov, ov 5ia(pfp6fjie6a.— Condi. Florcnl. Sess. xxv.

548 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

worthy fruits of penance, their souls are purged after
death with purgatorial punishments." l But long before
this decree was issued the doctrine had been universally
accepted throughout the West, and had assumed a
prominence which led to the gravest practical results.
The original teaching had been strangely and terribly
corrupted. " It had come to take the place of a living
faith in the eternal pains of hell in the case of most
men : there was a perfect traffic in masses for the souls,
and men fancied that by leaving money to the Church
at the hour of death and at the expense of their heirs,
they might purchase mitigation or exemption from pains
which in degree, though not in duration, were said to
equal the pains of hell." '• It is, unhappily, only too
easy to illustrate the truth of these words from known
and admitted facts of history and from documents which
were before those who drew up our Articles ; but since
the existence of such abuses in connection with the
doctrine is so universally acknowledged, there is no need
to cite evidence of it here.

(b) The Scriptural arguments on the subject. — It is now
generally admitted by Roman Catholic writers that

1 "Si vere poenitentes in Dei cliaritatc deccsserint, aiitcquam dignis
pojnitentife fructibns de commis.sis satisfecerint et omissis, eorum animas
poems purgatoriis post mortem purgari." — Eugenii IV. BuUa Union-is,
Labbe and Cossart, vol. vii. p. 422. On the Council of Florence see
Plumptre's Spirits in Prison, p. 296 seq., and Creighton's History of the
Papacy, vol. ii. p. 179 scq. It is well known how the representatives of
the Greeks were received on their return to Constantinople, and how the
decrees were rejected throughout the East. But in spite of this the
Creek Church of the present day, though not formal/// committed to a
doctrine of purgatory, and while guarding itself against the notion of ;t
niutn'ial fire, appears generally to teach that then- is ;i process of purifica-
tion after death, and that the souls of the departed profit by the
Eucharists, prayers, and alms of the living, and are thereby freed from
the bonds of Hades. See Plumptre, /.c., and Winer, Confession* «./'
Christendom, p. 312.

- Up. Forbes On Hie Articles, p. 309.

ARTICLE XXII 549

there is but little in Holy Scripture which can be
quoted as bearing directly upon the doctrine. Of the
" twenty passages " of which Bellarmine boasts,1 there
are very few which any controversialist would venture
to cite at the present day. Indeed, some of them are
so weak (e.g. "We went through fire and water, and
Thou broughtest out into a wealthy place ") that they
only indicate into what desperate straits the man who
could urge them as serious arguments was driven in
order to find any scriptural proof whatever. 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 which require any consideration
whatever.

The following are perhaps the most important, and
are sometimes quoted at the present day, as implying a
terminable punishment, which 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." Cf.
S. Luke xii. 59.

S. Matt, xviii. 34:" His lord delivered him to the
tormentors, till he should pay all that was due. So like-
wise shall also my heavenly Father do unto you," etc.

S. Matt. xii. 32 : " It shall not be forgiven him, neither
in this world, nor in that which is to come."

1 De Purgatorio, I. c. xv. The twenty passages are these, — ten from
the Old Testament and ten from the New Testament, — 2 Mace. xii. 44 ;
Tobit iv. 17 ; 1 Sam. xxxi. 13 ; Ps. xxxviii. 1, Ixvi. 12 ; Is. iv. 4,
ix. 18; Mic. vii. 8, 9 ; Zech. ix. 11 ; Mai. 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;
Acts ii, 24 ; Phil. ii. 10 ; Rev. v. 3. See the discussion of them in
op. cit. c. iii.-viii.

2 2 Mace. xii. 44 certainly shows the belief of the ancient Jews in the
efficacy of prayer for the departed in the first or second century B.C,

36

550 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

In the case of the first two passages cited, it is
urged that they place a term to the punishment, and
therefore imply a purgatory from which men will at
some time be delivered. But such an inference is
extremely precarious, and those who rely on it would
probably be the last to apply a similar method of
arguing to the parallel phrase in S. Matt. 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, Tovrecm SiyveKws,
ovSeTro) yap aTroSaxret.1 While in the case of the third
passage, the form of expression is evidently intended as
an emphatic way 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 are not forgiven in this world.2

There remains the passage in 1 Cor. iii. 10—15 ; and
this, if carefully considered, will be seen to have no
bearing whatever on the doctrine. It stands as follows
in the Eevised 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 man take
heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can
no man 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 work of what sort it is. If any man's work shall
abide, which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward.

1 Horn, in loc. Cf. Augustine, c ' Miror si non earn significat pcenam
quse vocatur aeterna. " — De Sermone Domini in Monte, I. xi.

2 See Salmond's Christian Doctrine of Immortality, p. 380, for a good
statement of this.

ARTICLE XXII 551

If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss :
but he himself 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, whatever the passage
may mean, — and there are different interpretations of it
which are possible, — the one thing it cannot refer to is
a purgatory between death and judgment. According
to the Apostle, it is " the day " which " is to be revealed
in fire " (eV irvpl aTro/caXuTTTeraj), 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. It appears to signify the former here ; and
if so, the Apostle is here regarding the day of judgment
as a fiery ordeal which will test the work 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."1
This appears to be the general drift of the passage ; and,
as was said above, it cannot fairly be used in support

1 Cf. Bp. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of S. Paul, 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 Mai. iii. 3,
though even there the prophet seems to speak of purging the whole
nation 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 rays into the innermost recesses of the
moral world. The flame shall reduce to ashes the superstructure raised
by the careless or unskilful 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 we are now considering. The fire is
probatory, not purgatorial ; and it is placed at the last
day, not in the interval between death and judgment.

Since, then, these passages, which have sometimes
been urged in favour of the doctrine, have broken down,
it is now generally acknowledged 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's
relation to God. In this the following points, which bear
on the matter before us, seem to stand out clearly : —

1. This life is the time of man's probation; arid
no countenance is given to the view that a " second
chance," or time of probation, is to be looked for after
death.1 " 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
award 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" (Eev. 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 white robe ; and it was said
unto them that they should rest yet for a little time,
until their fellow-servants also, and their brethren,
which should be killed even as they were, should be
fulfilled" (Eev. 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 seq.

ARTICLE xxn 553

entirely inconsistent with any notice of a purgatory of
pain, to be endured by the great majority of those who
die in grace, before they are admitted to the rest of
Paradise. But we are told that " without holiness no
man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 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 which 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 temporal
punishment due to mortal, sins, the guilt and the eternal
punishment of which have been remitted." l In this
form the doctrine is stated by modern Romanists. But
even in this form (which is very different from the
current medieval teaching) it must be rejected as
wanting in Scriptural and Patristic authority, as well as
because it involves a purgatory of pain. That there is
progress after death would seem 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, which cling even to the
best, may be removed in the moment of death, so that
the sanctification may be complete, " without which no
man shall see the Lord." But to many minds it will
appear far more probable, and far more in accordance with
what we know of God's dealings with men, that as the
stains were gradually acquired, and were gradually being
removed during this life, so still after death their removal
should be gradual. Such a view is certainly not con-
demned by the terms of the Article before us.3 But

1 Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 766.

2 See Phil. i. 6 : "Being confident of this very thing, that He which
began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ."

3 Cf. The Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hart, vol. ii. p. 336 : " Nothing,

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 may fairly
conclude, with Bishop Andrews : " Whatever has not a
stronger basis in Holy Scripture may have a place
among the opinions of the school, which are not without
fear of the contrary being true ; but among Articles of
faith it cannot. Let it therefore occupy its own place ;
let it be an opinion . . . but let it not pertain to the
faith, nay, let it not even be accounted an ecclesiastical
doctrine." *

II. Pardons (Indulgentice).

The Romish doctrine of pardons is so closely
connected with the theory of " works of supererogation,"
that in discussing the fourteenth Article it was necessary
to anticipate much that would naturally have found a
place here. There is no need to repeat the sketch there
given of the growth of the system of granting indul-
gences ; or of the Scriptural arguments against the
practice. All that seems to be required here is (a) to
give an explanation of the word " indulgences," and (b)

I think, can be clearer than that the Article does not condemn all doctrine
that may be called a doctrine of purgatory. . . . ' Purgatory ' is not a
word that I should myself spontaneously adopt, because it is associated with
Roman theories about the future state for which I see no foundation. But
the idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from
what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements ; and though little
is said directly respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that
the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character
when this visible life is ended. Neither now nor hereafter is there reason
to suppose that they act mechanically as by an irresistible natural
process, irrespectively of human will and acceptance." Reference may
also be made to Plumptre's Spirits in Prison, p. 307 scq.
1 Itesponsio ad Bcllarininum, c. viii. p. 287 (A. C. Lib.).

ARTICLE XXII 555

to add a brief description of the " Komish doctrine "
against which the terms of the Article are directed.

(a) The word " Indulgences" — The word " indulgentia,"
which 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 ; l and in all probability this suggested the
technical use of the word which grew up in course of
time within the Christian Church. But for centuries
before any such technical use can be traced, the word
had been a familiar one in Christian circles, in the
sense of God's pardon and forgiveness. It is used in the
Vulgate in Is. Ixi. 1 , "to proclaim liberty to the
captives " (et praedicarem captivis indulgentiam), as well
as in a few other passages ; 2 and is a common word in
the writings 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 was shown under
Article XIV. that all these words were employed of the
formal grants of " pardon " or " indulgence " dispensed by
the Pope from the eleventh century onwards ; and
(probably for the reason stated above) the word " in-
dulgentise " became in course of time the technical name
by which they were known.

In England we find both words, " pardon " and

1 Ainmianus Marcellinus, XVI. v. 16; God. Theod. IX. xxxiv., De
indulgentiis criminum.

2 Viz. Judith viii. 14 ; Is. Ixiii. 7, 9 ; 1 Cor. vii. 6.

a Tertullian has it more than once : De Exhort. Cast. iii. ; Adv. Valent.
xxix. ; Adv. Marc. IV. xxix. ; and Cyprian uses it, not only of "favour"
and "goodness," but definitely of "forgiveness." De bono patientice,
viii. (indulgentia criminis) ; De lapsis, xvi. (remittere aut donare indul-
gentia sua) ; Ep. Iv. § 7. See Stndia Billica et Ecclesiastica., vol. iv.
p. 248.

556 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

" indulgence," freely used from the days of Langland
downwards.

(b) The Romish doctrine of pardons condemned in the
Article. — The sketch which has been already given of
the growth of the system will have shown pretty clearly
what the claims made for the indulgences granted by
Tetzel and the preachers were.1 Luther in his famous
theses (1517) was prepared to admit them as a relaxation
of canonical penance, but no further.2 But, as is well
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 (Exsurge Domine, 1520) condemned 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 committed to the view that they can avail
to help the souls in purgatory, though, as formally held,
only per modum suffragii ; and though the worst 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 mere remission of ecclesi-
astical penance imposed by the Church. They differ,
then, entirely from their original form, having practically
little or nothing to do with ecclesiastical censures on the
living, but being mainly concerned with God's chastise-
ment in the intermediate state. And while we frankly
admit the power of " binding and loosing " which belongs

1 Cf. also Creigh ton's History of the Papacy, vol. v. p. 58 seq. , for an
admirable sketch of the development of practice and teaching concerning
indulgences.

- The theses are given in full in SchafFs History of the (Lutheran)
Reformation, vol. i. p. 160 seq.

3 See the Bull itself in S-haff, op. ell. p. 235.

ARTICLE XXII 557

to the Church, we are compelled to reject altogether the
theological defence for indulgences constructed by the
schoolmen, and with it the whole practical system of
granting them which it was constructed to support.

III. The Adoration of Images and Relics.

In considering the Romish doctrine ... of the
worshipping and adoration, as well of images
as of reliques, it will once more be convenient to
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 was some not unnatural hesitation as
to the use of art in connection with Christian worship.1
It had been so steeped in the spirit of an impure
heathenism, that the Church was shy of consecrating it
for religious purposes. The Catacombs, however, reveal
to us the beginnings of a Christian art ; and we find from
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 Irenaeus on the followers of Carpocrates does not
look as if he approved of religious images and pictures, or as if such were
usual among Christians: "Etiam imagines, quasdem quid em depictas,
quasdam auteni et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent, dicens formam
Christi factam a Pilato, illo in tempore quo fuit Jesus cum hominibus.
Et has coronant, et proponunt eas cum imaginibus nmndi philosophorum,
videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae, et Platonis, et Aristotelis, et reli-
quorum ; et reliqnam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faoiunt."
— Adv. ffcer. I. xx.

a "Pastor quern in chalice depingis."— De pudic. c. x. ; cf. c. vii.
" pictime calicum."

3 E.g. Epiphanius (390) describes how he found a painting of Christ or

558 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

from this time forward the cultus of both images and
relics seems steadily to have increased. A great impetus
was 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 were wrought
by the relics of the saints and martyrs ; l and by the
eighth century, in spite of protests raised from time to
time,2 the practice of paying " worship " and " adoration "
to images and relics had reached such a height that a
reaction set in, and a vigorous protest was made against
it. Whereas originally 'pictures and images had been
but the " books of the unlearned," by this time they had
come to be regarded with such superstitious reverence,
and such acts of homage and " worship " were paid to
them, that the 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 (e.g. Leo
the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus) took the lead
in destroying the images, and the Popes at Kome con-
stituted themselves the champions of the cultus. Into
the dreary history of the controversy there is no need to
enter here.3 It will be sufficient to mention that the

some saint on a curtain in a church at Anablatha in Palestine, and tore
it down because it was contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, in
S. Hicronymi Epistolce, li. 9. So the Council of Elvira (A.D. 305) forbade
pictures to be placed in churches: " Placuit picturas 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, but against an actual and probably a growing
practice." — "Westcott, Epp. of S. John, p. 329.

1 See Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII. viii., and Confessions, IX. vii.,
for notices of some of these.

2 See the letters of Gregory the Great to Serenus, Epp. VII. ii. 3, and
IX. iv. 9.

3 See Milman's Latin Christianity, vol. ii. p. 339 seq., and the excellent
lecture in Archbp. Trench's Medieval Church History, Lect. 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 Nicsea in 787, which has been finally
accepted by both Greeks and Latins as the seventh
General Council. At this the worship of images was
decreed, and the following canon was passed : —

" With the venerable and life-giving Cross shall be set
up the venerable and holy images, whether in colour, in
mosaic work, 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
men. These images shall be treated as holy memorials,
worshipped, kissed, only without that peculiar adoration
(\drpeia) 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
under the Emperor Leo the Armenian, which confirmed
the decrees of the previous Council of 754 and anathe-
matised the image worshippers. But, finally, in the reign
of Michael Porphyrogenitus (840) the iconoclastic
party entirely collapsed, and the " feast of orthodoxy "
was established to commemorate the triumph of their

1 'Opi£ofJ.ev ovv d/cpi/3et'a Traari Kal ^u//.eXet'a Trapa7r\r}cri(i)5 ry TVTT<£ TOV
TI/JLIOV /cat j'woTroioC aTavpov avaTldecrdai TO.S o^Trras /cat (ry£as et/covas, rdj
€K xpwyudrwi' /cat if/yfodos /cat erfyas v\r)S tViTTjSet'ws ^xowr??s tv rats a7t'ais
TOV Qeov e/c/cATjc^ats, tv iepots o~Kevecri /cat e'crdTjo'i, robots re /cat (ravicriv,
oi'/cots re /cat 68oLS' TT}S re TOV Kvplov /cat Qeov Kal auTrjpos •fyuuh' 'Irjffov Xpt<7TOi5
et/c6vos, Kal TT?S dxpd-VTov Scffwolv-rjs THJ.&V TT}S a7/as 0for6/coi', Ti/miwv re
ayyeXwv, /cat TravTuv aylwv /cat oatuv avop&v . . . Kal rai'Tat? aairaa fj.bv
/cat TI/UTJTI/CTJV irpoffKvvrjffiv airov^/j-eLV ov fjt,r)v TTJV /card iriffTiv i]/j.u)i> a\7]6ii'Tjv
XaTpeiav, T) Trpeirei ^6t>ji Ty 6da (f>uo-ei.— Labbe and Cossart, vol. iv. p. 456.
The translation given above is in Milman's Latin Christianity, vol. ii.
p. 391.

560 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

opponents. From this time forward we hear but little
of any opposition to image worship,1 and the practice
was generally accepted without question in both East 2
and West, until S. Thomas Aquinas lays down definitely
that " the same reverence should be displayed towards
an image of Christ and towards Christ Himself ; and
seeing that Christ is adored with the adoration of latria,
it follows that His image is to be adored with the adora-
tion of latria " ; and again, " the Cross is adored with the
same adoration as Christ, that is, with the adoration of
latria, and for that reason we address and supplicate the
Cross just as we do the Crucified Himself." 3 In accord-
ance with this we find in the Eoman Missal an office for
the adoration of the Cross on Good Friday, in which full
directions are given for the adoration of the Cross, and
an antiphon is sung, beginning, " Crucem tuam adoramus

1 The Council of Frankfort (794), however, rejected the second Council
of Nictea, and the Caroline books absolutely condemned any adoration
or worship of images. See Palmer, Treatise mi the Church, vol. ii. p.
153 seq.

- The Eastern Church, it should be mentioned, while it encourages the
veneration of pictures, does not admit sculptured or hewn images. The
"icons " of the East are really pictures. For the Greek teaching on the
subject see Winer, Confessions of Christendom, p. 76. One quotation may
suffice here. 'H/ue?s QTQ.V rt^cD/iey ras et\'6vas /cat ras irpoaKwov^ev, Bev
TrpoffKvvov^ev TO. xpu^ara f) TO. £tfXa. pa TOVS dyt'ous e«:eiVoi>s, rdv birolwv
eh/at at cloves, 8o£d£ofjL€t> ,u£ Trpoa-Kvvi)ffiv SouXetas, /3aX\an/ras /ue rbv vovv
yttas TTJV iKeivwv irapovcrla.v els ret 6/n/xcirtd ^tas. — Conf. Orthod. p. 328.

3 "Sequitur quod eadem reverentia exhibeatur imagini Christi et ipsi
Christo. Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latrke consequens est
quod ejus imago sit adoratione latria1. adoranda." "[Crux] utroque modo
adoratur eadem adoratione cum Christo, scil. adoratione latriie. Et
propter hoc etiam crucem alloquimur et deprecamur quasi ipsum cruci-
lixum." — Summa III. Q. xxv. arts. iii. iv. In view of the distinction
drawn by Romanists between latria, the worship due to God alone,
hyperditlia, that due to the Blessed Virgin, and dulia, that which is due
to the saints, these words have caused no little difficulty, and are I'roqiicmtly
explained away. But the statement of S. Thomas is clear enough and
gives to the Cross latria.

ARTICLE XXII 5G1

Domine " ; l and in our own country the Constitutions of
Archbishop Arundel, in 1408, emphatically urge the
practice. " From henceforth let it be taught commonly,
and preached by all, that the Cross and the image of the
Crucified, and the rest of the images of the saints, in
memory and honour of them whom they figure, as also
their places and relics, ought to be worshipped (venerari)
with processions, bendings of the knees, bowings of the
body, incensings, kissings, offerings, lightings of candles,
and pilgrimages, together with all other manners and
forms whatsoever as hath been accustomed 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 " Eood of Boxley," 3 which had been exposed
in the early years of the sixteenth century, — abuses
which 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 arguments concerniiig the practice. —
It might have been supposed that it would be sufficient
to quote the language of the second commandment as
entirely prohibiting worship in any form being offered to

1 Missale Romanum. Feria vi. in Parasceve.

-"Ab omnibus deinceps doceatur communiter atque jmedicetur,
crucem et imaginera crucifixi caeterasque imagines sanctorum, in ipsorum
memoriam et honorem quos figurant, ac ipsorum loca et reliquias, pro-
cessionibus, genuflexionibus, inclinationibus, thurificationibus, deoscula-
tionibus, oblationibus, luminarium accensionibus, et peregrinationibus,
nee non aliis quibuscunque modis et formis quibus nostris et prede-
cessorum nostrorum temporibus fieri consuevit, venerari debere."— See
Johnson's English Canons, vol. ii. p. 469, and Lyndwood's Provinciate, V.
De hseret. cap. Nullus quoque.

3 See Dixon, History of the Church 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 ; l but since it has appeared to Eoman Catholics
that the Scriptures contain instances of image worship
and exhortation to it, it may be well to examine the
passages alleged by them. The action of David in
dancing before the ark (2 Sam. vi.) has been referred to,
but it is difficult to see what justification there is for the
assertion that any worship, be it latria or dulia, was
paid by him to it. But it is said that the 99th Psalm
contains a direct charge to " adore His footstool, for it is
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 from
Holy Scripture, or to be set against the emphatic con-
demnation of it in the Decalogue.3

1 It need hardly be said that the second commandment 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 referred to as authorising "relative honour
to the images of Christ and 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 and kingdom, as an instance and argument of
his faith. But some translators, who are no friends to this relative honour,
have corrupted the text by translating it, he worshipped, leaning upon the
lop of his staff-, 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 remarks 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 Catechisms 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 IB practically unknown by the vast mass of the laity
among them.

ARTICLE XXII 563

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" (K.V., He is holy). In the " Douay
version," however, which is commonly used by Koman
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 p vinnK'n. The Douay version is trans-
lated from the Vulgate (Ps. xcviii. 5), where the
preposition is ignored and the words rendered, " Adorate
scabellum pedum ejus quoniam sanctum est." 1 Thus the
argument rests entirely on a mistranslation. The same is
true of the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(xi. 21). Here again the Vulgate, " adoravit fastigium
virgte ejus," entirely misrepresents the meaning of the
original. The Greek is irpocreicvvricrev eVt TO aicpov -n}?
pdfi&ov CIVTOV, words which can only mean that Jacob
worshipped upon (i.e. as the A.V. and R.V. " leaning
upon ") the top of his staff. With regard to the Scrip-
tural argument for the adoration of relics, from the
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 were preserved to be adored ; 2 and until

1 The construction in the original is precisely the same as in ver. 9,
where both the Douay version and the Vulgate render correctly enough
•'Adore at His holy mountain," "Adorate in monte sancto ejus."
Whereas, 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. TOVTOV ^v yap vlbv 6vra rov
Qeov TrpoaKwovfJ-ev, TOI)S §£ /xdprupas ws /xaffyrds tcai ^ui/XT/rdj rov Kvpiov
aya.TruiJ.ev d£iws tvenev fvvoias avvTrep^X-rirov r^s ets rbv tSiov (3a<n\ta teal
diSdffKa\ov. — Lightibot, Apostolic Fathers, part II. vol. ii. § ii. p.
979.

564 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

something stronger is adduced by our opponents, we may
safely rest satisfied that nothing stronger can be found.

III. The Invocation of Saints.

Once more we must consider separately (a) the history
of the practice, and (b) the Scriptural argument con-
cerning it.

(a) The history of the practice. — In tracing out the
growth of the custom of invoking the saints at rest, it
will be well to start from the fact that the early Church
undoubtedly believed that they were still engaged in
interceding for those whose warfare was not yet accom-
plished,1 and very generally prayed to God to be bene-
fited by a share in the prayers of the saints.2 But
there can also be no doubt that the early Christians did
not think it right directly to ask the saints to use those
intercessions, in whose efficacy she yet believed. The
only writer during the first three centuries who has been
quoted in favour of direct invocation is Origen (220),
and it seems almost certain that in the passage in
question he is really referring, not to the saints at rest,
but to those still on earth. His words are these : " It is
not improper to offer supplication, intercession, and
thanksgiving to saints : and two of these — I mean inter-
cession and thanksgiving — not only to saints, but to
mere men ; but supplication to saints only, if any Peter
or Paul can be found, that they may help us : making us
worthy to enjoy the licence which was granted them of
forgiving sins." ; This passage, says Dean Luckock,

1 See Origen, In Jem Nave, Horn. xvi. c. 5 ; In Cant., Lib. iii. ;
Ep. ad Rom., Comment, ii. 4 ; Cyprian, Ep. Ix. ; De Mortalitate, ad fin.
etc. ; and cf. Luckock, After Death, part II. c. i.

2 Such prayers are found in all the ancient Liturgies, in which there is
no direct invocation of the saints themselves.

3 &{rj<nv fJikv 0$V KO.I ZVT€V%IV KO.I €VXO.ptffTla.V OVK &TOTTOI' Kdl (Xy/Ot? TTpOff-

ARTICLE XXII 565

" seems to have been quite unjustly claimed in favour of
addressing petitions to departed saints. It is next to
certain, as the whole context shows, that he had in his
mind none but living saints." l And this explanation is
confirmed by words which he uses elsewhere, saying of the
" ten thousand sacred powers " which men " have on their
side when they pray to God," that uninvoked (aicXrjToi),
these pray with them and bring help to our perishable race,
and, if I may so speak, take up arms alongside of it." 2

It is, then, only in the latter part of the fourth
century that the evidence for direct invocation really
begins.3 The Fathers of this age who have been cited in
favour of the practice are these : in the East, S. Basil
the Great (370), Gregory Nazianzen (370) and Gregory
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 Nazianzen speaks
doubtfully, that S. Ambrose, in the little which he has
said upon the subject, is inconsistent with himself ; but
that the testimony of SS. Basil, Gregory Nyssen, Ephraem,
and Augustine remains so far unshaken." * Some of the

dXXd ra /j.ev dvo, \tyw §77 £vTevJ-u> Kai et-xapio'Hai' oO fj,6vov ayiois
dXXa dr) KO.I avdpuirou, TT)V 5k S^TJO-LV fj.ovbv aytots, et TIJ evpedeLij IlaOXos r)
Il^rpos 'iva w(j>€\r)cr(i)<rii> rj/itas a£iovs iroiovvres TOV ruxetz/ TTJS SeSo/i^Tjs aurots
e£own'as Tr/ads ra a/xaprTj/iara a^i/at. — DC Oratione, 14.

1 After Death, p. 187.

2 "tlare ro\fj.q.v Tj/xas X£yeti>, ort avdpuTrois, Acerot, Trpoaipfoews 7rp<m0e/ieVois
ra KpelTTOva, ei/xo/J-tvois r$ Gee? fj.vpiai 6'<rcu &K\TJTOI. avvevxovTat 8vvd(j.eis
iepai, o-f^tTrape'xovcrcu ry ^TTIKT?/)^ }]^v ytvti, /ecu iv' OI'TCOS eiiru, avva.-
ywvLuo-ai. — Contra Celsum, viii. 64.

3 It ought to be mentioned that such prayers are found (undated) in
the Catacombs.

4 Op. cit. p. 197.

37

566 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

passages in these Fathers certainly appear to be nothing
more than rhetorical appeals, which can scarcely have
been intended to be taken as seriously implying that
the person so addressed was expected to be cognisant
of the utterance, — as when S. Gregory Nazianzen apos-
trophises Constantius : " Hear, 0 soul of great Con-
stantius (if thou hast any faculty of perception), and
ye souls of all the kings who 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 was firmly established as a popular one, though
even so there is no trace of such invocations being
admitted into the formal services of the Church. Eather,
it would appear from the language of Augustine that
they were not allowed ; for in a passage in which he is
speaking of the miracles wrought by the martyrs, " or
rather," as he corrects himself, by " God who does them,
while they pray and assist," he says, " we 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
ly the sacrificing priest" (non tamen a sacerdote qui
sacrificat invocantur).3 After this time it would seem

1 Adv. Jul. Imp. Invect. i. Orat. iv. 3.

2 Thus S. Basil says : ' ' I accept also the holy apostles, prophets, and
martyrs, and I invoke them (eTri/caAoOftcu) for their supplication to God,
that by them, that is, by their mediation, the merciful God may take
compassion upon me, and that there may be granted to me redemption
for mine offences." — Ex epist. ad Julian Apost. ccclx. ; cf. DC Mart.
Mamante, Horn, xxiii. and Horn, in xl. Mart. § 8. These and the other
passages from the Fathers mentioned in the text are all quoted in full in
Luckock, op. cit.

3 De 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 custom grew apace. The practice having
once established itself spread throughout the East and
West,1 and became part of the system of the Church.
By the eighth century the invocations were 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. Nor,
unhappily, did the system long remain what it had been
at first, i.e. merely asking the saints to pray for us. In
time the saints were often invoked as if they were the
authors of benefits ; and the Blessed Virgin, in particular,
was addressed in language which (with every wish to be
charitable) it is impossible to avoid stigmatising as
blasphemous and idolatrous. Thus in Bonaventura's
Crown of the Blessed Virgin Mary we read : " 0 Empress
and our most kind lady, by the authority of a mother
command thy most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ,
that He would vouchsafe to lift up our minds," etc.3
Much more of the same character may be found in the
Psalter of the Blessed Virgin? attributed to the same writer.
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 by Augustine as a direct answer to his
petition. Cf. also DC Ctira pro mortuis, c. iv.

1 At the present day the doctrine of the Eastern Church on this subject
differs in no respect from the formal teaching of the Latin Church. See
Winer's Confession* of Christendom, p. 70, where citations are given from
the "Orthodox Confession " of 1643, and that of Metrophanes Critopulus
(1625). Cf. also the Longer Catechism of the Russian Church (translated
by R. W. Blackmore), p. 78.

- It is hard to say exactly when they were introduced ; but it was
certainly some time before the middle of the eighth century. See the
seventeenth canon of the Council of Clovesho (A.D. 747), which orders
the name of Augustine to be introduced into the Litany, " post Sancti
Gregorii vocationem." Haddan and Stubbs, vol. iii. p. 368.

3 See Usher's Answer to Jesuit, p. 424, where this and much more of
the same kind is quoted.

4 Usher, I.e.

568 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

the practical system connected with the invocation of
saints was grossly superstitious.1 It naturally excited
the indignation of our Keformers, and hence the emphatic
condemnation of the " Eomish doctrine " on the subject
in the Article before us, and the vigorous polemic con-
tained in the Homily " Concerning Prayer " which was
issued in the reign of Elizabeth.2

(b) The Scriptural argument concerning invocation 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, which distinctly forbids the worship
of a creature, and contains striking instances of the refusal
of worship by both men and angels. Thus in Acts x. 25
we read : " When it came to pass that Peter entered,
Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and

1 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 the idea that they are more easily intreated than
God ; or when we seek some particular thing from 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 prodigious superstition of our fellow-countrymen on this matter. "-
Epist. ad Jac. Sadolet., quoted in Forbes, Consider utiones Modcstcc. vol.
ii. p. 310. Cf. the "Ten Articles" of 1536, where, though direct
invocation is retained, a caution is added, that "it be done without any
vain superstition, so as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will
hear us sooner than Christ, or that one saint doth serve for one thing
more than another, or is patron of the same." — Formularies of Faith,
p. 15.

'-'See the "second part of the Homily Concerning Prayer," Tltf
Jlomtties, p. 341 (S.P.C.K.).

:: Uellarmine says, that as far as words go, it is lawful to say : " S. Peter
pity me, save me, open for me the gate of heaven"; also "give me
health of body, patience, fortitude," etc., provided that we mean "save
and pity me by praying for me " ; " Grant me this or that by thy prayers
and merits."

ARTICLE XXII 569

worshipped him (irpoo-eicvvrjo-ev). But Peter raised him
up, saying, Stand up ; I myself also arn a man." l
So in the Kevelation, twice over S. John " fell down
before the feet of the angel to worship him " (7rpo<r-
Kwrjcrai), and twice over the angel refuses the worship.
" See thou do it not ; I am a fellow-servant with thee
and with thy brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus"
(xix. 10). "See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant
with thee, and with thy brethren the prophets, and with
them which keep the words of this book : worship God "
(xxii. 9). The advocates of the invocations would not
attempt to justify more than the " Ora pro nobis " or its
equivalent (since they explain away the far stronger
language habitually used in their popular devotions).
And even here they are compelled to admit that there
is nothing in Scripture which directly sanctions the
practice. It is based by them (1) on the evidence that
the saints at rest are engaged in interceding for us, and
(2) on the admitted power of intercessory prayer. To
these arguments we reply, first, that it may 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 xiv. 13 scq., which is sometimes quoted against the invocation
of saints, seems really not to bear upon the subject, for the men of Lystra
desired to offer to the apostles divine honour, as to heathen deities ;
which under no circumstances could they have accepted. It is very
different, therefore, from the passages cited in the text.

- This was certainly the belief of the Jews, as is shown by more than
one passage in the Apocrypha. See 2 Mace. xv. 12-14 : "And this wras
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 hairs, and exceeding glorious, who was
of a wonderful and excellent majesty. Then Onias answered, saying,
This is a lover of the brethren, who prayeth much for the people, and for
the holy city, to wit, Jeremias, the prophet of God." Cf. 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.1 But when we are asked to go further,
and address the saints themselves, we may 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 words
can reach him ; and so, before asking the saints to do
the same, we require evidence that they are cognisant of
our prayers. With Bishop Kichard Montague (1624)
we say : " Demonstrate unto me infallibly by reason,
Scripture, authentic traclition, that saints departed are
all of them, or any of them, interested ordinarily rebus
viventium ; that by either evening or morning know-
ledge, natural endowment, or acquired accruments, by
Divine revelation, angelical revelation, or other means,
they do or can know and understand my necessities,
exigencies, prayers, or practice in any time or place
when I call upon them, or unto them, and I will
unfeignedly join hands of fellowship, and say, ' Saint
Peter, Saint Paid, pray for me.' Until that, eVe^w ;
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 my
necessities, nor hear my prayers, and yet to pray unto
them, is to my understanding so poor a part of piety
that it is without warrant of common sense." •

It does not appear that there is any evidence in Holy

1 Of. Field, Of the Church, Bk. iii. Appendix: "That the saints do
pray for us in gcnere, desiring God to be merciful to us, and to do unto
us whatsoever in any kind He knovveth needful for our good, there is no
question made by us ; and therefore this prayer wherein the Church
desireth God to be. gracious to her and to grant the things she desireth,
the rather for that the saints in heaven also are suppliant for her, will
not be found to contain any point of Romish doctrine disliked by us."

- A Treatiseof the Invocation of Saints, p. 218, quoted in H. R. Percival's
Invocation 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 warrant us in addressing them.1 Nor can it
be said that there has been any certain and consistent
tradition of the Church on the subject which would
justify us in regarding it as " a Catholic practice." As
we 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 when discussing the question
whether the saints know what is passing on earth.2 In
the twelfth century, all that Peter Lombard, the Master
of the Sentences, can say with regard to the theory which
obtains most widely 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
world, as much as pertaineth either to them for joy or
to us for aid. For as to the angels, so also to the
saints, who stand before God, our petitions are made
known in the word of God which they contemplate." 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 /maprvpes.

2 The question is discussed by Augustine in De euro, pro mortuis, c. xiii.
seq. ; and though Augustine 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 what passes on earth.

3 "Sed forte qureris, Num quid preces supplicantium sancti audiunt, et
vota postulantium in eorum notitiam perveniunt? Non est incredibile
animas sanctorum, qme in abscondito faciei Dei veri luminis illustrations
Inetantur, in ipsius contemplatione ea qute foris aguntur intelligere,
quantum vel illis ad gaudium vel nobis ad auxilium pertinet. Sicut enim
angelis, ita et sanctis qui Deo assistant, petitiones nostrse innotescunt in
Yerbo Dei quod contemplantur." — Sentent. 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 as the sixteenth
century Cardinal Cajetan is forced to admit that " we
have no certain knowledge as to whether the saints are
aware 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 well as the * Ora pro nobis";3 and (2) in
condemning in round terms in the Article before us the
current teaching and practice, which can be abundantly

shown to be a fond4 thing vainly invented, and
grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but
rather repugnant to the word of God.

esse ex ratione beatitudinis, quod beati audiant orationes
nostras, probabile tamen esse quod Dens ipse revelat." — In Sent. IV. dist.
xlv. q. 4, quoted in Forbes, Consid. Modest, vol. ii. p. 178.

2 " Certa ratione nescimus an sancti nostra cognoscant, quamvis pie hoc
credamus." — In 2a 2a-, q. Ixxxviii. art. 5, quoted in Forbes, op. cit. p. 176.

3 When the English Litany was first published in 1544, all the invo-
cations of saints (which had formed so prominent a feature in this service)
were deleted, except three clauses, namely —

' ' Saint Mary, mother of God our Saviour Jesu Christ, pray for us.

' ' All holy angels and archangels, and all holy orders of blessed 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 vi. in 1549
these three clauses were omitted, and all trace of the direct invocation 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
sense —

"Thou/0m2 mad man, hear me but speak a word."

Romeo and Juliet, III. iii. 52.
<; And for his dreams, I wonder he is so fond
To trust the mockery of unquiet slumber."

JiMrrrd III. III. ii. 26.

ARTICLE XXIII

De vocationc Miiiistrorum. Of Ministeriny in the Congregation.

Xon licet cuiquam suraere sibi It is not lawful for any man to

niunus publice pnedicandi, aut ad- take upon him the office of public

ministrandi sacramenta in ecclesia, preaching or ministering the sacra-

nisi prius fuerit ad hsec obeunda ments in the congregation before

legitime vocatus et missus. Atque he be lawfully called and sent to

illos legitime vocatos et missos execute the same. And those we

existimare debemus, qui per horn- ought to judge lawfully called and

ines, quibus potestas vocandi min- sent which be chosen and called to

istros atque mittendi in vineam this work by men who have public

Domini publice concessa est in authority given unto them in the

ecclesia, cooptati fnerint et asciti congregation, to call and send min-

in hoc opus. 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, however, and also in that of 1563, the title ran :
" Nemo in ecclesia ministret nisi vocatus " (" No man
may minister in the congregation except he be called ").
The present title was substituted for this at the final
revision in 1571.

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 Confession is, however,
only indirect; for there can be little doubt that its
immediate origin was the corresponding Article in the
unfinished series of 1538, agreed upon by a joint-

574 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

committee of Anglican and Lutheran divines.1 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
ecclesiae docemus, quod nemo debeat publice docere, aut
sacramenta ministrare, nisi rite vocatus, et quidem ab
his, penes quos in ecclesia, juxta verbum Dei, et leges ac
consuetudines uniuscujusque 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 to 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 was 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 Reformat™ Legum
Ecclcsiasticarum, in which, after the mention of various
Anabaptist errors, we come to the following passage : —

" Similis est eorum amentia qui institutionem minis-
trorum ab ecclesia disjungunt, negantes in certis locis
certos doctores, pastores atque ministros collocari debere ;
nee admit tun t legitimos vocationes, nee solemnem
manuum impositionem, sed per omnes publice clocendi
potestatem divulgant, qui sacris literis uteunque sunt
aspersi, et Spiritum sibi vendicant ; nee illos solum
adhibent ad docendum, sed etiam ad moderandam
ecclesiam, et distribuenda sacramenta ; quse sane uni versa
cum Scriptis Apostolorum manifesto pugnant." 4

1 See vol. i. p. 6. 2 See Hardwick, p. 270.

3 Hardwick, p. 102. 4 Kef. Leg. Ecdes., De Hares, c. xvi.

ARTICLE XXIII 575

So in Hermann's Consultation it is said of some of the
Anabaptists, that they " dispise the outwarde ministerie
and doctrine of the Church, they denie that God worketh
by the same. They teache that we muste loke for
private illuminations and visions. Wherefore thei
avoyed the common sermons of the Church, and
holye assembles of the people of Christe, they wyth-
drawe from the sacraments," etc.1

Such a view as that here condemned can only lead to
confusion and disorder, for according to it anyone who
claims for himself the Spirit may set himself up as
a minister of the word and sacraments, with 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 Need of an external Call and Mission.

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 two words (which are repeated in the second
part of the Article) should be carefully noticed. They
refer to distinct things : the call, to the original

1 English translation of 1548, fol. cxlii.

2 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 congregation' and not by
Church.

57G THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

summons to enter the ministry: the mission, to
the commission to execute it in a particular sphere.
Unless the need of each of these is recognised there
can only arise confusion, as if only the call were
necessary different ministers properly ordained might
assert rival claims to execute their office in the same
place, and the whole principle of Church order would
be destroyed. To obviate this they must be " sent to
execute the same," as well as " called " to the office.
Thus the requirement of " mission " follows from the
general principle that "trod is not a God of confusion,
but of peace " ; and from the necessity that " all things "
should " be done decently and in order." ! With regard
to the " call " to the ministry, all Christians are agreed
that a call from God is necessary before a man can
presume to teach and minister in His name. " No man
taketh the honour unto himself, but when he is called of
God, even as was Aaron," and " how shall they preach
except they be sent " ? 2 So much is admitted by all.
The question really is whether the "inward call" requires
to be supplemented by an external one. And here all
the evidence from Scripture and antiquity is in favour of
insisting upon one from properly constituted authorities.
While it cannot be doubted that under the Old Covenant
in addition to the regularly constituted priesthood and
Levitical ministry, God did from time to time raise up
the prophets as His messengers, and send them forth
with no commission from men, as he did afterward at the
beginning of the gospel in the case of S. Paul, who
always claimed to hold his apostolate " not from (OTTO)
men, neither through (Sid) men, but through Jesus Christ
and God the Father," 3 yet in these cases the call was
authenticated by signs which could be recognised and

1 1 Cor. xiv. 33, 40. * Heh. v. 4 ; Rom. x. in.

3 Gal. i. 1.

ARTICLE XXIII 577

known by men.1 The gift of prophecy and the power of
working miracles no longer remaining with the Church,
it can easily be seen that unless the necessity of an
external call were insisted on, the Church would be at
the mercy of any religious fanatic who might be pleased
to claim to be taught by the Spirit of God.2 And so we
find that, as a matter of fact, from the very first men were
set apart by the properly constituted authorities of the
Church, and did not take upon themselves the ministerial
office without such a call. Thus the seven were " ap-
pointed " (oft? tcaraa-Tricray/Aev) to the ministry by the
Apostles, after they had been " chosen " (efeXefcwro) by
the whole multitude.3 Paul and Barnabas " appointed "
elders in every church (%eipoTovijaavTes Be avrols
7rpe<T/3vT€povs Kar eKK\7]criav)^ Timothy received the
gift " through (Bid) the laying on of " S. Paul's hands,
or, as it is elsewhere said, " through (Sid) prophecy, with
(fjierd) 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 simple fact of history that from the Apostles' day to
the present time the Church has always required an

1 See Deut. xviii. 20-22.

- It will be remembered that the Church of England is equally
emphatic in insisting on the need of an "inward" call, the first
question 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 God for the promoting of His glory
and the edifying of His people ? " Not till this has been satisfactorily
answered is the further question put concerning the external call — "Do
you think that you are truly called, according to the will of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and the due order of this realm, to the ministry of the
Church ? "

:: Acts vi. 1-6. 4 Acts xiv. 23.

' Cf. 2 Tim. i. ti with 1 Tim. iv. 14.

8 Titus i. 5. ~ 1 Tim. iii.

578 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

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
how the matter was regarded in the very early times,
and the principle of succession laid down —

" 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, that if these
should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to
their ministration. Those, therefore, who were appointed
by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered
unblameably to the flock of Christ . . . these men we
consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministra-
tion." l

II. The Description of those through whom the Call conies.

While the Article is perfectly clear in asserting the
need of an external call, it cannot be maintained that it

1 Oi dirocrToXoL -rj/uGjv tyvwaav did TOV Kvpt'ou ijfj.&i' 'Irjaov XptoToO, clri £pts
ecrrat eiri TOV 6v6/J.a.Tos TTJS €TTio~KOirris. Ata TavTrjv ovv TTJV airlav irpoyvucnv
reXeLav Kareffrrjaav TOVS Trpofiprj^vovs, /cat /u.era£i) €TrLfj,ovriv

oi 8e8oKL/j.ao~fji^voL dvdpes
' ^KeLvuv ?} /uera£i> v<p'
, <rvvevdoKi<i(rd<n)s TTJS €KK\T](ria.s Trdffrjs, /cat

TOV X/)t(rrou . . . rourous ov
diro(3d\\e(T0a.t. TTJS XeiTovpyias. — Ad Crr. I. xliv. On the reading and
difficult word ttrifjiovfiv see Lightfoot's note, ad loc. The old Latin
published by Dom Morin (Anecdota Maredsolana, vol. ii.) seems to have
had fTTLvof^iv, which it rendered by "legem." Whichever be right, and
whether Koi/m7)6u<riv 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 themselves.

ARTICLE XXIII 579

is equally 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. Who 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 was to be signed by Anglicans
alone, was not the indefiniteness removed, and a plain
statement describing the proper authorities inserted ?
To this it may be answered 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 wholesome doctrine of the gospel,
but agreeable thereto," while the corresponding Article
(XXXVI.) 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,
whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the
rites of that book, since the second year of the afore-
named King Edward unto this time, or shall be conse-
crated or ordered according to the same rites, we decree
all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated
and ordered." These citations show that the omission
in the Article before us is made up elsewhere, and that
the words under consideration are intended to refer to

580 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

the bishops, to whom alone is given in the Church of
England this " public authority to call and send ministers
into the Lord's vineyard." And, since the reference of
the terms was thus rendered unmistakable, it was
probably considered unnecessary to introduce a more
formal mention of the Episcopate here.1 It will there-
fore be more convenient that in this Commentary upon
the Articles the discussion of the questions connected
with the Episcopate and the threefold ministry should
be reserved until they can be treated of in connection
with that Article in which they are distinctly men-
tioned.

1 It must be remembered that the Articles were not designed to be a
complete system of theology. Originally they were merely intended 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 all that was really necessary was to assert against the
Anabaptists the need of an external call.

ARTICLE XXIV

DC precibus publicis dicendis in Of Speaking in the Congregation in
lingua vulgari. such a Tongue a* the People

under standeth.

Lingua populo non intellecta It is a thing plainly repugnant
publicas in ecclesia pieces peragere, to the word of God, and the custom
aut Sacramenta administrare, verbo of the primitive Church, to have
Dei et primitive ecclesise con- public prayer in the Church or to
suetudini plane repugnat. minister the Sacraments in a tongue

not understanded of the people.

THIS Article was rewritten and brought into its present
form by Archbishop Parker in 1563. The corresponding
Article in the Edwardian Series was this : " Men 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 which 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 with 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 till 1571.

38

582 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

1. The evidence of Scripture on this subject.

2. The custom of the primitive Church.

I. The Evidence of Scripture.

The only passage 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 implies 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 men, " for no man 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" (ver. 19). For 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 "
may " pray," but " the understanding " will be " un-
fruitful" (ver. 14).

It may 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 Apostle 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 how-
ever much the idea that the unity of the Church should
be expressed by the unity of the language in which 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 have public prayer
in the Church or to minister the Sacraments
in a tongue not understanded of the people.

II. The Custom of the Primitive Church.

It is also repugnant to the custom of the primi-
tive Church. This assertion is scarcely open to
question. The evidence of the ancient Liturgies, as well as
of incidental statements in the writings of early Fathers,1
is amply sufficient to prove that as various countries
were evangelised, the services of the Church, including
the administration of the Sacraments, were held in what-
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 was only in the
same way that Latin came to be employed in worship at
all, as the general language in use throughout the West.

1 E.g. Origen, Contra Celsum, viii. 37 : "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
hears that which is asked in every tongue. " Cf. S. Jerome, Ad Eustoch.,
Epitaph. Paulce. The evidence of the Fathers is set out at length in the
Homily on Common Prayer and the 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 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Originally the Eoman Church was Greek-speaking ; and
so long as this was the case the Liturgy there used was,
not Latin, but Greek.1 But by degrees, as Latin became
universal in the West among all classes, so the use of
Latin in public worship spread, although it was never
adopted in the East. Its retention throughout the
Western 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
among 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
were urged in its favour which 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 written 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
from us.2

1 A trace of this still remains in the Kyrie Eleison, 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 Mass ought only to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue . . .
let him be anathema." — Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session XXII.
canon ix. This session was held in Sept. 1562, shortly before the revision
of the Articles in Elizabeth's reign. It is therefore possible that the
alteration then made in the terms of the Article was in consequence of the
promulgation of this canon.

ARTICLE XXV

DC Sacramentis.

Sacramenta a Christo instituta
non tantura sunt notse professionis
Christianoram, sed certa quaedam
testimonia, et efficacia signa gratiae
atque bonaj in nos voluntatis Dei,
per quae invisibiliter ipse in nobis
operatur nostramque fidem in se,
non solum excitat, venim etiam
confirmat.

Duo a Christo Domino nostro
in Evangelio instituta sunt Sacra-
menta, scilicet Baptismus et Crena
Domini.

Quinque ilia vulgo nominata
Sacramenta, scilicet, Confirmatio,
Pcenitentia, Ordo, Matrimonium,
et Extrema Unctio, pro Sacramentis
Evangelicis habenda non sunt, ut
quse partim a prava apostolorum
imitatione profluxerunt, partim
vitse status sunt in Scripturis
quidem probati, sed Sacramentorum
eandem cum Baptismo et Co3iia
Domini rationem non habentes : l
ut quae signum aliquod visibile sen
caeremomam a Deo institutam non
habeant.

Sacramenta non in hoc instituta
sunt a Christo, ut speotarentur aut
circumferrentur, sed ut rite illis
uteremur: et in his duntaxat qui
digne percipiunt, salutarem habent

Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ
be not only badges or tokens of
Christian men's profession, but
rather they be certain sure wit-
nesses, 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.

There are two Sacraments
ordained of Christ our Lord in the
Gospel, that is to say, Baptism,
and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five, commonly called
Sacraments, that is to say, Con-
firmation, Penance, Orders, Matri-
mony, and Extreme Unction, are
not to be counted for Sacraments
of the Gospel, being such as have
grown partly of the corrupt folloAV-
ing of the Apostles, partly are
states of life allowed in the Scrip-
tures ; but yet have not the like
nature of Sacraments with Baptism
and the Lord's Supper, for that
they have not any visible sign or
ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained
of Christ to be gazed upon, or to
be carried about, but that we
should duly use them. And in

1 The edition of 1563 adds here : " quomodo uec pcenitentia."
585

586 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

effectum : qui vero indigne per- such only as worthily receive the
cipiunt, damnationem (ut inquit same, have they a wholesome
Paulus) sibi ipsis acquirunt. effect or operation. But they that

receive them unworthily, purchase
to themselves damnation, as S.
Paul saith.

THIS Article has undergone considerable alteration
since the publication of the series of 1553. In that
year it began with a quotation from S. Augustine :
" Our Lord 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 Lord's Supper."1 Then followed
the last paragraph of our present Article, with the
insertion (after the words " wholesome effect or opera-
tion ") of the following words : " and yet not that of the
work wrought, as some men speak, which 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 what is now the first
clause, with which the whole Article was concluded. In
1563 it was brought into the form in which 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 two main paragraphs was reversed ;
and (3) between them two fresh paragraphs were
inserted on (a) the number of sacraments ordained

1 Cf. Augustine, Epist. liv. : " Sacramentis numero paucissimis, obser-
vatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis, societatem novi populi
colligavit, sicuti est Baptisnms Trinitatis nomine consecratus, com-
munk-atio Corporis et Sanguinis Ipsius ; et si quid aliud in Scripturis
Canonicis commendatur." Cf. also De Doctr. Christiana, III. c. ix.

- " Idque non ex opere (ut quidam loquuntur) operato ; quie vox ut
peregrin a est et sacris literis ignota, sic parit sensum minime pium, sed
admodum superstitiosuin. "

ARTICLE XXV 587

by Christ, and (b) the five rites " commonly called
Sacraments." l

The origin of what now stands as the first clause
may be found in the Confession of Augsburg,2 from
which it was taken through the medium of the thirteen
Articles of 1538, where we read: " Docemus, quod
Sacramenta quse per verbum Dei instituta sunt, non
tantum sint notae professionis inter Christianos, sed
magis certa queedam testimonia et efficacia signa gratise
et bonee voluntatis Dei erga nos, per qure Deus
invisibiliter operatur in nobis, et suam gratiam in nos
invisibiliter diffundit, siquidem ea rite susceperimus ;
quodque per ea excitatur et confirmatur fides in his
qui eis utuntur. Porro docemus, quod ita utendum
sit sacramentis, ut in adultis, pneter veram contri-
tionem, necessario etiam debeat accedere fides, qute
credat praesentibus promissionibus, quse per sacramenta
ostenduntur, exhibentur, et prsestantur. Neque enim in
illis verum est, quod quidem dicunt, sacramenta conferre
gratiam ex opere operate sine bono motu utentis, nani in
ratione utentibus necessarium est, ut fides etiam utentis
accedat, per quam credat illis promissionibus, et accipiat
res promissas, quse per sacramenta conferuntur." 3 A
comparison of this with the corresponding passage in the
Confession of Augsburg shows the stronger position on
the reality of sacramental grace which the Anglican

1 The addition may perhaps have been suggested by the fact that the
Confession of "Wiirtemberg contained a long section on the subject.

2 Conf. A-u-gustana, art. xiii. : " De usu Sacramentorum. De usu Sacra-
mentorum docent, quod sacramenta instituta sint, non modo ut sint notfe
professionis inter homines, sed magis ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis
Dei erga nos, ad excitandam et confirmandani fidem in his qui utuntur
proposita. Itaque utendum est sacramentis, ita ut fides accedat, qure credat
promissionibus, quae per sacramenta exhibentur et ostenduntur. Damnant
igitur illos, qui docent, quod sacramenta ex opere open.to justificent, nee
docent fidem requiri in usu sacramentorum, qua- credat remitti peccata."

a See Hardwick, p. 270.

588 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

divines maintained. There is nothing in the purely
Lutheran document answering to the " emcacia signa
gratis," which has been transferred from this unfinished
series to our own Article.

The object of the Article is (1) to condemn the
inadequate views 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 t>f 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 " commonly called Sacraments."

4. The use of sacraments.

I. The Description of Sacraments ordained 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 (noUe professionis Christianorum). This was
the regular phrase descriptive of sacraments among
the Zwinglians,1 and adopted also by the Anabaptists,

1 The language of Zwingli himself sometimes gave to sacraments the
lowest position possible. In the liatio Jidci he says boldly : " Credo,

ARTICLE XXV 589

who regarded the Eucharist and baptism as nothing more
than such tokens. So we read in Archbishop Hermann's
Simplex ac pia deliberatio (which was translated into
English in 1547), that they " withdrawe from the
sacramentes, which they wil to be nothyng els than outward
sygnes of our profession and felowship, as the badges of
capitaines be in warre ; thei deni that they be workes
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 merite and
communion of Christ ; and that God worketh ly these
signes and exhibiteth unto us the gyftes in dede, which
He offereth wyth these signes." 2 Similarly, the same view
is condemned in the Eeformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, in
the following words : " Magna quoque temeritas illorum
est, qui sacramenta sic extenuant ut ea pro nudis signis,
et externis tantum indiciis capi velint, quibus tanquam
notis hominum Christianorum religio possit a caeteris
internosci, nee animadvertunt quantum sit scelus, hsec
sancta Dei instituta inania et vacua credere." 3 Accord-
ing to this Anabaptist theory, baptism 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 tarn abesse ut gratiam conferant, ut ne
adferant quidem aut dispensent " (see Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum,
p. 24), and elsewhere (De peccato originali dedaratio) : " Symbola igitur
sunt externa ista rerum spiritualium et ipsa minime sunt spiritualia, nee
quidquam spirituale in nobis perficiunt : sed sunt eorum qui spirituals
sunt, quasi tesserae." But his followers were to a great extent influenced
by Calvin's teaching, and in the Consensus Tigurinus (1549) they admit
that they are more than "marks or badges of profession." "Sunt
quidem et hi sacramentorum fines ut notn? sint ac tesserae Christiana?
professionis et societatis sive fraternitatis, ut sint ad gratiarum actionem
incitamenta et exercitia fidei ac pise vitae, denique syngraphae ad id
obligantes. Sic hie unus inter alia prsecipuus ut per ea nobis gratiam
suam testetur Deus, reprresentat atque obsignet." — Niemeyer, p. 193.
- English translation (ed. 1548), fol. cxlii. a De Hccres. c. xvii.

590 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Christians ought to have among themselves one to
another." Our Article condemns this view of sacra-
ments as " notse 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 —

(6) Certain sure witnesses ... of grace and

God's goodwill towards US. This view of sacra-
ments as " witnesses " (testimonia) is one to which
special prominence was given by both Lutheran and
Calvinistic divines upon the 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.1 Sometimes, however, they regarded them
also as witnesses of present blessings, testifying by out-
ward ceremonies to that blessing which the grace
annexed to the sacrament confers.2 So also our own
Hooker speaks of them as " marks whereby to know when
God doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ unto
all that are capable thereof " ; 3 and, in the Order for

1 " Baptism testifies that we have been cleansed and washed ; the
Eucharistic Supper that we have been redeemed." — 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 testimonies
and seals of the Divine will towards thee ; through them is thy conscience
assured, if it ever doubted, of the gr iciousness and the goodwill of God
in thy regard." — Melancthon, quoted by Moehler. Stinnfiolism, p. 202
(Eng. Tr.). Cf. the 13th Article of the Confession of Augsburg, quoted
above, p. 587.

'-So the Apology for tJie Confession of Auyslury : " Sacramentum est
rcremonia vel opus, in quo Deus nobis exhibet hoc, quod offert anncxa
ueremoniae gratia."

3 Eccl. Polity, Bk. V. c. Ivii.

ARTICLE XXV 591

Holy Communion we are reminded that the holy

mysteries are " pledges of His love," and that by them

God " assures us of His favour and goodness towards 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 " pledge." It is also " a means
whereby we receive the same" spiritual grace, of which
it is " an outward visible sign." A sacrament, then, is
" not only a picture of grace, but a channel of grace." 1
It " not only typifies, but conveys." 2 As Hooker puts
it, the sacraments are " 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, " effec-
tual signs of grace," first makes 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
sacraments are real means of grace*

(d) By means of these effectual signs God doth
work invisibly in US. In them " it pleaseth God to
communicate by sensible means those blessings which
are incomprehensible." 5 Once more the words seem to
have been inserted with the express purpose of laying
stress on the reality of the Divine gifts which man

1 Bp. Alexander. - Bp. A. Forbes. 3 Hooker, / r.

4 The phrase is one which had not commended itself to Luther, and he
was only willing to accept it with some qualification. " Nee verum esse
potest, sacramentis inesse vim efficacem justificationis, sen esse signa
efficacia gratioe. Hrec enim omnia dicuntu11 in jaeturam fidei, ex
ignorantia promissiouis divine. Nisi hoc modo elKcacia dixeris, quod si
adsit fides indubitata, certissime et efficacissime gratiam conferunt." — De
Capt. Eabyl. Ecc. Opp. vol. ii. fol. 272 (Jence, 1600).

5 Hooker, I.e.

592 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

receives from God in and through the sacraments,1 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 " (confirmat), 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 well to cite the definitions given in the Church
Catechism and in the Homily on Common Prayer and
the Sacraments, and to compare them with that in the
Article before us. If we take the most 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 same five points are 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 Augsburg, being first inserted in the joint
Confession of 1538. It is curious, however, to find something very
similar to them in the Confessio Belgica (1562). "Sunt enim sacramenta
signa ac symbola visibilia rerum internaram et invisibilium, per qua*, ceu
per media, Dens ipse virtute Spiritus Sancti in nobis operatnr." — Art.
XXXIII. (On this Confession see vol. i. p. 10.)

- Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments, p. 376 sey.
(S.P.C.K.).

3 The Article to 1553 (or indeed to 1538) ; 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 means whereby we receive the same, and (5) a
pledge to assure us thereof."

According to the Homily, sacraments, " according to
the exact signification," are " (1) visible signs (3)
expressly commanded in the New Testament, (4 and 5)
whereunto is annexed the promise of (2) free forgiveness
of our sins, and of our holiness and joining with Christ." 1

To the same effect the Article says that sacraments
(3) "ordained of Christ are . . . (5) certain sure
witnesses, and (4) effectual (1) signs of (2) grace and
God's goodwill towards us, (4) 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, of course, differences of detail, e.g. the
Homily leaves us free to look for the outward sign
anywhere "in the New Testament," whereas the
Catechism, with which agrees the Article,2 requires it to
be ordained " by Christ Himself." 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 supplementing
each other, and for teaching purposes none should be
lost sight of.

II. The Number of Sacraments ordained of Christ.

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 Common Prayer and the Sacrament-?, p. 376 (S.P.C.K.).

- Though the first paragraph does not mention the outward sign as
"ordained by Christ Himself," yet the phrases used in the second and
third paragraphs, "ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel," and
"any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God," indicate agreement
with the Catechism 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
endeavour to set forth the precise difference between
England and Rome on the number of the sacraments.

(a) The history of the word sacrament. - - The word
Sacramentum is a familiar classical one, with two well-
defined uses. It means either (1) a gage of money laid
down by parties who went to law, or (2) the military
oath taken by soldiers to be true to their country and
general. The idea which is common to both these
meanings is that of a Sacred pledge. The earliest occur-
rence of the word in connection with 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.1 It may be a matter of doubt to what 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 Bonian governor to a
Eoman 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 which 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 hanc fuisse summam vel
culpse suse vel erroris quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire
carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, seque sacrainento non
in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria
committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent."
See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, pt. II. vol. i. p. 51.

ARTICLE XXV 595

was the first Latin-speaking Church. Here we find it
used from the first as the equivalent of the Greek
fjbvcmjpiov, and as such it is employed with a wide
latitude of meaning, 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-
times of the military oath,1 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 into the common language
and familiar speech of Western Christendom through
the Latin versions of the Scripture, in which it appears
in several passages always as the rendering of /jLva-rrjpiov*
In Patristic writers the same latitude in the use of the
term, which has been already noticed, may constantly be

1 De Spectaculis, xxiv. Scorpiace, iv.

2 See Apol. vii. (Sacramentum infanticidii) ; xv. (Sacramenti nostri] ;
xix. (Judaici Sacramenti) ; xlvii. (nostris Sacramentis] ; Adv. Marc.
V. viii. (panis et calicis Sacramento) ; De Bapt. i. (aquce Sacramentum),
etc.

:5 Cyprian uses it twice of the military oath : De lapsis, xiii. ; Ep.
Ixxiv. Elsewhere with wide latitude of meaning. Of Baptism, Ep.
Ixxiii. ; of the Eucharist, De zelo et livore, xvii., De lapsis, xxv. ; of the
Passover, De imitate, viii. ; of a sacred bond, Ep. lix., De unitate, vi.
etc. ; of doctrines, De Dominica Oratione, ix., Testim. Prcef. 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 HP,
a secret (Greek fivcrr^piov) ; and also in Tobit xii. 7 ; Wisd. ii. 22, vi. 24
(A.V. 22) ; in all of which places it represents the same Greek word,
juv<rT?7/>io»>, as it does also (2) in the eight passages in which it is found in
the New Testament, viz. Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, 9, v. 32 ; Col. i. 27 ; 1 Tim.
iii. 16 ; Rev. i. 20, xvii. 7. It is also found occasionally in other passages
in the <J01<1 Latin," e.g. in Rom. xvi. 25.

596 THE THIRTY-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.1 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 name of the Trinity, the
Communion of His Body and Blood, and also whatever
else is commended to us in Canonical Scripture, apart
from those enactments which 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 similar 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 Sermo in Ccena Domini, § 24. 2 See above, p. 586.

3 De Doctrinii Christiana, III. ix.

ARTICLE XXV 597

of the Church " as limited in number. So in the East,
" Dionysius the Areopagite " (c. 500), who is followed
by later writers, describes in his book on the Ecclesi-
astical Hierarchies six Christian pvo-rrfpia, Baptism, the
Eucharist, Unction, Orders, Monastic Profession, and the
Kites for the Dead. In the West, Paschasius Radbert l
and Ehabanus Maurus,2 in the ninth century, both
speak of four sacraments, Baptism, Unction, the Body,
and the Blood of the Lord. Not till the eleventh
century is the number fixed at the mystic 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
Eucharistia. In this he says definitely that the sacra-
ments of the Church instituted by our Saviour were
seven \^ but in the next chapter he speaks of three,
Baptism, Unction, and the Eucharist, as more worthy,
and contradicts what he has said before, by maintaining
that of these three, only the first and third were
instituted by the Eedeemer Himself, for unction has only
apostolic authority.5 A few years later than Gregory
was Peter Lombard,6 to whom it is generally stated that

1 De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, iii. 2.

2 DC Clcricorum Institutions, I. xxiv.

3 Gregory became Bishop of Bergamo in 1133, and died in 1146. His
book, De Eucharistia, was first published in 1877, and since then has
been included in Hurter's Sanctorum Patrum Opuscula Selecta, vol. xxxix.

4 De Euch. c. xiii. : " Verum ne quis occasione dictorum existimet tot
esse sacramenta ecclesiae, quot sunt quibus congruit sacramenti vocabulum,
scire debemus ea solum esse ecclesise sacramenta a servatore nostro Jesu
instituta qurc in medicinam nobis tribute fuere, et hsec numero adimplentur
septenario. "

5 De Euch. c. xiv. : "Tria siquidem in ecclesia gerimus sacramenta
qiue sacramentis aliis putantur non immerito digniora, scilicet baptismum,
chrisma, corpus et sanguis Domini. Quorum trium primum et ultimum ex
ipsius Redemptoris institutions percepimus, ex apostolica vero traditione
illud quod medium posuimus. "

6 Peter Lombard became Bishop of Paris in 1159, and died in 1164.

39

598 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

the limitation of the number to seven is due. It is
found in his writings,1 and it was probably through his
influence that it became generally accepted. From him
it passed into the writings of the schoolmen, Aquinas 2
and others. It was laid down in the " decree to the
Armenians " sent in the name of Pope Eugenius iv.
from the Council of Florence (1439);3 and was
definitely adopted by the Council of Trent at the
seventh session of the Council (1547), when the
following 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 any one of these seven is not truly and
properly a sacrament : let him be anathema." 4 It will
be seen from this brief sketch that our Keformers 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. dist. ii. § 1. 2 Summa, III. Q. Ixv.

3 Decretum Eugenii Papcc IV. ad Armenios, Labbe and Cossart, vol. ix.
pp. 434 and 437.

4 Cone. Trid. Sess. VII. canon 1 : "Si qtiis dixerit sacramenta novte
legis non fuisse onmia a Jesu Christo Domino nostro instituta ; aut esse
plura vel pandora quam septem, videlicet Baptismum, Confirmationem,
Eucharistiam, Poenitentiam, extremam Unctionem, Ordinem, et Matri-
monium, aut etiam aliquod liornra septem, non esse vere, et proprie
sacramentum, anathema sit." It should be mentioned that the Greek
Church agrees with the Roman in 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 firra
[AvvT-fipia. TTJS £KK\Tj<rLas (q. xcviii. ib. p. 170 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 Russian
Church, p. 84). The Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus calls Baptism,
the Eucharist, and Penance ret irp&s a-wrfjptav dvayKoia pupnjpui« See
Winer, Confessions of Christendom, p. 241.

ARTICLE XXV 599

recognised frankly that it was 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.1 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 would be well to restrict it to these two. But they

1 According to the teaching of the earlier period, during the Reforma-
tion three sacraments were recognised as pre-eminent, Baptism, the
Eucharist, and Penance. These alone are mentioned in the Ten Articles
of 1536, while in the " Institution of a Christian Man," 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,
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 and dignity of sacraments, as indeed
they are well worthy to have . . . yet there is a difference in dignity
and necessity between them and the other three sacraments, that 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 Bishops 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.
and Ixix., and cf. Dixon, vol. ii. p. 303 seq.}. Cranmer and others denied
that it should 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 medieval view is
more rigidly adhered to (see Formularies of Faith, p. 293). In the
Reformat™ Legum Ecclcsiasticarum, 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, quee manifesto cerni possit, secundum est Dei promissum,
quod externo signo nobis reprresentatur et plane confirmatur. Tertium
est Dei prteceptum quo necessitas nobis iniponitur, ista partim faciendi,
partim commemorandi : qure tria cum authoritate Scripturarum in
Baptismo solum occurrant, et Eucharistia, nos haec duo sola pro veris et
propriis novi testamenti sacramentis ponimus." — De Sacramentis, c. ii.
Similarly in the Catechism published with the Articles in 1553, only two
sacraments are expressly recognised.

600 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

were perfectly willing to extend it to other rites also—
indeed, to " anything whereby an holy thing is signified "
— provided that it was made clear that the word was
only used in a general sense. Thus the Article before
us, after speaking of the five rites, " commonly called
Sacraments," l proceeds, not to deny the name to them
altogether, but only to assert that they " have not the
like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's
Supper," i.e. they are not to be put on a level with them.
Still clearer, perhaps, is the teaching of the Homily on
Common Prayer and fhe Sacraments, which puts the
matter so admirably that the passage must be quoted
here in full.

" As for the number of them, if they should be
considered according to the exact signification of a
sacrament, namely for visible signs, expressly com-
manded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed
the promise of free forgiveness of our sin, and of our
holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely,
Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. For although
Absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet
by the express word of the New Testament it hath
not this promise annexed and tied to the visible
sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible
sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly
commanded in the New Testament to be used in
Absolution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the
Lord's Supper are ; and therefore Absolution is no such
sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are. And
though the ordering of ministers hath His visible

1 It cannot be said that this expression discourages the application of
the name to them, any more than it can be maintained that the, parallel
form of expression in the Prayer Book, "The Nativity of our Lord, or
the Birthday of Christ, commonly called Christmas Day, " discourages the
use of the popular name for the festival.

ARTICLE XXV 601

sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of
sin, as all other sacraments except the two above named
do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else,
be such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are.
But in a general acceptation the name of a sacrament
may be attributed to anything whereby an holy thing
is signified. In which understanding of the word the
ancient writers have given this name, not only to the
other five, commonly of late years taken and used for
supplying the number of the seven sacraments ; but also
to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing
of feet, and such like ; not meaning thereby to repute
them as sacraments in the same signification that the
two forenamed Sacraments are. Dionysius ; Bernard, DC
Ccena Domini, et Ablut. pedum" l

It is perfectly clear from this that in some sense other
sacraments are recognised by those who are responsible
for the Homilies besides the two great ones, Baptism
and the Communion.

We are now in a position to pass to the consideration
of the next point :

(b) The precise difference between England and Rome on
the number of the sacraments. — It is largely but not
entirely a question of definition — not entirely, for, even
admitting the Roman description of sacraments, we
could not accept the Tridentine statement upon them.
The real difference appears to be this : Rome says that
the sacraments of the new law are neither more nor less
than seven, and that they were all instituted by Christ.
The Anglican Church maintains that the word should
either be restricted to two rites with outward visible signs
ordained by Christ Himself,2 or else that sacraments are

1 Homily on Common Prayer and the Sacraments, p. 376 seq.
(S.P.C.K.).
2 It must be remembered that the statement of the Catechism, "Two

G02 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

not seven, but innumerable. Two points in the Eoman
position may be added, as they are sometimes overlooked.
First, though the Tridentine divines have committed the
Roman Church to the position that all the seven sacra-
ments were instituted by Christ Himself,1 yet they have
never asserted that in every case the outward visible
sign is of His institution ; secondly, they asserted
definitely that all the seven are not to be regarded as
exactly on the same level of equality. " If anyone
shall say that these seven sacraments are equal to each
other in such wise as that one is not in any way more
worthy than another: let him be anathema."- When
these two points are remembered, it will be found that
the difference between the two branches of the Church
on this matter is comparatively small.

III. The Jive Rites " commonly called Sacraments"

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that

only as generally necessary to salvation," is not made in answer to the
question, "How many sacraments are there?" but "How many sacra-
ments hath Christ ordained in His Church ? " Moreover it is not said
absolutely that these are "two only," but "two only as generally
necessary for salvation," i.e. as necessary for all men. Cf. Taylor's
Dissuasive from Popery, p. 240. "It is none of the doctrine of the
Church of England that there are two sacraments only ; but that of
those rituals commanded in Scripture, which the ecclesiastical use calls
sacraments (by a word of art), two only are generally necessary to
salvation." So Archbp. Seeker in his Lectures (xxxv. ), "Our Catechism
doth not require it to be said absolutely that the sacraments are two
only, but two only necessary to salvation, leaving persons at liberty to
comprehend more things under the name if they please, provided that
they insist not on the necessity of them, and of dignifying them with
this title."

1 Before the Council of Trent it was regarded as an open question
whether they were all instituted by Christ ; and some divines, as
Bonaventura, Hugo, and Durandus, have questioned whether Confirma-
tion and Unction were instituted by Him.

'* done. Trident. Sess. VII. canon iii.

ARTICLE XXV 603

is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matri-
mony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be
counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being
such as have grown partly of the corrupt

following of the apostles (a prava apostolorum

imitatione), partly are states of life allowed
(probati) in the Scriptures: but yet have not
the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism
and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not
any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

It cannot be said that the account given in this
paragraph of the five rites is quite exact. It is said
that they are (1) such as have grown partly of
the corrupt following of the apostles, i.e. from a

bad imitation of them, a prava apostolorum imitatione.
This would well apply, as will be shown below, to
Extreme Unction, and perhaps also is intended to refer
to Penance in its medieval form, in view of the super-
stitions connected with it. (2) They are partly states
of life allowed in the Scriptures. "Allowed," it
must be remembered, meant a good deal more in the
sixteenth century than it does now. It did not stand for
" permitted," but was equivalent to " approved of " (Latin,
probati).1 Thus " states of life allowed in the Scriptures "
involves no lack of appreciation of the rites so described.
The phrase may be taken to refer to Matrimony and
Holy Orders, both of which can be spoken of as " states
of life." But it cannot include Confirmation, which is

1 So in Art. XXXV. of 1553 it is said that the "Book of prayers and
ceremonies of the Church of England " ought to be received and allowed "
(approbandi). In XXXVI. of the same series, that "the civil magistrate
is ordained and allowed (probatus) of God." A similar use of the word is
found in the Baptismal Service in the Book of Common Prayer: "He
favourably alloweth this charitable work of ours" ; and cf. Ps. xi. 6
(P.B.V. "the Lord alloweth the righteous"), and S. Luke xi. 48,
1 Thess. ii. 4 in the A. V.

604 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

not a " state of life " at all. Nor does it seem probable
that this apostolic ordinance, which the Church of
England has always maintained and insisted upon, can
be included under the first head.1 It remains, then, that
the description is somewhat carelessly drawn, and that
one of the five rites is not really included in it. This,
however, is not a matter of great importance, for
Confirmation, equally with the others, fails to answer
to the description of " Sacraments of the Gospel " ; for
although it is an apostolic rite, with its " outward visible
sign " and its " inward -spiritual grace," yet as it is only
traceable to the Acts of the Apostles (see Acts viii. 17,
xix. 6, and cf. Heb. vi. 2), we cannot positively say that
it was " ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel," or
that it has an " outward visible sign ordained by Christ
Himself."

It will also be found that each of the other rites fails
to answer to the restricted definition. Penance, of
which absolution is the " form in which its chief force
consists," 2 most certainly was " ordained by Christ Him-
self " (see S. John xx. 23), but it cannot honestly be
said to have " any visible sign or ceremony ordained of

1 It is possible, however, as Dr. Mason thinks, that Confirmation is
intended to be described as having grown out of " the corrupt following
of the apostles," since '* in the official language of the time, Confirma-
tion meant distinctly the rite of unction, after a certain form, with a
chrism elaborately compounded." See "The relation of Confirmation to
Baptism," p. 426. I cannot, however, think that this view is probable,
since "Confirmation" had been deliberately retained as the official title
of the rite of laying on of hands in the Prayer Books of 1549, 1552, and
1559. It is curious to notice that at the Hampton Court Conference in
1604, the Puritans complained that this phrase in the Articles involved a
contradiction with the teaching of the Prayer Book, and that their com-
plaint was dismissed as a "mere cavil." Cardwell's History of Con-
ferences, p. 182.

2 Cone. Trid. Sess. XIV. cap. iii. : " Docet praeterea sancta synodus
sacramenti poenitentise formam, in qua prrecipue ipsius vis sita est, in
illis ministri verbis positam esse : Ego te absolve, " etc.

ARTICLE XXV G05

God. ' Orders, again, was " ordained by Christ Him-
self" on the same occasion (S. John xx. 21-23). It
has its " inward spiritual grace," and from the days of
the Apostles has had as its " outward visible sign " the
laying on of hands. But once more the outward visible
sign cannot be traced back to the Gospel, or to our
Lord's own ordinance. Moreover, the grace given in it
is official, rather than for the personal sanctification of
the recipient. Matrimony is "an honourable estate,
instituted of God in the time of man's innocency,
signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt
Christ and His Church " ; and though " Christ adorned
and beautified " it " with His Presence," 1 it cannot be
said that it was ordained of Him in the Gospel, nor has
it any " outward visible sign " of Divine appointment.2
Extreme Unction may seem to require further con-
sideration ; for whereas the other four rites are retained
and " had in reverend estimation " by the Church of Eng-
land, this one has been entirely disused, and no authority
whatever is given for the application of oil to the sick
by the formularies of this branch of the Church. The
Scriptural authority that is pleaded for the rite is, of
course, the injunction of S. James in his Epistle.

" Is any among you sick ? let him call for the elders

1 The Book of Common Prayer. The Order for the Solemnization of
Holy Matrimony.

- In Eph. v. 32, after speaking of the union in marriage, S. Paul says
rb /j.v<rT-f)piov TOVTO fj.tya to-rlv, which is rendered by the Vulgate " Sacra -
mentuni hoc magnum est," and consequently by the Douay version,
" This is a great sacrament." It is, however, perfectly obvious that the
Apostle's use of the word iJ.vvT-fipi.ov in this connection ("This mystery is
great," R.V.) has no real bearing on the question whether marriage is a
"sacrament" in the later technical sense of the word, though, as Bishop
Ellicott notes (in loc.\ the very fact of the comparison which the Apostle
makes ("but I am speaking in reference to Christ and His Church")
' ' does place marriage on a far holier and higher basis than modern
theories are disposed to admit."

606 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

of the Church ; and let them pray over him, anointing
him with oil in the name of the Lord : and the prayer
of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall
raise him up ; and if he have committed sins, it shall be
forgiven him" (v. 14, 15).1 It may be granted that this
looks very much like an injunction to the Church for all
time ; but even so, if this were allowed, it would not
give the unction a right to be regarded as a Sacrament
of the Gospel, for it is not " ordained by Christ Himself."
We find, however, in the writings of early Fathers so
remarkable and complete a silence upon the subject that
we can only conclude that it was not regarded by them
as enjoining a rite to be continued after the ^apia-para
la/jidrcov (1 Cor. xii. 9) had disappeared from the Church.
There is, indeed, a constant stream of testimony to the
use of oil for healing purposes by Christians in early
ages ; 2 but there is no evidence for its application as a
religious rite until we come to the well-known letter of
Innocent I. to Decentius, bishop of Eugubium, early in
the fifth century. Decentius had written to ask whether
the bishop might anoint the sick. Innocent replies, and,
referring to the passage in S. James, tells him that he
might do so, that the oil should be blessed by the bishop
and used by all Christians in their hour of need, and
that it is " a kind of sacrament." 3 Now, even if it be

1 The only other passage in the New Testament where such unction can
possibly be referred to is S. Mark vi. 13, where it is said that the Apostles
"anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them" ; but this is
so definitely for liealing, that it is not generally regarded by Roman
divines as "the sacrament of Unction."

2 E.g. Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, c. iv.; Vita Eugenia, c. xi. (Rosweyd,
343).

3 Ep. ad Decent. § 8: "Sane quoniam de hoc, sicuti de cseteris, con-
sulere voluit dilectio tua . . . quod in beati apostolis Jacobi epistola
conscriptum est : Si inftrmus aliquis in vobis est, etc. : quod non est
dubium de fidelibus aegrotantibus accipi vel intelligi debere, qui sancta
oleo chrismatis perungi possunt, quod ab episcopo confectum, 11011 solurn

ARTICLE XXV 607

;i(lmitted that the letter is genuine, it is clear that it is
fatal to any claim for this religious unction to be
regarded as primitive ; for, as Bishop Harold Browne
truly says, " If extreme unction were then a sacrament
of the Church, it is impossible that one bishop should
have asked this question of another ; or if he did, that
the other should not at once have reminded him that
it was a well-known sacrament of immemorial usage." l
Further, it appears from the letter that even when the
blessing of the oil was restricted to the bishop, it was
still regarded as immaterial by whom the unction was
administered ; 2 nor do we meet with any injunction to
the priest to administer it himself before the ninth
century.

Again, whereas the original intention of the unction
had been primarily for the saving of the sick person's
life, by degrees this dropped out of sight, and the rite
came to be regarded as part of the preparation for
death, and was only administered when all hope of
recovery seemed to have passed away ; and thus that

sacerdotibus, sed et omnibus uti Christianis licet, in sua aut in suorum
necessitate ungendum. Caeterum illud superfluum esse videmus adjectum,
ut de episcopo ambigatur, quod presbyteris licere non dubium est. Nam
idcirco presbyteris dictum est, quia episcopi occupationibus aliis impediti,
ad omnes languidos ire non possunt. Cseterum si episcopus aut potest
aut dignum ducit, aliquem a se visitandum, et benedicere et tangere
chrismate, sine cunctatione potest, cujus est chrisma conficere. Nam
pcenitentibus istud infundi non potest, quia genus est sacramenti. Nam
qnibus reliqua sacramenta negantur, quomodo unum genus putatur posse
concedi ? "

1 Eyposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 588.

2 Even after the days of Innocent i. the oil was frequently blessed by
laymen, and even women. Thus S. Monegund (570) on her deathbed
"blessed oil and salt," which were afterwards given to the sick; see
Greg. Turon. Vita Patrum, c. xix. In 813 the Council of Chalons lays
down that the sick ought to be anointed by the presbyters with oil which
is blessed by the bishop (canon xlviii.). To the same effect, Hincmar
(852), Caplt. 5, and others about the same time. See the Dictionary of
Christian Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 2004.

608 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

which had been originally simply " the last unction "
(extrema unctio), as being (presumably) applied after the
unctions in Baptism and Confirmation, came to be looked
upon as nothing but " unctio in extremis, " and was
deferred until death seemed imminent. The subject was
considered by the Council of Trent at its fourteenth
Session, in 1551, when it was laid down that "this
sacred unction of the sick was instituted by Christ our
Lord, as truly and properly a sacrament of the new law,
hinted at, indeed, in Mark, but recommended and pro-
mulgated to the faithful by James the apostle and
brother of the Lord." The unction was said to " repre-
sent the grace of the Holy Ghost with which the soul of
the sick person is invisibly anointed." The " effect of this
sacrament " was further said to be " the grace of the
Holy Ghost, whose anointing cleanses away sins, if there
be any still to be expiated, and the remains of sin ;
relieves and strengthens the soul of the sick, by excit-
ing in him a great confidence in the Divine mercy,
whereby the sick being relieved, bears more easily the
inconveniences and pain of sickness; and more readily
resists the temptations of the devil, who lies in wait for
his heel ; l and sometimes obtains bodily health, when it
is expedient for the welfare of his soul." It is also said
that " this unction is to be applied to the sick, but
especially to those who lie in such danger as to seem
placed at their departure from this life : whence also it
is called the sacrament of the dying." But it is added
that " if the sick should recover, after having received
this unction, they may again be aided by the succour of
this sacrament when they fall into another like danger
of death." 2 These quotations show how far the Eoman

1 The reference is to the Vulgate of Gen. iii. 15.

2 Cone. Trid. Sess. XIV., Doctrina de sacramento extreme unctionis,
cap. i.-iii.

ARTICLE XXV 609

use lias departed from the intention of the rite described
by S. James, and how what was originally a practice
enjoined for life has become a " sacrament of the dying,"
only administered at the present day after the Viaticum
has been received.1 Turning now to the consideration
of the practice in the Church of England, it may be
noticed that the "Bishops' Book" of 1537 contains a
section devoted to the subject in which various abuses
and superstitions connected with the rite are noticed,2
though the practice is retained, and men are to be
taught to repute it " among the other sacraments of the
Church." But it is clearly stated that " the grace con-
ferred in this sacrament is the relief and recovery of the
disease and sickness wherewith the sick person is then
diseased and troubled, and also the remission of his sins
if lie be then in sin." 3 All this passage was considerably
modified in the " King's Book " of 1543, which refers far
less to the prospect of restoration to bodily health, and
is, as might be expected, decidedly more medieval in
tone.4 When the first English Prayer Book was pub-

1 It is clear from the language of S. Thomas that in the thirteenth
century extreme unction was administered "before the Eucharist was given
to the sick, for he says: "Per pcenitentiam et extremam unctionem prse-
paratur homo ad digne sumendum corpus Christi." — Summa, III. Q. Ixv.
art. 3.

2 "No man ought to think that by receiving of this sacrament of
anointing the sick man's life shall be made shorter, but rather that the
same shall be prolonged thereby, — considering the same is instituted for
the recovery of health both of the soul and body. Second, that it is an
evil custom to defer the administration of this sacrament unto such
time as the sick persons be brought by sickness unto extreme peril and
jeopardy of life, and be in manner in despair to live any longer. Thirdly,
that it is lawful and expedient to administer this said sacrament unto
every good Christian man in the manner and form before rehearsed, so
oft and whensoever any great and perilous sickness and malady shall
fortune unto them." — Formularies of Faith, p. 127.

3 Ib. p. 125.

4 See Formularies of Faith, pp. 123-128 and 290-293.

610 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

lished in 1549, a simple form of anointing was provided
to be used " if the sick person desire it." It was, how-
ever, entirely omitted in the Second Prayer Book in
1552, and has never been restored. If any justification
be needed for this complete disuse of the practice, it
may reasonably be found in the absence of any early
authority for it, and the entire lack of evidence from
early writers that the words of S. James were regarded
as enjoining a rite to be of lasting obligation in the
Church.

IV. The use of Sacraments.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ
to be gazed upon, or to be carried about ; but
that we should duly (rite) use them. And in
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 saith.

There is a slight difficulty concerning the first words
used here, because Baptism cannot possibly be " carried
about," nor does there appear ever to have been any
superstitious practice of " gazing upon " it. The custom
of carrying about the Eucharist is referred to again in
Article XXVIII., and it is easy to see that, in view of
the superstitions of the day, it may well have been
thought necessary to point out that this holy sacrament

was not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or

to be carried about ; and the probability is that the
words are intended to refer specially to it.1 This inter-

1 Britton (Hone Sacmmcntales, p. 97 seq.) argues that the plural
"sacraments" may have been intended to refer to the two parts of the
Eucharist which are spoken of in the Prayer Books of 1552 and 1559 as
the Sacraments of His Blessed Body and Blood " (second exhortation to
come to the Holy Communion). The word is altered into the singular in
the edition of 1604.

ARTICLE XXV 611

pretation is confirmed by the fact that S. Paul's words in
1 Cor. xi. 29, to which allusion is made in the following
sentence, are spoken only of the Eucharist.

It will scarcely be denied that the medieval system
was exposed to serious danger of leading men to rest
content with the mechanical act of receiving the sacra-
ments, and of encouraging them to look on them almost
as magical charms. Hence it was well that it should
be definitely stated that W6 should duly US6 them,

and that in such only as worthily receive the
same have they a wholesome effect or opera-
tion. But it would seem superfluous to add proof of
these statements here, for no Christian will be found to
deny them.

With regard to the last words of the Article, which
state that they that receive them unworthily
purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul

saith, it will be sufficient to remind the reader that
the " damnation " spoken of here and in the Authorised
Version of 1 Cor. xi. 29 (the passage alluded to), is not
necessarily final condemnation. It is rather that " judg-
ment " with which " we are chastened of the Lord, that
we may not be condemned with the world" (ver. 32); i.e.
the Apostle is speaking of a temporal chastisement, the
object of which was to wean the unworthy communicant
from his sin, and lead him to repentance, so that he
might escape what is commonly called " damnation."
The mistranslation, which is found in the Book of
Common Prayer, as well as in the Articles and the
Authorised Version, has happily been altered in the
Ptevised Version of 1881. It may be said in extenua-
tion of it that " damnation " was by no means so strong
a term in the sixteenth century as it is now ; * but all
the same the rendering of Kpipa as "judicium" by the

1 See Wright's Bible Word Book, p. 181.

612 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Vulgate in the passage in question ought to have pre-
vented the mistranslation, the practical consequences of
which have certainly been serious.

A few words may be added in conclusion concerning
the doctrine of grace ex opere operate, for it will be
remembered that the phrase was expressly condemned
in the clause corresponding to that now under considera-
tion, in the Article of 1553. It may therefore be fairly
asked, why was the condemnation of it removed in 1563 ?
Does the Church of England hold the doctrine, or does
it not ? In answer to % this it may be pointed out that
the phrase was an ambiguous one, capable of a perfectly
innocent sense, and of expressing a real truth, but capable
also of a meaning which was grossly superstitious. It
was originally used by medieval Theologians, and after
them by the Council of Trent (Session VII. canon viii.),
to describe the nature of the effects which the " seven
sacraments " produce. In the technical language of the
schools, man can by his perversity and wilful hardness
" put a bar " (ponere obicem) against their effect,1 and
certain dispositions, as faith and repentance, are required
on the part of the recipient. But the grace comes not
from them, but from Christ Himself through the sacra-
ments of His institution ; for, as our own Article XXVI.
points out, the sacraments are " effectual because of
Christ's institution and promise, although they be
administered by evil men." It was to guard this truth
that the phrase that grace conies ex opere operate was
invented ; and it was intended to indicate that " grace

1 Cf. the answer of the bishops at the Savoy Conference in 1661 to the
objection of the Puritans to the statement that every child is regenerate
in Baptism. ' ' Seeing that God's sacraments have their effects where
the receiver doth not ' ponere obicem,' put any bar against them (which
children cannot do) ; we may say in faith of every child that is baptized,
that it is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit." — Cardwell's History of
Conferences, p. 356.

ARTICLE XXV 613

is conferred by virtue of the sacramental act instituted
by God for this end, not by the merits of the minister
or the recipient." l But while, as employed by careful
and instructed Theologians, the phrase meant 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 operate,
whatever his spiritual condition might be.2 It was 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 was
not the only one which the phrase conveyed. Con-
sequently there was a danger lest the language of the

1 So Bellarmine (De Sacram. ii. 1) explains it: "Id quod active et
proxime atque instrumentaliter efficit gratiam justificationis est sola actio
ilia externa, qure sacramenturn dicitur, et htec vocatur opus operatum,
accipiendo passive (operatum), ita ut idem sit sacramentum conferre
gratiam ex opere operato, quod conferre gratiam ex vi ipsius actionis
sacramentalis a Deo ad hoc institute, non ex merito agentis vel
suscipientis. . . . Voluntas, fides, et pcenitentia in suscipiente adulto
necessario requiruntur ut dispositiones ex parte subjecti, non ut causse
activrc, non enim fides et poenitentia efficiunt gratiam sacramentalem neque
dant efficaciam sacramenti, sed solum tollunt obstacula, quse impedirent,
ne sacramenta suam efficiam exercere possent, unde in pueris, ubi non
requiritur dispositio, sine his rebus fit justificatio." And, among
moderns, see the careful statement of Moehler, Symbolism, p. 198.

2 This superstitious sense is indicated in the language of the Thirteen
Articles of 1538, where the phrase is condemned (Art. IX.): "Neque
enim in illis verurn est, quod quidam dicunt, sacramenta conferre gratiam
ex opere operato sine bono motu utentis, nam in ratione utentibus necea-
sarium est ut fides etiam utentis accedat, per quam credat illis promis-
sionibus et accipiat res promissas quse per sacramenta conferantur."
So in the "Apology for the Confession of Augsburg": "Damnamus
totum populum scholasticorum doctorum qui docent quod sacramenta
non ponenti obicem conferant gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu
utentis," Winer's Confessions of Christendom, p. 246.

40

614 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Article might appear to condemn a real truth. Hence
the clause was wisely omitted by Archbishop Parker,1
and nothing whatever was said either to sanction or to
condemn the phrase. The superstition which it was
desired to guard against was effectually excluded by the
statement that "in such only as duly receive" the
sacraments " have they a wholesome effect or operation " ;
while the truth which 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 men."

1 Of. Hard wick, pp. 129, 130.

ARTICLE XXVI

De vi InstitvMo-num Divina i-n.ni.
qvotl cam non toll-it malitia
MfaMforum,

Quamvis in ecclesia visibili bonis
mail semper sint aclmixti, atque
interdura ministerio verbi et sacra-
mentorum administration! pnesint,
tamen cum non suo sed Christ!
nomine agaiit, ej usque mandate
et autoritate ministrent, illorum
ministerio uti licet, cum in verbo
Dei audiendo, turn in sacramentis
percipiendis. Neque per illorum
malitiam effectus institutorum
Christi tollitur, aut gratia do-
norum Dei minuitur, quoad eos
qui fide et rite sibi oblata per-
cipiunt, quee propter institutionem
Christi et promissionem efficacia
sunt, licet per malos admini-
strentur.

Ad ecclesisi tamen disciplinam
pertinet, ut in malos ministros
inquiratur, accuseuturque ab his,
qui eorum flagitia noverint, atque
tandem justo convicti judicio
deponantur.

Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers,
irhich hinders not the effect of the
Sacraments.

Although in the visible Church
the evil be ever mingled with the
good, and sometime the evil have
chief authority in the ministration
of 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 re-
ceiving of the sacraments. Neither
is the effect of Christ's ordinance
taken away by their wickedness,
nor the grace of God's gifts dimin-
ished from such as by faith and
rightly do receive the sacraments
ministered unto them ; which be
effectual, because of Christ's insti-
tution and promise, although they
be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, 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

THIS Article has remained practically unchanged l since

1 "Malos ministros" was substituted for "eos" in the last paragraph
iu 1563, and in 1571 the English was brought into conformity with the

615

616 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

its first issue in 1553. It is drawn substantially from
the fifth of the " Thirteen Articles of 1 5 38," l 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 ministers is necessarily inefficacious and ought to
be rejected. The same view is expressly condemned in
the Confession of Augsburg in the following words :
" Damnant Donatistas et similes, qui negabant licere uti
ministerio malorum in ecclesia, et sentiebant minis terium
malorum inutile et iaemcax esse." 3 Similarly the
Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum says that some of
the Anabaptists " ab ecclesise corpore seipsos segregant,
et ad sacrosanctam Domini mensam cum aliis recusant
accedere, seque dicunt detineri vel ministrorum impro-
bitate vel aliorum fratrum." 4

Latin by the alteration of " such" into " evil ministers." The title also
in its present form only dates from 1571. In 1553 and 1563 it was
" the wickedness of the ministers doth not take away the effectual
operation of God's ordinances." " Ministrorum malitia non tollit
efficaciam institutionum divinarum."

1 "Quamvis in ecclesia secundum posteriorem acceptionem mali sint
bonis admixti atque etiam ministeriis verbi et sacramentorum non
nunquam prrcsint ; tamen cum ministrent non suo sed Christi nomine,
mandate, et auctoritate, licet eorum ministerio uti, tarn in verbo audiendo
quam in recipiendis sacramentis juxta illud : 'Qui vos audit me audit.'
Nee per eorum malitiam minuitur effectus, aut gratia donorum Christi
rite accipientibus ; sunt enim efficacia propter promissionem et ordina-
tionem Christi, etiamsi per malos exhibeantur. "

-"Quanquam ecclesia proprie sit congregatio sanctorum et verc
credentium ; tamen cum in hac vita multi hypocritae et mali admixti
sint, licet uti sacramentis, quoe per malos administrantur, juxta vocem
Christi: Sedent Scribes et Pharisee/ in Cathedra Moisis, etc. Et sacra-
menta et verbum propter ordinationem et mandatum Christi sunt
efficacia, etiamsi per malos exhibeantur."

3 Confessio Augustana, Art. VIII. sub fine.

4 Ref. Legiim JZcclesiast., DC Hceres. c. xv. Cf. Rogers On tJic Articles
(published in 1586). "The Anabaptists will not have the people to use
the ministry of evil ministers, and think the service of wicked ministers

ARTICLE XXVI 617

It has been sometimes thought that the Article may
have also been aimed at the doctrine of " Intention." ]
This, however, is unquestionably a mistake. The
language of the Article in no way bears on the doctrine,
and it is difficult to see how it could ever have been
thought to do so. Certainly when the Puritans at the
Hampton Court Conference in 1604 asked that a
condemnation of the doctrine might be inserted in the
Articles, it cannot have occurred either to them or to
the Bishops who answered them that a condemnation
of it was there already.2 Moreover, when in 1633
Francis a Sancta Clara (Davenport) wrote his Com-
mentary on the Thirty-Nine Articles, endeavouring to
reconcile them with the Tridentine decrees, while some
of the statements in the Articles were evidently
stubborn facts which it was 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 was 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 Anabaptists, it needs but little comment

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 preach, 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. 271.

1 See Bishop Harold Browne On the Article?, p. 607.

a Of. Card well's History of Conferences, p. 185.

* Davenport's book, which is more remarkable for ingenuity than for
anything else, has been republished by the Rev. F. G. Lee (J. T.
Hayes, 1872).

618 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

or explanation.1 The opinions condemned in it, which
have found favour with Puritan sects from the days
of the Donatists onward, would, if admitted, make all
ministerial and sacramental acts utterly uncertain, for
no man can see into the hearts of the ministers, and
say who are in the sight of God " evil " and who are not.
Besides this, there is ample support in Holy Scripture
for the position maintained in the Article. The principle
underlying our Lord's words, " The scribes and Pharisees
sit in Moses' seat : all things, therefore, whatsoever they
bid you, these do and 6bserve ; but do not ye after their
works " (S. Matt, xxiii. 2,3), may fairly be applied to
the case of " evil ministers " in the Christian Church.
When the Twelve were sent forth two and two, and
given " power against unclean spirits to cast them out,
and to heal all manner of sickness, and all manner of
disease," the ministry of Judas must have been effectual
like that of the rest of the Apostles, or suspicion would
have been directed towards him. Again, our Lord lays
down the rule with regard to " the Seventy " which must
apply to Christian ministers also : " He that heareth you
heareth Me ; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth Me ;
and he that rejecteth Me, rejecteth Him that sent Me "
(S. Luke x. 16); and S. Paul teaches that the minister
is nothing. " What then is Apollos ? and what is
Paul ? ministers through whom ye believed ; and each as
the Lord gave to him. I planted, Apollos watered ; but
God gave the increase" (1 Cor. iii. 5, 6). Such passages
when fairly considered seem sufficient to establish the
position taken up in the Article, and to lead us to
believe that even in an extreme case, when the evil
have chief authority in the ministration of

1 The doctrine of "Intention" is noticed in connection with the
question of the validity of Anglican Orders in the Commentary on
Article XXXVI. See below, p. 75f>.

ARTICLE XXVI 619

the word and sacraments, yet forasmuch as
they do not the same in their own name, but
in Christ's, and do minister by His commission
and authority, we may use their ministry,
both in hearing the word of God, and in the
receiving of the sacraments.

At the same time, important as it is that this principle
should be established, it is no less necessary that the
Church should guard herself with the utmost care from
any suspicion of indifference to the character of the lives
of her ministers, whom she charges before their ordina-
tion to the priesthood to " endeavour themselves to
sanctify their lives, and to fashion them after the rule
and doctrine of Christ, that they may be wholesome and
godly examples and patterns for the people to follow " ;
and, therefore, it is well that the statement already
considered should be followed by that in the last para-
graph of the Article, which must commend itself to
everyone, and seems to require no formal proof. It

appertaineth to the discipline of the Church,
that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and
that they be accused by those that have
knowledge of their offences ; and finally, being
found guilty by just judgment, be deposed.

AETICLE XXVII

De Baptismo.

Baptismus non est tantum pro-
fessionis signum ac discriminis nota,
qua Christian! a non Christfenis
discernantur, sed etiam est signum
Regenerationis, per quod tanquam
per instrumentum recte baptismum
suscipientes, ecclesire inseruntur,
promissiones de remissione pecca-
torum atque aduptione nostra in
filios Dei, per Spiritum sanctum
visibiliter obsignantur, fides con-
firmatur, et vi divinse invocationis,
gratia augetur.

Baptismus parvulorum omnino in
ecclesia retinendus est, ut qui cum
Christi institutione optime con-
gruat.

Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of
profession, and mark of difference,
whereby Christian men are dis-
cerned from other that be not
christened, but is also a sign of
regeneration or new birth, whereby,
as by an instrument, they that
receive baptism rightly are grafted
into the Church ; the promises of
the forgiveness of sin, and of our
adoption to be the sons of God by
the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed
and sealed : faith is confirmed : and
grace increased by virtue of prayer
unto God.

The baptism of young children is
in any wise to be retained in the
Church, as most agreeable with the
institution of Christ.

THIS Article dates from 1553; but in the revision of
Elizabeth's reign, ten years later, the last paragraph was
rewritten, and the language on Infant Baptism was con-
siderably strengthened. The earlier clause had simply
stated that " the custom of the Church to christen young-
children is to be commended, and in any wise to be
retained in the Church."1 The language of the Article

1 It should be mentioned that though the words "per Spiritum
Sanctum" stand in the Latin edition of 1553, there is nothing to corre-
spond to them in the English. The omission was rectified in the English
edition of Jugge and Cawood in 1563.

C20

ARTICLE XXVII 621

has not been traced to any earlier source. There is
nothing in the Confession of Augsburg1 or in the Thir-
teen Articles of 1538 suggesting its phraseology; nor is
there any resemblance between its language and that
of the Refonnatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum on the same
subject.2

The object of the Article is to state the Church's
teaching on Holy Baptism, in view of the errors of the
Anabaptists, who (1) maintained an utterly unspiritual
view of the sacrament, and (2) denied that Baptism
ought to be administered to infants and young children.3

There are two main subjects which come before us for
consideration —

(1) The description of Baptism and its effects.

(2) Infant Baptism.

I. The Description of Baptism and its Effects.

Each phrase in the description requires separate con-
sideration.
(a) Baptism is ... a sign of profession. So

much was admitted by Zwingli and the Anabaptists, who
regarded Baptism as little more than this. The expression
used in the Article may be illustrated by the language of
the closing exhortation in the Office for the Public Baptism
of Infants in the Book of Common Prayer, where it is said
that " Baptism doth represent unto us our profession; which

1 The Article in the Confession of Augsburg (IX.) is this: "De Bap-
tismo decent, quod sit necessarius ad salutem, quodque per baptisnium
offeratur gratia Dei ; et quod pueri sint baptizandi, qui per baptisnium
oblati Deo recipiantur in gratiam Dei. Damnant Anabaptistas, qui im-
probant baptismum puerorum, et affirmant pueros sine baptismo salvos
fieri."

3 Ref. Legum Eccltsiast. , De Sacramtntis, cap. 3.

3 This, together with other errors on Baptism, is condemned in the
Reform a tio Legum Ecclcsiasticarnm, De Hceres. cap. 18 ; and cf. Hermann's
"Consultation," fol. cxlii.

622 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

is to follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and to
be made like unto Him : that as He died and rose again
for us, so should we who are baptized, die from sin and
rise again unto righteousness ; continually mortifying all
our evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in
all virtue and godliness of living."1 This view of Bap-
tism is based directly on the language of S. Paul in
Kom. vi. 4, " We were buried with Him through baptism
into death : that like as Christ was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk
in newness of life" (cf. also Col. ii. 12, "Having been
buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised
with Him through faith in the working of God, Who
raised Him from the dead ").

(b) It is a mark of difference whereby Christian
men are discerned from other that be not

christened (a non Christianis). Just as circumcision
was a mark distinguishing the Jews from all others, so
also Baptism distinguishes Christians from non-Christians.
It is the initial rite by which a man is, so to speak, made
a Christian. But Baptism is much more than this. It
it is to be regarded not only as a badge or mark, for,

1 Cf. also the Collect for Easter Even (1662), "Grant, 0 Lord, that as
we, are, baptized into the death of thy blessed Son our Saviour Jesus Christ,
so by continually mortifying our corrupt affections we may be buried with
him ; and that through the grave and gate of death we may pass to our
joyful resurrection ; for His merits," etc. Expression is also given to the
same thought in the Reformat™ Legum Ecclesiast. , De Sacramentis, cap. 3 :
" Dum autem in aqua demergimur et rursus ex ilia emergimus, Christi
mors nobis primum et sepultura commendantur, deinde suscitatio quidem
illius, et reditus ad vitam," etc. See also Bishop Lightfoot on Col. ii.
12: "Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new.
As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters the believer buries there all his
corrupt affections and past sins ; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate,
quickened to new hopes and a new life. . . . Thus Baptism is an image of
his participation both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ."
It is obvious how much the dramatic impressiveness of Baptism and its
representative force is increased where immersion is the method employed.

ARTICLE XXVII 623

(c) It is also a sign of regeneration or new

birth. Here it must be remembered that sacraments
have been already defined in Article XXV. as " effectual
signs of grace," and therefore, since " Eegeneration " is
the word which the Church has ever used to describe the
grace of Baptism, and to sum up the blessings conveyed
in it, we must interpret " sign " in this clause as an
effectual sign ; and thus the whole expression will mean
that in Baptism the blessings of regeneration are not
only represented, but are also conveyed to the recipient.
The word Eegeneration is expanded in the Church
Catechism into " a death unto sin and a new birth unto
righteousness," and explained in the following words :
" For being by nature born in sin and the children of
wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace." It
has been selected by the Church, not only because of its
use by S. Paul, who speaks in Titus iii. 5 of a " laver of
regeneration " (\ovrpov TraXt'yyez'ecr/a?),1 in a connection
in which it can only refer to Baptism, but also because,
previously to this, expression had been given to the
thought of a "new birth " as requisite by our Lord
Himself in His conversation with Nicodemus, where,
after saying, " Except a man be born anew (or from above,
avcodev) he cannot see the kingdom of God,"2 He explains
His words by adding the statement that a man must be

1 The only other passage in the New Testament in which the word
ira\iyyevf<ria occurs is S. Matt. xix. 28, where it has no reference to
Baptism.

- Thus among the Greek Fathers a.vay{vvtj<Ti.s occurs from the days of
Justin Martyr onwards (Apol. I. Ixi. : "ETretra Ayovrat u0' T//ia);/ ZvQa vdwp
ear/, /ecu rpbirov dvayevvricreus, &v KO.I -^tets auroi dveyevi>r]dTf]/j.ev, dva-
yevvuvTai). (Cf. Irenreus, Adv. Hcer. I. xiv. 1 : ety ^apv-rjo-iv TOV ^aTrrta-
/xaros T?}S ei's Qeov dvayevvrjffeus). Indeed it is more common in this
connection than -rraXiyyeveo-ia. For these two words the Latins have but
the one equivalent, Regeneratio, which is apparently first found of
Christian Baptism in Tertullian, De Eesurr. Carnis, xlvii. (its use in De
Came Chrisfi, iv., is ambiguous).

624 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

" born of water and the Spirit " (e'f vSaros teal Ilvev-
/Aaro?), S. John iii. 3, 5.1

But though the word Regeneration sums up the
special grace of Baptism, 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 per quod, i.e. by the signum reyenera-

tionis), 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 "my
Baptism wherein I was made a member of Christ" that is,
a member of His mystical body, the Church ; and the
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
Church as one of the blessings of Baptism. Most per-
tinent are the words of the declaration of Regeneration
to be used after the actual Baptism, which, as they date
from the revision of 1552, are almost exactly contem-

1 Since exception is sometimes 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) Where a literal construction will
stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst ; (2) of all the
ancients, there is not one that can be named that did ever understand it
except of Baptism ; and (3) "where the letter of the law hath two things
plainly expressed, water as a duty on our part, the Spirit as a gift which
God supplieth, there is danger in presuming so to interpret it as if the
clause concerning ourselves were more than needeth. By such rare
expositions we may perhaps in the end attain to be thought witty, but
with ill advice."— EccL Pol. Bk. V. c. lix.

- The phrase tanquam per instrumentum was perhaps suggested by the
Confession of Augsburg, which says (Article V.) that "per verbum et
sacramenta, tanquam per instrumcnta, donatur Spiritus Sanctus." But
the expression is not uncommon in contemporary writings. See Hard-
wick, p. 414.

ARTICLE XXVII 625

porary with the Article before us. " Seeing now, dearly
beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate and grafted
into the body of Christ's Church" etc. The metaphor of
" grafting " employed here and in the Article is suggested
by the language of S. Paul in Kom. xi. 1 7 seq. ; but
throughout the Acts of the Apostles, Baptism everywhere
appears as the rite of admission into the Church. Our
Lord's charge after the resurrection had been, " Go ye
and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them" etc.
(S. Matt, xxviii. 19, cf. [S. Mark] xvi. 16), and from
the day of Pentecost onward the command was obeyed,
and those that received the word were forthwith " bap-
tized." See Acts ii. 38, 41, viii. 12, ix. 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 for the remission of
sins" and Article IX. has already stated that " there
is no condemnation to them that believe and are
baptized " (renatis et credentibus). With regard to the
expression employed in the Article, " signed and sealed "
(obsignantur), its force will be clearly seen when it is
remembered that " a seal is appended to a deed of gift or
any other grant, when the donor, who has promised it,
actually makes tlie thing promised over to the receiver, and
thereby assures the possession of it to him." l Thus the
words of the Article imply that Baptism is the moment
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 withheld from the
Catechumen. In the case of adults it must have been
present, or they would never have come forward
" truly repenting, and coming to Christ by faith." But

1 Sadler's Church Doctrine Bible Truth, p. 120.

626 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

what is meant is that Baptism is the decisive moment in
which 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
" visibly 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
moment of his conversion. For three days after this he
was left to himself, and grace was working in his heart :
" For behold he prayeth," was the description of him
given to Ananias (Actsax. 11). But not till the time of
his Baptism were his sins washed away, for the words of
Ananias to him were these : " And now, why tarriest
thou ? arise, and lie baptized, and wash away thy sins,
calling on His flame" (Acts xxii. 16). So on the day
of Pentecost those who 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, what shall we do ? " but the forgiveness of
their sin is connected by the Apostle with the decisive
act of Baptism : " Repent ye, and be baptized every one
of you unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 37, 38).1
With these passages before us there can be no doubt that
the Church is right in thus connecting, as she has ever
done, the promise of forgiveness of sin with the sacra-
ment of Baptism.2

1 Of. Eph. v. 25, 26: "Christ also loved the Church, and gave
Himself up for it ; that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by
the washing of water with the word (/caflctp/cras T$ \ovrp$ rov i/Saros
ev pr)/j.ari) ; 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 "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 remission of sins " (S. Mark
i. 4), and that the natural action of water in cleansing
would almost 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,
e.g. in the symbolic washings of the priests under the law
(Lev. viii. 6) ; the cleansing of the leper (Lev. xiv. 8) ;
the Psalmist's prayer, " Wash me throughly from mine
iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin " (Ps. li. 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 " my baptism wherein I was 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
" Son " by nature and eternal generation ; and so (to
illustrate the language of the Article once more from the
Book of Common Prayer) after a child has been baptized
we are taught to thank God " that it hath pleased [Him]
to regenerate this infant with [His] Holy Spirit, to receive
him for [His] own child ~by adoption, and to incorporate

spiritual regeneration," and pray that God would " 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 riper
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 favourably receive these
present persons, truly repenting and coming unto Him by faith ; that He
will grant them remission of their sins, and bestow upon them, the Holy
Ghost ; that He will give them the blessing," etc. The words in italics
are substituted for "that He will embrace him with the arms of His
mercy " in the corresponding passage in the Office for the Baptism of
Infants.

628 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

him into [His] holy Church.1 Again, the language used
in the Article is entirely Scriptural. S. Paul tells us
that " when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth
His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that He
might redeem them which were under the law, that we
might receive the adoption of sons " (TTJV vlodeaiav), Gal. iv.
4, 5; and in Eom. viii. 15-17 he says, "Ye received
not the spirit of bondage again unto fear ; but ye
received the spirit of adoption (7rvev/j,a vioOeaias),
whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit Himself
beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of
God : and if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and
joint heirs with Christ ; if so be that we suffer with
Him, that we may be also glorified with Him." It
is true that there is no direct mention of the rite of
Baptism in this passage ; but the tense used (eXa/Sere,
Aorist) points to a definite time, and that can only be the
time of Baptism,2 with which the thought of sonship
is connected by S. Paul in Gal. iii. 26, 27 : " Ye are all
sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many
of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ."

We now come to the consideration of the words
by the Holy Ghost (per Spiritum Sanctum), which
stand in the Article in the middle of the sentence now
under consideration. As usually taken, they are con-
nected with the words which 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 " visibly signed and sealed." It seems,
however, unquestionable that they were originally in-

1 Compare the recognition of the same truth in the Collect for Christmas
Day: " Almighty God . . . grant that we being regenerate, ami made thy
children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit,"
etc.

- See Sanday and Headlam's Commentary in loc.

ARTICLE XXVII 629

tended to be construed with the words that follow, and
to refer to the action of the Holy Ghost in signing and
sealing the promises. " 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.1 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 collect it, is this — (1) In
1553 in the Latin MS. 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 English the words "per Spiritum Sanctum"
are not represented at all. (2) In 1563 in the Latin Parker MS. at
Corpus College, Cambridge, there is no stop till after obsignantur, but
in the printed edition, published by Wolfe, there is a comma after
"filios Dei," "adoptione nostra in filios Dei, per Spiritum Sanctum
visibiliter obsignantur." This is also the case in the English MSS. 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
State Papers (iibi supra, No. 41a) has no stop till after obsignantur, but
the arrangement 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 1571 the English MS. 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 Latin (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 in 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." I cannot say whether it ever occurs earlier than this, but this
is the earliest edition in which I have discovered it.

41

630 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

in the edition of 1571 there stands a comma before
as well as after the words, thus : " the promises ... of
our adoption to be the 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 may be the
case elsewhere, 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 Sanctum visibiliter obsignantur." The words,
then, should apparently be taken as a definite recognition
of the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism. By Him the
promises are visibly signed and sealed. The " new
birth," as our Lord Himself teaches us, is one of " water
and the Spirit " (S. John iii. 5) ; and as S. Paul says,
" By one Spirit we 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 Holy Spirit who is the
instrument of his regeneration, and that in some
sense the Holy Spirit is " given " in Baptism. As
Hooker puts it with 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 powers of the soul their first disposi-
tion towards future newness of life."2 But it is a
further question whether it is right to say precisely
that the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is
given in Baptism apart from Confirmation. On the one

1 'Ev tvi irveti/JLari denotes the means, and the els (into one body) the
result attained," Godet in loc.
'2 E. P. V. Ix. 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, where the gift is distinctly connected with the
" laying on of hands " which followed (in one case at
least after some interval) 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 remain some other words of the Article of
which it is hard to say what is the precise significance,
faith is confirmed: and grace increased by

virtue Of prayer unto God (vi divinae invoca-
tionis). No Scriptural authority can be urged, as in
the case of the statements already made, for connecting
these blessings with 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 confirmed and
grace increased "- —words which of necessity presuppose
an already existent " faith " and " grace " which can be
" 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 serve to bring out the
view taken of it in the text : —

Baptism is not only

(a) A sign of profession, and

632 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

in the Baptismal Office, the baptized persons present are
taught to use these words, which correspond in a remark-
able manner to the expression before us : " 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 confirm 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.1

Since in some minds there appears to exist a certain
amount of confusion on the subject of this Article, and
a prejudice against the Church's doctrine of baptismal
Eegeneration, largely due, it is believed, to a misunder-
standing of the term, it may be well if, before the subject
of Infant Baptism be considered, a few words are added
on the distinction between regeneration, conversion, and

(&) Mark 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 forgive- \

ness of sin, and I by the Holy Ghost are visibly

(3) Of our adoption to be the j signed and sealed.

sons of God,
Faith is confirmed ; and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

1 Of. Britton, Horoc Sacramentales, p. 185: "The Church ends her
description of the graces conferred by the sacrament with the word
' sealed ' ; 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 the 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 latter would
imply that the prayers of the congregation might, over and above the
ordinance of God, be blessed to the recipient's soul : so that, whereas he
might receive grace by God's appointment, whether prayer accompanied
Baptism or not, yet the addition of prayer was calculated to bring down
more grace and to confirm faith. "

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. Conversion is
in the Prayer Book spoken of but rarely : once the term
is used of what we call the " conversion " of S. Paul ; l
once of a change of religion, the turning from heathenism
to Christianity ; 2 and once only in a more 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 well
expresses an experience which is needed by all save
those who, like the Baptist, have been sanctified from
their mother's womb. 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 was
in the " far country " the prodigal was still a son. So
the man who has once been regenerated in Baptism is
still a " 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
which in the parable is represented as the " coming to
himself " of the prodigal, when 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 conversion in remembrance."

2 Preface to the Book of Common Prayer : ' ' The baptizing of natives
in our plantations, and others converted to the faith."

3 The third Collect for Good Friday: "Nor wouldest the death of a
sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live."

634 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

to his father, and say, Father. 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 name of Father. Renewal, the third term mentioned
above, should be distinguished from both Eegeneration
and Conversion, as that which, owing to man's natural
infirmity, is constantly and even daily required in all
Christians even after they are " converted." It is that
for which we ask in the Collect for Christmas Day, in
which we pray " that we, being regenerate and made
[God's] children by adoption and grace, may daily le
renewed by [His] Holy Spirit " ; and again the prayer in
the " Order for the Visitation of the Sick," even after the
sinner is absolved there is a prayer that God will " renew
in him whatsoever hath been decayed by the fraud and
malice of the devil, or by his own carnal will and frail-
ness." If the language of the Book of Common Prayer
in the various passages that have been here referred to
be carefully attended to, it is believed that confusion
will be avoided, and that the distinction between these
several terms will 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 well to begin with (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 exclude
infants, and it is believed that had He intended them to

ARTICLE XXVII 635

be excluded, He would have expressly said so. Indeed
the silence of Scripture, so far from being an argument
against the practice, may really be turned into one in its
favour, for the Apostles and all Jews were perfectly
familiar with the idea of children being brought into
covenant with God by means of circumcision ; and
therefore when Christ instituted Baptism as the rite of
admission to the new Covenant, and said nothing ex-
pressly as to the age of those to whom it was to be
administered, the natural inference must have been that
children were proper subjects of it, else the new Covenant
would be narrower than the old. Nor was the analogy
of circumcision the only thing that would incline the
Apostles to the practice, if, as seems almost certain,
Baptism was already practised by the Jews in the
admission of proselytes. The Talmud lays down the
express rule that infants were to be baptized with their
parents ; 1 and though its evidence does not positively
prove that the custom was already in existence at the
time of our Lord's earthly ministry, yet the probability
is very strong that the Talmud is recording a tradition
which dates back to so early a date. If, then, the
Apostles were accustomed (1) to circumcision, and (2) in
the case of proselytes to Infant Baptism, it can hardly be
doubted that to them it would have seemed natural to
include infants, and admit them into the new Covenant
by means of the rite enjoined for " making disciples."

(b) But there is positive evidence to supplement the
argument from silence. When S. John iii. 5 is connected
with S. Mark x. 13—16, the inference that children are
proper subjects for Baptism appears irresistible. " Except
a man (rt?) be born of water and the Spirit he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God." These words teach the

1 See the passages cited in Lightfoot's Horce ffebraiccc on S. Matt. iii. 6
(vol. ii. p. 56).

636 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

" necessity " of Baptism for admission into the Church.
But in S. Mark we 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
" commanded the children to be brought unto Him,
blamed those that would have kept them from Him, took
them in His arms, and blessed them." Nor is the fact
(mentioned by S. Mark) that He thus " 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 — What 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 was 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 Him, 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.
Wherever and whenever the Church is in a missionary
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 Baptism
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. 16), 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 not). 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. " Bepent
ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name 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 ii. 38, 39).
And in full accordance with this, we 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 drawn from
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 with the idea
and practice of Infant Baptism, though, for the reason
stated above, that she was 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 men and
women of sixty or seventy who had been Christ's
disciples from childhood,1 but also compares Baptism with

1 IIoXXo£ rives Kal TroXXcu f^rjKOVTovrai Kal e^dofj.rjKOi'TOVTai, ot ex
ry X/HCTT^, &(f>0opoi. 5ta/uevoi;<n»'. — Apol. I. XV.

638 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

circumcision, and speaks of it as the " spiritual circum-
cision." This is especially noteworthy, as it occurs in
his Dialogue with Trypho? who was a Jew ; and if
the analogy failed in so important a point, it could
hardly have been pressed as it is by Justin.

Towards the close of the century (A.D. 180) Irenaeus
has these words : " He came to save all by Himself —
all, I say, who are regenerated by Him unto God, infants,
and little children, and boys, and young men, and those of
older age." "

No less decisive is the language of Tertullian (200),
who 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 whole
force of his words depends upon the fact that Baptism
was actually being administered to young children when
he wrote.3

In the writings of Origen (220) there is more than
one passage which bears on the subject. Thus in his
Commentary on the Romans he says definitely that it
is an apostolic tradition " to administer 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,
saying that infants are baptized for the remission of sins." 5

1 Dial, cum Tryphone, c. xliii.

- "Onmes enini venit per semetipsum salvare : omnes, inquam, qui per
Eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros et juvenes et
seniores." — Adv. Hocr. II. xxxiii. 2.

3 " Itaqne pro cujusque personae couditione ac dispositione, etiam setate,
cunctatio baptismi utilior est, pnecipue tamen circa parvulos. . . . Veniant
ergo dum adolescunt," etc. — De Baptistno, xviii.

4 " Pro hoc et ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit, etiam parvulis
baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta com-
missa sunt divinorum quod essent in omnibus genuinse sordes peccati,
quna per aqnam et Spiritum ablui deberent." — Com. in Ep. ad Rom.
Bk. V. c. ix.

5 " Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum. Quorum pecca-

ARTICLE XXVII 639

The last witness who need be cited is S. Cyprian
(250). In his day we find that the analogy of circum-
cision was so rigidly pressed, that it was questioned
whether it was lawful to administer Baptism before the
eighth day after birth. The question is considered by
him, and decided in the affirmative.1 From this time
onwards there can be no question as to the custom of
the Church permitting Infant Baptism, although in many
cases 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 familiar
with the idea and practice of Infant Baptism.

torum ? vel quo tempore peccaverunt ? aut quomodo potest ulla lavacri
in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta ilium sensum de quo paulo ante
diximus : Nullus mundus a sorde, nee si unius diei quidem fuerit vita
ejus super terrain ? Et quia per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes
deponuntur, propterea baptizantur et parvuli. Nisi enim quis renatus
fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potuerit intrare in regimm ccelorum." — In
Lucam Homilia XV. ; cf. Horn, in Levit. viii. § 3.
] Ep. Ixiv. (ed. Hartel).

ARTICLE XXVIII

Of the Lord's Supper.

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
by Christ's death : insomuch that
to such as rightly, 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.

Transubstantiation ( or the
change of the substance of bread
and wine) in the Supper of the
Lord, cannot be proved by Holy
Writ; but is repugnant to the plain
words of Scripture, 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 spiritual
manner. And the mean whereby
the body of Christ is received and
eaten in the Supper is faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper was not by Christ's ordi-
nance reserved, carried about, lifted
up, or worshipped.

IN no Article are the changes introduced at the revision

of 1563 of greater importance than in this. It is not

cto

De Ccena Domini.

Coena Domini non est tantum
signum muture benevolentiae Chris-
tianorum inter sese, verum potius
est sacramentum nostrse per mortem
Christ! redemptionis. Atque ideo
rite, digne et cum fide sumentibus,
panis quern frangimus, est com-
municatio corporis Christ! : simili-
ter poculum benedictionis est com-
municatio sanguinis Christi.

Panis et vini transubstantiatio
in Eucharistia, ex sacris literis pro-
bar! non potest, sed apertii Scrip-
ture verbis adversatur, sacrament!
naturam evertit, et multarum
superstitionum dedit occasionem.

Corpus Christi datur, accipitur,
et manducatur in co3na, tantum
ccelesti et spiritual! ratioue. Me-
dium autem quo Corpus Christi
accipitur et manducatur in coena,
fides est.

Sacramentum Eucharistine ex in-
stitutione Christi non servabatur,
circumferebatur, elevabatur, nee
adorabatur.

ARTICLE XXVIII 641

too much to say that they completely transform it and
alter its character. In order to make this clear, it
will be necessary to remind the reader briefly of the
course of thought on the subject of the Eucharist
in the Church of England during the sixteenth
century.

In all the formularies put forth in the reign of
Henry vm. the doctrine of the real presence is strongly
asserted,1 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 bishops 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, and really contained and 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 receive
the said sacrament." — Formularies of Faith, p. 11.

(2) "The Institution of a Christian man" (the "Bishops' Book") of
1537 repeats this almost word for word.— Op. cit. p. 100.

(3) The "Necessary 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 there offered, exhibited, and
received, to be the very precious body and blood 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 Christ in very substance." — Op. cit. p, 262.

642 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

upon by the Anglican and Lutheran divines in 1538.1
But about the year 1545 Ridley came across the book
of " Bertram," or rather Ratramn of Corbie (840), De
Corpore et Sanguine Domini? By this he was greatly
impressed. " This Bertram," he said, " was the first that
pulled me by the ear, and that brought me from the
common error of the Eomish 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 Eatramn's book end
here ; for Ridley, having been convinced by it himself,
never rested till he had won 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 what 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 Eucharistia: "De Eucharistia constanter credimus et
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 et
distribuuntur illis qui sacramentum accipiunt, sive boms sive malis."
This is decidedly stronger than the Article in the Confession of Augsburg,
which in the original edition of 1530 runs as follows : "De ccena Domini
decent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint, et distribuantur
vescentibus in ccena Domini, et improbant secus docentes." This was
altered in the edition of 1540 to " De coena Domini decent, quod cum
pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus in
cosna Domini." — See Sylloge Confessionum, pp. 126 and 172.

2 Ratramn's book was written in answer to questions addressed to him
by Charles the Bald, in consequent; of the work of Paschasius Radbert,
in which a theory of transubstan tiation had been plainly put forward.
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 tJie Lord's Supper, p. 11.

4 Ib. p. 13.

3 In 1548 he issued an English translation of a Lutheran Catechism,
and great was the dissatisfaction and disappointment among the more

ARTICLE XXVIII 643

early in 1551, he seems to have fallen completely under
the influence of the Polish refugee John a Lasco, who
sympathised entirely with the Swiss or Zwinglian 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 Twenty-
ninth Article, De ccena Domini, in 1553. It will be
remembered that in the Prayer Book of 1552, among
other changes, the words of administration were altered,

ardent spirits at the position which he took up. "The Archbishop of
Canterbury, moved, no doubt, by the advice of Peter Martyr and other
Lutherans, has ordered a Catechism of some Lutheran opinions to be
translated and published in our language. This little book has occa-
sioned no little discord ; so that fightings have frequently taken 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 the 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 our Saviour, but all the dreams of
Luther seem to him sufficiently well 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 instrumentality of that most upright and judicious man,
Master John a Lasco, is in a great measure 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, "entertains 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 preachers 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 religious, 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 Doctrine of the 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 which was given (shed) for thee," etc., and that
there appeared at the end of the Communion Office the
" black rubric " or declaration concerning kneeling, which
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." l 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" were added in 1563). But the third para-
graph was widely different from that which the Article
now contains. It stood thus :

" 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
term it) of Christ's flesh and blood, in the sacrament of
the Lord's Supper."

1 On the history of this rubric, which was added at the last moment,
see Dixon, iii. 475 seq.

ARTICLE XXVIII 645

Exactly in accord with this teaching is the language
of the Reformatio Legum Ecdesiasticarum> 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 " 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 who
sympathised with the Swiss School of Eeformers in regard
to the Eucharist, and who held that the Presence was
merely figurative. But happily the accession of Elizabeth,
after the Marian 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 first
Prayer Book of Edward 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 Reformatw Legum Eccles., De Hccres. c. 19; cf. De Sacramentis,
c. 4 : " Cum autem ad lisec omnia nee transubstantiatione opus sit, nee
ilia quam fingere solebant reali praesentia corporis Christi, sed potius hsec
curiosa hominum inventa primum contra naturam humanam sint a Filio
Dei nostra causa sumptain, deinde cum Scripturis diviuis pugnent, et
prseterea cum universa sacramentorum ratione confligant, ista tanquam
frivola qusedam somnia merito desecanda curavimus, et oblivione
obruenda, praesertim 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."

42

646 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ's flesh and
blood," was also deleted,1 and in its place was 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 Eochester, who says in a letter to Cecil that is still
preserved, that it was of " mine own penning," and that
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,3 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 were now (at the lowest estimate) patient
of a Catholic interpretation, and contained nothing under
cover of which 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
coelum ascendens, corpori suo Immortalitatem dedit, naturam non
abstulit, humanae enim naturae veritatem (juxta Scripturas) perpetuo
retinet, quam uno et definito loco esse, et non in multa, vel omnia
simul loca diffundi oportet, quum igitur Christus in ccelum 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 Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri." See
Lamb's Historical Account of the XXXIX. Articles, p. 12.

2 The letter quoted in full in G. F. Hodge's Bishop Guest Articles
XX VIII. and XXIX. p. 22.

3 See the letter of Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger, quoted in
vol. 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 ; cf. Zurich Letters, p. 177.

ARTICLE XXVIII 647

shelter themselves. Moreover, 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 Keformers, such as Cranmer
and Eidley, on the subject of the Holy Communion, have
nothing more than an historical interest for us. Destruc-
tively they performed a task for which we owe 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 writings 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 was
shown to the ancient teaching of the Church.

We are now in a position to consider the substance of
the Article as it stood unchanged since 1568. 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.

I. The Description of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

(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 admits 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 was instituted " for the continual
remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and
of the benefits which we receive thereby," and by it we
" 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 (communicatio) 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 follows very closely : " The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not a communion (icoivwvia,
Vulg. communicatio) of the Blood of Christ ? The bread
which we break, is it not a communion with the Body
of Christ ? " This passage forms an inspired commentary
upon the account of the institution, when (to follow S.
Paul's own narrative of it) our Lord " took bread ; and
when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This
is My body, which is for you : this do in remembrance
of Me. In like manner also the cup, after supper,
saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood : this
do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me." The
value of the words of the Apostle cannot be over-
estimated as interpreting the meaning of our Lord's
words : " This is My body." They seem conclusive
against transubstantiation on the one hand, and against
a merely figurative presence on the other. The bread,
he says, which we break,1 is it not a Kowwvia with the
body of Christ ? i.e. that which coming between unites us
with and makes us partakers of the body ; for so we

1 It is noteworthy that S. Paul's words are "the bread which we
break" and "the cup of blessing which we Uess" not simply "which we
eat and drink." Thus he seems to lay the stress on the breaking of the
bread and the blessing of the cup, i.e. on the consecration with which
the Church has always connected the fact of the Presence.

ARTICLE XXVIII 649

may paraphrase the word. Thus the heavenly part of
the Sacrament is conveyed to us through the earthly
symbol consecrated by Christ's word of power ; and the
" inward part or thing signified " is, in the emphatic
words of the Catechism (rightly emphatic, because the
Presence had been explained away by some), " the Body
and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken
and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper."
Thus the Eucharist is, as Article XXV. maintains, an
" effectual sign." It not only typifies, but also conveys ;
for all who " duly receive these holy mysteries " are fed
" with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and
Blood " of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

So far the Article has spoken only of the fact of the
Presence of Christ's Body and Blood, teaching us that it
is conveyed to us through " the bread which we break,"
and " the cup of blessing which we bless." But ques-
tions had been raised, and much controversy had taken
place with regard to the manner and nature of the
Presence ; and these could not be altogether passed by
without notice. To them, therefore, the next two para-
graphs are devoted.

II. Transubstantiation.

In considering this it will be well to treat
separately —

(a) The history of the doctrine, and

(b) The grounds on which it is condemned.

(a) The history of the doctrine. — During the first
eight centuries there are singularly few traces of con-
troversy on the subject of the Eucharist, and as a
consequence the teaching of the Fathers concerning the
Presence is informal and unsystematic. It is, however,
quite clear from the language used by them, as well as

650 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

from the expressions employed in the Liturgies of the
Church, (1) that they believed in the Keal Presence, and
yet (2) that they were not committed to any formal theory
of the manner of it such as that which was afterwards
elaborated, and (3) that they held the permanence and
reality of the elements even after consecration. The
ninth century made a change, as the doctrine then
became a matter of controversy. The first, so far as
we know, to write a formal treatise on the subject was
Paschasius Kadbert of Corbie, in 831. In his work,
De Gorporc et Sanguine Domini, a carnal theory, involv-
ing practically the destruction and annihilation of the
elements, was boldly taught. Again and again he
asserts that after consecration there is " nihil aliud quam
corpus et sanguis Domini." l The work of Paschasius
was answered among others by Eatramn, whose treatise,
denying the carnal presence, and maintaining a spiritual
view, had such an influence on Ridley, and through
him on Cranmer.2 Others, however, as Hincmar (c. 850)
and Haimo of Halberstadt (c. 850), wrote in favour of
the teaching of Paschasius ; Haimo, indeed, expressly
teaching that " the invisible priest changes His visible
creatures into the substance of His flesh and blood,"
and that " though the taste and figure of bread and wine
remain, yet the nature of the substances is altogether
changed into the body and blood of Christ." 3 After
this, however, the controversy died down, till the days
of Lanfranc and Berengar, Archdeacon of Angers,

1 See cc. ii. viii. xi. xii. xvi. xx., and cf. Gore's Dissertations, p. 236 scq.
The work of Paschasius is given in Migne, Patrologia, vol. cxx.

3 On the teaching of Ratramn, see Gore, op. cit. p. 240 seq.

3 Migne, Patrol, vol. cxviii. p. 817. It is generally stated that John
Scotus Erigena joined in this controversy and wrote a work on the
Eucharist. But this does not appear to have been the case, for the work
ascribed to him by later writers has been shown by Canon Gore to be
really the work of Ratranm. Dissertations, p. 240.

ARTICLE XXVIII 651

in the eleventh century. Berengar, who had attacked
the popular doctrine with great vigour, was forced to
recant at the Council of Eome under Nicholas n.
(1059), and the form of recantation to which he was
compelled to assent will show more clearly than any-
thing else what was now the belief of the dominant
party in the Church.

" Ego Berengarius indignus Sancti Mauritii Ande-
gavensis ecclesiae Diaconus cognoscens veram, Catholi-
cam, et apostolicam fidem, anathematize omnem haeresim,
praecipue earn, de qua hactenus infamatus sum : quae
astruere conatur panem et vinum, quae in altari ponuntur,
post consecrationem solummodo sacramentum, et non
verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi
esse, nee posse sensualiter, nisi in solo sacramento,
manibus sacerdotum tractari, vel frangi, aut fidelium
dentibus atteri. Consentio autem sanctae Komanae et
apostolicae sedi ; et ore et corde profiteer de sacramento
Dominicae mensae eandem fidem me tenere, quam
dominus et venerabilis Papa Nicolaus et haec sancta
Synodus auctoritate evangelica et apostolica tenendam
tradidit, mihique firmavit : scilicet panem et vinum,
quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum
sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem
Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et sensualiter, non
solum sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum
tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri : jurans per
sanctam et homoousion Trinitatem, per haec sacrosancta
Christi evangelia. Eos vero, qui contra hanc fidem
venerint, cum dogmatibus et sectatoribus suis aeterno
anathemate dignos esse pronuntio. Quod si ego ipsse
aliquando contra haec aliquid sentire aut praedicare
praesumpsero, subjaceam canonum severitati. Lectio
et perlecto sponte subscripsi." 1

1 Mansi, vol. xix. p. 900.

652 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

This asserts definitely that after consecration the
bread and wine are the true Body and Blood of Christ
in such a way that they are " sensibly," not only
sacramentally, but really handled by the priest, broken,
and ground by the teeth of the faithful. Practically
this amounts to saying that the Body and Blood have
taken the place of the elements ; and it is very difficult
to think that the expressions used can have been
intended to be taken in any but a material sense of a
sort of physical carnal presence.1 But an obvious
difficulty occurs here. • If this is so, how is it that the
appearances of bread and wine are there still ? It was
said that these were allowed to remain in order to
test our faith, and to prevent the horror which would
result were the Body and Blood to be openly mani-
fested.2 And further, advantage was taken by the
schoolmen of the distinction drawn by the philosophy of
the day between " substance " and " accidents." It was
taught that the " accidents " remain, and that therefore
taste, appearance, smell, etc. are unchanged, but that
the " substance " of bread and wine had been annihilated
and replaced by the " substance " of the Body and
Blood, i.e. that the bread and wine had been tran-
substantiated into the Body and the Blood. The actual
word by which this theory is commonly known,
" transubstantiatio," appears to have been first used
during the eleventh century,3 and was definitely adopted
by Innocent in. at the Fourth Lateran Council in

1 See the summary of the contusions of Witmund, De Corporis et
Sanguinis Christi Veritate, in Gore, Dissertations, p. 259.

2 So Paschasius, x. xi.

3 It has been generally stated that the first known occurrence of the
word is in the work of Stephen, bishop of Autun, De Sacramento Altaris
(c. 1100). It appears, however, before this in the Exposition of the
Canon of the Mass, by Peter Damien (who died in 1072), first published
by Cardinal Mai, Script, vet. nova Collectio, vol. vi. p. 211 seq. ; see c. vii.

ARTICLE XXVIII 653

1215, when a decree was promulgated, laying down
that the Body and Blood are truly contained in the
Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and
wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the Body,
and the wine into the Blood, by Divine power.1

From this time onward the word was commonly
employed in the Western Church.2 But it is no more
free from ambiguity than is the word " substance "
itself. This, taken in its philosophical sense, is nothing
that is tangible, or that the senses are cognizant of ;
these can only come in contact with the " accidents "
or qualities. The " substance " is the underlying
something which constitutes the thing, which makes it
what it is, in which the " accidents " cohere. But, taken
in its ordinary popular sense, " substance " suggests to
plain, untrained, and unphilosophical minds something
material and tangible, something which they can see,
and with which the senses can come in contact. Hence
it will be seen that even after it had been laid down
that the elements were " transubstantiated " into the
Body and Blood, there was still room for wide difference
of opinion as to the nature of the change involved.
By instructed Theologians it was understood of a change

1 ' ' In qua [ecclesia] idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificium Jesus Christus,
cujus corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini
veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in
sanguinem potestate divina." — Labbe and Cossart, vol. vii. p. 18.

2 The Eastern Church accepts the corresponding term /ierowrfoms. It
is doubtful, however, whether any instance of its use occurs earlier
than the sixteenth century. The older words used for the change
effected by consecration were /ierao-Toixftaa-u, /xera/JoX??, ^era'flecny, and
fj.era\\ayri ; and Archbishop Platon of Moscow lays down that the word
/ieTownWis is to be taken in the sense in which the Fathers used these
other terms, and is not to be understood of a physical and carnal
transubstantiation, but of one that is sacramental and mystical. See
Palmer's Treatise on the Church, vol. i. p. 172 ; but see the Confession of
Dositheus (Kimmel, p. 457 seq.)t and cf. Winer, Confessions of Christen-
dom, p. 282.

654 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

that was spiritual and entirely free from any gross or
carnal sense. But to those to whose minds the ordinary
associations of the word " substance " clung, it could
only suggest a material physical presence. The great
schoolmen of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, from
Peter Lombard onwards, had done something to free
the doctrine from the terribly materialistic ideas in
which it had originated,1 but after their days a period of
decadence set in ; the clergy of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries were for the most part not well-
instructed Theologians ; and there can be no doubt that
the doctrine commonly accepted at the beginning of the
sixteenth century was a grossly carnal and material
one. There is abundant and painful evidence of this,
not only in the language of those who (often coarsely
and in ill-considered language) assailed the popular
theory, but also in the language of its defenders.
Thus one of the forms of recantation submitted to Sir
John Cheke under the direction of Cardinal Pole
reasserts in plain terms the view contained in the
recantation of Berengarius, cited above.2

1 See, e.g., the language of Peter Lombard, Libri Scntent. IV.
dist. xi. xii. xiii.

2 See Strype's Life of Sir John Cheke, p. 123 : " ' I, Sir John Cheke,
Knight,' etc. . . . The tenor of which was, that he pretended with
heart and mouth to profess that he acknowledged 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 and 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 sacrament.
That he consented now to the holy and apostolical Church of Rome, and
professed with mouth and heart to hold the same faith touching the
sacrament of the Lord's Mass, which Pope Nicholas with his Synod at
Rome, anno 1058, did hold, and commanded to be held by his
evangelical and apostolical authority ; that is, that the bread and wine
upon the altar, after consecration, are not only a sacrament, but also are

ARTICLE XXVIII 655

In spite, however, of the popular superstitions
encouraged by the use of the term, 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, more than a year
before the promulgation of the English Articles of 1553.
At this session it was laid down — (1) 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 Eedeemer declared
that which He offered under the form of bread to be
verily His own Body, therefore it has ever been a firm
belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod
doth now declare it anew, 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 : which 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 Evangelists that whosoever should hold or say to the contrary, he
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 severity and rigour of the Canons," etc.

"Principio docet sancta Synodus et aperte ac simpliciter profitetur
in almo sanctae Eucharistiae sacrameuto, post panis et vini consecra-
tionem, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum verum Deum atque
hominem, vere, realiter, ac substantialiter sub specie illarum rerum
sensibilium contineri." — Gone. Trid. Sess. xiii. cap. 1.

2 " Quoniam autem Christus redemptor noster, corpus suuni id quod
sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit ; ideo persuasum semper in
ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nunc denuo sancta hsec Synodus declarat, per
consecrationcm panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantive paiiis
in substautiam Corporis Christi Domini nostri, et totius substantive vini

656 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

first two Canons passed at this session were the
following : —

" If any one 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 any one shall say that in the sacred and holy
sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread
and wine 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." l

Thus the scholastic theory was formally sanctioned by
the Eoman Church, and is regarded as an Article of
faith in that communion to this day.

(b) The grounds on which the doctrine is condemned.

The Article gives four grounds for rejecting the

in substantiam Sanguinis Ejus ; quae conversio convenienter et proprie a
sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata." — Ib. cap. 4.

1 " Si quis negaverit in sanctissimo Eucharistise Sacramento contineri
vere realiter et substantialiter Corpus et Sanguinem, una cum anima et
Divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum : sed
dixerit tantummodo esse in eo, ut in signo, vel figura, aut virtute,
anathema sit.

"Si quis dixerit in sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere sub-
stantiam panis et vini, una cum Corpore et Sanguine Domini nostri Jesu
Christi ; negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem totius
substantire panis in Corpus, et totius substantive vini in Sanguinem,
manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini, quam quid em conversionem
Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem appellat : anathema
sit." — Ib. 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 " proved by Holy
Writ." Komanists point to the words of institution, TOVTO
earl TO crojjjid /JLOV. But though they can certainly be
claimed in favour of the real Presence, yet to bring
into them a theory of " accidents " remaining while the
" 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.1

(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
" bread," and has no claim to be so called. But
Scripture freely speaks of that which is received as
" bread," e.g. " As often as ye eat this bread and drink
the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till He come.
. . . Let a man prove himself, 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 " outward visible sign "
and the " inward 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 " nature of a sacrament " is
" overthrown."

1 Both Scotus and Bellarmine have allowed that there is no passage of
Scripture so plain as to compel belief in Transubstantiation, apart from
the decree of the Lateran Council. See Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, III.
xxiii., where Scotus is referred to [In IV. dist. xi. q. 3]. Cf. Forbes,
Considerationes Modestce, vol. ii. p. 446.

658 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

(4) It hath given occasion to many supersti-
tions. These words are only too painfully true, and in
support of them reference may be made to the medieval
stories of alleged miracles, such as those freely instanced
by Paschasius Eadbert,1 in which the Host has dis-
appeared, and the Infant Christ Himself been seen, or
where 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 account, the miracle, in which the
corporal was 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 which 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 Eomanists. 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 may claim that
they recognise it as in some sense " bread," and give it
the same term as does S. Paul.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 Eucharist is a sacrament. They con-
stitute the outward part — they are the sensible sign of

1 A considerable number of such "miracles" are related in his work,
De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, c. xiv.

2 Cf. Bellarmine, De Ehicharistia, I. c. xi.

ARTICLE XXVIII 659

that refreshment "of the soul which follows from a
worthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament." l The fourth
argument is obviously inconclusive as an argument. 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 which has not been
so perverted and abused. But even with regard to the
more refined and spiritual form in which the doctrine is
capable of being presented, we cannot but feel com-
pelled to resist it when 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 which 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 were demanded from us.6

1 Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, p. 347.

2 Bp. Thirl wall, Charge, 1866, Appendix B.

3 Gore, Dissertations, p. 269.

4 Cf. Gore, op. 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, Prcelectiones Theologicce : " Etenim cum species eo
devenerint ut corpus sive materia dissolvi seu corrumpi deberet, cessante
reali corporis Christi prsesentia, Deus omnipotentia sua iterum producit
materialem panis aut vini substantiam in eo statu quo naturaliter
inveniretur, si conversio nulla prsecessisset, ut fides locum habent." —
De Eucharistia, § 151.

5 So Hooker, E. P. V. Ixvii. 6 : " 'This is My 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, whether by consubstantia-
tion or else by transubstantiation the sacrament itself be first possessed
with Christ or no ?— a thing which no way can either further or hinder
us however it stand, because our participation of Christ in this sacra-

660 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

III. The Nature of the Presence 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 writer that in this
clause " the body of Christ is not said in a general
way to be ' received/ but to be ' 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

raent 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 greatly
to care nor inquire." Cf. the MS. note in which Hooker defends these
words, quoted by Mr. Keble (Hooker's Works, vol. ii. p. 353). Bp.
Andrewes : " De Hoc est, fide firma tenemus, quod sit : De, Hoc modo est
(nempe, Transubstantiate 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 Scholce,
fortasse, inter Fides Articulos non ponimus." — Resp. ad Bellarm. p. 13
(A. C. Lib.). So Archbp. Bramhall places Transubstantiation " among the
opinions of the schools, not among the Articles of our faith." — Answer to
Militiere, p. 1. Burnet also says : "We think that neither consubstantia-
tion nor transubstantiation, however ill-grounded we think them to be,
ought to dissolve the union and 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 refuse."— Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles, p. 701.

ARTICLE XXVIII 661

and the outward and visible sign. ... To use these
precise expressions, therefore, respecting the Body of
Christ is, by clearest implication, to combine that
' heavenly and spiritual ' blessing with the given and
taken symbol."1 The words of the whole 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 manner." But the mean whereby the
body of Christ is received 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 words 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 create 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, which is not in the
sacrament when he eats and drinks it, but ly Ms eating
and drinking of it comes to be there." 2 If, however, it
is clearly implied 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 whereby
the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper
is faith." So much is practically confessed by Bishop
G-uest, the author of the clause, in a remarkable letter
addressed to Cecil in 1571. Guest was very anxious

1 A. Knox, Essays, vol. ii. p. 173.
~ Laws of the Church, c. ii. § 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 Supper is faith." l The Article was,
however, left untouched, and the Twenty-ninth was,
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 with regard
to the Presence in the Eucharist have now been dis-
cussed (for the fourth paragraph which still remains
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 will be this : that while
the doctrine of the real Presence is distinctly taught, and
the theory of Transubstantiation 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 Papers, "Domestic," Elizabeth, vol. Ixxviii. No. 37. Of. vol. i.
p. 45.

ARTICLE XXVIII 663

devoutly accepts her Lord's words. She does not
attempt to explain them away 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 nowhere revealed " how " 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, whether
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.1

To the present writer it appears that on this mysterious
subject we may well be content to make our own the
words of Bishop Andrewes in the sixteenth century, and
of Bishop Moberly in the nineteenth —

" Prresentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram :
de modo praesentiae nihil tern ere definimus, addo, nee
anxie inquirimus." 2

" The Body and Blood of Christ are present, not
corporeally (for that we know from our Lord's words

i This, it must be remembered, is a distinct "theory" quite as much
as Transubstantiation. It is probably largely owing to the belief 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
whole of Hooker's teaching on the subject. See Book V. c. Ixxvii. § 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. Ixvii. 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 wrorthy receiver of the sacra-
ment," cannot be deemed convincing, and the reader will find an able
criticism of them in Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. Introd.
p. 202 seq.

• llcspomio ad Bdlarm. p. 13.

664 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

in John vi. 63), but spiritually, in and with the elements.
We know no more . . . Consubstantiation, like Transub-
stantiation, is a theory of the manner of the Presence,
whereas the Church only knows the Presence as a fact,
respecting the manner and mode and extent of which
she is not informed." 1

IV. Certain Practices in connection with the 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 the 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 down, (1) that
" there is no room left for doubt that all the faithful
of Christ, according to the custom ever received in
the Catholic Church, exhibit in veneration the worship
of latria, which 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, with
special veneration and solemnity, celebrated every year
on a certain day, and that a festival ; and that it should
be borne reverently and with honour in processions
through the streets and public places";2 and (3) that

1 Bampton Lectures, p. 172 (ed. 1).

2 " Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quia omnes Christi
fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latrire cultum, qui
vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo sacramento in veneratione exliibeant.
. . . Declarat prreterea sancta Synodus pie et religiose admodum in Dei
ecclesiam inductum fuisse hunc morem, ut siogulis annis peculiar!
quodam et festo die prrecelsum hoc et venerabile sacramentum singulari
veneratione ac solemnitate celebraretur, utque in processionibus rever-

ARTICLE XXVIII 665

" the custom of reserving the Holy Eucharist in the
' sacrarium ' is so ancient that even the age of the
Council of Nicrea recognised it. Moreover, 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 conformable with the highest practice,
equity, and reason, it is also found enjoined in numerous
Councils, and observed according to the most ancient
custom of the Catholic Church. Wherefore this holy
Synod ordains that this salutary and necessary custom be
by all means retained." l These chapters are followed as
usual by canons condemning with an anathema those
who deny the lawfulness of these practices.

The statement made in the Article is worded with
the utmost care, and with studied moderation. It
cannot be said that any one of the practices is
condemned or prohibited by it. It only amounts to
this : that none of them 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 formulary, such as the
Articles, that was sufficient. The four practices in
question, belonging mainly to the ritual use of the
Church, came more directly into consideration in
connection with the arrangements for public worship
in the Book of Common Prayer.

enter et honorifice illud per vias et loca publica circumferretur." — Cone.
Trid. Sessio xiii. cap. 5.

1 " Consuetude asservandi in Sacrario sanctam Eucharistiam adeo
antiqua est ut earn steculum etiam Nicami Concilii agnoverit. Porro
deferri ipsam sacram Eucharistiam ad infirmos, et huno usum diligenter
in ecclesiis conservari, prgeterquam quod cum summa requitate et rations
conjunctum est ; turn multis in Conciliis preeceptum invenitur et vetus-
tissimo Catholicpe Ecclesia? more est observatum. Quare sancta hoec
Synodus retinendum omnino salutarem huno et necessarium morem
statuit." — Ib. cap. vi.

666 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

1. Keservation for the sick, undoubtedly a primitive
practice,1 was permitted, under certain restrictions, in
the First Prayer Book of Edward vi.2 In the Second
Book (1552). in view of the danger of superstitious
reservation,3 the provision for it was omitted altogether.
At the last revision in 1662 an express direction was
inserted in one of the rubrics at the end of the Order
for Holy Communion, that " if any remain of [the bread
and wine] which was consecrated, it shall not be carried
out of the church, but the priest and such other of
the communicants as ha shall then call unto him, shall,
immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink
the same."

2. The festival of Corpus Christi was removed 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 has just
been quoted.

3. The Elevation of the Host for purposes of adora-
tion is said to have been introduced about the year

1 See Justin Martyr, Apol. I. c. Ixvii. : ro?s ov irapovai dta TWV Suucrfrwr

'2 The sick were communicated with the reserved sacrament if there was
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
the same secretly away, kept it with them, and diversely abused it to
superstition and wickedness : lest any such thing hereafter should be
attempted, 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."

ARTICLE XXVIII 667

1100,1 and (like the institution of the festival of Corpus
Chris ti) 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 present 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 worship ;
and the " Declaration concerning Kneeling," restored
(with 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 Eucharistica, p. 546 seq. (ed. 1). And on the
earlier elevation connected with the proclamation TO, &yia rots a7/ots,
which was certainly not for purposes of adoration, see the Dictionary of
Christian Antiquities, vol. i. p. 605.

2 "These words before rehearsed [i.e. 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 Mozley's
Lectures and other Theological Papers, p. 210 seq.

ARTICLE XXIX

De 'niaiiducatione Corporis Christi, Of the Wicked which do not eat the

et impios illud non manducare. Body of Christ in the Use of the

Impii, et fide viva destituti, Lord's Supper.

licet carnaliter et visibiliter (ut The wicked and such as be void

Augustinus loquitur) corporis et of a lively faith, although they do

sanguinis Christi sacramentum carnally and visibly press with

dentibus premant, nullo tamen their teeth (as S. Augustine saith)

modo Christi participes efficiuntur. the sacrament of the body and

Sed potius tantse rei sacramen- blood of Christ ; yet in no wise

turn, seu symbolum, ad judicium are they partakers of Christ, but

sibi manducant et bibunt. 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 which there is
nothing corresponding in the series of 1553) is in Parker's
MS., 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 which
there is a marginal note : " This is the original, but
not passed."2 In a Latin MS. in the same office it is
altogether wanting,3 as it is in the published edition
issued a few months later by Wolfe, 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. No. 4lA.

ARTICLE XXIX 669

of the Queen herself, the reason for its omission evidently
being a desire to avoid needlessly offending some of those
who sympathised with medieval belief and feeling, whom
it was desired, if possible, to retain within the limits of
the Church. Since it lacked all authority it is naturally
wanting in the printed copies up to 1571, when we
meet with it again. On May llth of that year the
Articles were considered by the Upper House of Con-
vocation, and a copy was subscribed by Parker and ten
other bishops. In this the Twenty-ninth Article is con-
tained.1 A few days later" we find Bishop Guest, by an
appeal to Cecil, making a determined effort to prevent
the ratification of it on the ground that it " will cause
much business." 2 His efforts were, however, unavailing,
as it is contained in the copy which was ratified by the
Sovereign,3 and from this time forward it finds its place
in all printed copies, both Latin and English. It will
be remembered that by this date (1571) the Anglo-
Eoman schism was complete, and therefore there was
not the same reason as there had been eight years earlier
for withholding the Article.

The language of the Article has been traced to no
earlier formulary ; but it is throughout suggested by a

1 A copy of this is given in Lamb's Historical Account of the Thirty-
Nine Articles, No. iv.

2 See above, p. 662, and G. F. Hodge's Bishop Guest, Articles XXVIII.
and XXIX. p. 24.

3 Guest's letter in May 1571 had, however, apparently led to the
interview between 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 m the same
opinion concerning the authority of S. Augustine, "and for further truth
of the words, besides S. Austen, both he in other places and Prosper in
his 'Sentences wrote of Austen' (Senten. 338 and 339), doth plainly
affirm our opinion in the Article to be most true, howsoever some men
vary from it." (Parker's Correspondence, p. 381.)

670 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

passage in the works of Augustine on S. John's Gospel.
In the printed editions the text stands as follows : " Qui
non manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus
procul dubio nee manducat [spiritualiter] carnem ejus,
nee bibit ejus sanguinem [licet carnaliter et visibiliter
premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis
Chris ti] : sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium
sibi manducat et bibit." l It is thought, however, that
the text has been interpolated, and that the words
placed in brackets are due, not to Augustine, but to
Bede, in whose Commentary they are also found.

Coming now 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
former, 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 wicked do
actually receive the Body and Blood, and therefore in
some sense " eat " it, yet since they receive it not to
their soul's health, but to their condemnation, they are
" in no wise partakers of Christ." 2 There can be no
doubt that the medieval 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.3 But it may be doubted whether so

1 InJoann. Tract, xxvi. § 18.

2 See Pusey, Real Presence, p. 251 seq.

3 It is sufficient to refer to S. Thomas, Summa, Hi. 80. 3 : " Cum
corpus Christi in sacramento semper permanet donee species sacra-
mentales corrumpantur, etiam injustos homines Christi corpus manducare
consequitur. " For the Tridentine teaching, see Sess. xiii. cap. viii.

ARTICLE XXIX 671

much would have been allowed in the early Church,1 or
whether it can be proved from Scripture. Two passages
of the New Testament directly bear upon the question,
(1) S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. XL 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
between Pusey and Keble, quoted in vol. iii. of Pusey's Life, Appendix to
c. xviii. ; but see also Gore, Dissertations, p. 232, where it is admitted that
Augustine's 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. Dt 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, as being the
figure of the Body ; and by which the whole sacrament, not distinguish-
ing its material part from its spiritual, was 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.
Where, 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 except by him who is a member of Christ" [De Trinitate, Lib.
viii.]. S. Jerome says, "Those who are lovers of pleasure more than
lovers of God, neither eat His Body nor drink His Blood:" [in Esai. Ixvi.
17] ; though he also speaks of the polluted and unworthy approaching
the altar and drinking His Blood. 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 approveth himself," says Ambrose. "The wicked
cannot eat the word made flesh," says Origen [in Matt. xv.].

672 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so
let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he
that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment
unto himself, if he discern not the body." These words
beyond question teach us that the Body and Blood are
so present that the unworthy communicant is guilty of
their profanation. How could he fail to " discern " the
Body, unless it was there ? But it is by no means clear
that S. Paul means to say that the unworthy com-
municant receives the Body. It is there, and he is so
brought into contact with 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 whereby
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 words
derives support from our Lord's own statements 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
wider reference than only to the Holy Communion.
Our Lord is speaking primarily of the Incarnation, and
faith therein as the means of life. But from this He
proceeds to speak of the way in which men can be
united with Him and thus made sharers of His life,
especially by " eating His Flesh " and " drinking His
Blood." And when 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 which 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
be safe to assert that they do " eat the Body of Christ
in the sacrament."

It cannot be maintained that it follows as a necessary
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
outward elements must thereby also receive the " inward
part," ulterior consequences will follow: such as the
reception of the Body of Christ by birds or mice, which
might through some deplorable accident eat a portion of
the consecrated bread.1 To this it may be added that
" nowhere in Scripture do we hear of an eating and
drinking of the true Body and Blood of our Lord which
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,
which is not a beneficial eating of them also. " Whoso
eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood," saith the Lord,
" hath eternal life. . . . He that eateth My flesh and
drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me, and I in him. . . .
He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me." The
spiritual food of our Lord's Body and Blood cannot, as
has been said, be eaten except spiritually ; it cannot be

1 For the extraordinary shifts to which the medievalists were driven
in order to explain wliat really happens under such circumstances, see
"Witmund, Do Corporis et Sanguinis Christi Veritate^ ii. § 1 seq.

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." ]

On the whole, then, even if, as many 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 most 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 wise 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
Christ." 4

1 Mozley, op. cit. p. 205.

2 This phrase which is used in the Article is taken from Heb. iii. 14.

3 It ought to be stated that Bishop 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 MS. of May 11, 1571.

4 It should be added that it was freely admitted by both Cranmer and
Ridley that in some 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, viz.
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." — On the Lord's Supper
(Parker Society), p. 224. So Ridley: "Evil men do eat the very true

ARTICLE XXIX 675

and natural body of Christ sacramentally and no further, as S. Augustine
saith ; but good men do eat the very true body both sacramentally and
spiritually by grace." — Works (Parker Society), p. 246. In these two
extracts " sacramentally " is equivalent to "figuratively," or rather eating
the body sacramentally is equivalent to "eating the sacrament of the
body " (cf. the remarks on the language of the Fathers in the extract from
Mozley on p. 671, note 1). This may throw 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.

AETICLE XXX

De utraque specie. Of both Kinds.

Calix Domini Laicis non est The Cup of the Lord is not to be

denegandus : utraque enim pars denied to the lay people. For both

dominici sacramenti ex Qiristi the parts of the Lord's sacrament,

institutione et prrecepto, omnibus by Christ's ordinance and com-

Christianis ex teqiio administrari mandment, ought to be ministered

debet. to all Christian men alike.

THIS Article is one of the four which were added by Arch-
bishop Parker in 1563. It was accepted by the Convoca-
tion, and has kept its place ever since without any change.
In considering it, it will be well to treat separately —

1. The history of the practice condemned in it.

2. The arguments by which it has been justified.

I. The History of the Denial of the Cup to the Laity.

The evidence for the administration of both the
parts of the Lord's sacrament ... to all Chris-
tian men alike, whether clergy or laity, during the
first eleven centuries, is so full and complete that it is
not now even pretended by Eoman divines that during
this period the administration of the Eucharist in one
kind was ever permitted in the Catholic Church, save
only in exceptional cases, as (perhaps) to the sick.1

1 This admission was not always so readily made, for Bishop Watson 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, and also to priests, save

670

ARTICLE XXX 677

There is not one word in the New Testament to indicate
that the Cup was to be withheld 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 man prove himself,
and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup"
(1 Cor. xi. 28). The words of Justin Martyr are con-
clusive for the practice in the second century.1 S.
Cyril of Jerusalem 2 and many other Fathers supply
evidence for the fourth and later centuries. But it is
needless to cite testimonies when it is admitted by
Cardinal Bona that " the faithful always 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 away 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, however, evidence which is very worthy of
note, that during this period there was a tendency in
some quarters to abstain from receiving the chalice, and
that this was severely condemned ly the authorities of the
Church. Thus Leo I. (440) writes of certain Manichees,
and says, " They receive Christ's Body with unworthy
mouth, and entirely refuse to drink the Blood of our

when they do consecrate and minister to themselves with their own
hands."— Serni. 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 be committed to writing."

1 ApoL I. Ixv. : ' ' The deacons give to each of those present to receive
of the consecrated (evxapt-o-TTjd^vTos) bread and wine and water, and they
carry them to those not present."

2 Cat. My st. 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 Rcrum Liturg. Bk. II. c. xviii. § 1.

44

678 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Redemption ; therefore we give notice to you, holy
brethren, that men of this sort, whose sacrilegious deceit
has been detected, are to be expelled by priestly authority
from the fellowship of the saints."1

About fifty years later Gelasius I. (490) repeats the
condemnation 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), either receive the sacrament in
its entirety, or be repelled from 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 matter attracted some
attention, and the custom of communicating in one kind
alone was definitely condemned by the Council of Cler-
mont under Urban n. (1095), as well as by Pascal n. at
the beginning of the next century (1118). The twenty-
eighth Canon of the Council is clear, and states
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 Horn. xli.

2 Corpus Juris 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." — Sutnma,
III. q. Ixxx. art. xii.

3 Cone. Clarom. Can. xxviii. : " Ne aliquis communicet de altari nisi
corpus separatim et sanguinem similiter, nisi per necessitatem et
cautelam." — Labbe and Cossart, vol. vi. p. 1719.

ARTICLE XXX 679

while the words 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
made, through a human and novel institution, from
what Christ the Master ordained and did. For we
know that the bread was given separately and the
wine given separately by the Lord Himself ; which
custom we therefore teach and command to be always
observed in the holy Church, save in the case of
infants and of very infirm people, who cannot swallow
bread." l

But that which was 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 reformation of them made itself heard, there was
none which was 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 gave 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 pcena excommunicationis communicet
populum sub utraque specie panis et vim." — Cone. Const. Sessio xiii.
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 vm. 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 grown 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 which the theological defence of the practice of com-
municating in one kind is based) was distinctly asserted,
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 seq.

2 "De utraque specie. Laicis datur utraque species sacrament! in
ccena Domini, quia hie mos habet mandatum Domini, Matt. xxvi.
Bibite ex hoc omnes, ubi manifesto pnecepit Christus de poculo, ut omnes
bibant, et ne quis possit cavillari, quod hoc ad sacerdotes tantum
pertineat, Paulus ad Corinth, exemplum recitat, in quo apparet to tarn
ecclesiam utraque specie usam esse. Et diu mansit hie mos in ecclesia,
nee constat 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,
sacerdotes eucharisti;s ministrant, et sanguinem Christi populis dividant.
Imo Gelasius papa mandat ne dividatur sacramentum, Dist. II. de
consecratione, cap. Comperimus. Tantum consuetudo non ita vetus aliud
habet. Constat autem, quod consuetudo, contra mandata Dei introducta,
non sit probanda, ut testantur canones, Dist. VIII. cap. Veritate, cum
sequentibus. Hfec vero consuetudo non solum contra Scripturam, sed
etiam contra veteres canones et exemplum ecclesise recepta est. Quare si
qui maluerunt utraque specie sacramenti uti, non fuerunt cogendi. ut
aliter facerent cum offensione conscientise.

{ ' Et quia divisio sacramenti non convenit cum institutione Christi, solet
apud nos omitti processio, quse hactenus fieri solita est." — Conf. August*
Pars II. art. i. Sylloge Confessionum, p. 135.

ARTICLE XXX 681

It was determined to uphold the existing custom ; but
it was an awkward one to defend, and the decrees of the
Council concerning it are more remarkable for the bold-
ness of their assertions than for any arguments offered in
support of them. 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 means doubted, without injury to faith,
that Communion in either kind is sufficient for them 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. 5 3 seq. that our Lord enjoined Communion in
both kinds. It is next declared that in the dispensation
of the sacraments, so long as their substance remains
untouched, the Church has power to ordain or change
whatever things might be deemed expedient, according to
the variety of circumstances, times, 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, from the beginning
of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet in

1 " Sancta ipsa Synodus . . . declarat ac docet, nullo divino pnecepto
laicos, et clericos, non conficientes, obligari ad Eucharistiae sacramentum
sub utraque specie sumendum ; neque ullo pacto, salva fide, dubitari posse
quin illis alterius specie! Communio ad salutera sufficiat. Nam etsi
Christus Dominus in ultima ccena venerabile hoc sacramentum in panis
et vini speciebus instituit, et apostolis tradidit, non tamen ilia institutio
et traditio eo tendunt, ut omnes Christi fideles statuto Domini ad
ntramque speciem accipiendam astringantur." — Cone. Trid. Sess. XXK
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 " Concomitance/'2
as well as the following three canons on the subject : —

i. " If any one 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 any one 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 him
be anathema."

iii. " If any one 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 "Praeterea declarat, hanc potestatem perpetuo in ccclesia fuisse, ut in
sacramentorum dispensatione, salva illorum substantia, ea statueret vel
mutaret, quae suscipientium utilitati, seu ipsorum sacramentorum venera-
tion! pro rerum, temporum et locorum varietate, magis expedire judicaret
. . . quare agnoscens Sancta Mater Ecclesia hanc suani in administration e
sacramentorum auctoritatem, licet ab initio Christiana Religionis non
infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset ; tamen progressu temporis latis-
sime jam mutata ilia consuetudine, gravibus et justis causis adducta, hanc
consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit, et pro lege
habendam decrevit : quam reprobare, aut sine ipsius ecclesise auctoritate
pro libito mutare non licet." — Cap. ii.

* Cap. iii.

8 "Si quis dixerit, ex Dei praecepto, vel necessitate salutis, omnes ct
singulos Christi fideles utramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistise sacra-
menti sumere debere : anathema sit.

"Si quis dixerit, sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causia 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 kingdoms 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 Eoman Church
remains to the present day bound by the Tridentine
decrees upon the subject.

II. The Arguments ly which the Practice has leen 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 which was definitely
laid down at the thirteenth session of the Council of

rationibus adductam fuisse ut laicos, atque etiam Clericos non conficien-
tes, sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret, ant in eo errasse :
anathema sit.

"Si quis negaverit, totum et integrum Christum omnium gratiarum
fontem et auctorem, sub una panis specie sumi, quia, ut quidam falso
asserunt, non secundum ipsius Christi constitutionem sub utraque specie
sumatur : anathema sit."

1 "Duos vero articulos, alias propositos, nondum tamen excussos,
videlicet, an rationes, quibus sancta Catholica Ecclesia adducta fait, ut
communicaret laicos, atque etiam non celebrantes sacerdotes, sub una
tan turn panis specie, ita sint retinendee, ut nulla ratione calicis usus
cuiquam sit permittendus : et, an, si honestis et Christianse charitati con-
sentaneis rationibus concedendus alicui vel nationi vel regno calicis usus
videatur, sub aliquibus conditionibus concedendus sit : et qusenam sint
illse : eadem sancta Synodus in aliud tempus, oblata sibi quam primum
occasione, examinandos, atque definiendos reservat."

684 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Trent, that " as much 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 with the growth of the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation,2 and comes into prominence when a theo-
logical justification for the practice of Communion in one
kind is wanted. There is but a single passage of Scrip-
ture which can with any show of reason be quoted in its
favour : " Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup
of 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 from this text, when
the words of the institution are remembered, as well as
S. Paul's comment upon them : " Jesus took bread . . .
and said, Take, eat ; this is My body. And He took a cup
. . . and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it ; for
this is My blood" (S. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27). "The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the
blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not a
communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. x. 16).

1 " Verissimum est tantumdem sub alterutra specie atque sub utraque
contineri, totus enira et integer Christus sub panis specie ; et sub quavis
ipsius speciei parte, totus item sub vini specie, et sub ejus partibus
existit." — Cone. Trid. Sess. xiii. cap. iii. Cf. canon 3 : "Si quis negaverit
in venerabili sacramento Eucharistioj sub una quaque specie, et sub
singulis cujuscumque speciei partibus, separatione facta, totum Christum
contineri : anathema sit."

2 Hildebert of Tours (1124) is " perhaps the first to affirm that the
entire Christ is in either species taken by itself." Gore, Dissert, p. 266,
where is quoted De Ctzna Domini : "In acceptione sanguinis totum
Christum, verum Deum et hominem, et in acceptione corporis similiter
totum." Migne, vol. clxxi. p. 535.

ARTICLE XXX 685

Where the gifts 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 " they who receive one kind alone are
not defrauded of any grace necessary to salvation."1

Next, with regard to the Church's power to decree
rites or ceremonies, we cannot admit that it extends to
the alteration of a Divine command. Our Lord's words
are express: "Drink ye all of it"(S. Matt. xxvi. 27).
The limitations 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
God's word written"; 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.

(I) If the theological arguments thus fall to the
ground, no weight whatever can be assigned to the prac-
tical ones. These are drawn mainly from convenience,
the fear of accidents, and the desire, from 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 ilia coena hoc sacramentum in duabus speciebus instituerit, et
Apostolis tradiderit, tamen fatendum esse, etiam sub altera tantum specie
totum atque integrum Christum, verumque sacramentum sumi ; ac prop-
terea, quod ad fructum attinet, nulla gratia, necessaria ad salutem, eos
defraudari, qui unam speciem solam accipiunt."— Cone. Trid. Sess. xxi.
cap. iii. In connection with this the admission of Vasquez (quoted in
Scudamore's Notitia 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
not mean to deny this." — Com. in Thorn. Aq. P. III. q. Ixxx. dist. ccxv.
c. ii. iii.

686 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

they can in almost every case be guarded against. But
even if they were far more important 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.

AETICLE XXXI

De unica Christi oblatione in Of the one Oblation of Christ

Cruce perfecta. finished upon the Cross.

Oblatio Christi semel facta, per- The offering of Christ once made

tecta est redemptio, propitiatio, et is the perfect redemption, propitia-

.satisfactio pro omnibus peccatis tion, and satisfaction for all the

totius mundi, tarn originalibus sins of the whole world, both

<juam actualibus. Neque prseter original and actual ; and there is

illam unicam est ulla alia pro none other satisfaction for sin but

peccatis expiatio. Unde missarum that alone. Wherefore the sacri-

sacrificia, quibus vulgo dicebatur, fices of Masses, in the which it was

sacerdotem offerre Christum in re- commonly said that the priests l did

missionem pcense aut culpse pro vivis offer Christ for the quick and the

et defunctis, blasphema figmenta dead to have remission of pain or

sunt, et perniciosse imposture. 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 " ; and
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 the Articles this is incorrectly
printed as "priest."

687

688 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

divines who then met together. This is headed " De
missa privata," and in it occurs the following passage : —

" Damnanda est igitur impia ilia opinio sentientium
usum Sacramenti cultum esse a sacerdotibus appli-
candum pro aliis, vims et defunctis, et mereri illis vitani
leternam et rcmissionem culpcc et poence idque ex opere
opera to." 1

The expressions here placed in italics reappear, it will
be noticed, almost word for word in our own Article.
Besides this, as will 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 restatement of the
doctrine of the perfection of Christ's atonement to
condemn current theories of the Eucharistic sacrifice
which seriously conflicted with it, and which led to
grave practical abuses. The subjects treated of in it
are thus two in number :

1. The sufficiency of the sacrifice of the Cross.

2. The condemnation of the " sacrifices of Masses."

I. The Sufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The offering of Christ once made is the
perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfac-
tion for all the sins of the whole Y*orld, both
original 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 two clauses, the second of
which is introduced by wherefore, that the doctrine of
the Atonement is only here introduced in order to assert

1 See Jenkyns' Cranmcr's Rema-ins, iv. p. 292 ; and cf. the Church
Quarterly Jlevien', vol. xlii. ]>. 39.

ARTICLE XXXI 680

emphatically the ground on which the "sacrifices of
Masses " are condemned. This first sentence, therefore,
need not detain us long. Its language, which is very
similar to that used in the opening of the Prayer of
Consecration in the Order of the Holy Communion,1 is in
entire harmony with 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 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 own
sins, and then for the sins of the people : for this He
did once for all (e^aTraf), when He offered up Himself."

ix. 11—14 : " But Christ having come a high priest of
the good things to come, through the greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with 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 them that have 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, now 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 (by His one oblation of Himself once
offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction,
for the sins of the whole world."

690 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

high priest entereth into the holy place year by year with
blood not his own ; else must He often have suffered
since the foundation of the world : but now once (a?raf )
at the end of the ages hath He been manifested to put
away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as
it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this
cometh judgment ; 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 which will we have been sanctified,
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for
all (e<£a7raf). And every priest indeed standeth day
by day ministering, and offering oftentimes the same
sacrifices, the which can never take away sins : but He,
when He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,1 sat
down on the right hand of God ; from henceforth ex-
pecting till His enemies be made the footstool of His
feet. For by one offering He hath perfected for ever
them that are sanctified."

These passages are absolutely conclusive as to the
perfection of the sacrifice once offered on Calvary. The
language of the Article is entirely covered by them, and
exception to this first clause in it could hardly be taken
by any well-instructed Theologian. But if so much is
admitted, an important consequence follows, for the
words are entirely destructive of any notion that in the
Eucharist there can be any sacrifice suppletory or
additional to the sacrifice made " once for all " on the
Cross. They prove, therefore, that (to borrow the words
of a most careful Theologian) " the Eucharistic sacrifice,
even in its highest aspect, must be put in one line (if we
may so say), not with what Christ did once for all on the

1 On the punctuation of these words, see Bp. Westcott, The Epistle to
the Hebrews, p. 314.

ARTICLE XXXI 691

Cross, but with what He is continually doing in heaven ;
that as present naturally in heaven and sacramentally in
the Holy Eucharist, the Lamb of God exhibits Himself
to the Father and pleads the Atonement as once finished
in act, but ever living in operation ; that in neither case
does He repeat it or add to it." ]

But since the Article is not concerned with the state-
ment of the true doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice,
which has been called " commemorative, impetrative,
applicative,"2 the subject need not be further considered
here. We may therefore pass at once to the second
part of the Article.

II. The Condemnation of " the Sacrifices of Masses"

The sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was
commonly said (vulgo dicebatur) that the priests
did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to
have remission of pain or guilt, were blas-
phemous fables, and dangerous deceits (blasphema
figmenta sunt, et perniciosse importunae).

Public attention has been recently directed to this
statement, and an altogether unreasonable amount of
importance has been attached to it in connection with
controversies on the validity of Anglican Orders. A
desperate attempt has been made in some quarters to
represent it as a denial of the Eucharistic sacrifice,
whereas the terms in which it is drawn ought to have
made it clear to every reader that this could never have
been its object. Had it been the intention of its com-
pilers broadly to deny this doctrine, nothing would have
been easier than for them to use words which would
have conveyed their meaning without any ambiguity.

1 Blight's Ancient Collects, p. 144, note.

2 Archbp. Bramhall, Works (Anglo-Catholic Library), vol. i. p. 54.

692 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

As a matter of fact, however, it is not even " the
sacrifice of the Mass " which is condemned, but the
sacrifices of Masses (missarum sacrificia), and in connection
with them a current theory (" in which it was commonly
said," quibus vulgo dicebatur) rather than a formal state-
ment of doctrine.

What those who are responsible for the Article had
before them was the whole system of private Masses,
and the " opinion " which gave such disastrous encourage-
ment to them (besides being the fruitful parent of other
superstitions), that " Christ satisfied by His Passion for
original sin, and instituted the Mass, in which might be
made an oblation for daily sins, both mortal and venial." l
Whether this dreadful perversion of the truth was ever
authoritatively taught or seriously maintained by Theolo-
gians of repute is not the question, though it has been
attributed to more than one.2 The words just cited
from the Confession of Augsburg are fair evidence that
the error was sufficiently widely spread to demand
notice ; 3 and it alone will account for the emphasis

1 "Accessit opinio quae auxit privatas missas in infmitum, videlicet
quod Christus sua passione satisfecerit pro peccato originis, et instituerit
missam, in qua fieret oblatio pro quotidianis delictis, mortalibus et
venialibus." — Conf. August. Pars II. art. iii. De missa. Sylloge Con-
fessionum, p. 139.

2 E.g. a Spanish Theologian, Vasquez (1551-1604), attributes it to
Catharinus, one of the Tridentine divines ; and, as was pointed out in
the first volume of this work, p. 149, the error is contained in a series
of sermons attributed to Albertus Magnus. It has been replied that
Catharinus has been misrepresented (see the Tablet for 1895, referred to
in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xlii. p. 41) ; and it now appears
that the sermons De S. Eueharistici Sacramento are not the work of
Albertus Magnus (see the references as above, and Vacant, Histoire de la
Conception du Sacrifice de la Messe, p. 40). The authorship, however, of
the sermons matters little. There they are ; and nothing could be
plainer than their language on the subject, as quoted in vol. i. p. 149.
It conveys proof positive that the error was taught ; and that is sufficient.

3 Cf. Gardiner's language, which can only have been called out by
existing false teaching: "For when men add unto the Mass an opinion

ARTICLE XXXI 693

which is laid twice over : in the Articles on the fact
that the death of Christ is the perfect satisfaction for all
the sins of the whole world, loth original and actuaL
The Tridentine decrees upholding private Masses, and
laying down that the sacrifice of the Mass is " truly
propitiatory (vere propitiatorium) both for the living and
the dead," 2 were certainly not present to the minds of

of satisfaction or of a new redemption, then do they put it to another use
than it was ordained for." — Dixon, vol. iii. p. 264 ; and of. Latimer's-
Sermons, pp. 72, 73 (Parker Soc.) ; and the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiast.,
De Hicres. c. 10: " Quapropter alia conquirunt sacrificia, quibus per-
purgari possint, et ad hanc rem missas exhibent in quibus sacrificium Deo
Patri credunt oblatum esse."

1 Cf. Article II.

2 Cone. Trident. Sess. xxii. cap. ii. : On these decrees see Mozley,
Lectures and other Tlieological Papers, p. 216: "The popular belief of
later times exaggerated the 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 dead, to have remission of pain and guilt ' ; that is to
say, offered Him up as a Victim in a sense which could not be dis-
tinguished from that in which Pie was offered up by Himself on the
Cross. It is true that the decree of the Council of Trent just saves itself
by cautious, not to say dissembling language, from the extreme and
monstrous conclusion that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same with that
upon the Cross. It distinguishes between a bloody and an unbloody
oblation ; and it states that the fruits or consequences of the bloody
oblation or the sacrifice on the Cross are ' received through the unbloody
one' (oblationis cruentse fructus per hanc incruentam percipiuntur) ; but
at the same time it asserts that the sacrifice of the Mass is a really
propitiatory sacrifice — vere propitiatorium. Now undoubtedly there are
two senses in which an act may be said to be propitiatory. The act of
Christ's sacrifice on the Cross had an original propitiatory power ; that is
to say, it was the cause of any other act, or any act of man, or any rite
being propitiatory, that is, appeasing God's anger, and reconciling Him
to the agent. We may allow that in common language a man may do
something which will reconcile God to Him, and restore him to God's
favour ; but then all the power that any action of man can have for this
end is a derived power, derived from Christ's sacrifice, from which any
other sacrifice, the Eucharistic one included, borrows its virtue, and
without which it would be wholly null and void. There is, then, an
original propitiation and a borrowed propitiation, a first propitiation and
a secondary one. Why then did the Fathers of Trent, when they had

45

694 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

those who formulated the Article, for they were not in
existence, as the subject was only considered at Trent in
the autumn of 1562, nearly ten years later. And it
has been recently pointed out that these decrees are
" the beginning, not the end, of a discussion which has
been going on ever since," for " it is remarkable how
little attempt there is in the Middle Ages to formulate
the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and how
little theological interest is spent upon it." ] It was the
popular teaching alone which the Eeformers had before
them ; and no one whb knows anything of the history of
the Eeformation can doubt that the gravest abuses were
connected with the whole system of private Masses, and
that its " practical outcome . . . was to intensify the
belief that Christ's once perfected oblation had to be
reiterated and supplemented." 2 The system had fallen,
swept away by the Acts for the suppression of Chantries
passed in 1545 and 1547. It only remained to guard
against any revival of the erroneous teaching on which
it largely rested, and this was effectually done by the
promulgation of the Article which has now been con-
sidered.

all human language at their command, deliberately choose to call the
sacrifice of the Mass vere propitiatorium ? They may have said that it was
vere propitiatorium in the secondary sense ; but no one can fail to see the
misleading effect of such language, and that nothing could have been
easier to the divines of Trent, had they chosen, than to draw a far more
clear distinction than they did between the sacrifice of the Mass and the
sacrifice on the Cross. It is evident that, as ecclesiastical statesmen,
they were afraid of interfering with the broad popular established view of
the Mass, while, as theologians, they just contrived to secure themselves
from the responsibility of a monstrous dogmatic statement."

1 F. E. Brightman in Church Historical Society Lectures, Series i.
pp. 193, 194.

2 Church Quarterly Review, vol. xlii. p. 45. The whole discussion of
this Article in the Review (pp. 38-49) is well worth consulting.

AETICLE XXXII

De conjugio Sacerdotum. Of the Marriage of Priests.

Episcopis, Presbyteris et Dia- Bishops, Priests, and Deacons

conis, nullo mandate divino prse- are not commanded by God's law,

ceptum est, ut aut crelibatum either to vow the estate of single

voveant, aut a matrimonio abstin- life, or to abstain from marriage,

eant. Licet igitur etiam illis, tit Therefore it is lawful also for them,

ccEteris omnibus Christianis, ubi as for all other Christian men, to

hoc ad pietatem magis facere judi- marry at their own discretion, as

caverint, pro suo arbitratu matri- they shall judge the same to serve

monium contrahere. better to godliness.

IN its present form this Article only dates from 1563,
when it was entirely rewritten by Parker. The corre-
sponding Article in the series of 1553, as originally
drafted, ran as follows : —

" Ccelibatus ex verbo Dei prcecipitur nemini.

" Episcopis, Presbyteris, et Diaconis non est man-
datum ut ccelibatum voveant, neque jure divino coguntur
matrimonio abstinere, si donum non habeant, tametsi
voverint, quandoquidem hoc voti genus verbo Dei repugned"

It is found in this form in the MS. signed by the
six royal chaplains ; but before publication the last clause
(placed above in italics), with its deliberate encouragement
to priests to break the vows which they had taken, was
omitted, so that the Article in English was simply this :

" The State of Single Life is commanded to no Man "by
the Word of God.

" Bishops, priests, and deacons are not commanded to

695

696 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

vow the state of single life without marriage, neither by
God's law are they compelled to abstain from matrimony."

The language of the Article has not been traced to
any earlier source, though there is a very lengthy Article
on the same subject headed like our own, " De conjugio
Sacerdotum," in the Confession of Augsburg ; 1 and the
prohibition of matrimony to the clergy is condemned as
a suggestion of the devil in the Eeformatio Legum Eccle-
siasticarum.2

There are two main statements in the Article, each of
which requires separate treatment.

1. There is no prohibition of the marriage of the
clergy in Scripture.

2. It is lawful for the clergy to marry if they think
it advisable.

I. There is no Prohibition of the Marriage of the Clergy
in Scripture.

Bishops, priests, and deacons are not com-
manded by God's law, either to 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 will scarcely be denied by
the most ardent advocate of the rule of clerical celibacy ;
nor has the Koman Church ever committed herself to
the assertion that it is more than an ecclesiastical law.
There is certainly no single passage of Holy Scripture
which can be cited as containing any command to the

clergy either to " vow the estate of single life," or
to " abstain from marriage." On the contrary, the
injunctions of S. Paul distinctly contemplate the ordina-
tion of married men, and contain no hint that they are

1 Confessio Augustana, Pars II. art. ii.

2 Ref. Legum Ecclesiast., De Hares, c. 20.

ARTICLE XXXII 697

expected to abstain from the use of marriage : " The
hishop must be without reproach, the husband of one wife,
temperate, sober-minded," etc. (1 Tim. iii. 2). " For this
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest . . . appoint
elders in every city, as I gave thee charge : if any man
is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children
that believe," etc. (Titus i. 5, 6). " Let the deacons be
husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their
own houses well " (1 Tim. iii. 12). So elsewhere he claims
for himself " the right " — although he was content to
forego the exercise of it — " to lead about a wife that is
a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the
brethren of the Lord, and Cephas" (1 Cor. ix. 5). These
texts are conclusive. There is plainly nothing unscrip-
tural in the existence of a married clergy ; and we may
pass on to the consideration of the next subject.

II. It is lawful for the Clergy to marry if they think it
advisable.

It is lawful also for them, as for all other
Christian men, to marry at their own discre-
tion, as they shall judge the same to serve
better to godliness.

For the existence in early days of a married clergy
there is abundant evidence. But in considering it, two
distinct questions present themselves which require
separate treatment, (a) Was the use of marriage per-
mitted to those clergy who had married before their
ordination ? and (&) was marriage after ordination per-
missible ? The two questions must be examined separ-
ately; for it is not fair to quote, as is sometimes done,
passages which imply the existence of a married clergy, as
if they necessarily involved the fact that marriage was per-
mitted to those who had previously entered into holy orders.

698 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

(a) There is no room whatever for doubting that
during the first three centuries the use of marriage was
freely allowed, and many allusions to the existence of a
married clergy might be cited. E.rj. Clement of Alex-
andria says that S. Paul certainly admits the husband of
one wife, " whether he be presbyter, or deacon, or lay-
man, using marriage blamelessly " ; 1 and the sixth of the
" Apostolical Canons " forbid bishops, presbyters, and
deacons to separate from their wives upon the pretext
of piety, on pain of excommunication and deposition.2 In
the fourth century, for the first time, we find objection
to this raised in the West, especially in Spain, which
has throughout taken the lead in advocating strictness.
Thus, at the Council of Elvira, at which Hosius was
present (A.D. 306), the clergy were positively forbidden
to live in wedlock with their wives.3 A canon enforcing
the same prohibition was pressed (not improbably by
Hosius himself) on the Council of Nicaea (325) for its
acceptance as a rule of the universal Church. It was,
however, rejected at the earnest entreaty of the Bishop
Paphnutius, himself an unmarried man, and the stricter
rule has never received the sanction of the whole Church.4
In spite of this, we trace a growing feeling in various
quarters against the ministrations of a married clergy.
The Council of Gangra (350) endeavoured to check it
by condemning those who held aloof from the ministra-
tions of such.5 But in the West the feeling made rapid
progress, and before the close of the fourth century

1 Nal [jJr\v Kal rbv rrjs /j.ias yvvaiK&s &»dpa ir&vv cnroS^xeTCU K&J> Trpeafivrepos 77
KCLV SIO.KOVOS K&V Xcu/cds dveTrtX^Trrws -ydyuy xpw/ieyos. — Stromateis, III. xii. 90.
" Apost. Can. vi. : 'E7r((r/co7ros r) Trpefffivrcpos ?) dtaKOvos rr)v eaurou yvvaiica
ev\aj3eLas' eav

3 Cone. Illib. Can. xxxiii.; cf. Dale, Synod of Elvira, p. 197.

4 Socrates, H. E. I. c. xi. ; Sozomen, H. E. I. c. xxiii.

5 Canon iv. See Hefele, 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,
with partial exceptions, the stricter rule was never
enforced. Socrates tells us that in the fifth century the
custom of the Church in Greece, Macedonia, and Thessaly
was peculiar, as those clergy who continued the use of
marriage after ordination were degraded ; whereas else-
where 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
remained intact to the present day. The Council in
Trullo (692) speaks strongly on the subject, and notes
the divergence between the East and West in this matter.
" As we know that the Eoman Church has ruled that
candidates for the diaconate or the presbyterate are to
make profession that they will no longer live with 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 we
refuse to forbid cohabitation, and will not deprive them
of conjugal intercourse at proper times. Therefore, if a
man 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 any one
to be required to profess that he will abstain from inter -

1 Canon ii. Hefele, op. cit. p. 390.

- I. Toledo (Canon i.) in 400, Hefele, p. 419 ; and IX. Toledo (Canon
x.) in 655, Hefele, iv. p. 473.

3 II. Aries (Canon xliv.) in 452, and I. Macon (Canon xi.), Hefele,
p. 404.

4 Socrates, H. E. V. c. xxii.

700 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

course with his lawful wife ; lest we thus do dishonour
to marriage, which was instituted by God and blessed
by His presence. ... If, then, any one, in despite of the
apostolic canons, be induced to forbid priests, deacons,
and subdeacons to live with their lawful wives and hold
intercourse with them, let him be deposed. And like-
wise, if any priest or deacon dismisses his wife on the
pretext of piety, let him be excommunicated ; and if he
be obstinate, let him be deposed." l The present custom
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, marriage before ordina-
tion is freely conceded.

(5) With regard to the second question raised above,
Was marriage after ordination regarded as permissible in
the early Church ? it must 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-
poly tus upon Callistus (c. 220) shows that early in the
third century it was not usual to permit those already
ordained to marry; for Hippolytus says that Callistus
determined that " if any one of the clergy should marry,
he might remain in the clergy as not having sinned,"
evidently implying that it was 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) allows deacons to marry, provided that
they had given notice of their intention to do so at the
time of their ordination.4 That of Neo-Ceesarea provides
that " if a priest marry, he shall be removed from the

1 Canon xiii. See Hefele, vol. v. p. 226.

2 See Wordsworth's Hippolytus, 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 grow-
ing feeling against the ministrations of a married clergy,
a strict rule of clerical celibacy was found very difficult
of enforcement, and in the eleventh century married
clergy were still common. Gregory vn. set his face
vigorously against them, and under his influence more
stringent rules than ever were made. At a Synod held
in Eome in 1074 he passed a decree which "in its
inexorable provisions went beyond the sternest of his
predecessors," absolutely forbidding the laity to avail
themselves of the ministrations of married priests.3 The
rigour of Gregory's rule was somewhat mitigated in
England by the good sense of Lanfranc, as the Council
of Winchester (1076), while absolutely forbidding mar-
riage to the capitular clergy, ordered that the married
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 few years later, under Ansehn, a
stricter law was framed at the Council of Westminster
(1102), and an absolute rule of celibacy "became for
the first time the universal law of the English Church." 5

But it was one thing to frame rules on this subject
and quite another to enforce them, and there is much

1 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 laicis missam eorum audire interdixit, novo
exemplo, et (ut multis visum est) inconsiderate prejudicio contra sanc-
torum patrum sententiam," etc. Sigeberht (Fertz, vol. vi. p. 362).

4 Wilkins* Concilia, vol. i. p. 367 ; cf. Freeman's Norman Conquest.
vol. iv. p. 423.

5 Freeman, vol. v. p. 223 ; and see AVilkins' Concilia, vol. i. p. 382.

702 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

painful evidence that " the newly-devised rigour only led
to laxity of a worse kind than any which it was intended
to stop." l Clerical concubinage was only too common,
and was often secretly permitted by ecclesiastical
authority.2 And the evil results of the stringent rules
were so patent that in the sixteenth century Reformers
of various schools of thought were 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
made by the ecclesiastical authorities in the law of the
national Church ; and naturally Cranmer was involved
in considerable difficulties by his act. In 1539 Con-
vocation, in answer to questions submitted by Cromwell,
asserted that " priests, after the order of priesthood
received, as afore, may not marry by the law of God," 4
and the statement was embodied in the statute of the Six
Articles (" the whip with six strings ") of the same year.
The "Bishops' Book" of 1537 had passed over the
subject in silence; but in the "King's Book" of 1543 it
was 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 vow advisedly made, have chosen
the state of continency, who, according to their free

1 Freeman, ubi supra.

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 Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 845 ; cf. Dixon, ii. p. 133.

ARTICLE XXXII 703

choice, must freely and willingly continue in the same." l
Shortly afterwards, however, a change was made in the
law on this matter. In 1547, soon after the accession
of Edward VL, a large majority of the Convocation agreed
to the following : " That all such canons, laws, statutes,
decrees, usages, and customs, heretofore made, had or
used, that forbid any person to contract matrimony, or
condemn matrimony already contracted by any person,
for any vow or promise of priesthood, chastity, or widow-
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 which repealed
all the positive laws and canons which stood against it,
and declared all to be free to marry, provided that it
was according to the rites of the new Prayer Book ; 3 and
in 1553, and again in 1563, the decision of the Church
as to the freedom of the clergy to marry was embodied in
the series of Articles. There is no need to pursue the
subject further.4 It is quite clear from what has been
said above that there is no law of God which forbids the
marriage of the clergy. Any prohibition of their right
to marry which may be cited (and it has been shown
that such can be quoted from comparatively early days)
is merely a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, and belongs
to those " traditions of the Church " which " 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 Formularies of Faith, p. 293.
- Strype's Cranmer, Bk. II. o. iv.

3 2 and 3 Edw. vi. c. 21 ; cf. Dixon, vol. iii. p. 6 scq.

4 Mention maybe made of Elizabeth's " Injunctions " of 1559, which
require the clergy to obtain the bishop's permission before marriage. —
Cardwell's Documentary Annals, vol. i. p. 224.

704 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

centuries had shown to our Eeformers the grave evils
that flowed from the rigid rule which had been
customary ; and they were perfectly justified in holding
that the national Church was competent to settle the
matter for herself, and that she was well within her
rights in altering her rule.1

1 It may be added that the subject was considered at Trent in the
twenty-fourth session (November 1563), when the following canon was
passed: "Si quis dixerit Clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutes, vel
Regulares, castitatem solemniter professes, posse matrimonium contrahere,
contractumque validum esse, non obstante lege Ecclesiastica, vel voto, et
oppositum nil aliud esse, quam damnare matrimonium, posseque omnes
contrahere matrimonium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, etiam si earn
voverint, habere donum, anathema sit: cum Deus id recte petentibus
non deneget, nee patiatur nos supra id, quod possumus, tentari." — Cone.
Trid. Sess. xxiv. c. ix. According to this, any one 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 Roman ecclesiastics
to hold any opinion favourable to a relaxation of their existing rule. See
the Church Historical Lectures, Series i. p. 68.

AKTICLE XXXIII

De excommunicatis Vitandis. Of excommunicate Persons t how

Qui per publicam Ecclesi* de- they arc to be avoided.

nunciationem rite ab unitate EC- That person which by open

clesiae praecisus est et excommuni- denunciation of the Church is
catus, is ab universa fidelium rightly cut off from the unity of
multitudine, donee per posniten- the Church, and excommunicated,
tiam publice reconciliatus fuerit, ought to be taken of the whole
arbitrio judicis competentis, haben- multitude of the faithful, as an
dus est tanquam Ethnicus et heathen and publican, until he be
Ptiblicanus. 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 Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum contains a long
section of sixteen chapters — " De Excommuuicatione " —
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 Church to exercise discipline, and to exclude
unworthy members from the body. Such a right is
inherent in a visible society such as the Church claims
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 membership, and to
expel disloyal and improper persons. This power we
find was exercised by the Jewish Church. It is fore-
shadowed in the words used when first circumcision is
established as the sign of the covenant : " The un-
circumcised man-child . . . shall be cut off from his
people; he hath broken My 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 formal
sentence of excommunication is found after the return
from the Captivity, when Ezra made proclamation " that
whosoever would not come within three days, according
to the counsel of the princes and elders, all his substance
should be forfeited (E^, dvaOe/jLaricrOrjo-eTai), and him-
self separated from the congregation of those that had
been carried away " (Ezra x. 8). And from this time
onwards exclusion from the congregation (eKKKt]cr[a)
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
(d<f>op{(7co<Tiv vpas) ; S. John ix. 2 2 (dTroa-vvdycoyos
, 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
meaning, according to Delitzsch, is the "being snatched away by direct
Divine judgment" (New Commentary on Genesis, vol. ii. p. 36). Temporary
•exclusion from the congregation was, however, definitely ordered by the
law in certain cases, e.g. in the case of Miriam, Num. xii. 14, 15, d<popi<r-
6riTW t£w Tys 7ra/>e/-t/3oX?7S, and in the case of the leper, Lev. xiii. 5 seq.
(d^opccf).

2 It is generally stated that there were three stages of Jewish excom-
munication (to which our Lord's words, d<popi<7u<nv, oveLdiffwffiv, CK-
(3d\ucri.v, in S. Luke vi. 22, are thought to correspond), viz. 'n:, separa-
tion ; DI?, or dvd6e/ja, a severer sentence, involving additional penalties
.and accompanied by a solemn malediction ; and N???', an entire cutting off

ARTICLE XXXIII 707

that such a power should be exercised by the Church
which He came to found is shown by the very definite
words which He Himself used in speaking of the
erring brother, when He gave to His Church the power
of binding and loosing.

" If thy brother sin against thee, go show him his
fault between thee and him alone : if he hear thee,
thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not,
take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of
two witnesses or three every word may be established.
And if he refuse to hear them, 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. Matt,
xviii. 15-17).

This is the great passage on which 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 without
warning, and that the effect of private expostulation
must first be tried.

Passing from the Gospels to the Epistles, we find
various allusions to the existence of the power of
excommunication in the Church, and two clear cases of
the exercise of the power by the Apostle Paul. The
first of these is that of the incestuous man at Corinth.
In regard to him S. Paul writes as follows : " Ye are
puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had
done this deed might be taken away from among you.
For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit,
have already, as though I were present, judged him

from the congregation. Schiirer, however, shows that this is a
mistake, and that Nnfp and «n»j are really synonymous, so that in
reality only two kinds can be distinguished, ^j or temporary exclusion,
and the cnrt or permanent ban (a.vd0€fj.a). The Jewish People in the Time
of Christ, Div. II. vol. 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 Jesus. Your glorying is not good.
Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole
lump ? Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye
may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened "
(1 Cor. v. 2-7).

The whole passage is especially instructive. It not
only shows 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 was inflicted
partly for the sake of the faithful generally, to save
the body from the danger of the evil influence spreading
further,1 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 was 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 comfort him, lest by any means such a one should
be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow," adding these
words : " To whom 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. 5-1 1).2

1 Godot, however, denies altogether that vers. 6-8 bear on the subject
of the incestuous man. Comment, in loc., and see Ellicott, in loc.

2 It ought to be said that some writers hold that this passage refers
to the case of an entirely different person from the man spoken of in
1 Cor. v. See Godet, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, vol. i. p. 259.

ARTICLE XXXIII 709

The other case of formal excommunication by S. Paul
is that of Hymenseus and Alexander, who had " made
shipwreck concerning the faith " ; " whom," says the
Apostle, " I delivered unto Satan, that they might be
taught 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 elsewhere by S. Paul on the power of
darkness which worketh in the children of disobedience,2
there seems to be no sufficient reason to think that any-
thing more than the penalty of excommunication is
intended.3 But, however this may be, the later Church
never ventured to adopt the formula in inflicting 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 Hymenseus 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 Col. 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 (Acts v. 1 seq.) and Ely mas (xiii. 10)
may be referred to.

4 See Bingham, Antiquities, Bk. xvi. c. ii. ; and for patristic comments
on the phrase, cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. Zaravas.

46

710 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Kom. xvi. 17 : " Mark them which are causing the
divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the
doctrine which ye learned ; and turn away from them."

2 Thess. iii. 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 iii. 10: "A man that is heretical after a first
and second admonition refuse ; knowing that such a one
is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned."

2 John 10: "If any one cometh unto you, and
bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your
house, and give him no greeting : for he that giveth him
greeting partaketh in his evil works." l

To these should be added the passage in the Epistle
to the Galatians in which S. Paul says of any one,
whether angel or man, who should preach another
gospel, " let him be accursed " (avaOepa eVra>), Gal. i.
8, 9 ; and 1 Cor. xvi. 22 : "If any man love not the
Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. 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 meant
" 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 right to exclude unworthy members
from Communion, and that gradually there grew up a
method of formal excommunication, with an elaborate
system of penitential discipline 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, with 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 Marcion except as " the first-born of Satan," testify
to a determination to hold no communion with heretics.1
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 with 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 which
readmission to Church privileges might be granted.
Bather 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 Irenseus, Adv. Hczr. III. iii.

2 De Oratione Dominica, c. xviii.

3 Thus the Councils of Neo-Csesarea (A.D. 314) and Ancyra (314) refer
to the /3adfi.oi of penance as if they were well known, and allude to the
stages by name (see Neo-Cses. 5, Ancyr. 4, etc.). The four stages, accord-
ing to the complete system, which was, however, seldom enforced, are
these — (1) Mourners, flentes, irpo<rK\aiovT€s ; (2) hearers, audientes,
d.Kpovfj.evoL ; (3) kneelers, substrati, viroirlirTovrts ; (4) bystanders, con-
sistentes, ffwicrTa/j^voL. See the article "Penitence" in the Dictionary
of Christian Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 1591 srq., with the references there
given.

4 Thus from the time of the Novatian schism until the days of
Nectarius, 391, there was at Byzantium a public officer termed the
Penitentiary, whose duty it was to determin0 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.1 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 was
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
reconciliation, see Martene, De Antiquis Ecclesice Ritibus, Lib. III.
c. iv. v.

2 Reference may be made to the great work of Morinus, De Disciplina
in Administr. Sacram. Pcenit. : Bingham's Antiquities, Bks. xvi. and
xvii. ; Marshall's Penitential Discipline ; as well as to the Dictionary of
Christian Antiquities, arts. "Excommunication" and "Penitence."

3 See above, pp. 495, 496.

4 See Liturgies of Edward VI. (Parker Society) p. 513.

5 "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
that die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon
themselves." Rubric before the order for the Burial of the Dead.
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 betwixt whom
he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign." These
" disciplinary rubrics " have stood before the Order of
Holy Communion since 1549, with the exception of the
final clause in the latter of them, which was only added
at the last revision in 1662: "Provided that every
minister 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
109th of the series of 1604: "Notorious crimes
and scandals to be certified into Ecclesiastical Courts
by presentment." Nor is this the only canon in the
series which 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.3 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 excommunicatione, for some
grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to
testify of his repentance." Thus this canon explicitly
recognises the distinction, which has come down from
comparatively early days, between two kinds of excom-
munication. What is called the lesser excommunication
deprives the offender of the use of sacraments 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 greater excommunication,
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
Eeformation, have been almost entirely extinguished.
Matrimonial and other partly civil matters have been
withdrawn from the Ecclesiastical Courts, and by Act of
Parliament a summary process of signification for con-
tempt of Court has been substituted for excommunication
as a means of enforcing civil processes. But the Act
which thus abolishes civil penalties attaching to excom-
munication 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 cognisance in the same manner
as such Court might lawfully have pronounced or
declared the same had this Act not been passed." ]
Thus the right of the Church to pronounce through her

1 53 George in. c. 127 ; and on the whole subject, so far as legal
questions are concerned, see Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law, p. 1417 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
any one 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 wished."

AKTICLE XXXIV

De traditionibus Ecclesiasticis.1

Traditiones atque cseremonias eas-
dem, non omnino necessarium est
esse ubique aut prorsus consimiles.
Nam et variae semper fuerftnt, et
mu tar i possunt, pro regionum, tem-
porum, et inorum diversitate, niodo
nihil contra verbum Dei instituatur.

Traditiones et cseremonias ecclesi-
asticas quae cum verbo Dei non
pugnant, et sunt autoritate publica
institutse atque probatae, quisquis
private consilio volens et data opera
publice violaverit, is, ut qui peccat
in publicum ordinem ecclesiae, qui-
que Isedit autoritatem magistratus,
et qui infirmorum fratrum consci-
entias vulnerat, publice, ut caeteri
timeant, arguendus est.

Quaelibet ecclesia particularis, sive
nationalis, autoritatem habet insti-
tuendi, mutandi, aut abrogandi cae-
remonias aut ritus ecclesiasticos,
humana tantum autoritate insti-
tutes, modo omnia ad aedificationem
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 the first sentence. With

1 "Traditiones Ecclesiasticae, " 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 ceremoniae, quae vel
ad decorem vel ordinem vel disciplinam Ecclesise ab
hominibus sunt institute, non omnino necesse est ut
eaadem sint ubique aut prorsus similes. Hoc enim et
varias fuere, et variari possunt pro regionum et morum
diversitate, ubi decus, ordo, et utilitas Ecclesiae videbuntur
postulare :

" Has enim et varies fuere, et variari possunt pro
regionum et morum diversitate, ubi decus decensque ordo
principibus rectoribusque regionum videbuntur postulare ;
ita tamen ut nihil varietur aut instituatur contra verbum
Dei manif estum." *

The clause added in 1563 seems to have been taken
from a Latin series of twenty-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 " quaivis ecclesia par-
ticularis authoritatem instituendi, mutandi et abrogandi
ceremonias et ritus ecclesiasticos habet, modo ad decorem,
ordinem et aedificationem fiat."3

The main object of this Article is, as against the
Romanists, to assert the right of the Church of England
to make 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. We may be thankful that the character-
istically Erastian reference to "princes and the rulers of countries" was
not adopted in the Anglican formulary.

- Hardwick, p. 118. 3 See Strype, Annals, i. p. 216.

718 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

and ceremonies which 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 which 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.1 These men were the ecclesi-
astical ancestors of the " Nonconformists " of Elizabeth's
reign — men who would not secede, and who 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 everywhere 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 will 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 some

1 Of these men Hooper was the leader. His objection to the Episcopal
habit, and the difficulty about his consecration in consequence, is well
known (see Dixon, vol. iii. p. 213 seq.); 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 successful. See
Strype, Annals, i. p. 335 seq.

ARTICLE XXXIV 719

retained," is clearly stated in the section with this
heading at the beginning of the Book of Common Prayer
(dating from 1549). In this we 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 among you, 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.1 Naturally this

1 See the contemporary Paper prepared for Cecil in 1564, now among
the Lansdowne MSS., vol. viii. art. 7 : " Varietees in ye service, and ye
administracion used."

"Service and Prayrs — Some say ye service and pray18 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, wth yr faces to ye people.
"Some kepe precysly ye order of ye booke, othre intermeddle Psal. in

meter.

"Some say wth a surpless, others wthout a surplesse.
" Table. — The Table standeth in ye body of y€ church in some places,

in others hit standeth in ye chauncell.
"In some places the Table standeth Alterlyke distant from ye walle a

yarde, in some others in ye middest of y« chauucell north and

south.
"In some places the Table ys joyned, in others hit standeth uppon

Trestells.

" In some y6 Table hath a carpett, in others hit hath none.
"Administration of yt Co[mmvn]ion. — Some wth 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 word of God."1

This is not the place to enter into 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 more here than to remind
the reader of the four propositions which Hooker claims
to have granted " concerning matters of outward form in
the exercise of true religion."

" (1) In the external form 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 with that
which is received may induce them to think it not unfit

"Some wth chalice, some wth a Co[mmun]ion Cuppe, others wth a

como[n] Cuppe.

' Some \vth unlevened Bread, some wth leavened.
' lleccaving. — Some receave kneling, others standing, others sytting.
' Baptising. — Some baptise in a fount, some in a Bason.
' Some signed wth 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 Capp.

Some wth a Button Cappe, some wth a Hatte.
"Some in Schol1"8 Clooke, some in others."

The document is printed in full in Parker's Postscript to a Letter to Lord
Selborne, p. 148.

1 See Hanlwick, Articles, p. 110.

ARTICLE XXXIV 721

who are not able to allege any known weighty incon-
venience which it hath, or to take any strong objection
against it.

" (3) Where neither the evidence of any law Divine, 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 less
than childlike obedience to her that hath more than
motherly power.

"(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."1

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. vi.-ix.

AKTICLE XXXV

De Homiliis.

Tomus secundus Homiliarum,
quarum singulos titulos huic
Articulo subjunximus, cgntinet
piara et salutarem doctrinam, et
his temporibus necessariam, non
minus quam prior Tomus Homili-
arum quae editse sunt tempore
Edwardi sexti. Itaque eas in
ecclesiis per ministros diligenter et
clare, ut a populo intelligi possint,
recitandas csse judicamus.

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 dili-
gently and distinctly, that they
may be understanded by the people.

Catalogue Homiliarum.

De recto ecclesise usu. 1.

Adversus Idolatries pericula. 2.

De reparandis ac purgandis ecclesiis. 3.
De bonis operibus.

De jejunio. 4.

In guise atque ebrictatis vitia. 5.
In nimis sumptuosis vestium

apparatus. 6.

De oratione sive precatione. 7.

De loco et tempore orationi destin- 8.

atis. 9.
De publicis precibus ac Sacramentis,

idiomate vulgari omnibusque

no to, habendis. 10.
De sacrosancta verbi divini autori-

tate. 11.

De eleemosina. 12.

De Christi Nativitate. 13,

De dominica passione. 1 4.
De resurrectione Domini.

722

Of the Names of the Homilies.

Of the right use of the Church.

Against peril of Idolatry.

Of repairing and keeping clean
of Churches.

Of good works, first of fasting.

Against gluttony and drunken-
ness.

Against excess of apparel.

Of prayer.

Of the place and time of prayer.

That common prayers and sacra-
ments ought to be ministered
in a known tongue.

Of the reverend estimation of
God's word.

Of almsdoing.

Of the Nativity of Christ.

Of the Passion of Christ.

Of the Resurrection of Christ.

ARTICLE XXXV 723

De digna corporis et sanguinis 15. Of the worthy receiving of the

dominici in ccena Domini par- sacrament of the body and

ticipatione. blood of Christ.

De donis Spiritus Sancti. 16. Of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

In diebus, qui vulgo Rogationum 17. For the Rogation Days,

dicti sunt, concio. 18. Of the state of matrimony.

De matrimonii statu. 19. Of repentance.

De otio sen socordia. 20. Against idleness.

De prenitentia. 21. Against rebellion.

SLIGHT verbal alterations of no importance were 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 " 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 Homilies.

The earliest mention of the Homilies is in 1542, when
a certain number of them were introduced in Convocation
with the design of having them promulgated and set
forth by authority.1 The design miscarried, and we
hear nothing more of them until after the death of
Henry viii. But in the first year of Edward vi. the
scheme 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 following titles : —

(1) A fruitful Exhortation to the Reading of Holy

Scripture.

(2) Of the Misery of all Mankind.

(3) Of the Salvation of all Mankind.

(4) Of the True and Lively Faith.

(5) Of Good Works.

(6) Of Christian 'Love and Charity.

(7) Against Swearing 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 whole 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 Misery of Mankind, 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 "after the Creed ended, shall follow the
Sermon or Homily, or p.ome 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 ; with many
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 common
authority." The death of the king, however, occurred
before anything more was done. Shortly after the
accession of Elizabeth the Book of the Homilies was
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 Meanwhile,
as we have seen, the Article was rewritten, and made to
refer to the second book as well 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 : " Kemove 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. Articles, p. 326 (Parker Society).

47

726 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

actually provided do not correspond exactly to the list of
those promised at the close of the first book. Thus there
are no Homilies expressly treating of Covetousness,
Envy, Ire, and Malice ; while there are several which
were seemingly not contemplated when the first book
was issued. The writer who is supposed to have had
the chief hand in the preparation of the book is Bishop
Jewel, but a considerable number of the Homilies were
only translations or adaptations of works that had pre-
viously been issued. Thus those on the Passion and
Kesurrection are taken from Taverner's Postils, which
had appeared so early as 1540. That on Matrimony is
taken half from Veit Dietrick, of Nuremberg, half from
S. Chrysostom ; and two-thirds of the first part of that on
Eepentance are translated from Eandolph Gualther. The
Preface, or " Admonition to all ministers ecclesiastical,"
was from the pen of Bishop Cox. It should be added
that the last Homily, viz. that against Disobedience
and wilful Rebellion, was only added in 1571; the occa-
sion which called it forth being the rebellion of the Earls
of Northumberland and Westmoreland, which had taken
place shortly before (1569), and to which the Homily
itself clearly alludes.

II. The Nature of the Assent demanded to the Homilies.

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 character, and cannot be held to bind
us to the acceptance of every statement made in them.
Nothing whatever is said about the historical statements
contained in them, some of which are highly questionable,
or even demons trably 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 with a peculiar authority, viz.
that of justification, owing to the express reference to
them in Article XL But on other matters a wide 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 parties, 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 sermons.1 The
matter is well put by Bishop Montague in his Appello
Ccesarem, published in 1625 —

" I willingly 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 XXXV th Article giveth them to contain godly and
wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times : which
they may do, though they have not dogmatical positions,
or doctrine to be propugned and subscribed in all and every
point, as the Books of Articles 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 tli? Times, Nos. Ixxxii. and xc.
• Appello C&sarem, p. 260.

728 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

judicial decision upon this very point, is the statement
of Sir Herbert Jenner Fust in his judgment in the
Arches Court of Canterbury on Nov. 19, 1838. The
question before him was whether the Church of England
regarded praying for the dead as an illegal practice ; and
the authority of the Homilies had been quoted against
it.1 The judge entered fully into the matter, 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 unlawful one/' And then he adds the
following important statement : " But supposing he had
been of opinion that such prayers were unlawful, it is
not to be 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 Homily Concerning Prayer, p. 355
(S.P.C.K. ed.).

- The judgment is given in full in Lee's Christian Doctrine of Prayer
for the Departed, Appendix XII.

AKTICLE XXXVI

DC. Episcoporum et Ministrorum
Consecratione.

Libellus de Consecratione Archi-
episcopomm et Episcoporum et de
ordinatione Presbyteromm et Dia-
conorum reditus nuper temporibus
Edwardi sexti, et autoritate Parla-
menti illis ipsis temporibus con-
firmatus, omnia ad 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
pnedicti Regis Edwardi, usque ad
hoc tempus, aut in posterum juxta
eosdem ritus consecrabuntur aut
ordinabuntur rite, ordine, atque
legitime, statuimus esse et fore
consecrates et ordinatos.

Of Consecration of Bishops and
Ministers.

The Book of Consecration of Arch-
bishops and Bishops, and ordering
of Priests and Deacons, lately set
forth in the time of Edward the
Sixth, and confirmed at the same
time by authority of Parliament,
doth contain all things necessary
to such consecration and ordering:
neither hath it anything, that of
itself is superstitious 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 same rites ; we decree all such
to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully
consecrated and ordered.

IN its present form this Article dates from 1563, when
it was entirely rewritten. The corresponding Article in
the Edwardian Series was of a much more general
character, referring to the Book of Common Prayer as a
whole, and not only to the Ordinal.

Of the Book of Prayers and Ceremonies of the Church
of England.

" The Book which of very late time was given to the
Church of England by the King's authority and the

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 Ministers of the Church,
set forth by the foresaid 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 ministers of
the word, they ought to be received, and allowed with
all readiness of mind, and thanksgiving, and to be com-
mended to the people of God." l

As originally drafted and signed by the royal chap-
lains, it had contained some words 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 promote it. To this serious objection was
taken by John Knox, whose dislike of the ceremonies
ordered in the book was perhaps not unnatural ; and it
is probable that it was in consequence of his remon-
strances that all that part which referred especially to
the ceremonies was omitted before publication.2

1 " De libro precationum ct creremoniarum Ecclesise Anglicame. Liber
qui nuperrime authoritate Regis et Parliament! Ecclesire Anglicanse
traditus est, continens modum et formam orandi, et sacramenta admin i-
strandi in Ecclesia Anglicana : Similiter et libellus eadem authoritate
editus de ordinatione ministorum ecclesiae, quoad doctrines veritatem,
pii sunt, et salutari doctrinffi Evangelii in nullo repugnant sed cougruunt,
et eandem non parum promovent et illustrant, atque ideo ab omnibus
Ecclesise Anglicance h'delibus membris, et maxime a ministris verbi cum
omni promptitudine animorum et giatiarum actione, recipiendi, appro-
bandi, et populo Dei commendandi sunt."

- The clause in question appears in this form in the MS. signed by the
royal chaplains: " Et quoad ceremoniarum ratlonem salutari Evangelii
libertati, si ex sua natura ceremonial illcc cestimentur, in nullo repugnant,
sed probe congruunt, et eandem in complurimis inprimis promovent,
atque ideo," etc. The words in italics were altogether omitted or modified
in the published Article. For the part taken by 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 from two opposite quarters.
On the one hand, the "Nonconformist" and Puritan
party denounced the Ordinal as containing in it things
that were of themselves superstitious or ungodly;
on the other hand, the disaffected Eomanists 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 was 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 Komanists.

I. The Objections of the Puritans.

Since many of those who objected to the Ordinal, as
containing that which was "superstitious and ungodly,"
objected not only to the special formula, " Eeceive the Holy
Ghost," etc., used in conferring orders on the priesthood
(which they denounced as "manifest blasphemy"), but also
to Episcopacy itself, it seems desirable to consider here —

(a) The question of the threefold ministry.

(6) The formula of Ordination.

(a) The question of the threefold ministry. — The Preface
to the " Form and manner of making, ordaining, and
consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons 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 century 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,1
and to deny that it is found in the New Testament, and
can be traced back to " the Apostles' time." It will be
well, therefore, to examine the evidence of the New
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 prominent 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 work grows 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 whole
multitude of the faithful, but receiving their appoint-
ments from the Apostles (ot? /caTaaTijo-o/jLev, " whom 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 the
Ministry, p. 134 seq. ; and for supposed ordinations by presbyters in East
and West, 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 we find it already in existence, for in Acts xi. 30
(just about the time of Peter's imprisonment or release)
we read that the Christians at Antioch "determined to
send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea ; which
also they did, sending it to the elders (TT/DO? rou?
TTpea-ftvrepovs) by the hand of Barnabas and Saul."
This is the earliest mention of an order of ministers
which we shall find appointed everywhere during the
next period. Since its origin is nowhere related in the
Acts (our sole authority for this period), it can only be a
matter of conjecture. Possibly it was suggested to the
Christian Church by the organisation of the Jewish
communities, in which " the elders " occupied a recog-
nised position.2 However this may be, the fact remains
that in this first period we find something fairly
corresponding to our three orders of ministers, viz.
Apostles, with the oversight of the whole Church, and,

1 The reasons for maintaining that the appointment of the "seven"
gives the origin of the diaconate are briefly these : (1) Although the
title diaKovos does not occur, yet the corresponding verb and substantive
(diaKoveiv and diaKovia) are both used (vers. 1, 2). (2) The functions are
substantially those exercised by the later deacons (cf. Lightfoot On
Philipp. p. 186). (3) From the position of the narrative in the Acts and
the emphasis laid on it by the writer, it is clear that he regarded it ' ' not
as an isolated incident, but as the establishment of a new order of things
in the Church " (Lightfoot, ubi .supra). (4) Tradition is unanimous as to
the identity of the two offices, and that from the earliest times. See
further, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (ed. 2), vol. i. p. 739.

3 So Lightfoot On Philipp. p. 189, and cf. Gore, p. 399. But it is
important to remember that, though the name was certainly borrowed
from the synagogue, yet the functions of the Christian presbyters, as
found in the writings of the New Testament and the earliest Fathers,
mark out the office as really a new one of a spiritual character. For
these functions see 1 Pet. v. 2 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 17 ; Titus i. 9 ; S. James
v. 11 ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. xliv.

734 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

locally, elders and deacons. Indeed, we may go a step
further, and maintain that something approaching to the
local Episcopate already obtained in Jerusalem ; for the
message of S. Peter after his release from prison, when
read in the light of later notices, is highly significant,
" Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren "
(Acts xii. 17). Why "unto James"! The only
explanation is that he already occupied the position
which we find him holding at a later period, of president
of the local Church (see Acts xv. 13—21, xxi. 18;
Gal. ii. 9, 12), or, as' the tradition of the Church has
ever regarded him, first bishop of Jerusalem.

(ii.) The second period is that of the organisation and
extension of the Church. In it the prominent figure is
the Apostle Paul, whose missionary labours formed the
main instrument for planting the Church in various
regions. The period is perhaps best closed, not by the
Apostle's death, but by the destruction of Jerusalem in
the year 70. Our authorities for it are the narrative in
Acts xiii.-xxviii. and the apostolic Epistles. In it we
trace the extension of the different orders of ministers
as new Churches are founded.

For the diaconate we have the evidence of the Epistle
to the Philippians (A.D. 60), which shows us two orders
of resident ministers existing at Philippi, eVtWo-Troi Kal
Sid/covoi, (c. i. ver. 1). Still earlier (during S. Paul's
second missionary journey), Eom. xvi. 1 shows us a
woman deacon at Cenchrea? ; and at a later period, after
the Apostle's first imprisonment, 1 Tim. iii. 8 seq., bears
evidence of the extension of this order to the Church of
Ephesus, though it is interesting to note that in the
almost contemporary Epistle to Titus there is no mention
of SiaKovoi. It may, perhaps, be inferred from this that
they were only appointed as the work grew, and the
need for them was felt. In Ephesus, a Church which

ARTICLE XXXVI 735

had existed for some years (cf. Acts xx. 17), they were
required. In the newly-founded Church in Crete the
necessity for their help would not exist.

For the second order of the ministry as well the
evidence during this period is full and complete. A
representative passage is Acts xiv. 23: "When they
had appointed for them elders in every Church, and had
prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord,
on whom they had believed." This refers to S. Paul's
first missionary journey, but it clearly indicates a custom
which he followed everywhere. Only, having once stated
it, S. Luke does not concern himself with recording it in
other cases. In view, however, of such passages as Acts
xv. 6 (Jerusalem), xx. 17 (Ephesus), Titus i. 5 (Crete),
S. James v. 14, 1 Pet. v. 1, we are justified in assum-
ing the existence of Trpeafivrepoi everywhere as a
permanent feature of ecclesiastical organisation, and Acts
xx. 17 compared with ver. 28 ("he called to him the
elders of the Church " . . . " the flock in the which the
Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, eTnWoTrot), and
Titus i. 5, 7 ("appoint elders in every city ... if any
man is blameless . . . for the bishop, eV/oveoTro?, must be
blameless "), enable us to identify the Trpeafivrepoi, with
the eVtWoTrot, whom we find mentioned, evidently as
resident officers of the Church, in Phil. i. 1 and
1 Tim. iii. I.1

1 There has recently been a tendency in some quarters to deny this
identity, and maintain that the offices were distinct (So Reville, Les
Origines de I' Episcopal], but on quite insufficient grounds. It has not
been thought necessary to enter into the questions which have been raised
of late years with regard to the origin of the name tirivKOTros, and the
original character of the office, because throughout this work the genuine-
ness of the whole of the New Testament is assumed, and if we admit as
genuine the First Epistle of S. Peter, and the Pastoral Epistles, together
with the discourse to the Ephesian elders in Acts xx., it appears to me
simply impossible to deny that (whatever may have suggested the name,
which is really of a very general and indefinite character) the office was

736 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

With regard to the first order of the ministry, it is
evident that a general superintendence of the affairs of
the Church was exercised by the Apostles themselves.
S. Paul " went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the
Churches" (Acts xv. 41). The "apostles and elders"
were gathered together to consider the question of
circumcision (Acts xv. 6). Letters of apostolic counsel
and direction are written by them with superior authority,
and by their hands ministers are set apart. But as the
years passed Churches multiplied, and the original
company of the Apostles became fewer in number, it
became necessary to make provision for the future. Con-
sequently, towards the close of this period we meet with
men like Timothy and Titus exercising apostolic powers,
commissioned to take the general oversight of Churches,
to " set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint
elders in every city " (Titus i. 5 ; cf. 1 Tim. i. 3).
These men are plainly superior to the eV/oTeoTrot or
7rpe<7/3vT€pot, over whom they exercise authority, and
they are empowered to ordain others, whereas we never
read of any such power being given to the elders.1 But
it would seem to be inaccurate to speak of Timothy and
Titus as bishops of Ephesus and Crete, for in each case
the Apostle directs them to return to him when they
have accomplished the work for which he left them in
these places (see 2 Tim. iv. 9 ; Titus iii. 12, with which
cf. 2 Tim. iv. 10, which shows that after Titus rejoined

a spiritual one from the first. The use of the name in 1 Pet. ii. 25, as
applied to Christ, "the shepherd and bishop of your souls," is surely
decisive as to this. On the theories in question reference may be made
to Gore, as above.

1 It is instructive to compare the address to the Ephesian elders in
Acts xx. with the apostolic charges to Timothy in the two Epistles
addressed to him. While to Timothy is given the power to ordain others,
together with instructions concerning the qualifications of those on whom
he shall "lay hands," there is no indication in the address to the elders
that any such power had been intrusted to them.

ARTICLE XXXVI 737

the Apostle, instead of returning to Crete he was sent
elsewhere, to Dalmatia). All that can be claimed for
them is a " movedble Episcopate " ; * nor need we at this
early period expect to find more. Time was required
for the full ecclesiastical system to grow up into its
present form ; and the diocesan system, with its territorial
bishops with definite regions assigned to each, was a
later growth. In the period now under consideration we
find no trace of it outside Jerusalem, where, as we have
seen, it existed from the beginning. But the order of
bishops as chief ministers of the Church may be distinctly
traced to the Apostles. Men like Timothy and Titus form
the link between the later regionary bishops and the
Apostles themselves. It is probable also that with them
we should include the " prophets " of the New Testa-
ment as exercising similar powers, for not only are they
mentioned in various places as occupying positions of
importance, and sometimes joined very closely with the
Apostles (see Acts xi. 27, xiii. 1, xv. 32, xxi. 10 ; 1 Cor.
xii. 28 ; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11) ; but also in the Aiba.^
TWV SooSetca aTrocrToXaw, while the fcrriffKOTroi KOI Sid/covoi
are the two orders of resident ministers (exactly as in
the New Testament), a7roa7o\ot real irpo^rai appear as
itinerant ministers, exercising a general superintend-
ence, and superseding the local officers from time to
time.

We may, then, sum up the results of our investiga-
tions so far. At the close of the second period two
orders of resident ministers (eV/<7/co7rot or Trpea-fivrepoi,
and Sidicovoi) are found in fully organised Churches ;
and superior to them are Apostles and apostolic men,
who visit their Churches from time to time, set in order
things that are wanting, and appoint local officers as
they are needed. But so far the precedent set at

1 The phrase is due to Bishop Lightfoot.

738 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Jerusalem has not been followed elsewhere, and beyond
this Church the diocesan system is not yet in existence,
(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 much less full than for the
period immediately preceding it. But sufficient remains
to enable us without any hesitation to assign to this time
the change from the general to the local ministry, with the
introduction of an approximation to the diocesan system,
if not everywhere, at, least in some of the Gentile
Churches ; and since the change falls in the lifetime of
S. John, there can be no doubt that it was made under his
guiding influence. The proof that the change was made
during these years may be put in this way. We have
seen that in A.D. 70 there was no such thing as the
diocesan system except in Jerusalem. At the beginning
of the second century we find from the Epistles of
Ignatius that this system is already in existence, and
firmly planted in the Churches to which he writes.1
This necessarily throws back its origination to the first
century, and to the period subsequent to the fall of
Jerusalem in 70. There are other slight indications
which confirm this, and show us the change in
progress.2

1 Nothing can be stronger than the language of Ignatius on the position
of the bishop as superior to the presbyters, and the necessity of doing
nothing without him. There is scarcely one of his Epistles in which
this is not insisted on. See Eph. i. ii. iv. ; Magn. ii. iii. iv. vi. vii.
xiii. ; Trail, i. ii. iii. vii.; Philad. i. iii. iv. vii. viii.; Smyrn. viii. ix.

2 No reference is made in the text to the " angels " of the seven
Churches of Asia (Rev. i.-iii.), because of the uncertainty which there is
concerning the meaning of the term. If the early date of the Apocalypse
be accepted, it is scarcely possible to identify the "angels" with the
" bishops." If, however, the later date be adopted, the objection
against the identification falls to the ground. Cf. Lightfoot On Philip.
p. 197.

ARTICLE XXXVI 739

(a) The Ai^a^il rwv ScaSefca aTroaroXwv, which has
been previously referred to, may perhaps belong to the
early part of this period.1 As has been already
mentioned, it bears witness to the existence of the
earlier state of things with two orders of resident
ministers, eV/WoTrot and Sidtcovoi, and superior to them
the tt7To<TToXo£ real irpo(f)jJTai..2

(b) The Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians
was written 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 " we ought to
do all things in order, as many as the Master hath
commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons.
Now the offerings and ministrations He commanded to
be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or
in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And where
and by whom He would have them performed He
Himself fixed by His supreme will : that all things
being done with 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 while they follow the
institutions of the Master 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 ministra-
tions are laid. The layman is bound by the layman's
ordinance." l It would be impossible to state the
general principle of ecclesiastical order more strongly

1 The exact date is quite uncertain, but it would probably be correct to
place it sometime between 70 and 120.

- See c. xi. xiii. xv., and cf. Gore, The Church and the Ministry,
p. 276 seq.

3 C. xl. The translation is Bishop Lightfoot's, Apost. Fathers, Part I.
vol. ii. p. 292. The original Greek may be seen on p. 121.

740 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

than is here done by Clement ; and even if (with Bishop
Lightfoot x) we decline to press the analogy of the
threefold ministry, yet still it remains true that a general
comparison of the Christian ministry with that of the
Jews is made, and that Clement regards the ministry as
a necessary and Divine institution. Further, in the
following passage, a portion of which has been already
quoted under Article XXIII.,2 he proceeds to state
with equal clearness the principle of the succession :
" The Apostles received the gospel for us from the
Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ was 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 word of God with full assurance of the Holy
Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the
kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere
in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits,
when 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 men
should succeed to their ministrations. Those, therefore,
who were appointed by them, or afterward by other
men of repute with the consent of the whole Church,
and have ministered unblameably to the flock of Christ
. . . these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out

1 Op. cit. p. 123. 2 See above, p. 578.

8 C. xlii. 4 'Eirifj.ovriv} see the note on p. 578.

ARTICLE XXXVI 741

from their ministrations. For it will be no light sin
for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the
gifts of the bishop's office unblarneably and holily.
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before,"
etc.1

These words need but little by way of comment, since
they clearly insist on the importance of the succession
with an appointment from the Apostles in the first
instance, and afterwards from others in accordance with
their arrangement. The only possible question is
whether Clement recognises what is called monarchial
episcopacy as existing at Corinth. His own position as
" bishop " (in the modern sense) of the Church of Eome
is thoroughly well established, but the passage just
cited shows that eV/crAcoTrot and irpeo-jSv-repoi are with
him still convertible terms, and there is no reference in
his Epistle to any one person as ruling over the Church
of Corinth above the presbyters. It is possible, then,
that the local and diocesan system had not as yet been
adopted at Corinth.2 But on the principles of ecclesi-
astical order, and the need of a valid commission and
succession, S. Clement's evidence is perfectly clear.

(c) To a later date belongs S. Clement of Alexandria's
treatise, Quis Dives Salvetur (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 eVtcr^oTro? and Trpeafivrepos
are still convertible terms ; but the position of the bishop
as presiding over the Church seems to be implied ; and,
moreover, the organisation of the Churches is expressly
attributed to S. John, who is said to have come from
Patmos to Ephesus, and to have gone also " when called,
to the neighbouring regions of the Gentiles ; in some to

1 C. xliv. 2 Cf. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 322.

48

742 THE THIRTY-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." l This exactly fits in
with what we find elsewhere ; and taken together we
may say that the A^a^rj, the Epistle of S. Clement of
Eome, and the narrative preserved by Clement of
Alexandria, give us glimpses of the change that was
passing over the system of the Church during the last
quarter of the first century, — the change, that is, whereby
the chief pastor became permanently resident as the
highest officer in each Church, and the name of bishop or
eV/crAcoTro? was attached exclusively to him. The Epistles
of Ignatius, as referred to above, show 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, transmitted by them to the
eVtWoTrot of the later Church, two passages of Scripture
have sometimes been urged.2

(i.) The incident in Acts xiii. 1-3, where Paul and
Barnabas are "separated for the work" by some who
were 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 mentioned, 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 seems unnecessary to refer further to the view sometimes urged,
that as tTrtffKoiroi and Trpe<TJ3uTfpoi 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 like
Timothy, rather than of the New Testament

ARTICLE XXXVI 743

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 commission came to him direct from
Christ Himself, and " not from men, neither through
men" (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 formal commission from the Church
(see Acts xi. 22, efaTreVretXaz; Bapvaftav). 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
work, done according to ancient custom, with prayer and
imposition of hands.

(ii.) It is said that Timothy is spoken of as having
been ordained " with the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery" (1 Tim. iv. 14). Yes; but if the text is
referred to, it will be seen that the expression employed
is this, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which
was given thee by prophecy (Bca Trpo^Teiasi), with the
laying on of the hands of the presbytery " (^era eVi#eVea>9
TWV %eip(t)v rov 7rpe(T/3vT€pLov). It came to him, then,
primarily through (Bid) prophecy, and only with the
accompaniment of (/z-era) the laying on of the hands of
the presbyters present : and " prophecy," it must be

744 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

repeated, is closely connected with the Apostolate;
besides which, in 2 Tim. i. 6 S. Paul speaks of the gift
as being in Timothy " through the laying on " of his own
hands (Sia rfy eVt0ecrea>? TWV yeip&v fjiov). Clearly,
therefore, he himself took the chief part in the ordination
of his disciple, and the presbyters present were probably
joined with him, as they are to this day when men are
set apart for the priesthood.

We conclude, then, that the statement 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 " 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 may be well to add a few words concerning
the mind of the Church of England on the necessity of
Episcopacy. Certainly all that the actual terms of the
Article now 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
allowable form of Church government, 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 we might have reasonably expected some light to
be thrown 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 " de vocatione ministrorum," as
was pointed out in the remarks upon it, there is a
singular vagueness in the description of those who
" 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 without any

ARTICLE XXXVI 745

real guidance on the question whether Episcopacy is to
be regarded as necessary. Nor need we feel surprise at
this, for at the time when they received their final form
English Churchmen were standing on the defensive, and
engaged in a severe struggle with a strong Presbyterian
party, who objected to Episcopacy altogether. As against
these men they were mainly concerned to defend the
Episcopal form of Government as allowable, and with this
they were content.1 For the deliberate judgment of the
Church of England we must look elsewhere. We find it
in the Book of Common Prayer, which 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, without Episcopal
ordination.

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 government 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 much stronger position appears to
be maintained by him. A strong position is also taken up in Bishop
Bilson's Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, published in 1593 ; and
Bishop Hall, in Episcopacy by Divine Eight (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. Works, vol. ix. p. 160.

746 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

of Edward vi. (1549), and belong to a time when the
question of Presbyterian orders had scarcely been
seriously raised in this country. Had the question never
been raised they might have been deemed sufficient.
When, however, it had been raised, and attempts had
been made by certain persons (as they were in Elizabeth's
reign) to minister in the Church of England without an
Episcopal commission, it was well that their right to do
so should be more expressly denied, and this is what is
done by the addition to the Preface of the words referred
to above. Thus the Church of England, as judged by
her formal documents, recognises none but Episcopal
orders. But even so, it is interesting to notice how she
treats the subject entirely from a practical point of view,
pronouncing on it, not as an abstract theological question,
but only as it concerns herself. She is not called upon
to judge others. But her own position she is called upon
to make clear : nor does she shrink from the responsibility.
She sees that Episcopacy has been the Church's rule
from the days of the Apostles. She in the providence of
God has retained it, and it is her duty to hand it on
without breach of continuity. It may be "charity to
think well of our neighbours." It is certainly "good
divinity to look well to ourselves " ; 1 and therefore she
feels compelled to insist upon Episcopal ordination in
every case, and can recognise no other.

(b) The formula of Ordination. — Besides objecting to
Episcopacy in itself, the Puritans denounced as super-
stitious and ungodly the words used by the bishop in con-
ferring the order of the priesthood : " Keceive the Holy
Ghost [for the office and work of a priest in the Church
of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of

1 Archbishop Bramhall. So Thorndike "neither justifies nor con-
demns " the orders of the foreign Protestants. See Haddan's Apostolical
Succession, p. 168 seq.

ARTICLE XXXVI 747

our hands].1 Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are
forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are
retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word
of God, and of His holy Sacraments ; in the Name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Amen." The words appeared to them "ridiculous and
blasphemous," and they maintained that the bishop
might "as well say to the sea, when it rageth and
swelleth, Peace, be quiet, as say, Keceive," etc.2 Their
objections led Eichard Hooker to consider the form very
fully, and with his vindication of it we may well rest
content. The main points in his defence of it are these :
(1) The term "the Holy Ghost" is often used to signify
the gifts of the Spirit as well as the Person of the Holy
Ghost. (2) Authority and power for the ministry is a
spiritual gift. (3) He, then, through whom the power
is given may surely say, " Keceive." (4) If our Lord, in
ordaining, used the words (S. John xx. 22), why may
not His ministers, seeing that the same power is now
given ? (5) The use of the words teaches and acts as a
constant reminder that, " as disposers of God's mysteries,
our words, judgments, acts, and deeds are not ours, but
the Holy Ghost's." 3

Of course, if it be held that no special spiritual power
is given to Christ's ministers, and that they are not
" sent " by Him, as He was " sent " by the Father, the
words may well appear not only ridiculous, but blas-
phemous. But by those who hold that such powers
have been granted for the benefit of the Church, and
transmitted in the line of the regular ministry, no serious

1 The words in brackets were only added in 1662. They were there-
fore, as a matter of fact, not before the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign.

2 Admonition to Parliament, and "T.C." quoted in Hooker, V.
Ixxvii. 5.

3 Hooker, Eccl. Polity, Bk. V. c. Ixxvii.

748 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

difficulty can be raised concerning the use of this par-
ticular imperative form of words, although it cannot be
considered as essential, since it is of comparatively late
introduction into the Church, not being found in the
older Pontificals and Ordination Services.1

II. The Objections of the Romanists.

The Roman objections to the validity of Anglican
orders have been singularly varied ; those which at
one time were rnqst confidently relied on being at
another quietly discarded in favour of fresh ones which
a diligent search had been able to discover. They may
be divided into two classes : (a) historical difficulties as
to the succession ; and (b) alleged insufficiency of the
form, and lack of "intention." Apparently at the
present time the tendency is to rely exclusively on the
latter. But the former have been urged with such per-
sistency that it is necessary to recapitulate them here,
and give a brief outline of the answer returned to them.

(a) Historical difficulties as to the succession. — Shortly
after the accession of Elizabeth, objections were taken by
the Romanists to the legal status of the newly-consecrated
bishops, partly in consequence of the fact that at Parker's
consecration it had been found impossible to comply with
the terms of an Act of Parliament of Henry vm.'s reign,
requiring a metropolitan to be consecrated by an arch-
bishop and two bishops, or else by four bishops in the
occupation of sees ; 2 partly because the Act of Mary's
reign which repealed the Prayer Book had mentioned

1 See Martene, De Antiquis Ecd. fiiiibus, vol. ii. p. 22 ; and cf.
Maskea, Monumenta Ritualia, vol. ii. p. 231 (ed. 2).

2 25 Henr. vin. c. 20. See the account of Bonner's objections to Horn's
jurisdiction in Strype, Annals, i. p. 377 ; and cf. Denny and Lacey, DC,
Hierarchia Amjlicana, p. 9.

ARTICLE XXXVI 749

the Ordinal separately, whereas Elizabeth's Act of
Uniformity, which brought back the legal use of the
Prayer Book, had not done so.1 All such objections
were, however, disposed of by Act of Parliament in
1566,2 — an Act which is only referred to here because
it has sometimes been alleged as if it involved a practical
confession of the invalidity of our orders. More serious
are the allegations subsequently raised, that the succes-
sion of bishops really failed at the commencement of
Elizabeth's reign. Shortly after her accession no fewer
than ten of the twenty-seven sees were vacant by death,
including Canterbury, and as fifteen bishops had been
deprived, it is natural that this should appear the
weakest point in the chain of our succession. Accord-
ingly Roman controversialists have strained their energies
to the utmost to prove that the chain was broken, and
that Parker, through whom the great majority of subse-
quent English bishops have derived their orders,3 was
never validly consecrated. It is, however, a very
remarkable fact that no such objection was ever heard of
during his lifetime. The earliest rumour of it appears in
1604, forty-five years after Parker's consecration, and
twenty-five after his death. Tn this year the notorious
" Xag's Head fable " was set afloat by an exiled Roman
priest named Holywood, who asserted that Parker had
been " consecrated " by a mock ceremony at the Nag's
Head tavern. The story is so palpably ridiculous, and
its falsehood so glaring, that it is now almost universally
discredited,4 and Romans themselves have been forced to

1 Denny and Lacey, ubi supra. - 8 Eliz. c. 1.

3 It must, however, be remembered that the Italian and Irish succes-
sions also met in Laud, and that, therefore, the validity of our orders is
not really entirely dependent on the due consecration of Parker. See
Denny and Lacey, p. 6, and Appendix I.

4 Denny and Lacey, however, give instances where the story has been
treated as true by recent Roman Catholic controversialists, see p. 215.

750 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

admit that " it is so absurd on the face of it that it has
led to the suspicion of Catholic theologians not being
sincere in the objections they make to Anglican orders.'"' l
In refutation of it, it may be sufficient to point out the
following facts : —

(1) According to the original author of the story, it
merely rested on hearsay, for Holywood asserted in
1604 that he had heard it from one Neal, one of
Bonner's chaplains, who had died in 1590.

(2) As Fuller quaintly puts it, " rich men do not
steal." There was no possible reason for Parker to
submit to such a ceremony. He was a man with a clear
head, well aware of the difficulties of his position, and
no possible motive can be suggested why he should have
consented to be a party to such a transaction.

(3) There is abundant contemporary evidence of his
consecration in due form in diocesan registers, in con-
temporary letters, in Machyn's Diary, in the diary of
Parker himself, and in a MS. memorandum in the hand-
writing of his own son.

(4) The official records in the Eegistry of Canterbury,
and MSS. given by Parker himself to Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge, attest his consecration in due form
at Lambeth (December 17, 1559) by Barlow (previously
Bishop of Bath and Wells, and at that time elect to
Chichester), assisted by Scory (late of Chichester),
Coverdale (late of Exeter), and Hodgkins (suffragan of
Bedford).2

The lie, for it is nothing else, concerning the mock
ceremony at the Nag's Head was nailed to the counter
when it first appeared, and, finding that it was hopelessly

1 Estcourt, The Question of Anglican Ordinations discussed, p. 154.

2 For the full refutation of the story reference may be made to Lingard,
vol. vi. note DD ; Haddan's Apostolical Succession in the Church of
England, p. 180 seq. ; and Denny and Lacey, p. 211 seq.

ARTICLE XXXVI 751

discredited, Roman Catholic controversialists very soon
changed their ground, and in 1616 impugned the
validity of Parker's consecration by raising the question
whether Barlow, the principal consecrator, had ever been
himself consecrated. The facts with regard to Barlow are
these. He was nominated first to the see of S. Asaph
in Henry vm.'s reign as early as 1536. In the same
year to S. David's. In 1547 he was translated to Bath
and Wells. In Mary's reign he was deprived, and at
Elizabeth's accession appointed to Chichester. There are
several documents which speak of his " election " and
" confirmation." But the registers make no mention of
his consecration ; and consequently it has been asserted
that Barlow, whose views of the Episcopal office were
certainly somewhat lax, had never submitted to it,
and therefore was never really a bishop at all. Now, it
must be noticed that even if Barlow had never been
really consecrated, it would not affect the validity of
Parker's consecration, and therefore of orders derived
through him, because we are expressly told that all the
four bishops said the words of consecration and laid their
hands on Parker's head.1 But, as a matter of fact, there
is really no sort of reason for questioning Barlow's due
consecration. Once more a bare summary of the argu-
ment is all that can here be given.

(1) The registrar during Cranmer's Episcopate has
omitted eight other consecrations (which have never been
doubted) out of a total of forty-five ; and the records of
consecrations have been omitted or lost in other Archi-
episcopates as well, in particular in Warham's just before,
and Pole's just after Cranmer's. These facts show that
the registers were very carelessly kept, and that there-
fore no stress can be laid on the absence of the registra-
tion in Barlow's case.

1 Cf. Brightman in Church Historical Society Lectures, vol. i. p. 171.

752 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

(2) By law, consecration was to follow confirmation
within twenty days, under penalty of prsemunire. For
what possible reason could Barlow have subjected him-
self to the risk of incurring such a penalty ?

(3) There is abundant evidence that he was regarded
as a bishop by his contemporaries ; even Gardiner styles
him " bishop," and his " brother of S. David's."

(4) He acted in various ways which of necessity pre-
suppose consecration, e.g. he sat in the House of Lords
and the Upper House of Convocation, assisted at the
consecration of other .bishops, and administered his diocese
for years without a single person demurring to his juris-
diction.

(5) Not the smallest doubt was thrown upon his con-
secration until forty-eight years after his death (1616),
when the Nag's Head fable had broken down.1

These are the only instances in which it has been
possible for the most vigilant eyes to detect any possi-
bility of doubting the succession of Anglican orders ; and
the attack seems only to have brought out the strength
of our case. In the latest Eoman Catholic utterance
this seems tacitly admitted, for all such objections, which
for more than two centuries and a half had been so
persistently urged, are quietly ignored. Not a word
is said of them in the Papal Bull, Apostolicce Curcc
(1896); and we may therefore hope that we have heard
the last of them. There remains the second class of
objections previously referred, on which the whole case
against our orders appears to be based at present, viz.—

(b) Alleged insufficiency of form, and lack of " inten-
tion."

In regard to the " form " of ordination, the grounds of
complaint have varied from time to time. At one time
it was asserted that Anglican orders were invalid because

1 See Denny and Lacey, p. 26 scq.

ARTICLE XXXVI 753

of the disuse of the ceremony of the porrectio instrumen-
torum, or delivery of the sacred vessels to all who are
consecrated to the priesthood.1 It is well known that
Pope Eugenius iv., in his decree to the Armenians
(1439), made the "form" of the Sacrament of Orders
consist in this ceremony ; 2 and if the Pope was right in
this, there can be no question that not only Anglican
orders are invalid, but also the orders of the whole
Church, for it is absolutely certain that this ceremony
did not exist till after many centuries of Christianity
had elapsed. This is abundantly proved by Morinus,
who shows that the ceremony is wanting in all the older
ordination services of the Church ; 3 and consequently
the objection at the present day takes a somewhat
different shape. It is no longer said that the ceremony
in itself is essential ; but that the form is inadequate
and insufficient because everything which implies the
sacerdotium, and the power of offering sacrifice, has been
eliminated from the rite. The special omissions which
are said to establish this are two. Firstly, from 1550
up to the last revision of the Ordinal in 1662 there was
no special mention in the formula of ordination of the
office for which the aid of the Holy Ghost was sought.
The form was simply this : " Keceive the Holy Ghost :
whose sins thou dost forgive," etc. ; and for the consecra-
tion of a bishop : " Take the Holy Ghost, and remember
that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, by

1 In the first reformed English Ordinal the ceremony was retained,
though the words referring to the power of sacrificing were omitted.
"The bishop shall deliver to every one of them the Bible in the one
hand, and tJic chalice or cup with the bread in the other hand, and say :
Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and^to minister the holy
sacrament in this congregation." The words placed in italics were, how-
ever, entirely omitted in 1552.

2 Labbe, Concilia, vol. ix. p. 434.

3 Morinus, DC Ordination. Pars III. exercit. vii. ; cf. Denny and Lacey,
p. 107.

754 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

imposition of hands : for God hath not given us the
spirit of fear, but of power and love, and of soberness."
Not till 1662 were the words " for the office and work
of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto
thee by the imposition of our hands," and the corre-
sponding words in the consecration of a bishop, " for the
office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now
committed unto thee," etc., inserted. Secondly, when the
English Ordinal was put forth in 1550, the words which
definitely speak of the power of sacrificing were dropped :
" Accipe potestatem ofjere sacrificium Deo tarn pro vivis
quam pro defunctis." It is said that these omissions
involve an entire change in the whole conception of
orders, and thus invalidate the form. In answer to this,
it may be pointed out that the words omitted are con-
fessedly of late introduction, and therefore cannot be
regarded as essential.1 What was done in 1550 was to
revert to a scriptural formula in each case, and to say that
to do this invalidates the form is to prove too much.
In the case of priests, the form used is the very one
used by our Lord Himself, and therefore must be suffi-
cient to confer whatever powers were conferred by it in
the first instance ; and we ask to confer no more. In
the case of bishops, the words of S. Paul referring to the
consecration of Timothy (2 Tim. i. 7) are employed, and
the whole context makes it perfectly clear that it is for
the office and work of a bishop that the gift of the Holy
Ghost is sought. Moreover, in this case the correspond-
ing form in the Latin Pontifical is equally indeterminate,
as there, too, there is no specific mention of the office
and work of a bishop. Further, with regard to the
omission of the words which confer the power of sacri-
ficing, it must be remembered that the formula of
ordination as used in the Church of England includes,

1 See further, Denny and Lacuy, p. 72 scq.

ARTICLE XXXVI 755

and has always included, a commission to minister the
sacraments ; and this must necessarily include a commis-
sion to " offer " the Eucharistic sacrifice, in whatever
sense the Eucharist be a sacrifice. It has been truly
said that " the sacrifice of the Eucharist is not something
superadded to the sacrament. It cannot be more than
is included in ' 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." ] But,
as was shown under Article XXXI., there is not the
slightest ground for thinking that the Church of Eng-
land ever wished to deny the Eucharistic sacrifice when
rightly understood. " The Sacrifices of Masses," as often
taught in the sixteenth century, she was rightly con-
cerned to deny. And in her desire to repudiate what
was false and heretical, it may be that she went further
than was necessary in omitting reference to the Euchar-
istic sacrifice. But this is the utmost that can be fairly
said ; and it is a simple matter of fact that the commis-
sion to offer the Eucharist must be included in the
" authority ... to minister the holy sacraments in the
congregation," which is given to every Anglican priest at
the time of his ordination.

There remains the objection that our orders are invalid
through lack of " intention." It has been said that " the
Church does not judge about the mind and intention in
so far as it is by its nature internal ; but in so far as it
is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concern-
ing it. When any one has rightly and seriously made
use of the due form and the matter requisite for effect-
ing or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by the

1 Brightman in Church Historical Society Lectures, vol. i. p. 189.

756 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle
rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by
the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized,
provided the Catholic rite be employed." 1 This utter-
ance of the highest authority in the Koman Church
relieves us from the necessity of considering the private
opinions of Barlow or Cranmer, or any others. If the
due form be rightly and seriously made use of, that is
all that is required. A parody or unseemly jest would
not be a valid sacrament, even if the proper matter and
form of words were used, because the lack of intention
would be " externally manifest " ; but where the cere-
mony is performed as a Church ceremony, there the
intention of the Church is present, even if the minister
be himself heretical. As Hooker puts it : " Inasmuch as
sacraments are actions religious and mystical, which
nature they have not unless they proceed from a serious
meaning, and what every man's private mind is, as we
cannot know, so neither are we bound to examine ;
therefore in these cases the known intent of the Church
generally doth suffice, and where the contrary is not
manifest, we may presume that he which outwardly doth
the work hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of
God." 2

That then with which we are concerned is not the
" private mind " of any of the Eeformers, but the form
of the rite as expressing the mind of the Church of
England ; and if it could be proved that the rite was
changed " with the manifest intention of introducing
another rite not approved by the Church, and of reject-
ing what the Church does, and what by the institution
of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament,3 then,

1 The Papal Bull, Apostolicce Curce.

a Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V. c. Iviii. 3.

3 The Papal Bull, Apostoliccc Curcc.

ARTICLE XXXVI 757

indeed, it might be fairly held that defect of intention
was established. But, as a matter of fact, the Church of
England has been particularly careful to express her
intention, and to make it perfectly clear that it was no
new rite which she introduced in the sixteenth century,
but that her intention was to continue the ancient orders of
bishops, priests, and deacons, which had come to her from the
days of the Apostles t/iemselves. In witness to this, appeal
may be made to the Preface, which since 1550 has
stood in the forefront of the Ordinal.1 It is there stated
that " it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy
Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apostles'
time there hath been these orders of ministers in Christ's
Church — bishops, priests, and deacons, which offices were
evermore had in such reverent estimation, that no man
by his own private authority might presume to execute
any of them except he were first called, tried, examined,
and known to have such qualities as were requisite for
the same ; and also by public prayer, with imposition of
hands, approved and admitted thereunto. And therefore,
to the intent these orders should be continued, and reverently
used and esteemed in the Church of England, it is requis-
ite that no man (not being at this present bishop, priest,
nor deacon) shall execute any of them, except he be
called, tried, examined, and admitted, according to the
form hereafter following." It is hard to conceive what
more could be asked for, since it would be difficult to
frame words which should express with greater clearness
that the intention of the Church was not to make a new
ministry, but to continue that which already existed.
But if further proof of the mind of the Church be
demanded, it may be found not only in the form of

1 A few verbal changes were introduced in 1662, as may be seen by
comparing the Preface as it stands in a modern Prayer Book with the
form here given in the text.

49

758 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

service used which throughout speaks of " priests " and
" bishops," but also in the fact that the Church of Eng-
land recognises the priesthood of the Church of Borne ;
and while she takes the utmost care to guard her altars
from unauthorised ministrations, yet whenever a Eoman
priest joins the Anglican Communion, he is recognised
as a priest at once, and is in virtue of his ordination in
the Church of Eome admitted to celebrate the sacra-
ments. This could not be, unless the office were intended
to be the same as that which he had already received.
We conclude, then, -that the objection on the score of
defect of intention fails, as the other objections previously
enumerated have failed ; and that there is nothing to
make us feel a shadow of doubt as to the validity of
our orders, or as to the statement of the Article, that

the Book of Consecration of Archbishops and
Bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons
. . . doth contain all things necessary to such
consecration and ordering . . . and therefore
whosoever are consecrate or ordered according
to the rites of that book ... all such [are]
rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and
ordered.1

1 It has been impossible in the space available to give more than the
briefest outline of the objections that have been raised against the
validity of Anglican Orders, and of the answers returned to them. Fuller
information must be sought in some of the many excellent treatises which
exist upon the subject. Among older books, A. W. Haddan's Apostolical
Succession in the Church of England may be mentioned ; and reference
should also be made to Denny and Lacey, De Hierarchies Anglicana,
which brings the subject fully up to date, and considers the objections in
the latest form in which they have been presented. See also The Butt
Apostolicse Curse, and the Edwardine Ordinal, by F. W. Puller ; and for
the practice of the Roman Church as to the reordination in Mary's reign
of those who had been ordained according to the Edwardian Ordinal,
see W. H. Frere, The Marian Reaction in its relation to the English Clergy.

AKTICLE XXXVII

De civilibus Magistratibus.

Regia Majestas in hoc Anglice
regno ac cseteris ejus dominiis sum-
mam habet potestatem, ad quam
omnium statuum hujus regni sive
illi ecclesiastic! sunt sive non, in
omnibus causis suprerua gubernatio
pertinet, et nulli externse jurisdic-
tion! est subjecta, nee esse debet.

Cum Regime Majestati summaxn
gubernationem tribuirnus, quibus
titulis intelligimus animos quorun-
dam calumniatorum offendi : non
damus Regibus nostris aut verbi
Dei aut sacramentorum adminis-
trationem, quod etiam Injunc-
tiones ab Elizabetha Regina uostra
nuper seditse, assertissime testantur :
sed earn tantum prserogativam,
quam in sacris Scripturis a Deo
ipso omnibus piis principibus, vide-
mus semper fuisse attributam, hoc
est, ut onmes status atque ordines
fidei suae a Deo commissos, sive
illi ecclesiastici sint, sive civiles,
in officio contineant, et contumaces
ac delinquentes, gladio civili co-
erceant.

Romanus Pontifex nullam habet
jurisdictionem in hoc regno Aiiglite.

Leges civiles possunt Christianos
propter capitalia et gravia crimina
morte punire.

Christianis licet et ex mandato

759

Of the Civil Magistrates.

The Queen's Majesty hath the
chief power in this realm of Eng-
land, and other her dominions,
unto whom the chief government of
all estates of this realm, whether
they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all
causes doth appertain, and is not,
nor ought to be, subject to any
foreign jurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the
Queen's Majesty the chief govern-
ment, by which titles we under-
stand the minds of some slanderous
folks to be offended : we give not
to our princes the ministering
either of God's words or of sacra-
ments, the which thing the Injunc-
tions also lately set forth by
Elizabeth our Queen doth most
plainly testify : But that only pre-
rogative, which we see to have been
given always to all godly princes in
holy Scriptures by God Himself ;
that is, that they should rule all
estates and degrees committed to
their charge by God, whether they
be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and
restrain with the civil sword the
stubborn and evil-doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no
jurisdiction in this realm of Eng-
land.

The laws of the realm may

760 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Magistrates arnui portare et justa l punish Christian men with death,
bella adnrinistrare. for heinous and grievous offences.

It is lawful for Christian men, at
the commandment of the Magis-
trate, to wear weapons and serve in
the Avars.

VERY important alterations were made in this Article in
1563, when the first paragraph was entirely rewritten,
and the second, referring to Elizabeth's Injunctions, intro-
duced for the first time. Instead of the very careful and
guarded statement of »the Koyal supremacy now contained
in these two paragraphs, the Edwardian Article had bluntly
stated that " the King of England is supreme head in
earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and
Ireland." It also contained a clause (omitted in 1563)
after that referring to the Bishop of Eome, stating
in Scriptural language that " the civil magistrate is
ordained and allowed of God : wherefore we must obey
him, not only for fear of punishment, but also for
conscience' sake" (cf. Bom. xiii. 1, 5).

The object of the Article is (1) to explain and justify
the tenet of the Eoyal supremacy, (2) to assert formally
the repudiation of the jurisdiction of the Pope, and (3)
to condemn the attitude of the Anabaptists with regard to
the obedience due to the magistrate, and the lawfulness of
capital punishment and of serving in war. With regard
to this last point it may be noted that so formidable was
the spread of the Anabaptists, that they were expressly
excluded from the pardon granted by Henry vm.
in 1540 ; and among their errors the following are
particularly mentioned : " That it is not lawful for a
Christian man to bear office or rule in the Common-

1 It is not easy to say why there is nothing corresponding to this word
in the English. In the series of 1553 "justa bella" was represented by
''lawful wars."

ARTICLE XXXVII 761

wealth," l and " that no man's laws ought to be
obeyed." 2

The subjects brought before us in this Article may
best be treated of under the following heads : —

1. The Eoyal supremacy.

2. The Papal claims.

o. The lawfulness of capital punishment.
4. The lawfulness of war.

I. The Royal Supremacy.

The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power
in this realm of England, and other her
dominions, unto whom the chief government
of all estates of this realm, whether they be
ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth
appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject
to any foreign jurisdiction.

1 Cf. the Reformatio Legum Ecdesiasticarum, DC Hxres. c. 13.

2 32 Henr. vm. c. 49, § 11. See Wilkins, Concilia, vol. iii. p. 843,
and cf. the Confession of Augsburg, Art. XVI.: " De rebus civilibus. De
rebus civilibus docent, quod legitimse ordinationes civiles shit bona opera
Dei, quod Christianis liceat gerere magistratus, exercere judicia, judicare
res ex imperatoriis, et aliis prsesentibus legibus, supplicia jure constituere,
jure bellare, militare, lege contrahere, tenere propriuni, jusjurandum
postulantibus magistratibus dare, ducere uxorem, nubere. Damnant
Anabaptistas, qui interdicunt haec civilia officia Christianis," etc. To the
same effect, the twelfth of the Thirteen Articles of 1538 : " Licet insuper
Christianis universis ut singuli quique pro suo gradu ac conditione juxta
divinas ac principum leges et honestas singularum regionum consuetudines,
talia munia atque oflicia obeant et exerceant, quibus mortalis hfec vita
vel indiget, vel ornatur, vel conservatiir. Nempe ut victum qurerant ex
honestis artibus, negocientur, faciant contractus, possidcant propriuni, res
suas jure postulent, militent, copulentur legitimo matrimonio, prsestent
jusjurandum et hujusmodi " ; and in Hermann's Consultation, among
the errors of the Anabaptists the following is noted : "That to administre
the comon weale, to exercise cdnion iugementes, to punishe yll doers, be
offices and workes contrarie to the preceptes of Christe, whiche a Christian
man ought not to do."— English translation (1548), fol. cxl.

762 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

In considering the history of the formal assertion of
the Eoyal supremacy, it will be well to mark out clearly
two stages — (a) the recognition of the Sovereign as
" Supreme Head," and (b) his recognition as " Supreme
Governor."

(a) The formal recognition of the Sovereign as
"Supreme Head" begins in the year 1531. In this
year Henry vin., who was now bent upon obtaining his
divorce, with a view to obtaining the ready submission
of the clergy when the question should be brought before
them, insisted on the introduction of a new form of the
king's title into the preamble of an Act of Convocation
by which a grant of money was to be made to the
Crown. As originally presented to the Convocation, the
form of the title spoke of " the English Church and clergy,
of which the king alone is protector and supreme head."
It was, however, only accepted by the clergy with the
qualifying clause, " as far as the law of Christ permits." l

The following year was marked by the " submission of
the clergy," whereby the Convocation formally acknow-
ledged that the Eoyal licence was necessary for Convoca-
tion to meet, and to make Canons, and also agreed that
the existing Canon Law should be reviewed by a Com-
mission appointed by the Crown.2

Meanwhile Parliament had begun to pass a series of

"Ecclesifle, et cleri Anglican!, cujus singularem protectorem unicum
et supreraum dominum, et quantum per Christi legem licet, etiani
supremum caput ipsius majestatem recognoscimus. " For the history of
this see Dixon, History of the Church of England, vol. i. p. 62 seq. The
text of this and the other formal Acts by which the Royal supremacy was
recognised are conveniently collected together in the Report of the Ecclesi-
astical Courts Commission, vol. i. p. 70.

2 Dixon, vol. i. p. 110, Eccl. Courts Commission, p. 71. It was this
agreement that the Canon Law should be reviewed which led to the
appointment of the various Commissions from which the lleformatio
Ley urn Ecclcsiasticarum emanated. As, however, was mentioned in vol.
i. p. 28, it never received any authority whatever.

ARTICLE XXXVII 763

Acts to restrain the Papal jurisdiction in this country, such
as the Act for restraint of Appeals (1533), and thus to
secure the supremacy of the Crown over all persons and
causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil; and in 1534, not
only was the submission of the clergy embodied in an Act
of Parliament,1 but an Act was passed asserting the sup-
reme headship of the Crown, and defining its character.2
In this it was stated that, " albeit the king's majesty
justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme
head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by
the clergy of this realm in their Convocations, yet
nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof,
and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this
realm of England, and to repress and extirpate errors,
heresies, and other enormities, and abuses heretofore
used in the same : be it enacted by authority of this
present Parliament that the king our sovereign lord, his
heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken
accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth
of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia,
and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the
imperial crown of this realm as well the title and stile
thereof as all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdic-
tions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and
commodities to the said dignity of supreme head of the
same Church belonging and appertaining ; and that our
said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of
this realm, shall have full power and authority from
time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order,
correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies,
abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever
they may be, which by any manner spiritual authority
or jurisdiction, ought or may lawfully be reformed,

1 25 Henr. VIIT. c. 19.

'- 26 Henr. viu. c. 1. See EccL Courts Commission, p. 72.

764 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or
amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God,
the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the
conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquillity of
this realm, any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign
authority, prescription or any other thing or things to
the contrary hereof notwithstanding."

The title " supreme head " was thus formally taken
by Henry vin. Its use was continued by Edward vi.,
and (at her accession) by Mary, who used it in the early
proclamations of her reign.1 She, however, is the last
English sovereign who has ever claimed it. It was
dropped by her on her marriage with Philip of Spain in
1554. The " Supreme Head Act," cited above, was
legally repealed, and has never been re-enacted. But for
twenty years, from 1534 to 1554, the "supreme head-
ship " was a tremendous reality. It " involved a claim
on the part of the Crown to exercise spiritual jurisdic-
tion,2 and not merely to see that the spiritual authorities
exercised their jurisdiction, and was a wholly new and
unprecedented claim." " For twenty years the independ-
ent jurisdiction of the Church, exercised by her own
officers — the ordinaries — and in her own courts accord-
ing to her own law, was superseded by the authority
of the Crown, and the ordinaries became only the
officers of the Government, in virtue of the powers said
to be vested in the Crown by the recognition of its
supreme headship." '

1 Jewel makes good use of this fact as against the Romanists more
than once. See his Works (Parker Society ed.)5 vol. i. p. 61, and iv.
p. 974.

2 Henry vin. actually claimed to delegate the exercise of this spiritual
jurisdiction to whomsoever lie would, and in 1535 appointed Thomas
Cromwell to be his vicegerent in ecclesiastical matters.

3 Wakeman, Introduction to the History of the Church of England , pp.
318, 320, where there is an admirable sketch of the whole subject.

ARTICLE XXXVII 765

The Church, it must be admitted, after her first
protest, acquiesced in and submitted to this tyranny,
and during this period many utterly irregular and un-
constitutional things were done. Happily the period
of the supreme headship was of no long duration, and
there is no need to enter further into the history of
it here.

(b) On the accession of Elizabeth in 1558, Mary's
Act abolishing the old Act of Supremacy remained
unrepealed ; but a new Act was passed, claiming for
the Crown the title of " supreme governor " instead of
" supreme head." l And although the Act of Parliament
conceded to the Crown large powers, and claimed for it,
as Henry's Act did, spiritual jurisdiction, yet, when some
of the clergy scrupled to take the oath enjoined by the
Act, the sovereign put forth an explanation of it in " an
Admonition to simple men deceived by malicious," which
was appended to the Injunctions of 1559. This ex-
planation is not altogether consistent with itself, for it
claims the authority challenged and used by Henry vin.,
but then proceeds at once to define and very materially
limit its meaning, describing it as " of ancient time due
to the Imperial Crown of this realm, that is, under
God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner
of persons born within these her realms, dominions and
countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal,
soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or
ought to have any superiority over them." And it is
added that " if any person, that hath conceived any
other sense of the form of the said oath, shall accept
the same oath with this interpretation, sense, or meaning ;
Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that
behalf as her good and obedient subjects, and shall
acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the

1 Eliz. c. 1. See Ecd. Courts Commission, p. 73.

766 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

said Act against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately
refuse to take the same oath." l

The explanation thus given is of the utmost import-
ance. It forms an authoritative commentary upon and
interpretation of the Act of Parliament, and, taken in
connection with the alteration of style and the adoption
of the title of " supreme governor " in place of that of
" supreme head," 2 it indicates a real and substantial
change in the conception of the Royal supremacy. It
reduces it within reasonable limits, and gives it a far
more constitutional character, and one more in accord-
ance with ancient precedents, than could be claimed for
the form it had assumed under Henry vin. Further, it
should be noted that Elizabeth's acts entirely bore out
the interpretation which she gave in her Injunctions. Her
government of the Church was a very real thing, but she
was most careful to maintain that it is " the Church,"
and not the Crown, which " hath power to decree rites
or ceremonies, and hath authority in controversies of
faith ; " and the powers which she claimed and exercised
were visitorial and corrective, a right of supervision
rather than of ordinary administration such as Henry
vm. and Edward VT. with his Council had exercised. It
is, then, in this limited and qualified sense that the
Eoyal supremacy was accepted by the Church at the
accession of Elizabeth, and all subsequent documents
that can claim to speak with any authority whatever
upon the subject concur in regarding it in this light.
Ignorant people have often spoken of the sovereign as
" head " of the Church, but entirely without warrant.

1 See Card well's Documentary Annals, vol. i. p. 232.

2 "The Queen is unwilling to be addressed, either byword of mouth or
in writing, as the head of the Church of England. For she seriously
maintains that this honour is due to Christ alone, and cannot belong to
any human being soever." — Jewel to Bullinger, Zurich Letters, vol. i.
p. 33.

ARTICLE XXXVII 767

" Concerning the title of ' supreme head of the Church,'
we need not to search for Scripture to excuse it. For,
first, we devised it not ; secondly, we use it not ;
thirdly, our princes at this present claim it not." So
wrote Jewel in 1567,1 and his words remain true still.
The interpretation given in the Injunctions was expressly
referred to in the Articles of 1563, so that, after
claiming for the sovereign the chief government of all
estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or
civil, the Article proceeds to explain with great care in
what this consists.

Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty
the chief government, by which titles we under-
stand the minds of some slanderous folks to be
offended : we give not to our princes the minis-
tering either of God's word or of sacraments,
the which thing the Injunctions also lately set
forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most
plainly testify : But that only prerogative, which
we see to have been given always to all godly
princes in holy Scriptures by God Himself;
that is, that they should rule all estates and
degrees committed to their charge by God,
whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal,
and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn
and evil-doers.

To the same effect in the proclamation issued on the
occasion of the northern rebellion in 1569, Elizabeth
expressly declared that she pretended " no right to
define Articles of faith, to change ancient ceremonies
formerly adopted by the Catholic and Apostolic Church,
or to minister the word or the sacraments of God ; but that
she conceived it her duty to take care that all estates
under her rule should live in the faith and obedience

1 Defence of the Apology Jl'ui-ks, vol. iv. p. 971.

768 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

of the Christian religion ; to see all laws ordained for
that end duly observed ; and to provide that the
Church be governed and taught by archbishops, bishops,
and ministers." l

Once more, in the " Royal Declaration " prefixed to the
Articles in 1628, the sovereign is made to say that —

" Being at God's ordinance, according to our just title,
Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor of the Church,
within these our Dominions, we hold it most agreeable to
this our kingly office, and our own religious zeal, to con-
serve and maintain the Church committed to our charge
in unity of true religion, and in the bond of peace ; and
not to suffer unnecessary disputations, altercations, or
questions to be raised, which may nourish faction both
in the Church and Commonwealth. We have therefore,
upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of so
many of our bishops as might conveniently be called
together, thought fit to make this declaration following :

" That we are Supreme Governor of the Church of
England : and that if any difference arise about the
external policy, concerning the Injunctions, Canons, and
other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the
clergy in their Convocations is to order and settle them,
having first obtained leave under our broad seal so to
do : and we approving their said ordinances and consti-
tutions, providing that none be made contrary to the
laws and customs of the land."

These documents are all-important ones, as showing
how the supremacy was explained to and accepted by
the Church. Something more, however, may here be
added in justification of it.

The Article claims that it is only the " prerogative
which we see to have been given always to all godly

1 Quoted in Hook's Lives of the Archbishops, vol. vi. p. 55.

ARTICLE XXXVII 769

princes in holy Scriptures by God Himself." This is
the view of it which was strongly pressed in the six-
teenth century, when an appeal was frequently made to
the position occupied by the head of the State in the
system of the Jews under the Old Covenant. So Jewel
writes that " Queen Elizabeth doth as did Moses, Joshua,
David, Solomon, Josias, Jehoshaphat." 1 But the position
of the Jewish Commonwealth was so peculiar that it
may be doubted whether the appeal was altogether a
fair one, or whether the position of the sovereign is per-
fectly analogous to that occupied by the Hebrew
monarchs. It is better to refer rather to those passages
of the New Testament which support the claims of
established authority to loyal obedience, as Eom. xiii.
and 1 Pet. ii. 13—17. The Church, it must be remem-
bered, exists as a spiritual society under the conditions
of civil life. Its members must therefore be sub-
ject to the law of the State as to conduct and the
enjoyment of the civil rights. Thus in very early days
appeals were made even to heathen emperors by the
Church where cases of property and civil rights were
concerned.2 And if Cranmer was right in asserting that
no more is given to the sovereign by the assertion of the
Koyal supremacy than was conceded to Nero, who was
" head " of the Church in S. Paul's day, or might be con-
ceded to the Grand Turk, who in the same way is
" head " of the Church in his dominions,3 certainly

1 Jewel, Works, vol. iv. p, 1145.

2 E.g. in the case of Paul of Samosata, who refused to give up the
bishop's house after his deposition by the Council of Autioch in 269.
After the defeat of Zenobia, the aid of Aurelian was invoked to give
effect to the sentence of the Synod, and in 272, by the help of the civil
power, Paul was ejected. See Eusebius, H. K VII. xxx.

3 ' ; Every king in his own realm and dominion is supreme head. . . .
Nero was head of the Church, that is, in worldly respect of the temporal
bodies of men, of whom the Church consisteth ; for so he beheaded Peter

770 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

nothing more than a general reference to the language
of the Apostles on the obedience due to constituted
authority is required to justify it. It cannot, however,
be seriously maintained that this is all that is intended
by it. The conversion of the empire introduced a new
state of things, and put the emperor into a new relation
towards the Church. From this time forward a vague
authority in the affairs of the Church was considered to
be vested in him over and above his ordinary jurisdic-
tion over all men. He was supposed to be in perfect
harmony with the Church. His duty was to see its laws
carried out ; and to him it appertained to summon
General Councils.1 In later days, under the " Holy
Roman Empire," the same thing is seen. It may be
seen in the laws of Charles the Great, which " illustrate
the action of a strong monarch. When a case could
not be settled before the bishop or the metropolitan, he
directed that it should be brought finally before him-
self. The Synods referred their decisions to him that
they might be supplemented, amended, and confirmed.
He claimed for himself the right and the duty of follow-
ing the example of Josiah in endeavouring to bring back
to God the kingdom committed to him, by visitation,
correction, admonition, in virtue of his royal office." 2

It is something of the same position and power which
has been conceded to the sovereign in the Church of
England ; and the formal documents of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, which claim it as the " ancient
jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical," 3 are perfectly

and the Apostles. And the Turk, too, is head of tho Church of Turkey."
— Examination at Oxford, 1555 ; Remains, p. 219.

1 Cf. Ecclesiastical Courts Commission, p. xv.

- Ib. p. xvi., where see references.

3 Canon 1 of 1604. In the third Canon it is maintained that the sove-
reign has "the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the godly kings
had amongst the Jews, and Christian emperors of the primitive Church."

ARTICLE XXXVII 771

justified in their claim. " The early English laws prove
that similar powers [to those claimed by Charles the
Great] were exerted by the sovereigns before the Con-
quest ; and throughout the medieval period the English
king never surrendered his supreme visitorial power, the
power of determining finally, on his own responsibility
and at his own discretion, the ecclesiastical relations of
his subjects." 1 Or, as Mr. Wakeman puts it, " the con-
stitutional character of the supremacy of the Crown . . .
does not differ in principle from that exercised by
William i. or Edward I., being in its essence the right of
supervision over the administration of the Church, vested
in the Crown as the champion of the Church, in order
that the religious welfare of its subjects may be duly
provided for." - Thus we maintain that, while its formal
assertion in the sixteenth century grew out of the neces-
sity for national resistance to foreign claims, yet the
supremacy itself was no new thing. Questions of the
utmost importance and delicacy may, of course, arise in
connection with it ; and in the present day, when the
powers formerly exercised by the Crown have so largely
passed from the personal control of the sovereign to the
Parliament, a wholly new state of things has arisen.
This has been greatly complicated by the unfortunate Act
of 1833 (to say nothing of later legislation), which abol-
ished the ancient Court of Delegates, in which the Crown
appointed the members of the final Court of appeal in
ecclesiastical causes, and transferred its powers to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But into the
vexed question of the Ecclesiastical Courts there is no
necessity to enter here. All that we are at present
concerned with is this, viz. that since the Koyal
supremacy as explained to and accepted by the Church

1 Ecclesiastical Courts Commission, ubi supra.

z Introduction to the History of the Church of England, p. 321.

772 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

is for all practical purposes identical with that anciently
enjoyed by the Crown in this country, there is no sort
of reason why its formal assertion in and since the six-
teenth century should be thought to cause a difficulty
to loyal Churchmen. The " supreme headship " is not
claimed. The extraordinary powers exercised by Henry
viii. and Edward vi. are no longer in force. These the
Church repudiates as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The supreme governorship, as defined and limited in
the formal documents cited above, she loyally accepts.1

II. The Papal Claims.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in
this realm of England.

The statement of the Article sums up as briefly as
possible the position taken up by the Church of England
in the sixteenth century. It is, of course, well known
that during the previous centuries, although a Papal
jurisdiction was freely admitted, yet resistance to the
claims of Home was not infrequent, and various Acts
were passed to limit the powers of the Pope in this
country. But the summary rejection of Papal jurisdic-
tion, as a whole, belongs to the sixteenth century. The
account of the steps taken by the Church and State,
including the formal declaration by Convocation in 1534,
that " the Pope of Kome hath no greater jurisdiction
conferred on him by God in holy Scripture, in this

1 It has been impossible to do more than give the briefest outline in
regard to the very important sulject discussed in this section. Refer-
ence has been frequently made in the notes to the Report of the Ecclesi-
astical Courts Commission, as well as to Mr. Wakeman's valuable note
on the subject. To these the reader is referred for fuller details ; and with
them mention should be made of Mr. Gladstone's famous letter to Bishop
Blomfield, ' ' The Royal Supremacy as it is defined by reason, history, and
the Constitution."

ARTICLE XXXVII 773

kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop," l
belongs to the province of ecclesiastical history, and there
is no need to summarise the details here. What is
required is to show that the action of the Church of
England can be justified, and that the statement of the
Article is true. If it be a fact that our Lord conferred
upon S. Peter a position and power superior to that of
the other Apostles, and that this has been transmitted
to his successors in the see of Eome, so that the Pope
is by Divine appointment head of the universal Church,
then clearly the Church of England was in the wrong in
asserting her freedom from his jurisdiction. What is
necessary for us here, then, is to consider (a) the Scrip-
tural grounds on which the Papal claims are based, and
(6) the evidence from the early Church concerning these
claims ; for if it can be established that no position
of " supremacy " involving universal jurisdiction was
granted by our Lord to S. Peter, and no such position
conceded to the bishops of Eome in primitive times,
then it would seem to follow that the assertion of the
Papal claims in later days was an unwarrantable usurpa-
tion, and that the Church of England was perfectly
justified in the formal repudiation of them which it
made in the sixteenth century.2

(a) The Scriptural (/rounds on which the Papal claims
are based.

Three passages of the New Testament are quoted by

1 See Dixon's History of the Church of England, vol. i. pp. 227, 238.

2 The decree of the Vatican Council (1870), " Pastor jEternus, " is so
drawn as really to put out of court any appeal to theories of "develop-
ment " in connection with the Roman claims, for it boldly asserts that
the tradition received a fidei Christianoe exordia attests (1) the right of
the bishop of Rome to a universal jurisdiction, plenary, supreme, ordi-
nary, and immediate ; and (2) his infallibility when denning ex cathedra
a doctrine on faith and conduct as to be held by the Church universal.
Cf. Bright's Roman Sec in the Early Churchy p. 2.

5°

774 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

modern Papalists — (1) the promise to S. Peter in
S Matthew xvi. ; (2) our Lord's words to him in S. Luke
xxii. 32 ; and (3) the threefold commission in S. John xxi.
Of these the first is far the most important.

" I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My Church ; and the gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven."

In considering this passage, it should be noticed that
the words concerning " binding " and " loosing," here
addressed to S. Peter, are afterwards spoken to the
Apostles generally (c. xviii. 18). Consequently what-
ever power was conferred by them upon S. Peter was
afterwards granted equally to the others. But the
earlier part of the promise refers to S. Peter alone.
Admitting, however, for the sake of argument that the
" rock " is Peter himself, yet it still remains that the
promise appears to be a strictly personal one. There is
no indication whatever in it of any headship capable of
transmission to a series of successors in his see. It is
far more natural to take the words as referring by
anticipation to the historical position taken by S. Peter
in the foundation of the Church, and to see its fulfilment
in the early chapters of the Acts, where S. Peter takes
the lead throughout, but nowhere claims for himself
any powers not enjoyed by the other Apostles, nor acts
apart from them. In order to establish the Eoman
interpretation of the passage, which is certainly not
suggested by its terms, it would be necessary to show
that from the very first there had existed a strong tradi-
tion in the Church thus interpreting it, and referring
to it as establishing the Papal claims to headship. But

ARTICLE XXXVII 775

this is absolutely wanting.1 And if this passage breaks
down it will scarcely be contended that anything can
be proved in favour of the Papacy from S. Luke xxii. 32,
or from S. John xxi. The former of these (" I have
made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not ; and
do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy
brethren ") is apparently never applied in favour of the
Papal claims before the seventh century ; 2 and when the
threefold denial of S. Peter is remembered, the threefold
commission of S. John xxi. (" Feed My lambs . . . Feed
My sheep . . . Feed My sheep ") becomes at once his
natural restoration to his office, and cannot be regarded
as investing him with any position of superiority to the
other Apostles.3 But if the appeal is made to Scripture,
we must not be content with the consideration of these
three passages alone. There are other passages besides
these which really bear on the question of the Papal
claims, for the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles
show us the real position historically occupied by the
Apostle, and make it clear it was very far from being
one of " headship " in the sense of authority over the
whole Church. Certainly in the early chapters of the
Acts S. Peter takes the lead in action. But to take the
lead in action is one thing; to claim to be supreme head
is quite another. And against the notion that his posi-
tion was one of such authority must be set such facts as
these. His conduct is called in question by others, and
he vindicates it before the Church (Acts xi. 1-4). S.
Paul on one occasion does not hesitate to " resist him to
the face, because he stood condemned" (Gal. ii. 11). He
is " sent " together with John by the Apostles to Samaria

1 See Salmon's Infallibility of the Church, p. 327 seq., where the
passage is fully considered ; and cf. Lightfoot's S. Clement of Rome,
vol. ii. p. 481 scq.

- Salmon, op. cit. p. 336. 3 Ib. p. 339.

776 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

(Acts viii. 14). At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.)
he is not even president : this position being occupied by
S. James, who sums up the debate and gives his decision
(Bio €ya> Kpiva), ver. 19). This of itself seems conclusive,
for it is inconceivable that if our Lord had invested S.
Peter with any such authority as that now claimed by
the Pope as his successor, any but he could have presided
on such an occasion. We may, then, safely say that,
while a primacy of repute and honour may be rightly
conceded to S. Peter among the Twelve,1 there is not a
shred of evidence in ,the New Testament that he was
ever more than primus inter pares, or that even this
primacy was capable of being transmitted to others.2

(b) Tlie evidence of the early Church concerning the
Papal claims. — Let it be admitted that the evidence for
S. Peter's visit to Eome, and for regarding him as co-
founder with S. Paul of the Church there, is sufficient ;
and that the succession of bishops in that see may be
traced back to him. Yet it does not follow that S. Peter
was ever " bishop " of Eome in the modern sense, any
more than S. Paul was " bishop " of the various Churches
which he founded, or, indeed, of Eome itself. But even
if his Episcopate could be proved, we should still be

1 The position of S. Peter's name as standing first in all the lists of the
Apostles given in the New Testament, together with the fact that in the
list in the Gospel according to S. Matthew the word irpuros is attached to
it (c. x. 2), would seem to point to something like a primacy belonging to
him. But primacy is not supremacy.

2 It must be remembered that we have S. Peter's own Epistles, as well
as the accounts of his proceedings and speeches in the Acts ; and it is a
simple fact that nowhere does he give "the faintest hint of any conscious-
ness of such office as Papalism assigns to him. This is not a mere argu-
ment ex silentio ; if S. Peter had been, by Christ's commission, His
unique Vicar, the monarch and oracle of the growing Church, a polity so
simple and intelligible must have found expression in Apostolic writings,
and could not have been ignored by the 'Vicar' himself." — Bright's
Roman See in the Early Church, p. 8.

ARTICLE XXXVII 777

justified in asking for evidence that subsequent bishops
inherited from him a position of headship involving
universal jurisdiction. And this is just what is not
forthcoming. While in later times there is abundant
evidence of lofty claims made by the Popes, and (some-
times) admitted by others, in the earlier centuries such
language is markedly absent. Attention has recently
been drawn to this part of our subject, and the question
lias been investigated afresh with the greatest care, with
the result that it has been conclusively shown, in Dr.
Bright's Roman See in the Early Church, and in the Rev.
F. W. Puller's Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, that
during the early centuries nothing whatever was known
of the claims made for the Papacy in later times. From
the first the Roman Church was invested with a position
of great importance in Christendom. Rome was the
capital of the world. It was the meeting place for Chris-
tians of different nationalities. To it, as to a natural
centre, men gravitated from all countries.1 And thus
its bishop came to occupy a position of ever-increasing
importance. But history shows us quite clearly that in

1 Something of this kind is evidently intended by Irenseus in the
famous passage in his works (unfortunately only existing in the Latin
translation). "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem (v.l.
potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est
eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique con-
servata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio " (III. iii.). Irenseus does not
mean that every Church "must" as a matter of duty "agree with" the
Roman Church on account of its "potentior principalitas " ; but that the
faithful from all parts "are sure to" (necesse est, it is a matter of course)
"come together" there. "It is inevitable, S. Irenreus means, that
Christians from all other parts of the empire should, from time to time,
for various reasons, visit the Church in the great centre of the empire :
this is a process which is always going on, which cannot but go on "
(Bright, Roman See, p. 32). The "superior pre-eminence" belongs, it
will be noticed, not to the bishop, but to the Church, or possibly to the
city. See Salmon's Infallibility of tlie Church, p. 375 seq. (c. xx.), and
Puller's Primitive Saints, p. 31 seq., and cf. Bright, as above.

778 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

the second century it was the Church, not the bishop, to
which a kind of primacy was given. The Papal theory
inverts this, and makes the importance of the Church
depend upon that of the bishop.1 It is only towards the
close of the second century that for the first time we
meet with an attempt on the part of a bishop of Rome
to assert his authority outside his own proper sphere.2
This, however, altogether failed. The action of Victor
in attempting to procure a general excommunication of
the Quartodeciman Churches of Asia did not commend
itself to the other bishops of the West, who (we are told)
" rather sharply rebuked him," 3 an expression which could
not by any possibility have been used by the historian had
the notion of the Papal headship been then in existence.
In the third century the correspondence of S. Cyprian
and the history of the controversies in which he was
engaged afford us considerable insight into the position
then occupied by the bishop of Rome. There is no
question that S. Cyprian regarded the see of Rome as the
symbol and centre of unity ; but his actions,4 as well as
his words,5 make it clear that in his view " the function

1 The well-known decree of Constantinople (381), which raised the see
of that city to the second place in Christendom "because it is the new
Rome," shows very plainly the origin of the importance of the bishop of
Rome. The canon was confirmed at Chalcedon (451), when it was laid
down that the first place belonged to the see of Rome ' ' because that is the
imperial city." On the protests of the Roman legates, and the refusal of
Leo i. to recognise this, see Salmon's Infallibility, p. 416.

- The account is given in Eusebius, V. xxiv. xxv.

3 <&tpoi>Tai 5£ Kal ai TOVTUV 0wi/ai, TrXyKTiKurepov Ka.6airToiJ.evwv TOV
Bkropos, Euseb. I.e.

4 Mention may be made of (1) his persistent opposition to the Roman
view of the validity of heretical baptism, and (2) his attitude in regard to
appeals, as shown in the case of the Spanish bishops, Basilides and
Martial, where he set aside altogether the judgment of Pope Stephen,
Ep. Ixvii.

5 For Cyprian's view of S. Peter's position reference should be made
to Epp. xxxiii., xlv. 1, xlviii. 3, lix. 14, Ixx. 3, Ixxiii. 7; and De

ARTICLE XXXVII 779

of the Eoman see in relation to unity was ideal and
typical ; it carried with it no jurisdiction, no right to
dictate." J

During the early years of the fourth century the
history of the Donatist schism supplies an incidental
witness that Koine was not the final authority, for, after
the question had been referred by the emperor to
Melchiades, bishop of Eome, with a few others, the
decision of the Council held by him was reviewed by a
larger Council held at Aries, in order that a more
authoritative settlement of the question might be
arrived at.2

Not until we come to the Council of Sardica, in
343, do we find any legal rights beyond those of other
bishops granted to the bishops of Eome ; and even then
the right of hearing appeals in certain cases was a
strictly limited one, and was granted by the Council as
a new thing, as a matter of ecclesiastical order, and
not based on any Divine right or inherent authority of
the see of Eome.3 In after years the canon was
frequently, though wrongly, appealed to as " Nicene," 4
and the confusion was undoubtedly advantageous to the
interests of Eome. To this canon may be traced the
beginning of whatever legal rights of jurisdiction over
other Churches were afterwards acquired by the see of

Unit. iv. Cf. Briglit's Roman See, p. 39 seq. ; and for the famous inter-
polation in the last of these passages see The Pope and the Council, by
"Janus," p. 127.

1 Robertson in Church Historical Society Lectures, vol. ii. p. 230.

2 " On papal principles [the Emperor] ought, of course, to have upheld,
as by Divine right final, a judgment affirmed by the Roman see. But
nothing of the kind occurred to him, or to any one else at the time."
— Bright, p. 63, where see the whole account of the incident.

3 The canon in question (Canon iii.) may be seen in Hefele, Councils,
vol. ii. p. 112 ; and on it see Bright, p. 85 seq., and Puller, p. 148 seq.

4 They were so quoted by Zosimus in the case of Apiarius (Bright,
p. 136), as also by Leo I. and others.

780 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

Kome. In earlier days, while there is ample evidence
of the importance of the Church, and of the growing
influence of the bishop, it is only moral influence, and
not legal right of jurisdiction, that can be found. Into
the history of the extension of the legal jurisdiction,
and the growth of the temporal power (resting largely
on forgeries 1), there is no necessity to enter here. In
what has been already said it has been sufficiently
indicated how there is a complete lack of evidence in
the early centuries for the claims subsequently made,
and how the power was a matter of gradual growth.
The barest outline of the argument has been all that
space permitted. Details must be sought in the able
works referred to in the text and the footnotes.

III. The Lawfulness of Capital Punishment.

The laws of the realm may punish Christian
men with death, for heinous and grievous
offences.

This subject admits of the briefest treatment. No
question can be raised as to the lawfulness of capital
punishment under the Old Covenant. Not only was
it expressly commanded in various cases under the
Mosaic law : but even before the law was given, it was
laid down by Divine command that " whoso sheddeth
man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Gen.
ix. 6). The New Testament nowhere contains an
express reversal of this rule. Consequently it can
scarcely be maintained that capital punishment is
forbidden by the law of God : and no more than this
is required. All that the Article asserts is that " the
laws of the realm may punish Christian men with

1 On the "false decretals" and the " donation of Constantine," see
The Pope and the Council, pp. 94 and 131.

ARTICLE XXXVII 781

death " in certain cases. Into the question whether
capital punishment is advisable or not there is no need
to enter. That is a matter on which opinions may
differ, and with which we are not here concerned, for
subscription to this statement of the Article will
remain unaffected, however it be decided.

IV. The Lawfulness of War.

It is lawful for Christian men, at the com-
mand of the Magistrate, to wear weapons and

serve in the wars (justa bella administrare). Once
more brevity must be studied, although the question
now before us is involved in much greater perplexity
than that which has just been considered. All that can
here be said Is this. Christianity accepted society and
social institutions as it found them ; but laid down
principles which were intended gradually to alter and
abolish what was wrong in them. So slavery was
accepted by the gospel. There is not one word in the
New Testament which directly condemns it. But the
principle of brotherhood was proclaimed, and this has
so wrought in the hearts of men that it has at length
brought about the abolition of slavery in Christian
communities. In the same way Christianity accepted
war. Our Lord and His Apostles never urged soldiers
to give up their calling.1 But it is hard to resist the
conclusion that the principles which are laid down in
the gospel ought, if they had honestly been applied on
a wide scale, to have led long ago to the disuse of war,
at least between Christian nations. What is required
is that the principles of Christianity should so leaven
society that war should become an impossibility. But

1 See also the directions of the Baptist to the " men on the march"
who asked him what they should do, in S. Luke iii. 14.

782 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

until this happy result is brought about, in the face of
the absence of any directions in the New Testament to
soldiers requiring them to forsake their calling, it can
scarcely be maintained that it is not " lawful for
Christian men to wear weapons and serve in the
wars." It may be added that the numerous allusions
to the military life as affording instructive lessons and
analogies to the life of the Christian, appears not only to
be based on the supposition that the life thus referred
to is in itself a lawful one, but also to indicate that it is
especially favourable . to the development of certain very
essential moral qualities.1

1 Reference should be made to the masterly sermon on "War" in
Mozley's University Sermons, No. V., as well as to the late Aubrey Moore's
paper on the same subject in the Eeport of the Portsmouth Church
Congress.

AETICLE XXXVIII

De Ulicita bonorum Communica- Of Christian Men's Goods which

tione. are not common.

Facultates et bona Christianorum The riches and goods of Christians

non sunt communia quoad jus et are not common, as touching the
possessionem, ut quidam Ana- right, title, and possession of the
baptistse falso jactant. Debet same, as certain Anabaptists do
tamen quisque de his quae possidet, falsely boast. Notwithstanding,
pro facultatum ratione, pauperibus every man ought of such things
eleemosynas benigne distribuere. as he possesseth, liberally to give

alms to the poor, according to his
ability.

THERE has been no alteration whatever in this Article
(except in the form of the title x) since it was first
drawn up in 1553. The error of the Anabaptists
condemned in it is described more fully in the Reformatio
Legum Ecclesiasticarum, from which we learn that the
opinion of the community of goods was in some cases
pushed to such an extent that it was made to include
and justify a community of wives.2

1 Christianorum bona non sunt communia. Christian men's goods are
not common. 1553 and 1563.

2 De Hceres. c. 14 : " De communitate bonorum et uxorum. Excludatur
etiam ab eisdem Anabaptistis inducta bonorum et possessionum com-
munitas, quani tantopere urgent, ut nemini quicquam relinquant
proprium et suurn. In quo mirabiliter loquuntur, cum furta prohiberi
divina Scriptura cernant, et eleemosynas in utroque Testaraento laudari
videant, quas ex propriis facultatibus nostris elargimur ; quorum sane
neutrum consistere posset, nisi Christianis proprietas bonorum et
possessionum suarum relinqueretur. Emergunt etiam ex Anabaptistarum
lacunis quidam Nicolaitse, inquinatissimi sane homines, qui fceminarum,
imo et uxorum disputant usum per omnes promiscue pervagari debere.

783

784 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

The two subjects of which the Article speaks are
these—

1. The community of goods.

2. The duty of almsgiving.

I. The Community of Goods.

The riches and goods of Christians are not
common, as touching the right, title, and pos-
session of the same, as certain Anabaptists do
falsely boast.

The notion of the Anabaptists here condemned
probably originated in a misunderstanding of S. Luke's
words in the Acts of the Apostles. Two passages have
often been cited in proof of the assertion that Com-
munism proper was the system that originally prevailed
in the Apostolic Church, and from them it has been
concluded that the same system ought to be practised now,
and that consequently the possession of private property
by individuals is contrary to the spirit of Christianity.

The passages in question are the following :—

Acts ii. 44, 45 : " All that believed were together, and
had all things common ; and they sold their possessions
and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man
had need."

C. iv. 32 : "And the multitude of them that believed
were of one heart and soul ; and not one of them said
that aught of the things which he possessed was his
own ; but they had all things common " (fy avrols airavra
KOLVO),

Qiue foeda illorum et conscelerata libido primuui pietati coiitraria est et
sacris literis, deinde cum universa civili honestate, et naturali ilia
incorruptaque in mentibus nostris accensa luce vehementur pugnat."
Cf. also the quotations given above on p. 761 ; and see Hermann's Con-
sultation (Eng. tr.), fol. cxl.

ARTICLE XXXVIII 785

These passages, however, do not stand alone ; and a
careful consideration of the whole account given by S.
Luke of the early Church in Jerusalem, shows conclus-
ively that what he is here describing is not so much an
institution as a temper and spirit. Most certainly the
rights of private property were not superseded. Mary
the mother of John Mark still retained her own
house (Acts xii. 12); while the words of S. Peter to
Ananias prove that no necessity was laid upon him to
sell his property, " Whilst it remained, did it not remain
thine own ? and after it was sold, was it not in thy
power ? " Moreover, as will be shown below, there
are various injunctions to liberality in almsgiving in
the Apostolic Epistles which are incompatible with
Communism, for where a strict system of this kind is
practised, and the rights of property are superseded,
personal almsgiving becomes an impossibility. There are
no " rich " to be charged to be " ready to give and glad
to distribute."

It may be added, that while there there is no trace
elsewhere of any system of Communism adopted by the
Church, yet expressions are used by later writers1 which
afford striking parallels to those employed by S. Luke,
and show us that no violence is done to his words if they
are understood of the eager, enthusiastic spirit of love
which so prevailed among the early Christians as to lead
them to regard whatever they possessed as at the disposal

1 Thus in the Aidaxrj TUIV 5w5e/ai a.troa'roKwv 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 recompense! of the reward. Thou shalt not turn
aside from him that needeth, but shalt share all things with thy brother,
and shalt not say that tJiey are thine own ; for if ye are fellow-sharers in
that which is imperishable, how much more in the things that are perish-
able," c. iv. Tertullian also writes as follows : "One in mind and soul,
we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All
things are common among us, but our wives,1' Apol. xxxix.

786 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

of their brethren ; and not of any formal or systematic
plan of Communism.1

II. The Duty of Almsgiving.

Every man ought of such things as he pos-
sesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor,
according to his ability.

That almsgiving is a Christian duty scarcely needs
formal proof. It is sufficient to refer to —

(1) Our Lord's words in the Sermon on the Mount,
where He does not command it, but rather takes for
granted that His followers will practise it, and gives
directions concerning the manner of doing it, as He does
also with regard to the two other duties of prayer
and fasting (S. Matthew vi. 1 seq. ; cf. also S. Luke
xii. 33).

(2) The directions concerning it in the Apostolic
Epistles,2 e.g. " Charge them that are rich in this present
world . . . that they do good, that they be rich in good
works, that they be ready to distribute, willing to com-
municate ; laying up in store for themselves a good
foundation against the time to come, that they may
lay hold on the life which is life indeed," 1 Tim.
vi. 17-19.

1 On the position of some 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 only
proclaimed, preached, and prescribed Communism as a consequence of
fraternity, but practised it with His Apostles " (Cabet, Voyage en Icarie,
p. 567) ; see Kaufmaim's Socialism and Communism, c. i. ; and on the
relation between Religion and Socialism, see Flint's Socialism., c. xi.

a The Second Book of the Homilies contains a plain Homily on the
subject of "almsdeeds and mercifulness towards the poor and needy," in
which the Scriptural directions on the subject from the Old Testament
(including the Apocrypha), as well as from the New, are collected to-
gether, p. 406 (S.P.C.K.).

ARTICLE XXXVIII 787

" To do good and to communicate forget not :
for with such sacrifices God is well pleased," Heb.
xiii. 16.

Cf. also Rom. xii. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; 2 Cor. ix. 7;
1 John iii. 17, etc.

ARTICLE XXXIX

De Jurejurando. Of a Christian Man's Oath.

Quemadmodum juramentum va- As we confess that vain and rash

num et temerarium a Domino nostro swearing is forbidden Christian

Jesu Ghristo et Apostolo ejus Jacobo men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and

Christianis hominibus indictum esse James His Apostle: so we judge

fatemur : ita Christianam religi- that Christian religion doth not

onem minime prohibere censemus, prohibit, but a man may swear

quia jubente Magistratu, in causa when the magistrate requireth, in

fidei et charitatis, jurare liceat, a cause of faith and charity, so it

modo id fiat juxta Prophetn doc- be done according to the prophet's

trinam, in justitia, in judicio, et teaching, in justice, judgment, and

veritate. truth.

LIKE the one just considered, this Article, which has
remained without change since 1553, is aimed against a
tenet of the Anabaptists, which is also condemned in the
Eeformatio Leyum Ecclesiasticarum.

" Praeterea nee juramentorum Anabaptists legitimum
relinquunt usum, in quo contra Scripturarum sententiam
et veteris Testamenti patrum exempla, Pauli etiam apos-
toli, imo Christi, imo Dei Patris procedunt; quorum
juramenta saepe sunt in sacris literis repetita," etc.1

There are two passages of the New Testament which
have appeared to others besides the Anabaptists to
forbid the taking of an oath in any case.2 They are (a)
our Lord's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, and
(b) the very similar words of S. James.

1 De Hccres. c. 15. De jummentis et participatione dominicce GV//<'.
and cf. the quotations given above under Art. XXXVII. p. 761.

" Not only the Quakers of later days, but some among the Christian
Fathers took this view.

788

ARTICLE XXXIX 789

(a) S. Matt. v. 33-37 : "Ye have heard that it was
said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thy-
self, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths : but I
say unto you, Swear not at all ; neither by the heaven,
for it is the throne of God ; nor by the earth, for it
is the footstool of His feet ; nor by Jerusalem, for it is
the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear
by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or
black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay ;
and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one."

(b) S. James v. 12 : "Above all things, my brethren,
swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor
by any other oath ; but let your yea be yea, and your
nay, nay (or, ' let yours be the yea, yea, and the nay,
nay,' E.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
our 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 times in the course of his Epistles, makes a solemn
appeal to God, which is a form of oath (2 Cor. i. 23, xi.
10, 31, xii. 19; Gal. i. 20; Phil. i. 8), and in one
instance uses the expression vrj TTJV v/jberepav Kav^o-iv^
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 (egopxtfyo ere Karci, rov Geov TOV
fwz/ro?) that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ,
the Son of God ? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said :
nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the
Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and
coming on the clouds of heaven." In this case, as in
others, our Lord's actions form the best commentary
upon the meaning of His words, and prove decisively
that the reference in the Sermon on the Mount is, as the
Article takes it, to " vain and rash swearing." S. James1
words are apparently directly founded on our Lord's,1
and there is nothing in them to lead us to think that he
is contemplating anything more than ordinary conversa-
tion and the use of oaths in it. We conclude, therefore,
that there is nothing in Holy Scripture which need raise
any scruple in the minds of Christians as to the lawful-
ness of acquiescing when solemnly put upon their oath.
Whether the use of oaths by the Legislature is advisable
is another matter, on which we are not called upon to
offer an opinion. A man may regret the custom, and feel
that it brings with it grave dangers of the profanation
of sacred things, and encourages the false idea of a double
standard of truthfulness, and yet hold that Christian
religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may
swear when the magistrate requireth, in a cause
of faith and charity, so it be done according to

1 This is made very plain if the marginal rendering of the Revised
Version be adopted.

ARTICLE XXXIX 791

the prophet's teaching, in justice, judgment,
and truth. The " prophet," whose " teaching " is here
referred to, is the prophet Jeremiah, who says (iv. 2),
" Thou shalt swear, As the Lord liveth, in truth, in
judgment, and in righteousness " ;x 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 "Against
Swearing and Perjury" (p. 73, S.P.C.K.), where the whole question of
the lawfulness of oaths is also argued.

INDEX

AACHEN, Council of, 222.
Abbot, Archbishop, 48.
Abelard, 111.

Addis and Arnold, 472, 553, 659.
Admonition to Parliament, 53, 458,

747.

Adoration, Eucharistic, 667.
A Lasco, John, 28, 643.
Albertus Magnus, 149, 435, 692.
Alexander, Archbishop, 591.
Alexander of Hales, 435.
Alexandria, Church of, 507.
Alexandria, Council of, 109.
Alley, Bishop, on the descent into

hell, 160 ; on the Old Testament,

281.
Almsgiving, teaching of Scripture

on, 786.

Ambrose, 219, 314, 360, 426.
Amphilochius, 249, 265.
Anabaptists, 22, 24, 125, 282, 358,

386, 398, 441, 455, 574, 588, 616,

760, 783, 788.

Ancyra, Council of, 700, 711.
Andrewes, Bishop, 47, 554, 660,

663.

Anselm, 155, 701.
Antioch, Church of, 507 ; Council

of, 769.

Apiarius, the case of, 779.
Apocrypha, 274 ; Jerome on, 276 ;

Hooker on, 278.
Apollinaris, heresy of, 135.
Apostles' Creed, history of, 305 ;

origin of name, 313 ; text of,

315.

Apostolical succession, 577, 740.
Apostolicce Curce, the Papal Bull,

752.
Aquinas, 171, 406, 435, 560, 598,

609, 670, 678.

793

Aristides, 140, 299.

Arminianism, 470.

Arnold, T., 490.

Artemon, heresy of, 105.

Arundel, Archbishop, Constitutions
of, 561.

Ascension of Christ, 189.

Assembly of Divines, 370, 376.

Athanasian Creed, not the work of
Athanasius, 329 ; a Latin Creed,
329 ; origin of name, 330 ; con-
troversy on date, 331 ; internal
evidence of date, 332 ; external
evidence, 333 ; MSS. of, 336 ;
contained in early collections of
canons, 338 ; commentaries on,
339 ; used by early writers, 340 ;
probable date of, 343 ; use made
of, by the Church of England,
344 ; contents of, 345 ; objections
to, 346 ; mistranslations in, 347 ;
text of, 353.

Athanasius, use of Hypostasis,
107 ; on the Monarchia, 116 ;
on Homoousios, 126 ; on Sabell-
ianism, 206 ; on the sufficiency
of Scripture, 242 ; on the Canon
of Scripture, 256 ; on blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, 446 ; on
the powers of the Church, 521 ;
on Councils, 534.

Athenagoras, 105, 205.

Atonement, doctrine of, 150 ;
theories of, 154 ; reveals the
Father's love, 154 ; a mystery,
157 ; complete and sufficient,
688. Cf. 439.

Augsburg, Confession of. See Con-
fession.

Augustine, on the Trinity, 101,
111, 112 ; on eternal generation,

794

INDEX

123 ; on the divinity of Christ,
129 ; on the descent into hell,
167, 171 ; on the presence of
Christ as man, 196 ; on the
Macedonians, 208 ; on the pro-
cession of the Holy Spirit, 219 ;
on the sufficiency of Scripture,
242 ; on the Canon of Scripture,
250, 256 ; on the Creed, 300 ;
coincidences with the Athanasian
Creed, 332, 345 ; on original sin,
360, 371 ; on grace, 383 ; on
justification, 393 ; on good works,
410 ; on works before justifica-
tion, 423 ; on predestination,
478 ; on ceremonies, 517 ; on
purgatory, 545 ; on miracles,
558 ; on invocation of saints,
566 ; on sacraments, 596 ; on the
Eucharist, 671.

Augustine of Canterbury, 518.

Autun, Council of, 333.

BANCROFT, Bishop, 482.

Baptism, effect of, in removing orig-
inal sin, 373 ; lay, 505 ; Zwinglian
and Anabaptist teaching on, 621 ;
teaching of the Church on, 623 ;
blessings of, 623 ; relation to
confirmation, 630 ; of infants,
Scriptural arguments for, 635 ;
patristic evidence for, 637. See
also Regeneration.

Barlow, Bishop, consecration of.
751.

Barnabas, Epistle of, 270.

Basil, 206, 565, 566.

Baxter, R., 56.

Bede, 171.

Bellarmine, 549, 613.

Bengel, 115, 147.

Beringar, 650.

Bigg, C., 108.

Blackburne, Archdeacon, 63.

Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,
447.

Bona, Cardinal, 677.

Bonaventura, 435, 567.

Boniface vin., 432.

Boxley, Rood of, 561.

Braga, Council of, 713.

Bramhall, Archbishop, 660, 746.

Bright, W., 773, 776.

Brightman, F. E., 694, 755.

Browne, Bishop H., on the Articles,

144, 172, 242, 244, 330, 465, 607,

632, 660.

Bull, Bishop, 365, 413, 416.
Burke, Edmund, 63.
Burnet, Bishop, 18, 47, 660.
Butler, Bishop, on the Atonement,

157.

C.ESAREA, Baptismal Creed of, 316.

Caesarius of Aries, 309, 342.

Cajetan, Cardinal, 572.

Calvin, 385, 446, 474, 590.

Canon of Scripture, meaning of the
term, 248 ; method of determin-
ing, 250 ; difference between
England and Rome on, 252 ;
evidence on which the Canon of
the New Testament rests, 261.

Capital punishment, 780.

Carthage, Council of, 257, 699.

Cassian, 304.

Celibacy of the clergy, history of,
696.

Ceremonial Law of Moses not bind-
ing on Christians, 294.

Cerinthus, 711.

Chalcedon, Council of, 533.

Charisius of Philadelphia, 225.

Charlemagne, 221, 313, 337.

Charles the Bald, 337.

Cheke, Sir J., 13, 19, 654.

Chrysostom, 192, 214, 471.

Church, use of the word in Scrip-
ture, 497 ; the visible, 498 ;
invisible, meaning of phrase, 499 ;
Scripture proof of visibility of,
500 ; notes of, 502 ; legislative
power of, 514 ; judicial power of,
520 ; a witness and keeper of
Scripture, 526 ; particular or
national, 717.

Church authority, in relation to
private judgment, 525.

Church, Dean, 371.

Clarke, Dr. S., 111.

Clement of Alexandria, 171, 248,
275, 366, 471, 544, 698, 741.

Clement of Rome, 104, 205, 248,
270, 467, 578, 739.

Clermont, Council of, 430, 678.

Clovesho, Council of, 567.

Communicatio idiomatum, 138.

Communion of Saints, 311.

Community of goods, 784.

Concomitance, doctrine of, 683.

INDEX

795

Concupiscence, 375, 377.

Confessio Basiliensis, 9.

Confessio Belgica, 10.

Confessio Gallicana, 10, 376.

Confessio Helvetica, 10, 369.

Confession of Augsburg, 8, 90, 120,
198, 232, 358, 388, 445, 493, 573,
587, 592, 616, 642, 680, 692,
761.

Confession of Wiirtemberg, 9, 120,
198, 232, 378, 388, 410, 513,
587.

Confirmation, 604, 630.

Constance, Council of, 431, 679.

Constantino Porphyrogenitus, 559.

Constantinople, first Council of,
215, 533 ; second Council of,
533 ; third Council of, 533 ;
seventh Council of, 559 ; eighth
Council of, 559.

Constantinople, Creed of, 324.

Convocation, were the Forty-Two
Articles submitted to it ? 15.

Corpus Christi, Festival of, 666.

Cosin, Bishop, 49.

Councils. See General Councils.

Counsels and precepts, 437.

Cranmer, Archbishop, prepares the
Forty-Two Articles, 12 ; his ac-
counts of the title to them, 17 ;
on the Eucharist, 642-674 ; his
marriage, 702 ; on the Royal
Supremacy, 769. See also 5, 7,
28, 258.

Creeds, origin of, 297 ; indications
of, in New Testament, 297 ; early
forms of, 298 ; interrogative forms
of, 300 ; introduced into the
liturgy, 300 ; used as tests of
orthodoxy, 301 ; difference be-
tween Eastern and Western, 302.

Creighton, Bishop, 435, 556.

Cup, denial of, to the laity, 506 ;
condemned by early writers, 677 ;
gradual growth of the practice,
679 ; rejected by the Church of
England, 680 ; grounds of the
rejection, 681.

Curteis, Canon, 68.

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 105,
307, 360, 427, 453, 555, 595, 639,
711, 778.

Cyprian, Bishop of Toulon, 309.

Cyril of Alexandria, 216.

Cyril of Jerusalem, catechetical

lectures of, 207, 300 ; on the
Canon, 255, 265 ; on the term
Apocryphal, 276 ; creed of, 321 ;
on the administration of the
Eucharist, 677.
Cyril Lucar, Confession of, 259.

DALE, R. W., 147, 148.

Decentius of Eugubium, 606.

Deity, properties of, 139.

Denebert, Bishop, 341.

Denny and Lacey, 749.

Descent into hell, change in the

Article on, 160. See also Hell,

descent into.

Diaconate, origin of, 733.
Diatessaron of Tatian, 269.
Diocesan System, origin of, 738.
Diogenes of Cyzicus, 322.
Dionysius of Alexandria, 107.
Dionysius of Rome, 107.
Dionysius the Areopagite, 597.
Divinity of the Son, proved from

Scripture, 127 ; of the Spirit, 199.
Dixon, Canon R. W., 3, 5, 12, 13,

14, 17, 29, 561.
Docetism, 145.
Donatism, 779.
Double procession, the doctrine of,

211 ; objections to, 224.
Driver, Dr., 164, 286. 291, 292.

ELECTION, 466 seq.

Elvira, Council of, 558, 698.

Enoch, Book of, 164, 287.

Ephesus, seventh canon of the
Council of, 225 ; ratifies the
Creed of Nicaa, 324. Cf. 530,
523.

Ephraem the Syrian, 565.

Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, on
Montanism, 205 ; creeds given by,
319. Cf. 208, 215, 324, 557.

Episcopacy, history of, 731 ; how far
necessary, 744.

Episcopal succession, Church of
England, Roman objections to,
748.

Erasmus, 568.

Estconrt, 750.

Eternal generation of the Son, 123.

Eucharist, changes in the Article
on, 644 ; teaching on, 647 ; adop-
tion of, 667 ; elevation of, 666 ;
reservation of, 666.

796

INDEX

Eusebius of Csesarea on the Canon
of the New Testament, 266 ; on
the Creed of Nicrea, 316.

Eutyches, heresy of, 136.

Excommunication, Jewish, 706 ;
Christian, 707; Scriptural grounds
of, 708 ; history of, 710 ; canons
concerning, 713.

Extreme Unction, 605.

FAITH, use of the word in Scripture,
399 ; why the instrument of justi-
fication, 404. See also Justifica-
tion.

Fall, the, effect of, 367 ; Scripture
proof of, 370.

Farrar, Dean, 457.

Fides infirmis and formata, 406.

Field, Dean, 570.

Flesh and bones, meaning of the
term, 188.

Florence, Council of, 547, 598.

Forbes, Bishop A., 481, 591.

Forbes, Bishop W., 422, 568, 572.

Formula Concordiee, 369.

Fortunatus, commentary of, on the
Athanasian Creed, 334.

Forty-Two Articles, history of their
preparation, 12 ; had they the
authority of Convocation, 15 ;
their substance and object, 20 ;
not intended to be a permanent
test, 25 ; their sources, 26 ; how
far dependent on the Confession
of Augsburg, 26 ; their test, 70.

Francis a Sancta Clara, 440, 617.

Frankfort, Council of, 222, 560.

Freeman, Archdeacon, 203.

Freeman, E. A., 701, 702.

Freewill, teaching of the Article on,
379 ; Council of Trent on, 380.

Fuller, Church History, 15, 750.

Fust, Sir H. J., 728.

Future life, doctrine of, in the Olc
Testament, 287.

GALLICAN additions to the creed, 30 9

Gangra, Council of, 698.

Gardiner, S. R., 48.

Gascoigne, Liber Veritatum, 433,702

Gelasius, 678.

General Councils, may not be
gathered together without th<
consent of princes, 532 ; may err
534 ; have erred, 535 ; thei:

authority, 536 ; recognised by the
Church of England, 536.

Generaliter, meaning of the word,
486.

Jood works, 404; teaching of the
Article on, 412 ; follow after
justification, 413.

Gore, C., 98, 103, 125, 130, 144,
473, 659, 732.

Gottschale, 475.

jroulbourn, Dean, 515, 527.

Grace, teaching of the Articles on,
380 ; teaching of Scripture on,
382 ; teaching of the Prayer Book
on, 382; preventing and co-operat-
ing, 382 ; de congruo and de con-
digno, 418.

Gregory the Great, 518, 547.

Gregory vn., 701.

Gregory Nazianzen, 210, 256, 265,
565, 566.

regory Nyssen, 565.
regory of Bergamo, 597.

Guest, Bishop, share in the pre-
paration of the Articles, 30 ;
suggests further changes, 45 ; on
Article XVI I., 487 ; on Article
XXVIII., 646, 662; on Article
XXIX., 45, 669.

HADES, 163. See also Hell.
Hadrian i., 221, 337.
Hadrian IL, 337.
Haimo of Halberstadt, 650.
Hall, Bishop, 745.
Hamant, Matthew, 120, 490.
Hampton Court Conference, 54, 482.
Hard wick on the Articles, 19, 25,

31, 39, 46, 51, 281, 386, 417, 512,

717.

Hatfield, Council of, 220.
Hebrews, Epistle to, hard passages

in, 449.

Hefele, Bishop, 256, 258.
Hell, meaning of the word, 163.
Hell, descent into, Scriptural

grounds of doctrine, 166 ; object

of, 169 ; early belief in, 175 ;

history of the Article of the Creed

on, 177 ; criticism of Pearson on,

179.
Hermann, Archbishop, consultation

of, 398, 575, 589, 761.
Hernias, 205, 270.
Heurtley, Professor, 177, 310, 322.

INDEX

797

Heylin, 15.

Hilary of Aries, 332.

Hilary of Poictiers, 110, 218, 256.

Hildebert of Tours, 684.

Hincmar, 650.

Hippolytus, 108.

Holy Communion. See Eucharist.

Holy Ghost, addition of Article on,
198 ; Divinity of, 199 ; distinct
personality of, 201 ; history of
the doctrine of, 204 ; procession
of, 209 ; blasphemy against, 446
seq.

Holy Scripture, changes in the
Article on, 231 ; sufficient for
salvation, 234 ; decree of the
Council of Trent on, 235 ; the
Fathers on, 242 ; the Canon of,
248.

Holywood, 749.

Homilies, History of, 723 ; authors
of, 724, 726 ; nature of assent
to, 726 ; on the doctrine of a
future life, 293 ; on justification,
407 ; on the Church, 494 ; on
Councils, 536 ; on adoration of
images, 561 ; on invocation of
saints, 568 ; on the sacraments,
592, 600 ; on almsgiving, 786 ;
on oaths, 791.

Homoousios, meaning of the term,
125 ; adopted at Nicsea, 125 ;
objections to, 126.

Hooker, R., Ecclesiastical Polity of,
47 ; on the Incarnation, 136, 143 ;
on the communicatio idiomatum,
138 ; on the gift of unction, 142 ;
on the presence of Christ as man,
194 ; on the sufficiency of Scrip-
ture, 251 ; on the Apocrypha, 278 ;
on preaching, 503 ; on the Church
of Rome, 509 ; on the authority
of the Church, 520 ; on Baptism,
624 ; on the Eucharist, 659, 663 ;
on ceremonies, 720 ; on the minis-
try, 745 ; on the formula of or-
dination, 747 ; on intention, 756.

Hooper, Bishop, on the Articles,
13 ; on the Anabaptists, 22, 145,
441, 486, 490 ; on the descent into
hell, 162 ; on the Church, 499.

Horsley, Bishop, 165, 173.

Hort, F. J. A., on Genesis i.-iii.,
363; on Article XIII., 422; on
Article XXII., 553.

Humanity of Christ, perfect, 141 ;

sinless, 442.
Humphrey, 41, 646.
Hypostasis, history of the word,

107.
Hypostatic union, the, 137.

ICONOCLASTIC controversy, the, 558.
Ignatius, 104, 140, 175, 205, 210,

270, 467, 738.

Illingworth's Hampton Lectures, 103.
Images, adoration of, 557 seq.
Immaculate conception, the, 440.
Imparted righteousness, 405.
Incarnation, doctrine of, 137 seq.
Indefective grace, 457.
Indulgences, 426 seq., 554 seq.
Inferi and Inferna, 163.
Innocent I., 606, 701.
Innocent in., 652.
Institution of a Christian man, 5,

372, 508, 599, 609.
Intention, doctrine of, 755 seq.
Invocation of saints, the, 564 seq.
Irenfeus, 140, 153, 175, 241, 269,

275, 298, 303, 470, 557, 638,

777.
Irresistible grace, 477.

JAMES, on justification, 401 ; bishop
of Jerusalem, 734.

Jerome on the word hypostasis, 111 ;
on the Apocrypha, 232, 256 ; on
the term Canonical, 250, 275 ; on
the Creed, 307, 314 ; on worship,
583.

Jerusalem, Church of, 507.

Jesus Christ. See Son of God.

Jewel, Bishop, 44, 195, 764, 766,
769.

John vni., 430.

Josephus, 253.

Judgment, the last, 196.

Julius, Pope, 534.

Justification, use of the word in
Scripture, 390 ; meaning of, 392 ;
distinction from sanctification,
395 ; meritorious cause of, 397 ;
instrument of, 398 ; by faith
only, 400 ; works before, 415.

Justin Martyr, 104, 140, 175, 204,
269, 271, 299, 470, 637, 677.

KAYE, Bishop, 246, 470.
Kirkpatrick, Professor, 289.

798

INDEX

Knox, A., 661.
Knox, John, 14, 730.

LACEY. See Denny.

Lambeth Articles, the, 53, 457.
475.

Lanfranc, 701.

Laodicaea, Council of, 256.

Laud, Archbishop, advises Charles
I. to prefix declaration to the
Articles, 49 ; on Canon V., 67 ;
on Article XX., 513.

Leicester, Earl of, 64.

Leo i., 677.

Leo in., 223.

Leo the Armenian, 559.

Liberius, Pope, 526.

Liddon, H. P., 113, 117, 123, 125,
130, 144, 480.

Lightfoot, Bishop, 270, 327, 400,
551, 733.

Locus pcenitentice, 452 ; Venice, 454.

Logos, doctrine of the, 122.

Lord's Supper. See Eucharist.

Luckock, Dean, 565.

Lumby, J. R., 335.

Luther on the Canon of the New
Testament, 272 ; on the slavery
of the will, 385 ; on justification
by faith, 401 ; on good works,
411 ; on predestination, 484 ; on
the effect of sacraments, 591.

MACEDONIUS, heresy of, 207.

Marcellus of Ancyra, heresy of,
321 ; creed of, 306.

Martensen, Bishop, 191.

Mason, A. J., 604.

Masses, the sacrifices of; meaning
of the phrase, 691 ; medieval
teaching on, 692.

Matrimony, Holy, 605.

Maurice, F. D., 292.

Medd, P. G., 96.

Mediation of Christ, 152.

Medieval errors condemned in the
Articles, 21.

Melancthon, 463, 590.

Melchiades, 779.

Melito of Sardis, 255.

Messianic hope in the Old Testa-
ment, 285.

Micronius, Martin, 23, 161.

Mill,W. H., 246.

Milligan, Professor, 189.

Milman, Dean, 483.

Ministry, the threefold, 731 seq.

Moberly, Bishop, 663.

Moehler, 237.

Monarchia, doctrine of the, 115.

Montague, Bishop, 48, 49, 570,

727.

Montanism, 205, 449.
Moral law binding on Christians,

294.

Mozley, J. B., 352, 478, 671, 693.
Muratori, 333.
Muratorian fragment on the Canon,

267.

NAG'S Head fable, the, 749.

Neal, D., 55.

Necessary doctrine and erudition
for any Christian man, 5, 380,
641, 702.

Neo-Caesarea, Council of, 700, 711.

Nestorius, heresy of, 136.

New Testament, Canon of, 261 ;
MSS. of, 261 ; versions of, 263 ;
catalogues of, 265 ; citations of,
268 ; language of Article VI. on,
271.

Newdigate, Sir R., 63.

Newman, J. H., 114, 237, 274.

Nicaea, Council of, 124, 520, 533,
698.

Nicaea, Second Council of, 533,
559.

Nicene Creed, original form of, 316 ;
enlarged form of, 318 ; date and
object of the enlargement, 321 ;
possibly sanctioned at Constanti-
nople, 324 ; not noticed at
Ephesus, 324 ; sanctioned at
Chalcedon, 324 ; additions at
Toledo, 215 ; Latin version of,
327 ; English translation of, 327.

Nicholas I., Pope, 224.

Nicholas in., Pope, 228.

Norris, Archdeacon, 153, 155, 348.

Novatianism, 449.

OATHS, Article on, 788 ; teaching

of Scripture on, 789.
Old Testament, Canon of the, 252 ;

changes in the Article on, 280 ;

not contrary to the New, 283.
Ommanney, Preb., 339.
Opus operatum, meaning of the

phrase, 612.

INDEX

799

Orders, Holy, 605.

Ordinal, objections of the Puritans
to, 731 ; objections of the Roman-
ists to, 748 ; validity of the
Anglican, 753.

Ordination, formula of, 746 ; objec-
tions of the Puritans to, 747 ;
objections of the Romanists to,
753.

Origen, his use of Ousia and Hy-
postasis, 107, 108 ; on eternal
generation, 123 ; uses the term
Homoousios, 126 ; on 1 Pet. iii.
18, 171 ; on the term Canonical,
249 ; on the Canon of Scripture,
255 ; on predestination, 471 ;
wrongly quoted for invocation of
saints, 564 ; on worship, 583 ; on
the baptism of infants, 638.

Original sin, Article on, 357 ; its
object, 358 ; origin of the phrase,
360 ; Scriptural teaching on,
362.

Original righteousness, 364 ; teach-
ing of the Fathers on, 366.

Ousia, history of the term, 107.

Oxenham, H. N., 155.

PALMER, Sir W., 241, 242, 244,
536.

Papal claims, growth of, 776.

Papal jurisdiction; evidence of
Scripture concerning, 773.

Papias, 269.

Paradise, 166.

Pardons. See Indulgences.

Parker, Archbishop, prepares the
Thirty-Eight Articles, 30, 32 ;
suggests clause in Art. XXVIII.,
36 ; change made by him, 120,
160, 198, 259, 378; on the
descent into hell, 161 ; on Art.
XXIX. , 669 ; consecration of,
748.

Particular Redemption, 477, 487.

Pascal II., 678.

Paschasius Radbert, 597, 650.

Paul of Samosata, 127, 769.

Pearson, Bishop, on the position of
the Articles, 39 ; on the unity of
God, 91; on the Trinity, 116;
on the Son of God, 121 ; on the
descent into hell, 169, 171, 189 ;
on the Macedonian heresy, 199 ;
on the Divinity of the Holy

Ghost, 201 ; on the procession of
the Holy Ghost, 211.

Pelagianism, 360.

Penance, 604.

Penitential discipline of the Church,
711.

Perichoresis, doctrine of the, 117.

Perpetua, acts of, 543.

Perrone, 237, 659.

Person, history of the term, 105;
explanation of, 112.

Peter, Gospel of, 176.

Peter Damien, 652.

Peter Lombard, 571, 597, 654.

Philo, 254.

Philpot, Archdeacon, his explana-
tion of the title of the Articles,
17.

Photius, 224.

Pirminius on the Creed, 310.

Pius iv., Pope, 11, 12.

Pliny, 594.

Plumptre, Dean, 171, 180, 436.

Pneumatomachi, the, 208.

Polycarp, 270 ; martyrdom of, 563.

Praxeas, 106.

Prayers for the departed not con-
demned in the Articles, 537.

Predestination, Article on, 459 ;
based on Scripture, 463 ; Ecclesi-
astical theory of, 465 ; Arminian
theory of, 470 ; Roman teaching
on, 471 ; Calvinistic theory of,
474 ; Augustinian theory of, 477 ;
how to be understood, 479 ;
Scriptural teaching on, 479.

Presence of Christ as Man, nature
of the, 193.

Priesthood, origin of, 733.

Procession of the Holy Ghost,
doctrine of the, 209.

Prophets in the New Testament,
737.

Prosper, 475.

Prynne, W., 49.

Puller, F. W., 777.

Purgatory, history of the doctrine
of, 543 ; Romish doctrine of,
548 ; teaching of the Greek
Chui^h on, 548 ; evidence of
Scripture on, 548.

Pusey, E. B., 218, 219, 234, 438.

RANSOM, Christ's death a, 155.
Ratramn, 642, 650.

800

INDEX

Reccared, 215.

Reconciliation of God to man, 146.

Eedditio Symboli, 300.

Reformatio Legum Ecclcsiasticarum,

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.
Eegulafidei, 305.
Relics, adoration of, 557.
Reprobation, 477.
Resurrection of Christ, evidence for

the, 183.
Resurrection body, nature of the,

186.

Resurrection of the flesh, 311.
Reynolds, Dr., 54.
Rhabanus Maurus, 597.
Ridley, Bishop, 642, 674, 719.
Robertson, A., 779.
Rogers on the Articles, 616.
Roman Creed, early, 306.
Rome, Church of, 506 seq.
Roscellinus, 111.
Row, Prebendary, 186.
Royal Declaration prefixed to the

Articles, 47.

Royal Supremacy. See Supremacy.
Rufinus on the Creed, 178, 304 seq.,

314 ; on the Canon of Scripture,

249, 256, 265, 275.

SABELLIANISM, 106, 206.

Sacraments, Zwinglian views of,
588 ; teaching of the Article on,
588 ; Anabaptist view of, 588 ;
Calvinistic view of, 590 ; number
of, 593 ; history of the word,
594 ; teaching of the Greek
Church on, 598 ; difference be-
tween England and Rome on,
601.

Sacrifice, Christ's death a, 148.

Sacrifice of Masses. See Masses.

Salmon, Dr., 778.

Salvus, meaning of the word, 347.

Sampson, 41.

Sanctification, meaning of, 393.

Sanday, Professor, 148, 269, 271,
363, 396, 400, 469.

Sardica, Council of, 779.

Scarapsus, 310.

Schoolmen, the, 368, 418.

Session at the right hand of God,
meaning of the expression, 192 ;
evidence for, 192.

Sheol, Hebrew conception of, 163.

Sherlock, Dean, 111.

Socrates, 177, 324, 518, 699.

Son, meaning of ths term, 122.

Son of God, eternal generation of,
122 seq. ; incarnation of, 135 seq. •
union of two natures in one
person, 137 ; atonement of, 145
seq.

South, Dr., 111.

Stephen of Autun, 652.

Subscription to the Articles required
by Parliament, 43 ; required by
Convocation, 57 ; form of, modi-
fied, 63 ; not required from the
laity, 64 ; history of, at the
universities, 64.

Substance, history of the term, 107.

Supererogation, works of, Article
on, 424 ; history of the word,
425.

Supremacy, Royal, history of, 761
seq. ; meaning of, 765 seq.

Swainson, Professor, 335.

Swete, Professor, 104. 177, 205, 208,
213, 310 seq.

Symbolum, meaning of the term,
304.

TAKASIUS, Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, 221.

Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, 242.

Ten Articles of 1536, the, 3.

Tertullian, 105, 107, 108, 140, 166,
176, 213, 241, 248, 269, 275, 298,
303, 311, 453, 455, 543, 555, 557,
595, 638, 785.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 216, 225.

Theodore of Tarsus, 220.

Theodoret, 216, 324.

Theodotus, 105.

Theophilus of Antioch, 105, 204,
366.

Thcotocos, title of, 136.

TJiesaurus ecclesice, 434.

Thirlwall, Bishop, 659.

Thirteen Articles of 1538, 7.

Thirty-Eight Articles of 1563, his-
tory of the, 30 ; compared with
the Forty - Two Articles, 38 ;

INDEX

801

indebted to the Confession of; UNCTION of the sick, history of,

Wiirtemberg, 38 ; submitted to 605. See also Extreme Unction.

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 VARIATIONS in Church Services, 719.

authoritative, 46 ; Royal declara- Vasquez, 685, 692.

tion prefixed to, 50 ; Puritan ' Vatican Council, the, 773.

objections to, 51 seq. ; subscrip- Vaughan, Dean, 134, 204.

tion to. See Subscription.
Toledo, third Council of, 215.
Traditio Symboli, 300.

Venantius Fortunatus, 178, 334.
Victor, Pope, 778.
Vincent of Lerins, 242, 343.
Virgin, Christ born of a, 140 ;

immaculate conception of the,

440.

Tradition and Scripture, 236 seq.
Traditions, Article on, 717. Of. 514

seq.
Transubstantiation, history of the I

doctrine, 649; meaning of the ; WAKEMAN, H. 0., 764, 771.

word, 653 ; how far accepted by | War, lawfulness of, 781.

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

works, 411 ; on predestination,
487 ; on purgatory, 538 ; on
pardons, 539 ; on adoration of
images and relics, 540 ; on in-
vocation of saints, 541 ; on the
use of Latin in the Mass, 584 ; on
sacraments, 598 ; on the sacrifice
of the Mass, 693 ; on Extreme

Waterland, D., on the Articles,
46 ; on subscription, 62 ; vindica-
tion of the doctrine of the Trinity,
111 ; on the Athanasian Creed,
331 seq. ; on good works, 413
seq. ; on blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, 448.

Watson, Bishop, 676.

Westcott, Bishop, 97, 117, 122, 130,
134, 156, 169, 184, 185, 186, 188,
191, 211, 250, 256, 258, 302, 450
seq., 558, 676.

Westminster Assembly of Divines,
55, 376.

Westminster Confession, the, 369.

Westminster, Council of, 701.

Unction, 608 ; on grace ex opere \ Whitaker, Professor, 54.
operate, 612 ; on transubstantia- Whitgift, Archbishop, three Articles

subscription

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-

of, 58 ; subscription to them
required by the Canons of 1604,
59.

William of Occam, 526.

Winchester, Council of, 701.

ment, 93 ; revelation of, in the j Wiseman, Cardinal, 237.
New Testament, 98; the doctrine j Witmund, 673.

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.

Woolton, 422.
Wiirtemberg,
Confession.

Confession of. See

ZOSIMUS, Pope, 507, 779.

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH

A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS

AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF

METHUEN AND COMPANY

PUBLISHERS : LONDON

36 ESSEX STREET

W.C.

CONTENTS

PAGE

FORTHCOMING BOOKS, . . . 2

POETRY, .... 9

ENGLISH CLASSICS, .... TO

ILLUSTRATED BOOKS, . . . . .II

HISTORY, ....... 12

BIOGRAPHY, .... .14

GENERAL LITERATURE, . . . .15

SCIENCE, ... iS

PHILOSOPHY, . . . . .19

THEOLOGY, ...... 2O

LEADERS OF RELIGION, .... 21

FICTION, ...... 22

BOOKS FOR BOYS AND GIRLS, . .31

THE PEACOCK LIBRARY, .... 32

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERIES, ... 32

SOCIAL QUESTIONS OF TO-DAY, . . 34

CLASSICAL TRANSLATIONS, . . 35

EDUCATIONAL BOOKS, . • 36

OCTOBER 1896

OCTOBER 1896.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Poetry

RUDYARD KIPLING

BALLADS. By RUDYARD KIPLING. Crown 8vo. 6s.
150 copies on hand-irmde paper. Demy 8vo. 21 s.
30 copies on Japanese paper. Demy %vo. 42$.

The enormous success of ' Barrack Room Ballads ' justifies the expectation that this
volume, so long postponed, will have an equal, if not a greater, success.

GEORGE WYNDHAM

SHAKESPEARE'S POEMS. Edited, with an Introduction and
Notes, by GEORGE WYNDHAM, M. P. Crown Svo. 35. 6d.

\_English Classics.
W. E. HENLEY

ENGLISH LYRICS. Selected and Edited by W. E. HENLEY.
Crown 8v0. Buckram. 6s.

Also 15 copies on Japanese paper. Demy %vo. £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. 3^. 6d.

25 copies on Japanese paper. Demy &vo. 2is.

History, Biography, and Travel

CAPTAIN HINDE

THE FALL OF THE CONGO ARABS. By SIDNEY L.

HINDE. With Portraits and Plans. Demy &vo. I2s. 6d.
This volume deals with the recent Belgian Expedition to the Upper Congo, which
developed into a war between the State 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 aside 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. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS 3

S. BARING GOULD
THE LIFE OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. By S. BARING

GOULD. With over 450 Illustrations in the Text and 13 Photo-
gravure Plates. Large quarto. $6s.

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 Napoleon has ever been
published.

VICTOR HUGO

THE LETTERS OF VICTOR HUGO. Translated from the
French by F. CLARKE, M.A. In Two Volumes. Demy Svo.
IOJ. 6d. each. Vol. 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.

J. M. RIGG

ST. ANSELM OF CANTERBURY: A CHAPTER IN THE
HISTORY OF RELIGION. By J. M. RIGG, of Lincoln's Inn,
Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. "js. 6d.

This work gives for the first time in moderate compass a complete portrait of St.
Anselm, 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 ROMAN EMPIRE.
By EDWARD GIBBON. A New Edition, edited with Notes,
Appendices, and Maps by J. B. BURY, M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College, Dublin. In Seven Volumes. Demy %vo, gilt top. 8.r. 6d.
each. Crown Svo. 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 %vo. 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.
Petrieand his school cannot but promote sound and accurate study, and supply a
vacant place in the English literature of Egyptology.' — Times.

J. WELLS

A SHORT HISTORY OF ROME. By J. WELLS, M.A., Fellow
and Tutor of Wadham Coll., Oxford. With 4 Maps. Crown 8vo.
Zs.6d. 350 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. Demy Svo. los. 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 illustrated by Maps, Diagrams, and Tables, and aided by copious
Footnotes.

MRS. OLIPHANT

THOMAS CHALMERS. By Mrs. OLIPHANT. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo. $s. 6d. [Leaders of Religion.

Naval and Military

DAVID HANNAY

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ROYAL NAVY, FROM
EARLY TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY. By DAVID HANNAY.
Ilhistrated. Demy 8vo. i$s.

This book aims at giving an account not only 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 century, for instance, or the American
War of 1779-1783 — to the later struggle with Revolutionary and Imperial France.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

COL. COOPER KING

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BRITISH ARMY. By Lieut.-
Colonel COOPER KING, of the Staff College, Camberley. Illustrated.
Demy 8vo. Js. 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, and/ 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. W. 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 warfare —
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, M.A., Litt.D., Fellow of the University of
Durham. Demy %vo. I2s. 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 Mr. Ottley's 'Incarnation.'

Mr. F. B. J evens' ' Introduction to the History of Religion' treats of early religion,
from the point of view of Anthropology and Folk-lore ; 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, M.A., late Scholar of Balliol Coll. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d.

An edition of a Treatise on the Essentials of Christian Doctrine, and the best
methods of impressing them on candidates for baptism. The 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 ANNOUNCEMENTS
General Literature

C. F. ANDREWS

CHRISTIANITY AND THE LABOUR QUESTION. By
C. F. ANDREWS, B.A. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

R. E. STEEL

MAGNETISM AND ELECTRICITY. By R. ELLIOTT
STEEL, M.A., F.C.S. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 4$. 6d.

G. LOWES DICKINSON

THE GREEK VIEW OF LIFE. By G. L. DICKINSON,
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

[ University Extension Series.

J. A. HOBSON

THE PROBLEM OF THE UNEMPLOYED. By J. A.
HOBSON, B.A., Author of 'The Problems of Poverty.' Crown &vo.
2s. 6d. [Social Questions Series.

S. E. BALLY

GERMAN COMMERCIAL CORRESPONDENCE. By S.
E. BALLY, Assistant Master at the Manchester Grammar School.
Crown 8vo. 2s. [Commercial Series.

L. F. PRICE

ECONOMIC ESSAYS. By L. F. PRICE, M.A., Fellow of Oriel
College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 6s.

This book consists of a number of Studies in Economics and Industrial and Social
Problems.

Fiction

MARIE CORELLI'S ROMANCES

FIRST COMPLETE AND UNIFORM EDITION

Large crown 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 ROMANCE OF TWO WORLDS. 2. VENDETTA.
3. THELMA. 4. ARDATH.

5. THE SOUL OF LILITH. 6. WORMWOOD.

7. BARABBAS. 8. THE SORROWS OF SATAN.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS 7
BARING GOULD

DARTMOOR IDYLLS. By S. BARING GOULD. Cr. %vo. 6s.

GUAVAS THE TINNER. By S. BARING GOULD, Author of

' Mehalah,' ' The Broom Squire,' etc. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 6s.

THE PENNYCOMEOUICKS. By S. BARING GOULD.

New Edition. Crown 8vc. 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 8v0. 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 &vo. 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 W. E. NORRIS, 'Author of 'The
Rogue,' etc. Crown 8vo. 6s.

L. COPE CORNFORD

CAPTAIN JACOBUS : A ROMANCE OF HIGHWAYMEN.
By L. COPE CORNFORD. Illustrated. Crown Svo. 6s.

J. BLOUNDELLE BURTON

DENOUNCED. By J. BLOUNDELLE BURTON, Author of ' In
the Day of Adversity,' etc. Crown &vo. 6s.

J. MACLAREN COBBAN

WILT THOU HAVE THIS WOMAN? By J. M. COBBAN,
Author of ' The King of Andaman.' Crown 8v0. 6s.

J. F. BREWER

THE SPECULATORS. By J. F. BREWER. Crown Svo. 6s.

A. BALFOUR

BY STROKE OF SWORD. By ANDREW BALFOUR. Crown
8vo. 6s.

8 MESSRS. METHUEN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

M. A. OWEN
THE DAUGHTER OF ALOUETTE. By MARY A. OWEN.

Crown Svo. 6s.
A story of life among the American Indians.

RONALD ROSS
THE SPIRIT OF STORM. By RONALD Ross, Author of

' The Child of Ocean. ' Crown %vo. 6s.
A romance of the Sea.

J. A. BARRY

IN THE GREAT DEEP : TALES OF THE SEA. By J. A.
BARRY. Author of 'Steve, Brown's Bunyip.' Crown Svo. 6s.

JAMES GORDON

THE VILLAGE AND THE DOCTOR. By JAMES GORDON.
Crown Svo. 6s.

BERTRAM MITFORD

THE SIGN OF THE SPIDER. By BERTRAM MITFORD.

Crown 8z>0. 3$. 6d.
A story of South Africa.

A. SHIELD

THE SQUIRE OF WANDALES. By A. SHIELD. Crown Svo.
y. 6d.

G. W. STEEVENS

MONOLOGUES OF THE DEAD. By G. W. STEEVENS.

Foolscap Svo. $s. 6d.

A series of Soliloquies in which famous men of antiquity — Julius Caesar, 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 8m
3s. 6d.

A volume of stories of Jewish life in Russia.

P. NEUMANN
THE SUPPLANTER. By P. NEUMANN. Crown Svo. $s. 6d.

EVELYN DICKINSON

THE SIN OF ANGELS. By EVFLYN DICKINSON. CrownZvo.
35. 6d.

H. A. KENNEDY

A MAN WITH BLACK EYELASHES. By H. A. KENNEDY.

Crown Svo. $s. 6d.

A LIST OF

MESSRS. METHUEN'S

PUBLICATIONS

Poetry

Budyard Kipling. BARRACK-ROOM BALLADS; And
Other Verses. By RUDYARD KIPLING. Ninth Edition. Crown
2>vo. 6s.

' Mr. Kipling's verse is strong, vivid, full of character. . . . Unmistakable genius
rings in every line.' — Times.

'"Barrack-Room Ballads" contains some of the best work that Mr. Kipling has
ever done, which is saying a good deal. " Fuzzy-Wuzzy," " Gunga Din," and
"Tommy," are, in our opinion, altogether superior to anything of the kind that
English literature has hitherto produced.' — Athen&um.

' The ballads teem with imagination, they palpitate with emotion. We 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?' — Pall Mall Gazette.

"Q." THE GOLDEN POMP : A Procession of English Lyrics
from Surrey to Shirley, arranged by A. T. QuiLLER COUCH. Crown
8vo. Buckram. 6s.
• A delightful volume : a really golden "Pomp."' — Spectator.

" Q." GREEN BAYS : Verses and Parodies. By " Q.," Author

of 'Dead Man's Rock,' etc. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 3^. 6d.
' The verses display a rare and versatile gift of parody, great command of metre, and
a very pretty turn of humour.' — Times.

H. 0. Beeching. LYRA SACRA : An Anthology of Sacred Verse.
Edited by H. C. BEECHING, M.A. Crown 8vo. Buckram. 6s.
'An anthology of high excellence.' — Athenceum.
' A charming selection, which maintains a lofty standard of excellence.' — Times.

W. B. Yeats. AN ANTHOLOGY OF IRISH VERSE.
Edited by W. B. YEATS. Crown %vo. $s. 6d.

' An attractive and catholic selection.'— Times.

' 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 Rcvieu<.

E. Mackay. A SONG OF THE SEA : MY LADY OF DREAMS,
AND OTHER POEMS. By ERIC MACKAY, Author of ' The Love
Letters of a Violinist. ' Second Edition. Fcap. 8z'o, gilt top. $s.

' 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 fine.'— Scotsman.

A 2

io MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

Ibsen. BRAND. A Drama by HENRIK IBSEN. Translated by

WILLIAM WILSON. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. $s. 6d.
'The greatest world-poem of the nineteenth century next to "Faust." It is in
the same set with "Agamemnon," with " Lear," with the literature that we now
instinctively regard as high and holy.' — Daily Chronicle.

"A. G." VERSES TO ORDER. By "A. G." Cr. 8vo. is.bd.

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 witty.' — 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. Crown 8vo. Buckram. 3^. 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.'
— Spectator. ' The book is full of splendid things.' — World.

Lang and Craigie. THE POEMS OF ROBERT BURNS.

Edited by ANDREW LANG and W. A. CRAIGIE. With Portrait.
Demy 8vo, gilt top. 6.r.

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
producing an attractive popular edition of the poet, in which the brightly written
biographical introduction is not the least notable feature.' — Glasgmv 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. Simplex munditiis is the phrase that might be applied
to them. ' — Globe.

' The volumes are strongly bound 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.

'The paper, type, and binding of this edition are in excellent taste, and leave
nothing to be desired by lovers of literature.' — Standard.

THE LIFE AND OPINIONS OF TRISTRAM SHANDY.
By LAWRENCE STERNE. With an Introduction by CHARLES
WHIBLEY, and a Portrait. 2 vols. *js.

THE COMEDIES OF WILLIAM CONGREVE. With
an Introduction by G. S. STREET, and a Portrait. 2 vols. Js.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST u

THE ADVENTURES OF HAJJI BABA OF ISPAHAN.
By JAMES MORIER. With an Introduction by E. G. BROWNE, M. A.,
and a Portrait. 2 vols. 75.

THE LIVES OF DONNE, WOTTON, HOOKER, HER-
BERT, AND SANDERSON. By IZAAK WALTON. With an
Introduction by VERNON BLACKBURN, and a Portrait. 3$. 6d.

THE LIVES OF THE ENGLISH POETS. By SAMUEL
JOHNSON, LL.D. With an Introduction by J. H. MILLAR, and a
Portrait. 3 vols. los. 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 qto. 6s. net.

S. Baring Gould. A BOOK OF FAIRY TALES retold by S.
BARING GOULD. With numerous illustrations and initial letters by
ARTHUR J. GASKIN. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. Biickram. 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 "pur 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 Messrs. Constable, it were difficult to
commend overmuch. — Saturday Review.

S. Baring Gould. OLD ENGLISH FAIRY TALES. Col-
lected and edited by S. BARING GOULD. With Numerous Illustra-
tions by F. D. BEDFORD. Second Edition. Crown %vo. 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
RHYMES. Edited by S. BARING GOULD, and Illustrated by the
Birmingham Art School. Buckram, gilt top. Crown 8v0. 6s.
1 The volume is very complete in its way, as it contains nursery songs to the number
°f 77) game-rhymes, and jingles. To the student we commend the sensible intro-
duction, and the explanatory notes. The volume is superbly printed on soft,
thick paper, which it is a pleasure to touch ; and the borders and pictures are, as
we have said, among the very best specimenb we have seen of the Gaskin school."
— Birmingham Gazette.

12 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

H. C. Beeching. A BOOK OF CHRISTMAS VERSE. Edited
by H. C. BEECHING, M.A., and Illustrated by WALTER CRANE.
Crown 8vo, gilt top. $s.

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 authors, a few of which are here printed for the first time.

' An anthology which, from its unity of aim and high poetic excellence, has a better
right to exist than most of its fellows.' — Guardian.

History

Gibbon. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN
EMPIRE. By EDWARD GIBBON. A New Edition, Edited with
Notes, Appendices, and Maps, by J. B. BURY, M.A., Fellow of
Trinity College, Dublin. In Seven Volumes. Demy Svo. Gilt top.
Ss. 6d. each. Also crown 8vo. 6s. each. Vol. I.

' The time has 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, and it is admirably printed.'— Times.

' 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.' — Scotsman.

' 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.' — Sketch.

' At last there is an adequate modern edition of Gibbon. . . . The best edition the
nineteenth century could produce.' — Manchester Guardian.

Flinders Petrie. A HISTORY OF EGYPT, FROMTHE 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. I. PREHISTORIC TIMES TO XVI. DYNASTY. W. M. F.

Petrie. Second Edition.

' 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.' — Times.

Flinders Petrie. EGYPTIAN TALES. Edited by W. M.

FLINDERS PETRIE. Illustrated by TRISTRAM ELLIS. In Two

Volumes. Crown Svo. 35. 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 archaeology.' — Scotsman.
'Invaluable as a picture of life in Palestine and Egypt.'— Daily Neius.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 13

Flinders Petrie. EGYPTIAN DECORATIVE ART. By
W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, D.C.L. With 120 Illustrations. Crown
8vo. 3-r. 6d.

1 Professor Flinders Petrie is not only a profound Egyptologist, but an accomplished
student of comparative archaeology. 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 other 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 C/ESARS.
The Emperors of the Julian and Claudian Lines. With numerous
Illustrations from Busts, Gems, Cameos, etc. By S. BARING GOULD,
Author of * Mehalah,' etc. Third Edition. Royal ' 8vo. 155-.
' A most splendid and fascinating 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. It is brilliantly written, 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.' — Athenceum.

A. Clark. THE COLLEGES OF OXFORD : Their History,
their Traditions. By Members of the University. Edited by A.
CLARK, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Lincoln College. Svo. i2s. 6d.

' A work which will certainly be appealed to for many years as the standard book on
the Colleges of Oxford.' — Athetueunt.

Perrens. THE HISTORY OF FLORENCE FROM 1434
TO 1492. By F. T. PERRENS. Translated by HANNAH LYNCH.
8vo. I2s. 6d.

A history of Florence under the domination of Cosimo, Piero, and Lorenzo de

Medicis.
1 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 WATERLOO.
By E. L. S. HORSBURGH, B.A. With Plans. Crown &vo. $s.

'A brilliant essay — simple, sound, and thorough.' — Daily Chronicle.

' A study, the most concise, the most lucid, the most critical that has been produced.'
— Birmingham Mercury,

' 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, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford. With numerous
Plans. Third Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.

1 Mr. George has undertaken a very useful task — that of making military affairs in-
telligible and instructive to non-military readers — and has executed it with laud-
able intelligence and industry, and with a large measure of success.' — Times.

'This book is almost a revelation ; and we heartily congratulate the author on his
work and on the prospect of the reward ho has well deserved for so much con-
scientious and sustained labour.' — Daily Chronicle.

14 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

0. Browning. A SHORT HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL ITALY,
A.D. 1250-1530. By OSCAR BROWNING, Fellow and Tutor of King's
College, Cambridge. Second Edition. In Two Volumes. Crown
Svo. 5-r. each.

VOL. i. 1250-1409. — Guelphs and Ghibellines.

VOL. ii. 1409-1530. — The Age of the Condottieri.

'A vivid picture of mediaeval Italy.' — Standard.

' Mr. Browning is to be congratulated on the production of a work of immense
labour and learning." — Westminster Gazette.

O'Grady. THE STORY OF IRELAND. By STANDISH

O'GRADY, Author of ' Finn and his Companions.' Cr. 8vo. 2s. 6d.

1 Most delightful, most stimulating. Its racy humour, its original imaginings,

make it one of the freshest, breeziest volumes.' — Methodist Times.
'A survey at once graphic, acute, and quaintly written." — Times.

Biography

E. L. Stevenson. VAILIMA LETTERS. By ROBERT Louis

STEVENSON. With an Etched Portrait by WILLIAM STRANG, and

other Illustrations. Second Edition. Crown^vo. Buckram, ys.bd.
' 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." '—The Times.
' 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.
' For the student of English literature these letters indeed are a treasure. They

are more like " Scott's Journal" in kind than any other literary autobiography.'

— National Observer.

T. W. Joyce. THE LIFE OF SIR FREDERICK GORE
OUSELEY. By F. W. JOYCE, M.A. With Portraits and Illustra-
tions. Crown 8vo. >]s. 6d.

' 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 skill.' — Times.

W. G. Collingwood. THE LIFE OF JOHN RUSKIN. By
W. G. COLLINGWOOD, M.A., Editor of Mr. Ruskin's Poems. With
numerous Portraits, and 13 Drawings by Mr. Ruskin. Second
Edition. 2 vols. %vo. 32*.

' No more magnificent volumes have been published for a long time.' — Times.

' It is long since we had a biography with such delights 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 the noblest lives of our century.' — Glasgow Herald.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 15

0. Waldstein. JOHN RUSKIN : a Study. By CHARLES
WALDSTEIN, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. With a
Photogravure Portrait after Professor HERKOMER. Post Svc. $s.
'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. ' — Daily Chronicle.

W. H. Hutton. THE LIFE OF SIR THOMAS MORE. By
W. H. HUTTON, M.A., Author of ' William Laud.' With Portraits.
Crown Svo. $s.

' The book lays good claim to high rank among our biographies. It is excellently,
even lovingly, written.1 — Scotsman.

' An excellent monograph." — Times.

' A most complete presentation.' — Daily Chronicle.

M. Kaufmann. CHARLES KINGSLEY. By M. KAUFMANN,

M.A. Crown Svo. Buckram. $s.

A biography of Kingsley, especially dealing with his achievements in social reform.
'The author has certainly gone about his work with conscientiousness and industry. —
Sheffield Daily Telegraph.

A. F. Bobbins. THE EARLY LIFE OF WILLIAM EWART
GLADSTONE. By A. F. ROBBINS. With Portraits. Crown
Svo. 6s.

'Considerable labour and much skill of presentation have not oeen unworthily
expended on this interesting work.' — Times.

Clark Russell. THE LIFE OF ADMIRAL LORD COL-
LINGWOOD. By W. CLARK RUSSELL, Author of « The Wreck
of the Grosvenor.' With Illustrations by F. BRANGWYN. Third
Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.

' A most excellent and wholesome book, which we should like to see in the hands of
every boy in the country. ' — Si. James's Gazette.

'A really good book.' — Saturday Review.

Southey. ENGLISH SEAMEN (Howard, Clifford, Hawkins,
Drake, Cavendish). By ROBERT SOUTHEY. Edited, with an
Introduction, by DAVID HANNAY. Second Edition. CrownSvo. 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.' — Daily Chronicle.

General Literature

S. Baring Gould. OLD COUNTRY LIFE. By S. BARING
GOULD, Author of ' Mehalah,' etc. With Sixty-seven Illustrations
by W. PARKINSON, F. D. BEDFORD, and F. MASEY. Large
Crown Svo. los. 6d. Fifth and Cheaper 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 the core.' — World.

16 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

S. Baring Gould. HISTORIC ODDITIES AND STRANGE
EVENTS. By S. BARING GOULD. Third Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.

1 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 Svo. 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 Melodies. Collected and
arranged by S. BARING GOULD and H. FLEETWOOD SHEPPARD.
Demy 4/0. 6s.

S. Baring Gould. SONGS OF THE WEST: Traditional
Ballads and Songs of the West 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 /., //., ///., 35. each. Part
IV., 5-r. In one Vol., French morocco, l$s.
'A rich collection of humour, pathos, grace, and poetic fancy.' — Saturday Review.

S. Baring Gould. YORKSHIRE ODDITIES AND STRANGE
EVENTS. Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.

S. Baring Gould. STRANGE SURVIVALS AND SUPER-
STITIONS. With Illustrations. By S. BARING GOULD. Crwm
Svo. Second Edition. 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 and 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 Svo. $2s.

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 canons, and subterranean rivers. The region is
full of prehistoric and historic interest, relics of cave-dwellers, of mediaeval
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 archaeologist, and the student of history and manners.' — Scotsman.

' It deals with its subject in a manner which rarely fails to arrest attention.1 — Times.

R. S. Baden-Powell. THE DOWNFALL OF PREMPEH. A

Diary of Life with the Native Levy in Ashanti, 1895. By Lieut. -Col.
BADEN-POWELL. With 21 Illustrations, a Map, and a Special
Chapter on the Political and Commercial Position of Ashanti by Sir
GEORGE BADEN-POWELL, K.C.M.G., M.P. Demy Svo. los. 6d.

1 A compact, faithful, most readable record of the campaign.' — Daily News.
1 A bluff and vigorous narrative.' — Glasgow Herald.
1 A really interesting book.' — Yorkshire Post.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 17

W. E. Gladstone. THE SPEECHES AND PUBLIC AD-
DRESSES OF THE RT. HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.
Edited by A. W. HUTTON, M.A., and H. J. COHEN, M.A. With
Portraits. Svo. Voh. IX. and X. \2s. 6d. each.

Henley and Whibley. A BOOK OF ENGLISH PROSE.
Collected by W. E. HENLEY and CHARLES WHIBLEY. Cr. %vo. 6s.

'A unique volume of extracts — an art gallery of early prose.' — Birmingham Post.

'An admirable companion to Mr. Henley's " Lyra Heroica."' — Saturday Review.

1 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.' — Athetueum.

J. Wells. OXFORD AND OXFORD LIFE. By Members of
the University. Edited by J. WELLS, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of
Wadham College. Crown 8vo. 3$. 6d.

This work contains an account of life at Oxford — 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.

' We 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.' — Athen&um.

W. M. Dixon. A PRIMER OF TENNYSON. By W. M.
DIXON, M.A., Professor of English Literature at Mason College.
Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.

' Much sound and well-expressed criticism and acute literary judgments. The biblio-
graphy is a boon.' — Speaker.

' 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.' — Glasgcnv Herald.

W. A. Craigie. A PRIMER OF BURNS. By W. A. CRAIGIE.

Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
This book is planned on a method similar to the ' Primer of Tennyson.' It has also

a glossary.

' A valuable addition to the literature of the poet.' — Times.
' An excellent short account. ' — Pall Mall Gazette.
'An admirable introduction.' — Globe.

L. Whibley. GREEK OLIGARCHIES : THEIR ORGANISA-
TION AND CHARACTER. By L. WHIBLEY, M.A., Fellow
of Pembroke College, Cambridge. Crown %vo. 6s.

' An exceedingly useful handbook : a careful and well-arranged study of an obscure
subj ect . ' — Times.

' Mr. Whibley is never tedious or pedantic.'— Pall Mall Gazette.

W. B. Worsfold. SOUTH AFRICA : Its History and its Future.
By W. BASIL WORSFOLD, M.A. With a Map. Crown 8vo. 6s.

'An intensely interesting book.' — Daily Chronicle.

' A monumental work compressed into a very moderate compass.' — World.

1 8 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

C. H. Pearson. ESSAYS AND CRITICAL REVIEWS. By

C. H. PEARSON, M.A., Author of 'National Life and Character.'
Edited, with a Biographical Sketch, by H. A. STRONG, M.A.,
LL.D. With a Portrait. Demy Svo. IDS. 6ct.

'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 thorough knowledge.' — Scots-
man.

' Charming essays. ' — Spectator.

Ouida. VIEWS AND OPINIONS. By OUIDA. Crown 8m

Second Edition. 6^.

' Ouida is outspoken, and the reader of this book will not have a dull moment. The
book is full of variety, and sparkles with entertaining matter.' — Speaker.

J. S. Shedlock. THE PIANOFORTE SONATA: Its Origin

and Development. By J. S. SHEDLOCK. Crown 8vo. 55.
1 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 thencnuin.

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
Edition. i6mo. 2s. 6d.

J. Beever. PRACTICAL FLY-FISHING. Founded on
Nature, by JOHN BEEVER, late of the Thwaite House, Coniston. A
New Edition, with a Memoir of the Author by W. G. COLLINGWOOD,
M.A. Crown 8vo. %s. 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 Svo. zs.6d.

Chalmers Mitchell. OUTLINES OF BIOLOGY. By P.
CHALMERS MITCHELL, M.A., F.Z.S. Fully Illustrated. Crown
Svo. 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. Royal 'Svo. i8s. net.

' 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. HOBHOUSE, Fellow and Tutor of Corpus College, Oxford.
Demy 8vo. 21 s.

' The most important contribution to English philosophy since the publication of Mr.
Bradley 's " Appearance and Reality." Full of brilliant criticism and of positive
theories which are models of lucid statement.' — Glasgow 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 W. H. FAIRBROTHER, M.A., Lecturer at Lincoln College,

Oxford. Crown &vo. $s. 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.
' 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. W. BUSSELL, M.A.,
Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. Demy 8vo. Two
volumes. *js. 6d. each. Vol. /.

' A highly valuable contribution to the history of ancient thought.'— Glasgow Herald.
' A clever and stimulating book, provocative of thought and deserving careful reading.'
— Manchester Guardian.

F. S. Granger. THE WORSHIP OF THE ROMANS. By
F. S. GRANGER, M.A., Litt.D., Professor of Philosophy at Univer-
sity College, Nottingham. Crown 8v0. 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 Worship, 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.

' 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 Svo. "js. 6d. each.
Vol. I. Articles I. -VII I.

' The tone maintained throughout is not that of the 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.' — National Observer.

' So far from repelling the general reader, its orderly arrangement, lucid treatment,
and felicity of diction invite and encourage his attention.' — Yorkshire Post.

R. L. Ottley. THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION.

By R. L. OTTLEY, M.A., late fellow of Magdalen College, Oxon.,

Principal of Pusey House. In Two Volumes. Demy Svo. \$s.
' 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 . . . genuine tolerance . . . intense interest in his subject — are Mr.

Ottley's merits.' — Guardian.

S. R. Driver. SERMONS ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED
WITH THE OLD TESTAMENT. By S. R. DRIVER, D.D.,
Canon of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the Uni-
versity of Oxford. Crown Svo. 6s.

' A welcome companion to the author's famous ' Introduction.' No man can read these
discourses without feeling 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 Svo. Js. 6d.

This important book is 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,

M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Pembroke College. Crown Svo. 6s.
A volume of sermons preached before the University of Cambridge by various

preachers, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Westcott.
1 A representative collection. Bishop Westcott's is a noble sermon.' — Guardian.

H. C. Beeching. SERMONS TO SCHOOLBOYS. By H. C.

BEECHING, M.A., Rector of Yattendon, Berks. With a Preface by
Canon SCOTT HOLLAND. Crown Svo. 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. With a Preface by J. R. ILLING-
WORTH. By E. B. LAYARD, M.A. i8mo. is.

2Detiotional

With Full-page Illustrations. Fcap. Sva. Buckram. 35. 6d.

Padded morocco, $s.

THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. By THOMAS A KEMPIS.
With an Introduction by DEAN FARRAR. Illustrated by C. M.
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 KEBLE. With an Intro-
duction and Notes by W. LOCK, M. A., Sub- Warden 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 poems 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 Religion

Edited by H. C. BEECHING, M.A. With Portraits, crown 8vo.

A series of short biographies of the most prominent leaders
of religious life and thought of all ages and countries. O

The following are ready — \J

CARDINAL NEWMAN. By R. H. HUTTON.
JOHN WESLEY. By J. H. OVERTON, M.A.
BISHOP WILBERFORCE. By G. W. DANIEL, M.A.
CARDINAL MANNING. By A. W. HUTTON, M.A.
CHARLES SIMEON. By H. C. G. MOULE, M.A.
JOHN KEBLE. By WALTER LOCK, M.A.
THOMAS CHALMERS. By Mrs. OLIPHANT.
LANCELOT ANDREWES. By R. L. OTTLEY, M.A.

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 Corelli's Novels

Crown 8vo. 6s. each.

A ROMANCE OF TWO WORLDS. Fourteenth Edition,
YEN DETTA. Eleventh Edition.
THELMA. Fourteenth Edition.
ARDATH. Tenth Edition.
THE SOUL OF LILITH. Ninth Edition.
WORMWOOD. Eighth Edition.

BARABBAS : A DREAM OF THE WORLD'S TRAGEDY.

Twenty -fifth Edition.

' 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 cannot 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 "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-ninth Edition.

' A very powerful piece of work. . . . The conception is magnificent, and is likely
to win an abiding place within the memory 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.'— W. T.
STEAD in the Review 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, humoro_us 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.' — Times.

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.

1 To say that a book is by the author of " Mehalah" 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.1 — Speaker.
1 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 Edition.
URITH : A Story of Dartmoor. Fourth Edition.

'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 Edition.

'One of the best imagined and most enthralling stories the author has produced.'
— Saturday Review.

MRS. CURGENVEN OF CURGENVEN. Fourth Edition.

1 A novel of vigorous humour and sustained power.' — Graphic.
1 The swing of the narrative is splendid.' — Sussex Daily News

CHEAP JACK ZITA. Third Edition.

1 A powerful drama of human passion.' — Westminster Gazette.
'A story worthy the author.' — National Observer.

THE QUEEN OF LOVE. Fourth Edition.

'The scenery is admirable, and trie dramatic incidents are most striking.'— Glasgow

Herald.

' Strong, interesting, and clever.'— Westminster Gazette.
' You cannot put it down until you have finished it.' — Punch.
' 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 Telegraph.
' Brisk, clever, keen, healthy, humorous, and interesting.' — National Observer.
' Full of quaint and delightful studies of character.' — Bristol Mercury.

NOEMI : A Romance of the Cave-Dwellers. Illustrated by
R. CATON WOODVILLE. Third Edition.

' " Noe'mi " 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.' —

Pall Mall 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.

THE BROOM -SQUIRE. Illustrated by FRANK DADD.
Third 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 News.

' A story of exceptional interest that seems to us to be better than anything he has
written of late.' — Speaker. ' A powerful and striking story.' — Guardian.

'A powerful piece of work.' — Black and White.

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 Mr.
Parker's style.1 — Daily Telegraph.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 25

MRS. FALCHION. Third Edition.

1 A splendid study of character.' — Athena-tun.

1 But little behind anything that has been done by any writer 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.
' A strong and successful piece of workmanship. The portrait of Lali, strong,
dignified, and pure, is exceptionally well drawn.' — Manchester Guardian.

THE TRAIL OF THE SWORD. Fourth Edition.

'Everybody with a soul for romance will thoroughly enjoy "The Trail of the
Sword." '— St. James's Gazette.

' 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.' — Daily Chronicle.

WHEN VALMOND CAME TO PONTIAC : The Story of

a Lost Napoleon. Third Edition.

' Here we find romance — real, breathing, living romance, but it runs flush with our
own times, level with our own feelings. Not 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 any one thoroughly to appreciate
Mr. Parker's delicate touch and innate sympathy with humanity.' — Pall Mall
Gazette.
'The one work of genius which 1895 has as yet produced.' — Neii< Age.

AN ADVENTURER OF THE NORTH: The Last Adven-
tures of ' Pretty Pierre.'

'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.

1 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.' — Sketch.

THE SEATS OF THE MIGHTY. Illustrated. Fourth
Edition.

' The best thing he has done ; one of the best things that any one has done lately.'—
St. James's Gazette.

' Mr. Parker seems to become stronger and easier with every serious novel that he
attempts. . . . In " 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. . . . Most sincerely is Mr. PurVer to be congratulated on the finest
novel he has yet written.' — Athencpum.

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 and White.

' One 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.'
—Speaker.

' 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 Moray,
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.

1 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.' — Pall Mall Gazette.

Conan Doyle. ROUND THE RED LAMP. By A. CONAN
DOYLE, Author of 'The White Company,' 'The Adventures of
Sherlock Holmes,' etc. Fourth Edition. Crown &vo. 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
superior 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 Woodville. Eighth Edition. Crown &vo. 6s.

' 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.

1 Every one 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.

1 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. Second Edition. Crown
&vo. 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.' — Speaker.

1 We 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.' —
Manchester Guardian.

Emily Lawless. HURRISH. By the Honble. EMILY LAW-
LESS, Author of ' Maelcho,' etc. Fifth Edition. 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 'Crania,' ' Hurrish,'
etc. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.

' A really great book.' — Spectator.

'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.' — Manchester Gttardian.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 27

J. H. Findlater. THE GREEN GRAVES OF BALGOWRIE.

By JANE.H. FINDLATER. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.

A powerful and vivid story." — Standard.

A beautiful story, sad and strange as truth itself.' — Vanity Fair.

A work of remarkable interest and originality.' — National Observer.

A really original novel.' — Journal oj Education.

A 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.' — Spectator.

An exquisite idyll, delicate, affecting, and beautiful.' — Black and White.
Permeated with high and noble purpose. It is one of the most wholesome stories

we have met with, and cannot fail to leave a deep and lasting impression.' —

Newsagent.

E. F. Benson. DODO : A DETAIL OF THE DAY. By E. F.

BENSON. Sixteenth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.

' A delightfully witty sketch of society.' — Spectator.
' A perpetual feast of epigram and paradox.' — Speaker.
' By a writer of quite exceptional ability.' — Athenceum.
' Brilliantly written.' — World.

E. F. Benson. THE RUBICON. By E. F. BENSON, Author of

' Dodo.' Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
' Well written, stimulating, unconventional, and, in a word, characteristic.' —

Birmingham Post.
1 An exceptional achievement ; a notable advance on his previous -work.'— National

Observer.

M. M. Dowie. GALLIA. By MENIE 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 Graphic.

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 MARYS. By MRS. OLIPHANT.
Second Edition. Crown 8v0. 6s.

W.E.Norris. MATTHEW AUSTIN. By W. E. NORRIS, Author
of ' Mademoiselle de Mersac,' etc. Fourth Edition. Crown %vo. 6s.
' "Matthew Austin" may safely be pronounced one of the most intellectually satis-
factory and morally bracing novels of the current year.' — Daily Telegraph.

W. E. Norris. HIS GRACE. By W. E. NORRIS. Third

Edition. 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 hc-oic decisions, yet not so definitely por-
trayed as to relieve a reader of the necessity of study.' — Athenceum.

28 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

W. E. Norris. THE DESPOTIC LADY AND OTHERS.
By W. E. NORRIS. Crown %vo. 6s.

1 A budget of good fiction of which no one will tire.' — Scotsman.
1 An extremely entertaining volume — the sprightliest of holiday companions.1 —
Daily Telegraph

H. G. Wells. THE STOLEN BACILLUS, and other Stories.
By H. G. WELLS, Author of 'The Time Machine.' Crown
Svo. 6s.

1 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 Review.

Arthur Morrison. TALES OF MEAN STREETS. By ARTHUR

MORRISON. Fourth Edition^ Crown Svo. 6s.
1 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 of its interest, and its indubitable triumph.' —

A thenccuin.
' 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.' — World.

J. Maclaren Cobban. THE KING OF ANDAMAN : A
Saviour of Society. By J. MACLAREN COBBAN, Author of ' The
Red Sultan,' etc. Crown &vo. 6s.

' An unquestionably interesting book. It 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.' — Spectator.

' "The King of Andaman," is a book which does credit not less to the heart than
the head of its author.'— A tJiemvum.

1 The fact that Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to gracefully express to the
author of " The King of Andaman" her interest in his work will doubtless find
for it many readers." — Vanity Fair.

H. Morrah. A SERIOUS COMEDY. By HERBERT MORRAH.

Crown 8z>0. 6s.

1 There are many delightful places in this volume, which is well worthy of its title.
The theme has seldom been presented with more freshness or more force.' —
Scotsman.

L. B. Walford. SUCCESSORS TO THE TITLE. By MRS.
WALFORD, Author of 'Mr. Smith,' etc. Second Edition. Crown
&vo. 6s.

1 The story is fresh and healthy from beginning to finish ; and our liking for the two
simple people who are the successors to the title mounts steadily, and ends almost
in respect.' — Scotsman.

1 The book is quite worthy to be ranked with many clever predecessors. It is ex-
cellent reading.' — Glasgow Herald.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 29

T. L. Paton. A HOME IN INVERESK. By T. L. PATON.

Crown 8vo. 6s.

'A distinctly fresh and fascinating novel.' — Montrose Standard.
'A book which bears marks of considerable promise.' — Scotsman.
'A pleasant and well-written story.' — Daily Chronicle.

John Davidson. MISS ARMSTRONG'S AND OTHER CIR-
CUMSTANCES. By JOHN DAVIDSON. Crown Svo. 6s.

' Throughout the volume there is a strong vein of originality, a strength in the
handling, and a knowledge of human nature that are worthy of the highest praise."
— Scotsman.

J. B. Burton. IN THE DAY OF ADVERSITY. By J.

BLOUNDELLE BURTON, Author of ' The Hispaniola Plate,' etc.

Crown Svo. 6s.

' Unusually interesting and full of highly dramatic situations.'— Guardian.
' A well-written story, drawn from that inexhaustible mine, the time of Louis XIV.

—Pall Mall Gazette.

H. Johnston. DR. CONGALTON'S LEGACY. By HENRY
JOHNSTON. Crown 8z>o. 6s.

' The story is redolent of humour, pathos, and tenderness, while it is not without a

touch of tragedy.' — Scotsman.

A worthy and permanent contribution to Scottish creative literature.' — Glasgow
Herald.

Julian Corbett. A BUSINESS IN GREAT WATERS. By
JULIAN CORBETT, Author of ' For God and Gold,' * Kophetua
XIHth.,' etc. Crown Svo. 6s.

' In this stirring story Mr. Julian Corbett has done excellent work, welcome alike
for its distinctly literary flavour, and for the wholesome tone which pervades it.
Mr. Corbett writes with immense spirit, and the book is a thoroughly enjoyable
one in all respects. The salt of the ocean is in it, and the right heroic ring re-
sounds through its gallant adventures.' — Speaker.

C. Phillips Woolley. THE QUEENSBERRY CUP. A Tale

of Adventure. By CLIVE PHILLIPS WOOLLEY, Author of * Snap,'
Editor of 'Big Game Shooting.' Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 6s.
' A book which will delight boys : a book which upholds the healthy schoolboy code

of morality.' — Scotsman.

' A brilliant book. Dick St. Clair, of Caithness, is an almost ideal character — a com-
bination of the mediaeval kuight and the modern pugilist.' — Admiralty and Horse-
guards Gazette.

Robert Ban. IN THE MIDST OF ALARMS. By ROBERT
BARR, Author of 'From Whose Bourne,' etc. Third Edition.
Crown 8v0. 6s.

' A book which has abundantly satisfied us by its capital humour.' — Daily Chronicle.

'Mr. Barr has achieved a triumph whereof he has every reason to be proud.' — Pall
Mall Gazette.

L. Daintrey. THE KING OF ALBERIA. A Romance of
the Balkans. By LAURA DAIXTREY. Crown Svo. 6s.

Miss Daintrey seems to have an intimate acquaintance with the people and politics
of the Balkan countries in which the scene of her lively and picturesque romance
is laid. On almost every page we find clever touches of local colour which dif-
ferentiate her book unmistakably from, the ordinary novel of commerce. The
story is briskly told, and well conceived.' — Glasgow Herald.

3o MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

Mrs. Pinsent. CHILDREN OF THIS WORLD. By ELLEN
F. PINSENT, Author of ' Jenny's Case.' Crown 8vo. 6s.

' Mrs. Pinsent's new novel has plenty of vigour, variety, and good writing. There
are certainty of purpose, strength of touch, and clearness of vision.' — Athetueum.

Clark Russell. MY DANISH SWEETHEART. By W.
CLARK RUSSELL, Author of ' The Wreck of the Grosvenor,' etc.
Illustrated. Fourth Edition. Crown $vo. 6s.

G. Manville Fenn. AN ELECTRIC SPARK. By G. MANVILLE
FENN, Author of f The Vicar's Wife,' ' A Double Knot,' etc. Second
Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
'A simple and wholesome story.' — Manchester Guardian.

E. Pryce. TIME AND THE WOMAN. By RICHARD PRYCE,

Author of ' Miss Maxwell's Affections,' 'The Quiet Mrs. Fleming,'
etc. Second Edition. Crown 8z>0. 6s.

' Mr. Pryce's work recalls the style of Octave Feuillet, by its clearness, conciseness,
its literary reserve.' — Athenezum.

Mrs. Watson. THIS MAN'S DOMINION. By the Author
of ' A High Little World.' Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.

Marriott Watson. DIOGENES OF LONDON and other
Sketches. By H. B. MARRIOTT WATSON, Author of ' The Web
of the Spider.' Crown 8vo. Buckram. 6s.

' By all those who delight in the uses of words, who rate the exercise of prose above
the exercise of verse, who rejoice in all proofs of its delicacy and its strength, who
believe that English prose is chief among the moulds of thought, by these
Mr. Marriott Watson's book will be welcomed.' — National Observer.

M. Gilchrist. THE STONE DRAGON. By MURRAY GIL-
CHRIST. Crown Svo. Buckram. 6s.

' The author's faults are atoned for by certain positive and admirable merits. The
romances have not their counterpart in modern literature, and to read them is a
unique experience.' — National Observer.

E. Dickinson. A VICAR'S WIFE. By EVELYN DICKINSON.
Crown 8vo. 6s.

E. M. Gray. ELSA. By E. M'QUEEN GRAY. Crown Svo. 6s.

THREE-AND-SIXPENNY NOVELS

Crown 8z>0.

DERRICK VAUGHAN, NOVELIST. By EDNA LYALL.
MARGERY OF QUETHER. By S. BARING GOULD.
JACQUETTA. By S. BARING GOULD.
SUBJECT TO VANITY. By MARGARET BENSON.
THE MOVING FINGER. By MARY GAUNT.
JACO TRELOAR. By J. H. PEARCE.

3/6

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 31

AUT DIABOLUS AUT NIHIL. By X. L.

THE COMING OF CUCULAIN. A Romance of the Heroic

Age of Ireland. By STANDISH O'GRADY. Illustrated.
THE GODS GIVE MY DONKEY WINGS. By ANGUS

EVAN ABBOTT.

THE STAR GAZERS. By G. MANVILLE FENN.
THE POISON OF ASPS. By R. ORTON PROWSE.
THE QUIET MRS. FLEMING. By R. PRYCE.
THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN. By F. MABEL ROBINSON.
DISENCHANTMENT. By F. MABEL ROBINSON.
MR. BUTLER'S WARD. By F. MABEL ROBINSON.
A LOST ILLUSION. By LESLIE KEITH.
A REVEREND GENTLEMAN. By J. M. COBBAN.
A DEPLORABLE AFFAIR. By W. E. NORRIS.
A CAVALIER'S LADYE. By Mrs. DICKER.

2/6

HALF-CROWN NOVELS

A Series of Novels by popular Aiithors.

1. HOVENDEN, V.C. By F. MABEL ROBINSON.

2. ELI'S CHILDREN. By G. MANVILLE FENN.

3. A DOUBLE KNOT. By G. MANVILLE FENN.

4. DISARMED. By M. BETHAM EDWARDS.

5. A MARRIAGE AT SEA. By W. CLARK RUSSELL.

6. IN TENT AND BUNGALOW. By the Author of ' Indian

Idylls.'

7. MY STEWARDSHIP. By E. M'QUEEN GRAY.

8. JACK'S FATHER. By W. E. NORRIS.

9. JIM B.

Lynn Linton. THE TRUE HISTORY OF JOSHUA DAVID-
SON, Christian and Communist. By E. LYNN LINTON. Eleventh
Edition. Post Svo. is.

Books for Boys and Girls

A Series of Books by well-known Attthors, well illustrated.

1. THE ICELANDER'S SWORD. By S. BARING GOULD.

2. TWO LITTLE CHILDREN AND CHING. By EDITH

E. CUTHELL.

32 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

3. TODDLEBEN'S HERO. By M. M. BLAKE.

4. ONLY A GUARD ROOM DOG. By EDITH E. CUTHELL.

5. THE DOCTOR OF THE JULIET. By HARRY COLLING-

WOOD.

6. MASTER ROCKAFELLAR'S VOYAGE. By W. CLARK

RUSSELL.

7. SYD BELTON : Or, The Boy who would not go to Sea.

By G. MANVILLE FENN.

3/6

The Peacock Library

A Series of Books for Girls by well-known Authors,
handsomely bound in blue and silver, and well illustrated.

1. A PINCH OF EXPERIENCE. By L. B. WALFORD.

2. THE RED GRANGE. By Mrs. MOLESWORTH.

3. THE SECRET OF MADAME DE MONLUC. By the

Author of * Mdle Mori.'

4. DUMPS. By Mrs. PARR, Author of 'Adam and Eve.'

5. OUT OF THE FASHION. By L. T. MEADE.

6. A GIRL OF THE PEOPLE. By L. T. MEADE.

7. HEPSY GIPSY. By L. T. MEADE. 2s. 6d.

8. THE HONOURABLE MISS. By L. T. MEADE.

9. MY LAND OF BEULAH. By Mrs. LEITH ADAMS.

University Extension Series

A series of books on historical, literary, and scientific subjects, suitable
for extension students and home-reading circles. Each volume is com-
plete in itself, and the subjects are treated by competent writers in a
broad and philosophic spirit.

Edited byj. E. SYMES, M.A.,

Principal of University College, Nottingham.

Crown &vo. Price (with some exceptions'] 2s. 6d.

The following volumes are ready : —

THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By H. DE

B. GIBBINS, M.A., late Scholar of Wadham College, Oxon., Cobden
Prizeman. Fourth Edition. WitL Maps and Plans. $s.
'A compact and clear story of our ndustria! development. A study of this concise
but luminous book cannot fail to give the reader a clear insight into the principal
phenomena of our industrial history. The editor and publishers are to be congrat-
ulated on this first volume of their venture, and we shall look with expectant
interest for the succeeding volumes of the series.' — University Extension Journal.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 33

A HISTORY OF ENGLISH POLITICAL ECONOMY. By
L. L. PRICE, M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxon. Second Edition.
PROBLEMS OF POVERTY : An Inquiry into the Industrial
Conditions of the Poor. By J. A. HOBSON, M.A. Third Edition.
VICTORIAN POETS. By A. SHARP.
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. By J. E. SYMES, M.A.
PSYCHOLOGY. By F. S. GRANGER, M.A., Lecturer in Philo-
sophy at University College, Nottingham.
THE EVOLUTION OF PLANT LIFE: Lower Forms. By

G. MASSEE, Kew Gardens. With Illustrations.

AIR AND WATER. Professor V. B. LEWES, M.A. Illustrated.
THE CHEMISTRY OF LIFE AND HEALTH. By C. W.

KIMMINS, M.A. Camb. Illustrated.
THE MECHANICS OF DAILY LIFE. By V. P. SELLS, M.A.

Illustrated.

ENGLISH SOCIAL REFORMERS. H. DE B. GIBBINS, M.A.
ENGLISH TRADE AND FINANCE IN THE SEVEN-
TEENTH CENTURY. By W. A. S. HEWINS, B.A.
THE CHEMISTRY OF FIRE. The Elementary Principles of

Chemistry. By M. M. PATTISON Mum, M.A. Illustrated.
A TEXT-BOOK OF AGRICULTURAL BOTANY. By M. C.

POTTER, M.A., F.L.S. Illustrated. $s. 6d.

THE VAULT OF HEAVEN. A Popular Introduction to

Astronomy. By R. A. GREGORY. With numerous Illustrations.

METEOROLOGY. The Elements of Weather and Climate.

By H. N. DICKSON, F.R.S.E., F.R. Met. Soc. Illustrated.
A MANUAL OF ELECTRICAL SCIENCE. By GEORGE

J. BURCH, M.A. With numerous Illustrations. 3*.
THE EARTH. An Introduction -to Physiography. By EVAN

SMALL, M.A. Illustrated.

INSECT LIFE. By F. W. THEOBALD, M.A. Illustrated.
ENGLISH POETRY FROM BLAKE TO BROWNING. By

W. M. DIXON, M.A.

ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT. By E. JENKS, M.A.,
Professor of Law at University College, Liverpool.

34 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

Social Questions of To-day

Edited by H. DE B. GIBBINS, M.A.

Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. I /

A series of volumes upon those topics of social, economic, 2-t I (J
and industrial interest that are at the present moment fore- /

most in the public mind. Each volume of the series is written by an
author who is an acknowledged authority upon the subject with which
he deals.

The following Volumes of the Series are ready : —

TRADE UNIONISM— NEW AND OLD. By G. HOWELL,
Author of ' The Conflicts of Capital and Labour.' Second Edition.

THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT TO-DAY. By G. J.
HOLYOAKE, Author of 'The History of Co-operation.' Second
Edition.

MUTUAL THRIFT. By Rev. J. FROME WILKINSON, M.A.,
Author of ' The Friendly Society Movement.'

PROBLEMS OF POVERTY : An Inquiry into the Industrial
Conditions of the Poor. By J. A. HOBSON, M.A. Third Edition.

THE COMMERCE OF NATIONS. By C. F. BASTABLE,
M.A., Professor of Economics at Trinity College, Dublin.

THE ALIEN INVASION. By W. H. WILKINS, B.A., Secretary
to the Society for Preventing the Immigration of Destitute Aliens.

THE RURAL EXODUS. By P. ANDERSON GRAHAM.
LAND NATIONALIZATION. By HAROLD Cox, B.A.

A SHORTER WORKING DAY. By H. DE B. GIBBINS
and R. A. HADFIELD, of the Hecla Works, Sheffield.

BACK TO THE LAND : An Inquiry into the Cure for Rural
Depopulation. By H. E. MOORE.

TRUSTS, POOLS AND CORNERS : As affecting Commerce
and Industry. By J. STEPHEN JEANS, M.R.I., F.S.S.

THE FACTORY SYSTEM. By R. COOKE TAYLOR.

THE STATE AND ITS CHILDREN. By GERTRUDE

TUCKWELL.

WOMEN'S WORK. By LADY DILKE, Miss BULLEY, and
Miss WHITT.EY.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 35

MUNICIPALITIES AT WORK. The Municipal Policy of
Six Great Towns, and its Influence on their Social Welfare. By
FREDERICK DOLMAN.

SOCIALISM AND MODERN THOUGHT. By M. KAUF-
MAN N.

THE HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES. By R.

F. BOWMAKER.

MODERN CIVILISATION IN SOME OF ITS ECONOMIC
ASPECTS. By W. CUNNINGHAM, D. D. , Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge.

Classical Translations

Edited by H. F. FOX, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose
College, Oxford.

Messrs. Methuen are issuing a New Series of Translations from the
Greek and Latin Classics. They have enlisted the services of some
of the best Oxford and Cambridge Scholars, and it is their intention that
the Series shall be distinguished by literary excellence as well as by
scholarly accuracy.

AESCHYLUS — Agamemnon, Choephoroe, Eumenides. Trans-
lated by LEWIS CAMPBELL, LL.D., late Professor of Greek at St.
Andrews. $s.

CICERO— De Oratore I. Translated by E. N. P. MOOR, M.A.,
Assistant Master at Clifton. 3^. 6d.

CICERO— Select Orations (Pro Milone, Pro Murena, Philippic n.,
In Catilinam). Translated by H. E. D. BLAKISTON, M.A., Fellow
and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford. $s.

CICERO — De Natura Deorum. Translated by F. BROOKS.
M. A., late Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford. 3*. 6d.

LUCIAN — Six Dialogues (Nigrinus, Icaro-Menippus, The Cock,
The Ship, The Parasite, The Lover of Falsehood). Translated by
S. T. IRWIN, M.A., Assistant Master at Clifton ; late Scholar of
Exeter College, Oxford. 3*. 6d.

SOPHOCLES— Electra and Ajax. Translated by E. D. A.
MORSHEAD, M.A., late Scholar of New College, Oxford ; Assistant
Master at Winchester. 2s. 6d.

TACITUS— Agricola and Germania. Translated by R. B.
TOWNSHEND, late Scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge. 2s. 6d.

36 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

Educational Books

CLASSICAL

TACITI AGRICOLA. With Introduction, Notes, Map, etc.
By R. F. DAVIS, M.A., Assistant Master at Weymouth College.
Crown 8uo. 2s.

TACITI GERMAN I A. By the same Editor. Crown Svo. 2s.

HERODOTUS: EASY SELECTIONS. With Vocabulary.

By A. C. LIDDELL, M.A., Assistant Master at Nottingham High

School. Fcap. Svo. is. 6d.
SELECTIONS FROM THE ODYSSEY. By E. D, STONE,

M.A., late Assistant Master at Eton. Fcap. Svo. is. 6d.
PLAUTUS : THE CAPTIVI. Adapted for Lower Forms by

J. H. FREESE, M. A., late Fellow of St. John's, Cambridge, is. 6d.
DEMOSTHENES AGAINST CONON AND CALLICLES.

Edited with Notes, and Vocabulary, by F. DARWIN SWIFT, M.A.,

formerly Scholar of Queen's College, Oxford ; Assistant Master at

Denstone College. Fcap. Svo. 2s.

GERMAN
A COMPANION GERMAN GRAMMAR. By H. DE B.

GIBBINS, M.A., Assistant Master at Nottingham High School.
Crown Svo. \s. 6d.

GERMAN PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANSLATION.
By E. M'QUEEN GRAY. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.

SCIENCE

THE WORLD OF SCIENCE. Including Chemistry, Heat.
Light, Sound, Magnetism, Electricity, Botany, Zoology, Physiology,
Astronomy, and Geology. By R. ELLIOT STEEL, M.A., F.CS.
147 Illustrations. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.

' Mr. Steel's Manual is admirable in many ways. The book is well calculated to
attract and retain the attention of the young.' — Saturday Review.

' If Mr. Steel is to be placed second to any for this quality of lucidity, it is only to
Huxley himself; and to be named in the same breath with this master of the
craft of teaching is to be accredited with the clearness of style and simplicity of
arrangement that belong to thorough mastery of a subject.' — Parents' Review.

ELEMENTARY LIGHT. By R. E. STEEL. With numerous
Illustrations. Crown Svo. 4*. 6d.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 37

ENGLISH

ENGLISH RECORDS. A Companion to the History of
England. By H. E. MALDEN, M. A. Crown %vo. -$s. 6d.

A book which aims at concentrating information upon dates, genealogy, officials,
constitutional documents, etc., which is usually found scattered in different
volumes.

THE ENGLISH CITIZEN : HIS RIGHTS AND DUTIES.
By H. E. MALDEN, M.A. is. 6d.

1 The book goes over the same ground as is traversed in the school books on this
subject written to satisfy the requirements of the Education code. It would
serve admirably the purposes of a text-book, as it is well; based in historical
' facts, and keeps quite clear of party matters.' — Scotsman.

METHUEN'S , COMMERCIAL SERIES.

Edited by H. DE B. GIBBINS, M.A.

BRITISH COMMERCE AND COLONIES FROM ELIZA-
BETH TO VICTORIA. By H. DE B. GIBBINS, M.A., Author of
' The Industrial History of England,' etc. etc. 2s.

COMMERCIAL EXAMINATION PAPERS. By H. DE B,
GIBBINS, M.A. is. 6d.

THE ECONOMICS OF COMMERCE. By H. DE B. GIBBINS,
M.A. is. 6d,

A MANUAL OF FRENCH COMMERCIAL CORRE-
SPONDENCE. By S. E. BALLY, Modern Language Master at
the Manchester Grammar School. 2s.

A FRENCH COMMERCIAL READER. By S. E. BALLY.

25.

COMMERCIAL GEOGRAPHY, with special reference to Trade
Routes, New Markets, and Manufacturing Districts. By L. W. LYDE,
M.A., of the Academy, Glasgow. 2s.

A PRIMER OF BUSINESS. By S. JACKSON, M.A. is. 6d.

COMMERCIAL ARITHMETIC. By F. G. TAYLOR,
M.A. is. 6d.

38 MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST

WORKS BY A. M. M. STEDMAN, M.A.

INITIA LATINA : Easy Lessons on Elementary Accidence.
Second Edition. Fcap. 82/0. is.

FIRST LATIN LESSONS. Fourth Edition. Crown ^vo. 2s.

FIRST LATIN READER. With Notes adapted to the
Shorter Latin Primer and Vocabulary. Second Edition. Crown 8vo.
is. 6d.

EASY SELECTIONS FROM CAESAR. Part I. The Hel-
vetian War. iSvw. is.

EASY SELECTIONS FROM LIVY. Part I. The Kings of
Rome. iSmo. is. 6d.

EASY LATIN PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANSLA-
TION. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo. is. 6d.

EXEMPLA LATINA. First ' Lessons in Latin Accidence.
With Vocabulary. Crown 8vo. is.

EASY LATIN EXERCISES ON THE SYNTAX OF THE
SHORTER AND REVISED LATIN PRIMER. With Vocabu-
lary. Fourth Edition. Crown &vo. 2s. 6d. Issued with the con-
sent of Dr. Kennedy.

THE LATIN COMPOUND SENTENCE : Rules and
Exercises. Crown Svo. is. 6d. With Vocabulary. 2s.

NOTANDA QUAEDAM : Miscellaneous Latin Exercises on
Common Rules and Idioms. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. is. 6d.
With Vocabulary, 2s.

LATIN VOCABULARIES FOR REPETITION : Arranged
according to Subjects. Fourth Edition. Fcap. &vo. is. 6d.

A VOCABULARY OF LATIN IDIOMS AND PHRASES.
1 8 ///<?. is.

STEPS TO GREEK. iSmo. is.

EASY GREEK PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANSLA-
TION. Fcap. Svo. is. 6d.

GREEK VOCABULARIES FOR REPETITION. Arranged
according to Subjects. Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. is. 6d.

GREEK TESTAMENT SELECTIONS. For the use of

Schools. Third Edition. With Introduction, Notes, and Vocabu-
lary. Fcap. 8z>o. 2s. 6d.

MESSRS. METHUEN'S LIST 39

STEPS TO FRENCH. iSmo. M.

FIRST FRENCH LESSONS. Crown &vo. is.

EASY FRENCH PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANSLA-
TION. Second Edition. Fcap.Zvo. is. 6d.

EASY FRENCH EXERCISES ON ELEMENTARY
SYNTAX. With Vocabulary. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.

FRENCH VOCABULARIES FOR REPETITION : Arranged

according to Subjects. Third Edition. Fcap. &vo. is.

SCHOOL EXAMINATION SERIES.
EDITED BY A. M. M. STEDMAN, M.A.

Crown %vo. 2s. 6d.

FRENCH EXAMINATION PAPERS IN MISCELLANE-
OUS GRAMMAR AND IDIOMS. By A. M. M. STEDMAN, M.A.
Sixth Edition.

A KEY, issued to Tutors and Private Students only, to be had on
application to the Publishers. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. net.

LATIN EXAMINATION PAPERS IN MISCELLANEOUS

GRAMMAR AND IDIOMS. By A. M. M. STEDMAN, M.A.

Fourth Edition. KEY issued as above. 6^. net.
GREEK EXAMINATION PAPERS IN MISCELLANEOUS

GRAMMAR AND IDIOMS. By A. M. M. STEDMAN, M.A.

Third Edition. KEY issued as above. 6s. net.

GERMAN EXAMINATION PAPERS IN MISCELLANE-
OUS GRAMMAR AND IDIOMS. By R. J. MORICH, Man-
chester. Third Edition. KEY issued as above. 6s. net.

HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY EXAMINATION PAPERS.
By C. H. SPENCE, M.A., Clifton Coll.

SCIENCE EXAMINATION PAPERS. By R. E. STEEL, M.A.,
F.C.S., Chief Natural Science Master, Bradford Grammar School.
In two vols. Part I. Chemistry; Part II. Physics.

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE EXAMINATION PAPERS.
By A. M. M. STEDMAN, M. A. Second Edition. KEY issued as
above. 7s. net.

Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to Her Majesty
at the Edinburgh University Press